How do you see the 'uptightness' of coffee shop snaps?

<p>Well, not to re argue the public venue/ private venue business. Indoors vs outdoor cafes and all, I know that a shop owner can call the shots or expelll one from the place. What clothes are off limits, what behaviors are permitted in their little coffee palaces. One can ask permission, but come on,give me a break...that college kid aint going to stick his or her neck out...<br /> But still, I get to wondering today, what is really so irksome and at the root of management fears about use of a camera INSIDE a modern meeting place like a coffee shop. Here is my thought for what it is worth. I solicit yours as fellow candid photographers. Yeah I see the street photos shot indoors in the critique forum, Is this because european hangouts are less strung out on this question?<br /> I go in, and not recently I might add to a new coffee shop in Manoa Valley, a hangout for college students where the " intellectual and youthful meet and greet" you know the script. I have my new at the time E-1 with the fat manual and am playing with it, and wanted to take a photo of the counter to bring back home. After a couple shots...which were not stealth shots mind you...a shift manager comes over and politely asks me to put away the camera...of course I did.<br /> Now,some years later, I now dwell on this matter, because here is the deal. I have a new camera with a swivel finder and I am getting an adapter to put on a fast FD lens. I was or am planning a stealth approach to getting slice of life photos in maybe the same place. Until I get bounced of course.</p>

<p>My serious question to anyone mildly interested in social mores, re photography, goes so:<br /> What tell me is the management seriously worried about? With the wide acceptance of camera phones is this a silly business finally or soon to be. I mean really... Fine to carry a sidearm in Starbucks,huh. Be <strong>careful</strong> if you brandish a threatening camera.<br>

Caveat, not interested in a gun carry discussion, thanks.<br>

Aloha, and thanks for sharing or recapping for me any views I may have missed in this forum over the year. gs</p><div></div>

<p>I don't like to take images of people eating or drinking, but occassionaly I do it at a place owned by a friend, so I have his permission and I talk to the people before snapping any photos, most people have no objections. I think they worry about what the customer might think and lose business, the other being that some health violation may be occurring, I see that happen often at businesses that serve food or beverages.</p>

<p>Better half is architect and takes a lot of interior shots. Most shops and buildings allow it if there's no people in the shot. One local restaurant owner met her in the morning and open the place up specifically for her. She spent an hour with tripod. Burnt him a CD as a thank you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't like to take images of people eating or drinking,....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do you feel that way if you can tell me..Manuel. I would be interested. Too personal, too intimate, too likely to wind up on the internet with a lawsuit on the way?</p>

<p>Many people don't want their pictures taken. I think a shop owner may simply want that respected. That shop owner has likely made the determination that more people want to feel a sense of privacy when having a cup of coffee with a friend or spouse than want to take pictures of others in that situation. It's probably a good business decision for many.</p>

<p>Why people would not want their pictures taken? Our society operates with an overabundance of fears today. They may not always be legitimate (they are often induced by nonsensical overreactions) but they are real. Child porn, child abuse, child abduction has many people being extremely (over)protective of their children. Internet abuses spawn an increased desire for privacy. Some in the cafés should be at work, or are meeting someone they "shouldn't." Affairs happen. People don't want them memorialized on film (or the Internet).</p>

<p>Perhaps the couple at the table you're shooting is discussing news that a parent just died or that some bad lab results just came back from the doctor. Maybe they are owed a bit of privacy, even though within your camera's reach.</p>

<p>There are both legal and ethical matters at play here. (The two don't always overlap!)</p>

<p>There are many good reasons to disapprove of taking pictures of those who haven't consented to it.</p>

<p>There are also good reasons to approve of such picture-taking when it serves a greater good. There are specifics to each case that should be taken into account. But a shop-owner has to go on his gut and has to make some generalizations and some practical guesses.</p>

Gerry, picture this scenario (because it really happened). You're hired by the local bar to be the "official" photographer of their annual Halloween party. This is a big deal because the prize for the best costume is substantial. So you're snapping away with the express consent of the owner, who also is feeding you free drinks for the night, and suddenly a guy walks up to you and says, "If you take my photo I'm going to shove that camera right down your throat." Huh? Why does that guy not want his photo taken? So you ask him, and he replies, "Listen, dumbass, that's not my wife I'm with, OK?" Yeah, OK, I get it. One possibility for that coffee shop manager is that you might get just such a photo of a couple that isn't really a couple, and somehow it gets back to the spouse or significant other of one of the cheaters, and hello lawsuit. That may sound like a stretch, but it may indeed be one of the manager's concerns.

<p>Just remember that you need explicit permission to photograph in any privately owned space. A coffee shop is not a public space, regardless of whether the public is invited.</p>

<p>The owner can do anything they please wrt restricting your ability to take pictures on their property.</p>

<p><Chas><br /><br /></p>

<p>Fred expressed my thoughts exactly! Well said. <br>

There are many reasons that people don't want to be photographed. Whether or not we agree is irrelevant. That's why I ask permission first. I guess it's a "do unto others" kind of thing. Personally, I wouldn't like somebody snapping away while I'm trying to enjoy lunch or a cup of coffee, so I wouldn't do it to someone else.<br>

As for Will's Halloween scenario, that's a bit different. I feel that street performers, protesters, parade participants and people in costumes, <em>et al</em> are pretty much fair game. Maybe that guy should just get a better disguise.</p>

<p>Well all good and sound personal privacy arguments and management legal CYA arguments. Just have to think that private lives are so "My Space" and "Face Book" and bloggerized lately that we are maybe a little too touchy on this business.<br /> Now, of course, practically speaking ,I doubt I would photograph a few characters in my neighborhood, and you know what I mean. Is this not a case of maybe some disobedience is appropriate, and can I live with my conscience if I do it?<br /> I do not recommend anything like stealth photography. But what if there is no sign no cameras allowed, could one not argue that it means no official policy...is that pushing an argument to legal absurdum? Like what is the default, this is not someone's home you know...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Listen, dumbass, that's not my wife I'm with, OK?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Point well made. I can see that. Like "That was no lady, nor my wife neither, you dumbass".. LOL.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Let's turn the question around? Why do you think you have the right (legal, ethical or otherwise) to take the photos in the shop? They own it--you don't. They decide what is proper conduct in the shop--you don't. They decide whether to allow photography--you don't. They run the risk of running a business--you don't. </p>

<p>Go buy a coffee shop, pay the franchise fees, the business license fee, sign a lease on the property, hire employees, pay taxes on it, buy inventory, buy equipment, pay for advertising, etc. Then you can decide.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is something else that still gnaws in the discussion, so set me straight please. I<em> know</em> we are not saying that an adulterous affair is somehow<em> less troublesome</em> to the personal conscience than shooting strangers in what Starbucks calls "the third place." The new agora for the masses. As for someone taking photos of me, Allen, shute, I am getting 'videocammed' all the time without my express consent. And I am not sure I appreciate that by mgt to me either. What if my wife gets hold of that tape somehow. Stuff happens.</p>

<p>"I was or am planning a stealth approach to getting slice of life photos in maybe the same place. Until I get bounced of course." First post by Gerry Siegel.</p>

<p>"I do not recommend anything like stealth photography." Second post by Gerry Siegel.</p>

<p>You want to try to reconcile those two statements? <br>

<br /></p>

<p>Allen, you got me there, no consistency. Plead guilty.<br /> And in passing, I add, with real respect,your point about the cost and prerogatives of the coffee shop enterprise community hit me hard too. Weeping in my double shot skinny low fat four buck cappucino. No personal offense intended with your valid argument about seeing the other side of the fence.<br>

(We all slip off the straight and narrow and get away with it as an act of almost lets call it civil disobedience, excepting tax audits naturally where the risk reward is high and the law finely tuned against freedom of expression)</p>

<p>Wow...Allen. Nice question. I am kind of confused by some of the comments on here. Do you guys not get express consent before shooting people? Do you have them sign model releases if you want to use the shot?</p>

<p>Why does anyone expect to have the right to shoot random strangers at their will. Seems like a huge oversight and a potential lawsuit.</p>

<p><em>"I </em>know<em> we are not saying that an adulterous affair is somehow </em>less troublesome<em> to the personal conscience than shooting strangers in what Starbucks calls "the third place."</em> <strong>--Gerry</strong></p>

<p>I am saying that, yes.</p>

<p>Here's my thinking: When I photograph someone engaging in an adulterous affair, the affair itself is of three other people, the adulterer, his or her partner or spouse, and the third party with whom the adulterer is having the affair. I'm not here to judge any of them. It's about their relationships and their consciences.</p>

<p>Shooting them, however, is about me shooting them. I am a direct participant in the photographic relationship even if not in the adulterous one. Shooting my camera affects me. And my shooting has a direct affect on someone else. I stand in a direct ethical relationship to the photographic and not the adulterous situation. I have an effect.</p>

<p>There's a big difference between judging what I do and judging what others do. And there's a big difference in judging things over which I have control and judging things to which I am an outsider.</p>

<p>If I were having the affair or the affair was being had behind my back, I would be doing the judging as participant. That would put me in the relationship just like my photographing someone else puts me in a relationship. I have to use my own moral compass (in addition to my knowledge of laws and patronage of others' establishments) in judging the things I do. I use a very different moral compass in judging the things others do.</p>

<p>Subtle Fred and profound. I should have opened this in the P of P I am now thinking -(?). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Seems like a huge oversight and a potential lawsuit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I got news for you Ryan,everything seems to be a potential lawsuit. But the politeness factor is persuasive. A common courtesy thing, like may I have a piece of the newspaper you laid down on the table.</p>

<p> It's private property. Independently-owned cafes seem to tolerate discreet, polite photographers better. The bigger question is why photograph in cafes at all? Few of the photos I see made there are strong. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's like shooting fish in a barrel.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A valid argument from a photographer's viewpoint. I am already slipping away from even contemplating what I might have been unwisely and briefly tempted to approach as a documentarian of some contemporary stuff. Now I<em> have</em> done the patio outside shops, which is also within the precinct of the shop you realize. And come to think of it, the whole open strip mall is private property, nay? And discourages wel you name it,dogs, bicycles and more . Papparazo I am not.(I know better why I like studio stuff and why I will always and forevermore pay for a model and get a release too, to be clear on my code of conduct. I have the suspicion,of course no way to demo this that there are some reading this who do just what flitted by my mind, and are not 'fessing up. Never mind)</p>

<p>Not a concern of mine at all. However, I don't frequent places where I am not welcome; nor do I go out of my way to look super obvious and photo everything in site as if I were a competitor.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Nice shot, Ken. I love how you can look at almost any subject creatively/differently from a photographic perspective!</p>

<p>I wish we had a Peets in the neighborhood,Ken. Coffee Tea and Bean outfit much better yet can't get a lease due to Starbucks monopoly here. Deal with the shopping mall owners. Same old tired hard hockey puck muffins, by the way, SFO has her charms for sure and Seattle definitely.</p>

<p>Went through most of your gallery pics in your PN bio, Gerry, and I couldn't find one Hawaiian beach or volcano scene.</p>

<p>What's up with that?</p>

<p>You do still live in Hawaii, right?</p>

<p>As for your question about why the manager was so touchy about you taking pics in his establishment, I can only say from current experience in my area, it seems a lot of service type establishments and their workers are getting a bit noticeably testy these days from what I assume has to be the current economic and political climate especially in situations where they clearly see folks who "have" compared to those who don't. My town has a growing retirement community building up along with it being a tourist trap. Quite a bit of service workers here.</p>

<p>I'm getting that kind of vibe now even though I'm a "Have not" but appear as a retired "Have". In the last couple of years I've been coming across quite a few hard working folks at my grocer, barber and just neighbors and locals in general projecting a sort of aloof and sometimes smarmy, unfriendly, intolerant attitude-(a noticeable amount of passive aggressive/accidently on purpose behavior) You being in Hawaii may amplify this seeing that island state's economy is primarily service driven.</p>

<p>I could also be totally wrong on this since I don't have any scientific evidence. I'm just getting that vibe.</p>

<p>Life is too short...just pick another venue where photography is permitted, try-out your new tilt/swivel screen and stop all the whinging!</p>

<p>;~))</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>