Photography Forbidden in Shopping Malls ?

 

<p >I posted this rant yesterday on my Facebook page - <a href="http://www.facebook.com/charliewest">www.facebook.com/charliewest</a></p>

<p >Comment there if you wish to and wondering about your experiences in malls.</p>

<p > Seems that the good old U.S.A. that I once knew and the freedoms that I have enjoyed for most of my many years are coming to an end is this country. Yesterday we were shopping in Cool Springs Galleria in Franklin. I was wandering around, because I'm not much on shopping, while the others were in the stores. I had my camera and was taking some photos of the central area where Christmas decorations ...were still in place and just enjoying my photographic passion. A Security Officer approached me and told me I could not take photographs inside the mall. I supposed I looked dumfounded at first, then said "you gotta be <a href="mailto:s!@#$">s!@#$</a>@! me". He said that it was the Mall regulatiions and that he was just doing what he was told to do. After venting on the poor guys a minute, I apologized and told him I knew he was just doing his job. I asked where the Mall office was, he gave me directions, and I proceeded there.</p>

<p > I asked the lady at one of desks for a copy of the Mall regulations and she replied that they are on their website but asked if I would like to talk to the Mall General Manager. I replied "yes". During my discussion with him I was told that the mall was private property and that they did not allow photography for security and privacy issues. I told him that I thought that was wrong and that I believe the our U.S. Constitution protected my rights to do what I was doing in a place open to the public. He was rather short with me in saying that the mall was open to the public however it was still private property and they had rules. He said that the 'Code of Conduct' was posted on signs at the Mall entrances and on the Mall's website. I put the camera away and left the mall. On the way out I stopped to read the sign the manager had told me about. Nowhere on this sign is any mention of photography. When I got home I looked up the Cool Spring's Galleria website and the link to the 'Code of Conduct'. Again, no mention about any restrictions on photography.</p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<p ><br />I googled 'is photography in malls illegal' and got a lot of hits. Seems as if this has happened to many others in various places in the country. Some say that the malls don't have the authority to enforce this and others say they do because, although its open to the public, its private property. <br />Well, in a follow-up email to the mall manager, I again told him why that I thought such rules were completely out of place in a 'free society'. I also mentioned that I would not be back taking any photographs nor be back for any other reason. I really wanted to tell him to 'stick his mall' , but I didn't. I'm sure high society Franklin will miss my meager contribution the their economy. <br />I feel sorry for our young people that have many more years to live in what used to be a great country. Politics. laws, political correctness, unchecked illegal immigration, and a declining economy mostly affecting the middle class are ruining America. And commenting again on my mall experience I guess we are becoming more like China or Russia as time goes by.</p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<p > </p>

<p>Nah. We're still the U.S.A. Spend a year or two in Russia and China. Then get back to us with an essay on the differences in freedoms.</p>

<p>Like you, I think it may be a bit of overkill in response to September 11. But, to some extent, I also understand it. And it certainly is private property and the prerogative of the mall to make up its regulations. With the proliferation of cameras (every phone has one) we are virtually assaulted with picture taking everywhere we go. So, when we're having a day out with kids at the mall, or grabbing lunch, or standing on line at a mall movie theater, is it so terrible if we ask our camera-wielding fellow citizens NOT to take pictures?</p>

<p>IMO, as a photographer, one thing I've learned is that the pictures I DON'T take are as important as the ones I do. And, often, taking less pictures actually makes me a better photographer. That's neither here nor there, though, as this is a matter of law, and the law is on the side of the mall, as I think it should be. I wouldn't want anyone telling me what I could or couldn't do on my own private property.</p>

<p>Now, you make a good point about it being private property opened to the public. And, because of that they must abide by certain federal and state regulations so, for instance, they can't deny access on the basis of race. But, if they feel it's in their best business interests to ban photographing, then that's what they should do. I wonder if you took a poll of most shoppers, how they'd feel about it. My guess is sentiments could go either way. I like the idea of at least some photo free zones in the world. Many restaurants, individual stores I patronize, office buildings, and other entities ban it. I appreciate that many restaurants and stores also ban cell phone use.</p>

<p>While to the users, they may be important and may serve an important function, from practical to artistic, to others they can simply be a nuisance. In a civilized society, no freedom is absolute. It may extend only as far as your neighbor's front steps, or personal space in some cases. I'd love, for example, to go to a movie in San Francisco and not be interrupted by someone's cell phone accidentally ringing or someone intentionally texting during the movie, in complete disregard of my own right to enjoy the movie. And there are regulations about cell phone use in the movies, but people violate them all the time.</p>

<p>So, I say, buck up. There are PLENTY of places to take photos. Seek them out.</p>

<p>Sorry, Charlie, no sympathy here. Malls are private property, and they make the rules. Malls not only have the right to prohibit photography on their property, but they have an obligtion to protect the people who shop there. Not to mention the need to protect themselves from lawsuits from people who don't wish to be photographed there.</p>

<p>Oh, and the difference between us and China and Russia? You still have your camera, and you're not in jail.</p>

<p>(Edit: Fred beat me to it.)</p>

The mall manager is correct. There are three types of places:

 

1. Public places, such as public streets, parks, etc. Generally, a photographer in a public place can take pictures of

anything or anyone in that place or visible from that place (including adjacent people, objects and private buildings). No

permission is ever required but publication or commercial use of the photos may be subject to restrictions.

 

2. Private property NOT open to the public, such as private land, houses, offices, etc. A photographer must have PRIOR

permission to take photos while on the premises of such a place. No public signs are required.

 

3. Private property open to the public, such as SHOPPING MALLS, restaurants, theaters, churches, cemeteries, etc.. If there is a

conspicuous sign that prohibits photography, NO photography is allowed. If there are no signs, there is a legal

presumption that photography is allowed (as in an actual public place) UNLESS AND UNTIL the owner or his agent tells

the photographer to stop taking pictures. Once ordered to stop, the photographer who refuses can be forcibly evicted and

charged with trespassing. However, the photographer cannot be required to destroy or turn over the photos taken BEFORE

being informed of the prohibition on photography.

 

None of this is new. These three categories and the rules for each have been in existence for a very long time.

<p>Prior posts on this topic:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00ayfy<br>

http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00A1o0<br>

http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00U0jD<br>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0021Lr<br>

http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/002kze<br>

http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00SyJp</p>

<p>Nothing has changed since these posts.</p>

<p>It's not illegal but it's at the discretion of the property's owner.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, the photographer cannot be required to destroy or turn over the photos taken BEFORE being informed of the prohibition on photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or after.</p>

<p><<<<em>Nothing has changed since these posts.</em>>>></p>

<p>That's not exactly true. What's changed is that Charlie had a personal incident and was interesting in discussing it in those terms.</p>

<p>With cr*p like this: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/8109717/Police-warn-of-mall-peepers</p>

<p>It's no wonder malls don't allow photography, IMHO.</p>

<p>Besides, for all they knew, some terrorist might have been taking reconnaissance photos in preparation for an assassination attempt on Santa Claus. The elves are great at building toys, but they're hardly an effective Secret Service!</p>

<p>I sympathize and agree with you, Charlie. I think we have lost nearly all of our collective marbles as a society. However, the mall management does have the right to be stupid/insane on this issue and to tell you not to take photographs on their property. I think I'd still tell the mall management that rule <a href="http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/its-no-dummy-camera-equipped-mannequins-being-used-by-stores-to-help-boost-sales/">should also extend to their mannequins</a>!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I feel sorry for our young people that have many more years to live in what used to be a great country. Politics. laws, political correctness, unchecked illegal immigration, and a declining economy mostly affecting the middle class are ruining America.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh right, so political correctness and immigrants are to blame! I was with you there until you revealed that bit of resentful small mindedness. Now I have more sympathy for the Manager who had to politely put up with your angry little tirade.</p>

<p>Top of the list on this sort of thing is the litigious nature of our society. The property owners and/or their management company don't want to have to fend off endless law suits from people upset that some Uncle Bob was photographing his family near the mall's decorations, and got someone else's Little Sally in the shot, blah blah blah. <br /><br />I got nearly attacked by a shopkeeper in an Italian mall, for pulling out my camera while my wife was window-shopping for jewelry. Verona, I think it was, or Vicenza. Anyway, I tossed the camera back in the bag, and decided to try my best to ask - not why the policy, but why the <em>hostility</em> as an opening round. The shop keeper was selling relatively unique custom work by a couple of high-end local goldsmiths ... and apparently they routinely have to fend off people taking photographs on behalf of the knock-off houses that make a living copying other's work. Frequently, such info is e-mailed off to China and India, and clones of the work start showing up on the market within a couple of weeks. <br /><br />Just one of the many reasons that retail establishments don't love such stuff. But in a large US mall, the main driver is law suit reduction. <br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Many Americans think New Zealand is very relaxed, it happens here too. I saw a family maybe tourists were told to leave with their video camera in the early 2000s. <br>

If you really wanted you could go thru the process and get a permit for photography. I have heard those who shot 8x10 large format got a permit here at the railway station, the same could be done at the airport etc ... Same goes to museums in some certain areas. You could always pretend to do family snapshots with a pocket camera ....... Museums may ask you not to photograph if you don't have family/friends in them .....</p>

<p>Charlie: You have been living an uninformed life in your "good old U.S.A." Plus, swearing at a guard is indicative of anger management issues. You are on private property. You do not own the building. You are in fact trespassing with your camera. I have been told countless of times in shopping malls around the world by well meaning security guards of their mall rules. I respect their rules and put the camera away. You need to do the same.</p>

<p>Only an incredibly naive person would think the mall is public property in the first place. What public entity paid for it and with whose tax dollars? Mall management doesn't even need a reason to tell you not to photograph there. Their property, their rules. Simple.</p>

<p>you can reason with an authority figure like a uniformed guard as he has a duty to perform.<br>

If it were a person wearing a suit or carrying a broom. the matter is different./<br>

Iif the man or woman with a suit carried valid Identification, you could be in difficulty with the mall or Museum or store<br>

if you argued. it is called Disorderly conduct. even sweraring can be considered disorderly conduct.<br>

HOWEVER<br>

, this autority figure must conduct themselves in a professional manner.<br>

if they or a police person acts disrespectful that are subject to disciplinary action.<br>

In a not too close related incident, My son witnessed an auto accident.<br>

he pulled into a nearby parking lot and was approaced by the younger of two policemen.<br>

who with a show of temper demanded my son's ID.<br>

My son refused which angered the young policeman even more.<br>

Before the polceman could act or pull his gun.<br>

AND my son tried to tall him he was just a witness, My son calmly asked the Older policeman if he could turn the young cop over his knee and spank him.<br>

the older cop laughed. seein.<br>

he was outnumbered the young cop walked away.<br>

My son suggest3ed to the older officer that the young cop was <br />" not going to make it as a policemen"<br>

the older officer shook his head but said nothing.<br>

the older offier was aware that my son was not involved in any way.<br>

but the young officer was not observbant and acted in a bullish maner<br>

So unless you have someone with authority on your side nearby. be NICE.<br>

Ask to talk to the officers superior. Sometimes this person will be nearby watching the scene.<br>

These people and rarely people with authority act badly.<br>

some let the badge and uniform go to their heads.<br>

it is true that freedom and rights here in the USA are diminishing.,<br>

it is much easier to harras honest and innocent citizens. that to try the same thing when that mercon may decide to so serious hard to a policemen or guard.<br>

so guess who gets hassled? I read of elderly people being detained and even arrested on a shallow pretense.</p>

<p>there is an attitude that everything is ILLEGAL unbless it is specifically permitted.<br>

INSTEAD or only a certain few things being illegal or NOT permitted.<br>

things are tightening down. it is true we are loosing many freedome.<br>

and criminals read bad people, get set free because of overcrowding.<br>

too many things are becoming backwards to what they should be.</p>

<p>As others have said, it's private property and the mall owners and managers have the same rights and responsibilities as you on your own private property.</p>

<p>This becomes a valid concern only when private entities take over public property and use private policing. Google "neo-feudalism" for some of the debates on this issue.</p>

<p>I have a written policy someplace that prohibits dancing on my lawn. If I tackle and pitch someone off my lawn when I catch them dancing on it, who goes to jail? While the mall has the right to set up rules - don't ya just hate rules with no reason other than some bizarre fear of ones' soul - or Christmas decorations - being captured by a camera? How on earth could a photograph someones takes be in any way actually harmful? It's like guns, and the old gun control argument that people kill, not guns. </p>

<p>The root of all this seems to be that some people can't see a difference between a public place and a place where the public are allowed access. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Our community's three shopping centers have signs prohibiting skateboarding, roller skating, and bicycling and dogs. The bicycling part always gets me, since one has a bike shop and a bike rack and another has a veterinary. Noone bothers me since I always walk my bike across the parking lot. I did get yelled at once a long ago by a snarling guard. No, I cannot say we are a bike friendly place, but same all over the island.... I know San Francisco and Portland OR are way more tolerant, ( dogs riding bikes is cool there) but I am <em>here</em> and I 'tolerate' the shopping centers with their annoying " Compact Cars Only" (-hah!) parking space widths -from days gone by. ... I accept the seemingly whimsical and even capricious <em>verboten</em> policies. But. Comes the revolution, we all get to wear brass buttons.... Noone notices cameras in these outdoor malls so far.</p>

<p>As practical matter, if you use your cell phone to take a picture of your companions at the mall, you are unlikely to be stopped. If you are using a DSLR with a telephoto lens to take pictures of others who are unaware, you are very likely to be stopped. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The root of all this seems to be that some people can't see a difference between a public place and a place where the public are allowed access."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. I'd rephrase it slightly: <em>Sometimes it's not readily apparent where the border is between a public place and a privately owned place where the public are allowed access</em>.</p>

<p>An example would be downtown Fort Worth's Sundance Square. This arts and entertainment district is very safe because of frequent patrols by bicycle mounted police officers as well as private security. These folks on patrol are consistently polite and helpful so it never feels to me as if we're "under surveillance". I've even enjoyed chattering about photography with some bike patrol officers.</p>

<p>Several years ago, around the early 2000s, I was approached by a bike patrolman while I was using a Rollei TLR on a tripod to photograph some buildings. I was trying to avoid blocking the sidewalk so I scooted sideways a bit onto an adjacent parking lot. Turns out the parking lot was privately owned property. The bike patrolman radioed for instructions and quickly received permission for me to continue taking photos from the parking lot. While we were waiting I saw several pedestrians taking shortcuts across the parking lot - a common experience in any city with this type of parking lot system where there are no fences between the parking lot property and city sidewalks.</p>

<p>I have no complaints about that experience - it was handled quickly, professionally and courteously. In retrospect, I have no idea whether that particular bike patrolman was a Fort Worth police officer or private security guard.</p>

<p>But it's a common, if non-controversial, example of the non-apparent boundary between public property and publicly accessible private property.</p>

<p>Of greater concern would be privately owned open air malls or bazaars where there is little or no readily apparent distinction between the public and private property. In some of these open malls there is a contiguous ingress/egress between the public sidewalk and private property.</p>

<p>Part of the freedoms we have left (and the Patriot Act fiasco stripped us of most) is the ability to control our own property. It's the Mall's property, and if they don't want photos, that's that. </p>

<p>Why is it that the more ignorant a person is, the more likely they are to post rants on the net?</p>

You were on private property. When people can come to your property and photograph as they see fit over your

objection, then it will be appropriate to whine about lost freedom in the U.S.

<p>Forget the mall rules and just go on taking your pictures.</p>