Yet another legal question

[aray042]

I'll try and make this quick. I got into a minor skirmish with a

security guard today. It was orientation and it was a photo-scavenger

hunt and we were looking for a dry cleaner's for our list. We found

one but it was indoors, it was like a large building whose ground

floor you could walk through and there were various stores there. I'd

say kinda like a mall? Anyway, the guard had issues with our taking

pictures and caught me as I had exited the building and accosted us.

He eventually left us alone after 10 seconds of barking.

 

As I was relaying this to some friends they thought that since it was

like a public place I should have been fine. I thought since it was

inside a building he was actually correct, though socially inept. Any

thoughts?

[jbq]

The building was most probably private property, in which case the owner can decide to not let you photograph inside. "Like a public place" doesn't necessarily imply that it is indeed a public place.

 

Beware of private parking lots (very common), private sidewalks, and even private streets.

[thomas_sullivan]

the way it goes with this type of place is like this. I make the assumption that some one other than the public owns this building.

 

It is considered a private place with it's doors open to the public. The owners, to do business, have allowed the public to enter whenever they want. Now, with places like this......If there are no signs prohitting photography, then you can take all the pics you want, until the owner or a representative (yes, that includes security guards) tells you that you can not take pics. then you have to stop. But.....all the pics you took up until that time are yours to keep. But, you HAVE to stop taking pics at the time they tell you to. I'm not a lawyer, but I read this in the lawyer's book who frequents this site...........Legal Handbook for Photographers - Bert P. Krages, Esq. Of course, what I said is paraphraed in my own words.......you might want to pick up his book for the full explanation.

[thomas_sullivan]

prohitting = prohibitting ;o)....too early

[michael s.]

As a lawyer, Tom Sullivan makes an excellent photographer.

I'm only kidding -- As a general matter, Tom's comments are on target.<p><p>

 

If you're thinking about an extended photo project in a private place, you might want to check in advance to see whether that's feasible, and if so, what might be required to accomplish it.<p><p>

 

The basic point Tom makes above is key: on private property, the owner can limit photography or prohibit it altogether. And at many locations, owners have done precisely that.<p><p>

 

Sometimes those rules are enforced very inconsistently. For example, the tourist in a mall obviously taking photos of his/her kids as they shop may not even be interrupted (because they're *customers*), while the photography student or enthusiast who in the judgment of the guard is there just to take photos may be loudly confronted, as you were.<p><p>

 

Bert Krages, the lawyer Tom mentioned, has <a href=http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm>a website here</a>, through which you can download a basic flyer on photographer's rights in pdf format. I believe that download is free. He's also authored a book on the same subject, as Tom noted, and that can be purchased.<p><p>

[edmo]

oh man, like, wtf man? like total and social maximum ineptitude, like wow wtf...did you like find the dry cleaner?

[jeff_conrad]

The answer depends somewhat on where you are. If there is a state or local

law that prohibits trespass on private property open to the public, then in

most cases, you need to leave if directed to do so by the owner's agent

(e.g., a security guard). If you fail to leave when so directed, the guard

often can arrest you or have a police officer assist him in making the

arrest.

<P>

Such laws do not always exist: the state of California has no such law, but

allows local jurisdictions to regulate this behavior, and many local

jurisdictions in California have done so. Even then, California courts

have held that the power to exclude is not absolute, although the

protection usually has been held to cover personal characteristics or

expressive behavior protected under the First Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution. I'm not aware of any legal precedent that has involved

photography, but I'm not a lawyer and may not have done the most exhaustive

research. The case has been made that photography <EM>is</EM> protected

expression (e.g., the NPPA brief to the New York Metropolitan Transit

Authority concerning the proposed photography ban in subways). However,

this isn't something I'd count on.

<P>

The laws may be (and probably are) different elsewhere, so you need to be

familiar with state and local law where you live. Absent solid information

to the contrary, I would assume that a private property owner can direct

you to leave much as she pleases. To be safe, you might even want to

confirm your research with an attorney. Of course, you well might decide

that it's not worth the time or effort, and simply comply with a security

guard's directive. Even in places where they have no legal right to order

you to leave the property, the argument may not be worth the grief.

<P>

I agree with the others and highly recommend Bert Krages's book. The

downloadable flyer is helpful, but the additional information in the book

is well worth the cost.

[todd frederick]

EDMO...What did you say? I don't speak that language.

 

General Comment....in the USA, our rights to photograph freely are being deminished by both the government and big business. I was almost arested once while using a gun-like sologor spot meter in a big city! Think about it.

[spanky]

Believe it or not, often times the camera you are using makes a difference in if you are approached by a cop or most often a security guard. My father was once taking pictures in a public garden but a security guard told him he had to stop because his camera is too big.

I also recall other posts here that seemed to indicate that those with medium format or obviously expensive 35mm cameras get singled out more then those with smaller point & shoots. I think this just may be that people see one with such a camera and assume they are working for a magazine or newspaper and they (the owners) just want to make sure they get a cut of $$$ as well. When in doubt I always ask. I once asked a small bridal shop if I could take a couple shots and the owners said "sure". Then again, if you're in a larger place and a once in a lifetime event occurs then by all means take the shot but otherwise it's just good policy to ask when on private property.