Photography Forbidden in Shopping Malls ?

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Sounds like a win-win. You got to rant and rave and they got you out of their hair . . . and store.</p>

[spanky]

<p>Looks like Barnes and Noble is a popular place for shooters. I haven't got nabbed yet (knocking on wood) but maybe because I just seem to turn invisible with a camera around my neck :-)</p><div></div>

[john_h.1]

JDM also got to write about it on photo.net. Not merely for getting kicked out for photographing. For popping a flash. A

camera isn't even needed. Its not just win-win Fred. Its win-win-win-win.

[JDMvW]

<p>Am I so obvious?<br>

Apparently.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />That is quite a good price!</p>

[Alex_Es]

I experienced this over thirty years ago when I was new to street photography. Nothing much has changed except that

now with the Internet private establishments are more touchy about widespread exposure. The post 9/11 fear

surrounding the photographing of public places is another story.

 

if you are going to photograph a mall where photography is normally forbidden trying asking permission.

[steve_levine]

<p>Truth is last time I was confronted by mall security for taking photos. (Palisades Mall, Nyack NY) I pretty much ignored them and kept walking. Their threat of calling the police also fell on my deaf ears. Do you really think they could or would prosecute for this? This is the 2nd largest mall in the USA.<br>

A few years ago, maybe a few percent of us carried film cameras everywhere. Now everyone has a still and video capture device , already in their hands. Good luck trying to stop this.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you really think they could or would prosecute for this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whilst I believe that they might try, Surely no crime was committed so there can be no prosecution.</p>

<p>I posted earlier that under English law, trespass is only a civil matter. This doesn't stop owners of land and buildings from posting signs stating <em>"Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted". </em><br>

<em> </em><br>

The only places here where you can be prosecuted for trespass are railways and prisons.</p>

[john_h.1]

If the mall authorities decide to eject someone who refuses to leave, the standard procedure is to contact police to handle

it. If the person refuses or returns contrary to a warning not to, they can be prosecuted. How mant people there have cameras is irrelevant. If the private mall wants a particular person out the door because someone's particular

conduct is noticed and deemed incompatible, they can compel the person to leave. If they refuse, then they expose

themselves to consequence. This is a very simple concept. An ancedotal experence where mall security doesn't follow

through in a situation doesn't change that. Neither does it because it occured in the second largest mall in the U.S. It

doesn't matter if everyone has a camera phone or if lots of people use them. Authority to kick someone out has nothing to

do with cameras. Neither does a trespass citation if it gets that far. Any photography that led to it is incidental at that

point.

[alan_zinn]

<p>Alan Klein:<br>

How soon we forget. Just had a shooting in a mall in Oregon. I like the idea of being photographed by CCTV. Otherwise, I'd just be another old guy wandering around with nothing to do. Gives me a purpose -- and employment for security. <a href="http://www.thirdfactor.com/2012/08/28/avoiding-facial-recognition-and-a-1984-esque-reality">LINK</a></p>

<div></div>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Regarding malls videotaping customers without posting a sign saying they will do it. Apparently there are no American laws regarding this. However, there are laws in Canada:<br>

“organization conducting video surveillance post a clear and understandable notice about the use of cameras on its premises to individuals whose images might be captured by them, before these individuals enter the premises”.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mysecuritysign.com/MSS/Posting-Video-Surveillance-Signs.aspx">http://www.mysecuritysign.com/MSS/Posting-Video-Surveillance-Signs.aspx</a></p>

<p> </p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>On the whole "asked to stop shooting" thing in the US vs. Europe discussion - the only times I've been asked to stop shooting lately were a)in a French "public" market in Argentuil where a vendor took great exception to my camera, and b) on a street in London when I was taking shots what turned out to be some kind of government facility (or so the rent-a-cop said). I've shot many photos all over the US, including a bunch around the naval station in Norfolk in the past couple of years without any issues. So my perspective? The US is "free-er". That whole debate takes on the "yes-you-are; no-I'm-not" level of 7-year-old discussion I hear from my grandchildren, usually.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>No rant seen on Charlie's facebook page before my posting on December 29, 2012. Strange.</p>

<p>https://www.facebook.com/charlie.west</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

David,<br><br>Only (that 7 year old level) if that is what you base your opinion on, a couple of incidents you remember.<br>Fred invited someone to live in the Russian Federation or China for a couple of years, i extended that by doing the same in Europe (i know, i know: the Russian federation is in Europe too) for a similar period. Entirely different.

[David_Cavan]

<p>And my European experience is worse than my American (and Canadian) experience Q.G. Its entirely subjective and anecdotal, no matter what.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Again: only, David, when conclusions are based on a small number of sample experiences. Hence the "couple of years".

[JDMvW]

<p>By the way. American attitudes toward the sanctity of Private Property were never summed up better than in this "You'll have to answer to the Coca Cola Company" scene from <em>Dr. Strangelove</em>:</p>

<p><a href="

[David_Cavan]

<p>Actually my European experience would be quite close to your "couple of years", Q.G.</p>

[jim_service]

<p>I'm familiar with this mall policy. I've been kicked out of some of the finest malls in the Bay Area. I've also gone to the trouble of arranging for permission from the management.<br>

In talking to security and management over many years, I've been told repeatedly that the concern is that the shop owners are very sensitive to having their window displays photographed, for competitive reasons.</p>

[warren_wilson]

<p>Interesting -- in British Columbia mall security is being investigated for a violation of a young photographer's rights. He photographed them hurting a mall customer. It has sparked other investigations.<br>

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/12/21/bc-mall-takedown-investigations.html</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>the concern is that the shop owners are very sensitive to having their window displays photographed, for competitive reasons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Then they shouldn't have them on view to the public!</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>The "don't want my window display photographed" argument sounds bogus to me. Most mall retailers will have stores in areas where the sidewalk is public and so can't really do much to prevent it. Looks more like the mall managers say this because it's superficially plausible and makes it seem like they're not the bad guys. Regardless, the motivation isn't terribly important, fact is that they can set a "no photography" policy and enforce it as strictly or as laxly as they want. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Actually my European experience would be quite close to your "couple of years", Q.G."</i><br><br>Then, David, what you said must be correct. ;-)<br><br>Have a good 2013, everyone!

[ann_overland]

<blockquote>

<p>Ann, what a pathetic response. Seriously! Bigoted, narrow-minded and pathetic. <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred G.</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 30, 2012; 11:46 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or maybe that is just how it looks to me after having lived in another country all my life. There are huge differences. You would have understood it if you had lived in my homeland for a few years.</p>

[virginia_john_mybusiness]

<p>There is also a security risk. Malls are particularly vulnerable to the sorts of attacks we have seen at schools, hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc. Photography is a potentially powerful planning tool for launching an attack.<br>

At the same time photography in public/private places can be very intrusive on the privacy of others at the location. I would object to you taking a photo of me without my permission. You don't have the only rights that come into play in photographing in a public place. You seem to lose sight of the rights others have that your activity may impinge upon.</p>