Mall Photos - my turn...

<p>Wife sent me on an errand today past one of the local malls that's not doing too well, I believe that their vacancy rate is around 85% and they just lost 50% of their anchors.</p>

<p>So, grabbed my D300 and 70-200 (I know, nothing like calling attention to myself) walk in and start shooting. Make it from one end to the other and start back when 3 mall cops come up to me and say "You can't do that here."</p>

<p>I react somewhat surprised and say - "Sorry didn't know I couldn't." Cop #1 - says "We're going to ask you to leave now and don't come back today." My response "Ok, not a problem" Cop #2 - "While you're at it - why don't you delete what you've shot?" Me - "Huh?" - Cop #1 - "You heard him - Delete the files then show me that you did it". Well - that blew the faking them out - thankfully a brand new card with just the mall shots on it. Did the quick reformat - showed him the camera - played it back and of course it said "No Files in Folder" to which Cop #1 responded "What about other folders?"</p>

<p>I then explained, very patiently that what that means is that there aren't any files that can be found on the disk in the camera. That seemed to satisfy him and his pals and the three of them proceeded to walk me to the exit that I came in from.</p>

<p>I was very tempted to be a smart aleck and say something like "if only you guys treated the gang-bangers the way you do photographers, maybe the mall wouldn't be upside down in vacancy" but just bit my tongue on that one... I did mention though how safe I felt being walked out by 3 cops. I'm sure that the patrons that saw me thought that I had done something much worse than take a couple of dozen photos of vacant storefronts.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>They weren't real cops, were they?</p>

<p>I was challenged when taking phots near the Boston Convention Center by a security person. She told me that I couldn't take photos, and I told her that the only way to stop me was by arresting me (I was on a public street). She walked away and I kept shooting.</p>

<p>Getting kicked out of someone's property is one thing as that is the owner's perogative. Demanding that you delete photos is not. I am disappointed that you caved in to such ridiculous demands. The notion that they can enforce such demands has just been rienforced in their minds as well.</p>

<p>Robert - No - they were Paul Blart's - Mall Cops. But since the mall is private property I went willingly.</p>

<p>John - Since I was on an errand for my wife I didn't want to argue the point with them. Given that the mall is dead (basically) I think they were looking for something to do and I didn't want to provide them with more of it. If I had put up a fuss I'd probably be downtown in jail right now...Not how I want to spend a Saturday night. Besides - if they're dumb enough to think that reformatting a memory card really wipes it then that's their issue. </p>

<p>I did do a looksee at their website though and it doesn't say anything about no photography. So they will get a call on Monday when the real boss is there.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You will find that almost all shopping malls (especially the indoor variety) have a small-ish placcard posted near the entry doors. They lay out the fine print. No photography, no skateboards, right to refuse entry to anyone - the usual stuff. There's a half-dead mall near me with all of the same issues (gang infestation, for example... and so now small, short-lease stores that specialize in... cheap jewelry and gangwear).</p>

<p>The only mall that I have seen that posted at is the Presque Isle Mall in Maine. (yes there is a mall that far north) But I would expect as other posters have said, most malls would prohibit photographt.</p>

<p>They do have the right to prohibit photography but if it were me I'd have stuck the camera in the bag, turned to leave and seen whether they were willing to unlawfully detain me. But I love trouble.</p>

<p>Generally Malls don't allow photography, and they have every right to ban it. If you do you are trespassing and they ask you to leave. If you don't they can have you arrested. However, you caved on erasing the card.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you do you are trespassing and they ask you to leave.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just to clarify, you are not tresspassing until they tell you that you have to leave. Taking photos in itself does not mean that you are tresspassing. Mall security has no right to make you delete images.</p>

<p>I would have asked if they also escort people using cell phone cameras off the property. If they say they do, they are lying as I'm sure we all would agree. If they say they don't ask why not. After all a ban on photography is a ban period regardless if one is using a cell phone or a 8x10 view camera.</p>

<p>The mall nearest me once had a huge chess set in the center with benches surrounding it. People would have to walk onto the board and pick up pieces to move them; it was that huge. I love chess so I knew right away that there might be some interesting shots to be had. I walked to the security office to see if I could come back on a future date to take pictures. I was told I could. I never did get around to it though but my point is that sometimes if it's a local establishment that one does business with, getting permission might make more sense.</p>

<p>That's correct Mike. If they see you taking photos and they do not allow photography, they can insist that you leave. If you don't or if you persist in continuing to photograph after they told you to stop, then you are trespassing, and they can have you arrested for that. They have no right to your photos.</p>

<p>Marc, as silly and unevenly enforced as it is, the fact is, they have the absoulute right on private property, to ask you to stop, and if you don't, to ask you to leave. If you don't, you are trespassing. I'm pretty postitive that's the law in California. You could go back to the mall and next time, they could ask you to stop. You don't have a "right" to photograph on private property like you do on public property. Though the mall is open to the public, it is not "public prperty". They just can't exercise their right of denial of use of the property for illegal reasons such as, race, religion etc. In other words, they can't ask all caucasians to leave, because they are caucasian, etc and so on.</p>

<p>I was at the mall Friday two towns over from where I live. I usually take my camera with me and go to the book store, plus I went to the drug store and the Market. I took a few pictures, not the first time I have taken pictures there. No mall cops confronted me. If they had I would have probably stopped taking pictures but I would not have deleted anything ,at least I don't think I would - every situation is different and you need to use your judgement. Personal safety overrides anything else and there are lots of wackos out there. One from the mall Friday:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8892460-md.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Barry, California has no law prohibiting trespassing on private property that is open to the general public. Local jurisdictions are free to enact such laws, though, so whether one can be arrested for refusing to leave a mall depends on the location.</p>

<p>many many years ago when there wasn't any digital camera I walked in the Galerie Lafayette in Paris and when by chance I passed a store of Jean-Paul Gaultier I saw they had a very distinctive and beautiful carpet, a design of their own. As it happened there was no one in sight and I snapped a few photo's of it. But as I walked away I was thinking that I didn't get it right so went back and took a few more (was neither fast nor any good back then). By then a shop attendant saw me, went up the wall and started to rant at me in quite incomprehensible French. As I'm a level headed guy I did what I usually do and stayed calm. As it happened the guy was a obvious homosexual and a very feminine one at that and frankly it was rather funny to watch him going on. When I finally got a few words in he started to calm down and we got talking and he said it was all patented, he had a point of course especially since he didn't know if I wasn't working for the competition. To make a long story short when I finally walked out the store he walked with me to the door and held my arm. He really was a sweat guy ;-)</p>

<p>At another occasion I was trying to shoot one of the highrises in La Defense but I had left my 20 mm at home and only had a 28mm in my pocket and couldn't get it right so I walked on the terrain of a nearby company to get a good angle. The guard shot out of his booth and told me to get out pronto because I was trespassing which of course I was. I told him bien sur and walked a few meters farther on their terrain to get my shot. By then he was clearly pissed and threatening with the police and wishing all kind of exotic diseases on me but didn't lay a finger on me. When I got my photo I walked calmly back to the street and decided to hang on to see if he would really call the police. He didn't.</p>

<p>So what's my point? While it doesn't happen all the time it sometimes happens but to be frank it doesn't add up to much and is hardly worth mentioning.<br>

You got to remember people read this stuff here and rather than put them off by telling stories and making it all look far worse than it most of the time is we should tell about what it really is like out there and that's great fun as long as you steer clear from certain neighbourhoods and situations i.e. use your common sense.</p>

<p>I never have given up a film or erased a photo in all those years.</p>

<p>As a Police Officer and photography hobbyist I hate hearing stories like these. 9/11 has really changed things for everybody. I really get bothered when people push their authority and create a bad image for the good Police Officer's when a photographer just wants to go out and shoot whatever they might see. As for the whole trespassing issue, whenever you are asked to leave private property you are trespassing if you refuse or if you return after being told not to. If in remaining or returning you were subsequently arrested, your photo's could be reviewed by the Officer if you were accused of violating a no photography policy. In some places where they have nothing better to do, or if you just make the Officer mad enough, your camera could get placed into evidence. Certainly enough griping to upper command would likely get you your camera back but it would be a headache nonetheless. Basically, you can make life harder for yourself, or easier depending on how you handle your response to the Officer's presence. Just remember we have a job to do, and unlike photographers we don't get invited to births, weddings, engagements, graduations, and all the fun stuff. We get called when the graduation turns into a family fight or Uncle Bob is doing illegal stuff in the basement. Don't let the guys that have the badge for the wrong reason walk on you though neither. Know your rights locally, state-wide, and federally. Trespassing is the same everywhere though, unlike many laws. </p>

<p>Are you sure about that Conrad? Here is CA Penal Code section 602, check out section t. Some of the rest is hilarious and probably more than anyone ever wanted to see. I was going to put the whole thing on, but it's really long so here is the one section that looks to me like it could apply.<br /> "Except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (v), subdivision (x), and <a href="http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW9.03&ifm=NotSet&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&docname=CAPES602.8&ordoc=1291162&findtype=L&mt=California&db=1000217&utid=1&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&pbc=3F1FCBD4" target="_top">Section 602.8</a> , every person who willfully commits a trespass by any of the following acts is guilty of a misdemeanor:. . ."<br /> In peritinent part:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <a name="IC77AC770476E11DD8358C0904974545E"></a> <a name="IC761E840476E11DD8358C0904974545E"></a> <a name="SP;3a8700004efc7"></a> "(t) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner's agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing or failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property in the manner provided in this subdivision."<br /> <br /> And well said Douglas..</p>

<p>But Douglas, not to beat the topic to death, in the OP's situation, if asked to leave and you do, than it's not a trespass right? and the security guards would not have a legal right to have you dump the images would they?</p>

<p>Everybody has the right to ask you to delete your images. Nobody can do more then ask. It is up to you to delete them or not.</p>

<p>The mall security person, the police, a random person can ask you. Just don't. They are yours. No police officer can legally make you. If you have a confrontation with a police officer ask him/her to roll out their supervisor. Perhaps the more senior person will know more of the law then the officer does. And quite frankly, if it means they arrest you if you refuse, get arrested. They will shortly have egg on their face due to false arrest and many people in the department will have gotten the education as well. This is a civil rights issue. Stand up for them or lose them, its your choice.</p>

<p>I did take a shot of a situation with the police involved. The officer said he didn't want hit picture in the paper, and would I not do so. So I didn't submit it. No biggy, it was my choice. But that is all that could have happened.</p>

<p>No explanations so far as to why malls or wherever don't want photos taken. What is the problem? </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>Are you sure about that Conrad?</blockquote>

<p>Fisher, you might want to read the second paragraph of subdivision (t), which reads, in relevant part</p>

<blockquote>“This subdivision shall apply only to a person who has been convicted of a violent felony, as specified in subdivision © of Section 667.5, committed upon the particular private property.”</blockquote>

<p>Penal Code § 602(o) still governs, and it applies only to property not open to the general public. Local jurisdictions are still free to enact stricter ordinances, but even then there are some limitations: in <em>In re Cox</em> : (1970) 3 Cal.3d 205, the California Supreme Court held that a business establishment may impose “reasonable regulations rationally related to the services performed and the facilities provided,” and similar language found its way into § 41.24(d) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, which reads, in relevant part,</p>

<blockquote>“A request to leave may be made only if it is rationally related to the services performed or the facilities provided.”</blockquote>

<p>But <em>Cox</em> was a petition for habeus corpus; because no facts had been determined, the Court were unable to determine whether petitioner's were unreasonable. To my knowledge, there has not been a definitive interpretation of what constitutes reasonable regulations; related subsequent jurisprudence has focused on gathering signatures (e.g., <em>Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center</em> (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899), so I'm not sure most of it is relevant to the issue at hand. It may be worth noting that recent jurisprudence has somewhat narrowed <em>Robins</em> ; for example, a large standalone store such as Home Depot or Wal-Mart is not the same as a shopping center. Consequently, I'd guess challenging an ordinance that might be used to eject a photographer would be a costly uphill battle.</p>

<p>I also agree with Gil; even in a place where there is no law for criminal trespass, one must choose one's battles. It's sometimes just not worth risking equipment damage or injury when confronted by a nutcase who's looking to push someone around.</p>

<p>Bob B: so many reasons.<br /><br />First, remember that the typical shopping mall is a business run by a property management company. They make their money by leasing out the space, or renting out parts of it for advertising and events. Everything from large anchor stores to those fly-by-night kiosks, and from wall-sized campaign banner ads to mall Santa operations. They have an interest in controlling how that space is shown to competition and prospective leasing customers.<br /><br />Second, they have an interest in making the place feel safe and comfortable for family visitors. They <em>want</em> moms to feel comfortable dropping their kids off there to wander around (and buy $5 pretzels). Whether it's rational or not for the moms to worry about someone stalking or taking pictures of their kids, they (the property managers) simply find it easier to err on the side of removing the issue from the table.<br /><br />Third: they realize that some people shooting in the semi-public space that is the mall are pursuing it as a business, directly or indirectly. They want their piece of that, since they are providing the space that creates the opportunity.<br /><br />Fourth: some retailers have an acute interest in not having their boutique wares photographed. Display arrangements are the product of the work of very expensive consultants and higher-end employees. The specifics of display fixtures, signage, choices of merhandise in windows - these are all hotly competitive issues, and high-res images of them are routinely studied for an immediate counter-strike by retail competition. It's very cuthroat that way. You also have places like jewelry boutiques that are selling one-off items they would very much not like to have photographed and e-mailed to Bali for immediate, low-end costume jewelry reproduction later that week. <br /><br />And lastly (though there are surely more reasons), there's liability issues. Someone working with a larger, more visible camera (like a big SLR with a hefty fast zoom hanging off of it) could be said to be a distraction. It only takes one mom pushing a stroller into another mom's kid, causing an injury, to give a leech of a lawyer something to hang their hat on. If the mall can be said to be "permitting" a vaguely professional-looking activity without requiring that professional person to operate with liability insurance, then you can imagine the fun for a contingency lawyer suing over a knocked-down baby's injury.<br /><br />Why fuss with it all? If you run such a private facility, it's far easier to simply tell the guy with the big zoom to take it outside than it is to get into all of the hair splitting.</p>

<p>In all of this discussion, I have not seen the unequal enforcement of whatever policy they claim to be following. Last Christmas time, my grandson, daughter in law and I went to the mall, me with my 70-200 f2.8 lens as I wanted some nice pictures of them. There were lots of people around with cell phones or small point and shoots taking pictures. After about 15 minutes of shooting only my grandson and daughter in law, I was approached by two security guards who threaten me, but in the final analysis just wanted me to stop shooting. I complied as a person 2 feet away continued to shoot their P&S without their intervention.<br>

Sadily, I was not quick enough thinking to point to the egregious crime occurring 2 feet away. <br>

Anyway, they don't seem to understand that P&S can commit the same 'crime' as my higher quality lens/camera. <br>

Someday I am going to take my big fancy lens out to the mall and take pictures of P&S shooters and when they harass me, I will ask about all the other P&S they have not harassed and show them the pictures.</p>

<p>Steven -</p>

<p>My guess is that had I used a cell phone or P/S I would not have been asked to leave. The mere fact that I had a "Pro" body and lens was enough to get them to react. A somewhat cynical guess is that these "Mall Cops" are all trained by the same firm and they tell them that any lens over x - inches in length is a "Pro" lens and banned.</p>

<p>I've shot at other malls in the area using my D300 and smaller lens (18-200 or 17-50) and not had issues. Mall of America is one of the places I've shot before and not been asked to stop or leave, but they always have some kind of photo worth event plus the amusement park going.</p>

<p>In response to the comments above - did I have to delete the images - No - I took the path of least resistance. I tend to pick my fights rather conservatively and that was not one I wanted.<br>

Was I trespassing - No - Not unless I went back after they told me to leave for the day.</p>

<p>The only reason I went there was to take photos of a dead mall. If it isn't dead, it is certainly on life support and just hasn't acknowledged that it is dead yet.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Seems to me a P&S may have been a more inconspicuous way to go... :)</p>

<p>I was shooting in Manhattan yesterday on my way back to Maine (Mac, I have not been to Presque Isle yet though), and a construction worker waved me down and asked me if I was taking pictures of their site... I told him that I took a picture of an old bike (there were some trafic cones and tape around). Turns out he thought I was working for Con Edison to survey their site and he seemed a little nervous...... I had my Leica M4, I doubt that a Con Ed photographer would have been that retro :)</p>