Photography Forbidden in Shopping Malls ?

[ann_overland]

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone who thinks we have thousands of years to come may be kidding themselves.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that those who believe that the world is about to go under any time soon are kidding themselves. I don't know if cameras will be around for as long as mankind will be around. But in some kind of form I think they will be. </p>

[starshooter]

<p>This is a nation based on law. Can I come into your bedroom and take photos? It's a free country, ain't it? Can I follow your kid around and take pictures of him/her 24 hours a day? (Cue in the Freedom Bells ringing.) I worked for the world's biggest news gathering orgnization and 11 different newspapers, taking photos. I've taken hundreds of photos the establishment would rather had never been taken. But I ain't stoopid, I know there are rules. This is not a nation of anarchy, sorry.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ann, just to be clear, it's not a Mayan thing with me, it's an environmental and weapons of mass destruction thing. If we don't destroy ourselves by our habit of abusing the planet and its resources, we likely will do so in the name of . . . ahem . . . peace.</p>

<p>But that was just an aside, really. My main point is that, yes, these are battles worth having and, in time, will likely sort themselves out. Right now, cell phone cameras and taking pictures of anything and everything that one comes across is a novelty. Most novelties naturally wear off in time. At least one can hope.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>In my country (Finland) some stores used to post signs to forbid photography in their premises but now they cannot do that any more (the law changed). I think it takes quite blue eyes to think of the USA as "free" - the difference to e.g. Finland is quite striking. One area where it is particularly evident is in the behavior of police officers.</p>

<p>Anyway, photography at malls isn't that interesting, usually; the commercial stuff just gets in your face. But the life people live while in the malls is still a part of their lives and worth documenting, at least to some extent. Also, malls and other public buildings, if they have multiple floors, can be interesting as graphic subjects showing the activity of people as a population. </p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p>BUT its private Property, That's it, I have the same Problem at the Prudential Mall also I only photographing flowers, and was told stop and no its not listed on the sign at the front entrance, but yet those dam cell phone's and P&S shot all the time</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>But the life people live while in the malls is still a part of </em><strong><em>their lives</em></strong><em> and worth documenting</em>>>></p>

<p>You said it. I'll just emphasize it.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Every time a photographer argues, especially angrily, about non-existent rights, they make it more difficult for other photographers to operate.</p>

<p>Every time a used car salesman makes a bad deal with a customer, he further erodes the already suspect reputation of used car salesmen. The same principle applies to unthoughtful and obsessive photographers.</p>

<p>We can develop rapport when we're polite and respectful. Sometimes that means packing up and moving on when asked. But sometimes a simple reassuring conversation can win the confidence of the protesting agent. I have been given free rein to photograph without further disturbance in forbidden and private places simply by being direct and honest about my intentions in a cordial and non-threatening manner. When you get that green light, you have an amazing opportunity to get some unique shots.</p>

<p>Politeness and thoughtfulness open doors. Anger and insistence often close them.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I have also been told to stop photographing a Hollywood movie shoot on a public street</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />I suspect that you were asked rather than told as the person objecting would not have the authority to order you to stop.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Dan is right. Sometiimes we are our own worst enemy.</p>

<p>If a photographer approached a mall for permission to shoot in the mall (it is done all of the time) they would be asked, why and what they intended to photograph. This is perfectly reasonable on the part of the mall. So what is the right answer?</p>

<p>"I am entering a photography contest about Christmans, see this brochure, and I want to take a picture of a child and Santa. I will ask permission from the parents before I take it and will credit your mall if you like. I won't take any pictures without permission."</p>

<p>Is way different from:</p>

<p>"What do you mean no pictures! Its bad enough that the gov'ment is taking away my guns and telling me how much mileage my pickup can get without the fascist mall people taking away my God given right to photograph teenage girls in summer clothes."</p>

<p>And that is the real deal for the mall. When I photograph for the paper I am often asked by parents not to photograph their kids. Often there is a very good reason for this. Sometimes there is an abusive parent out there looking for the kid who is in hiding with anotther parent or guardian. The publication of these pictures could lead to unintended consequences which are very bad for the kid. One time I was photographing children at a nonprofit day care center. One of the staff approached me with this problem. There were two children who could not have their pictures published. But. We did not want to make them feel bad by being left out. So I took their pictures along with the other kids and as soon as I had let them see themselves on the back of the camera, deleted the images. The day care center trusts me implicitly now. And they should. The asked me to photograph their big fundraiser which I did pro bono. Care to guess how many potential clients I met there?<br />So it is all of a piece as Dan said. We stand more to gain as a community by rising above these issues and behaving like adults.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>In the USA, if there aren't any signs posted near the entrances. You can shoot away. I've called lawyers (ACLU, and a prof of law), about this very issue. You might be arrested, but you can sue for false arrest. What judge would even hear such a case if there were no signs?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not the issue here. Indeed, there is MORE than a sign someone might happen to see in this instance. When the owner (on an agent on their behalf) specifically notifies someone to stop some particular conduct and to leave, then there is ample notice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A lot of this nonsense is a post 911 knee jerk reaction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We're talking about shopping malls and these policies were routine at such places long before 9/11.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"USE OF CAMERAS PROHIBITED". I guess they never heard of GOOGLE maps/earth?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The utility of photography for terrorism is debatable but obviously any utility goes way beyond aerial imagery so Google maps is mostly irrelevant to that issue.</p>

<p>The issue of the thread is whether owners of private property where the public is invited can prevent people from engaging photography on their property and the answer is yes.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I think it takes quite blue eyes to think of the USA as "free" - the difference to e.g. Finland is quite striking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my anecdotal experience it was. I shot all sorts of photos with an SLR on private and public areas there and even a naval ship in dock. No authority figures challenged me even though they saw me.</p>

<p>Crossing the street in contradiction to the crossing signals in Helsinki seemed very risky, however, even when no cars or other traffic were anywhere around. Whole blocks would be void of any traffic as far as the eye could see but people would still wait at the sidewalk for the signal to let them walk. Unthinkable in U.S. cities where it is obviously safe to cross. Now that's freedom!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>I think it takes quite blue eyes to think of the USA as "free"</em>>>></p>

<p>Why blue? My eyes are gray and I think of the U.S. as free.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>I think it would take an american to think that the USA is for the free, regardless of eye color.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I had this problem since the late 70's. If I used my Nikon F2 and took pictures of something in the mall the security guard would tell me to stop taking pictures. If I use a smaller camera and taking pictures of my friends in the mall they didn't bother me. I don't think it has any thing to do with 9/11 it's has always been that way. This is fine for me, it's their mall. </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I've shot <em>Hollywood</em> sutff at different times and they are nice as hell. They have special PR teams sent out to chat with people. The only time I got hassled was when I used a tripod. The The young woman in charge said they paid for shooting permits and I should scram! Couldn't blame her. She sure was not friendly.<br>

Dan S. is absolutly right about how to deal with people - they can always sense it if you don't have a <em>good</em> attitude. Otherwise we'd a kilt each other offt long ago.<br>

We will be so awash with image-makers in just a few years nobody will take notice any more. Cameras will be just a tattoo or retina implant by mid-century. A thousand years from now we'll be so bored with things we'll forget to reproduce.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>While everyone is focused on their losing their rights to take photos in malls, have you thought about your rights about the mall videoing your every move in the mall and around it and recording it for posterity sake? Have you read the sign when entering that they can do that? (Was there a sign there and if not can they do it anyway?)</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>The truth is: a family coming out of a birthday party at Chuckee Cheese, can take all the photos in the mall they want. A bunch of tweens playing with their I-Phone cameras, same thing.</p>

<p>A lone person with an "expensive looking" (SLR) camera gets harassed.</p>

<p>BTW , my lawyers know there stuff. A mall is privately owned, but it is open to the "public". Public bldgs must post rules of conduct, if instruments as benign as cameras, are to be prohibited.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect that you were asked rather than told as the person objecting would not have the authority to order you to stop. [steve Smith]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only people with authority to order a person to stop photographing are law enforcement officers who can lay a charge under a section of the statute pertaining to the regulations for that region. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>have you thought about your rights about the mall videoing your every move in the mall and around it and recording it for posterity sake?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. I concluded, correctly, that they have a right to photograph or videotape people on their property and save the results as much as I do on mine. Why?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Have you read the sign when entering that they can do that? (Was there a sign there and if not can they do it anyway?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you need to post a sign on your property to take any photos of people that happen to be there? If not, I'm not sure why you would think others might need to.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW , my lawyers know there stuff. A mall is privately owned, but it is open to the "public". Public bldgs must post rules of conduct, if instruments as benign as cameras, are to be prohibited.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm sure they do, indeed, know there [sic] stuff. I'm also confident you misinterpreted their remarks. Obviously any lawyer (that's not out of their mind) knows that not every single activity that would justify someone being removed from a property can be listed on a notice. They also will know that notice can be verbal and that subsequent conduct contrary to the notice can be prevented and that the remedy for noncompliance is authority compel the person to leave.</p>

<p>They also know that cameras are inanimate objects and not benign or evil. If your theory of their comments were accurate, someone could race around a mall in a motorcycle all day and no one could do anything because it wasn't posted on a sign. Someone could engage in political comment by screaming in a 'benign' bullhorn all day and the owner can do nothing because its not posted anywhere. Bullhorns are known to be helpful "instruments". They could plant their own flowers in a mall or on the grounds and no one could do anything about it. Certainly, flowers are benevolent and pretty. If there is no sign saying its disallowed it must be allowed.</p>

<p>Somehow, I don't think your lawyers would agree.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Just now, I was actually kicked out of the Barnes and Noble store for taking a picture, not just asked not to take pictures (story at http://www.photo.net/modern-film-cameras-forum/00bBLh ) :)</p>

[john_h.1]

Did you rant and rave to management about constitutional rights or tell them it was false arrest because there wasn't a

sign?

[lex_jenkins]

<p>JDM, I've snapped photos from inside the B&N store in downtown Fort Worth's Sundance Square several times. No problems. Mostly I was photographing family I was with, or the Bass Performance Hall across the street, trying to get a better angle. I tend to shoot pretty quickly so maybe nobody noticed me.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ann, what a pathetic response. Seriously! Bigoted, narrow-minded and pathetic.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I have often taken pictures at the B&N. I think the flash caught the eye of someone who was sufficiently fussy to intervene.<br>

Of course, I ranted and raved, but only after "I'll have to ask you to leave." :)</p>