"No Photography" - Security Guard at Retail Center [Archive]

dave lackey

01-04-2009, 08:49

Ha! It happened to me...when is it going to happen to you?

Drove about two miles to a local retail center here in town that has all of it's buildings lined up along a main street in the fashionable neo-traditional planning layout. Nothing special, but it is doing fairly well with leasing and expanding. Stopped in at the Barnes and Noble bookstore and picked up a copy of the HCB photobook (Masters of Photography - Aperture) and decided to walk down the little street to grab a few images of the Christmas tree and decorations. Snap-Christmas Tree...Snap 2 - Statute in a fountain in the middle of the street. Snap 3 - Statue on the sidewalk...

And then, the Security Guard drives up in his company Jeep and says, "Sorry, Sir, but cameras are not allowed unless someone is in the picture"....upon which, I gave him a huge grin and said, "Really?"...his response was, "Yeah, I know, but cameras are not allowed unless you're photographing someone"...

I laughed and said, "Well...I have been to law school and we could get into a long discussion about a lot of things"...then I smiled again... and winked while saying "No problem" and grinned again and walked away...It was not confrontational, and he seemed to be somewhat apologetic...but it was not worth my time to talk to a lowly paid security guard who is only doing what he is told.

Now, if he had asked for my camera or film...all hell would have broken loose!;)

So, even though the retail center owners are bluffing their way through this one, I will let it pass as there really was nothing to photograph anyway.

http://retail.thomasent.com/ashley-park/project-description.html

I just thought it strange that after hearing about other confrontations, I happened to come across this particular situation.

What's your latest run-in with this issue?:eek:

ddimaria

01-04-2009, 08:53

I always thought that if you were on private property (malls, shopping centers) then the owners have the right to forbid photography. Am I wrong in this assumption?

dave lackey

01-04-2009, 08:55

I always thought that if you were on private property (malls, shopping centers) then the owners have the right to forbid photography. Am I wrong in this assumption?

Like I told the guard, we could discuss a lot of legal issues...one of which is the public property on the street...etc. ad nauseum....:rolleyes:

ddimaria

01-04-2009, 08:59

Yeah well, you should have taken his picture. :)

srichmond

01-04-2009, 08:59

I think that in generally true. It's best to know beforehand, so that you're prepared. In the UK, train stations and airports are private property, so you need to be careful.

bmattock

01-04-2009, 08:59

Ha! It happened to me...when is it going to happen to you?

I'm a little unclear on where you were standing and what you were shooting.

It is my understanding that if you were on public property and not private property, then you can shoot what you like - buildings or people.

If you were on property owned by the shopping mall, they are within their rights to restrict photography, including the imposition of odd 'rules' such as requiring people to be in the shot.

I have been told that photographers at the Renaissance Center in downtown Detroit often have run-ins with the local security guards, who inform them that they cannot take photographs of the RenCen, even from public sidewalks. This is actually amusing, since the RenCen is part of the Detroit skyline - you can't take a photo of Detroit without the RenCen being in it, basically.

I have had no recent encounters with over-enthusiastic security guards.

bmattock

01-04-2009, 09:02

As always, for the newcomers to this perennial debate, I recommend this web page:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

I have his book as well, and it is excellent. Good advice, from an actual lawyer who specializes in this type of law. Of course, this is applicable for the USA only.

Turtle

01-04-2009, 09:02

If it is anything like the UK, as far as I am aware they cannot stop you photographing the building if you are in public space.

Ken Ford

01-04-2009, 09:02

I'm a little unclear on where you were standing and what you were shooting.

Same here.

Merkin

01-04-2009, 09:06

bmattock

01-04-2009, 09:10

That is a pretty liberal policy for a shopping mall in my experience. Most retail establishments (malls, wal-marts, etc) have kicked me out for taking pictures, regardless of whether or not someone was in the shot. Even if I have no intention of taking a picture, walking through the door with a camera tends to get me followed, even if I am just going straight to the photo counter. In my personal experience, the more CCTV cameras they have on you, the less likely it is that they will let you take your own pictures.

Inside the mall, that is generally true, I've found. An exception seems to be made at larger malls during holidays. Recently I was able to take photos inside a shopping mall during the Christmas holidays, and security guards walked by whilst I shot - no complaints. I suppose because there are so many happy-snappers in the malls taking photos during such times, it's impossible to stop, and you don't want to make shoppers mad anyway.

And with cell phone cameras, I suspect it will become nearly impossible to continue to enforce such policies.

However, inside the malls, the owners/managers have the right to set policy regarding photography - at least here in the US. If they wish to refuse to allow it, they can.

marke

01-04-2009, 09:39

Well, after looking at the link (Ashley Park), I get the impression that this entire area is built on private property. Let me share a similar experience of my own.

A couple years ago, a local indoor shopping mall rebuilt the entire area, even buidling on to a former, and rarely used HUGE parking lot. When it was completed, it was beautiful, and was designed to be an "open-air" mall, where customers would have to go outside to exit/enter each store. It's actually is like a small village within the city. The streets are beautiful, and the place is probably the closest thing to a European type village as we have around here. When it was complete, I began shooting street, and envisioned it to be a fertile locale for many years of street photography...until the mall security stopped me one day.

I got into a friendly challenge with him, and he eventually connected me to his surpervisor, as it became clear to him that he really wasn't sure himself what was allowed. He just said, "You cannot take pictures of any of the buildings.", whatever that meant.

Well, I quickly learned that all the streets were built on what had always been private property. The funny thing is that it looked EXACTLY like the neighboring public streets that connected to the inner, mall streets! The same sidewalks, the same road signs, etc. But it was all built on private property. In fact, the parking meters are even the same, except for one thing...the money to pay for your expired meter goes to a local charity. I figured they did this to ease the pain when the guilty party finds a ticket on their windshield (as my wife and I did one day :o ).

Since then, I have formed a good professional relationship with the people in charge, and now have permission to shoot when I care to. The thing is, it hasn't been the goldmine for street photography as I had originally thought it might be. But it's still nice to have the relationship with them. In retrospect, I was glad that I challenged the mall security when I did, instead of just letting it go and giving up. But I'm especially glad I conducted myself professionally through the entire process, EVEN to the "insignificant" rent-a-cop.

btgc

01-04-2009, 09:48

As I understand, you had a chance to take a shot of guard, because such way "someone is in the picture" :)

bmattock

01-04-2009, 09:52

As I understand, you had a chance to take a shot of guard, because such way "someone is in the picture" :)

You could even do the crazy thing - "You mean you can't see my friends standing there? Look, they're waving at you!" That might be good for a laugh.

35mmdelux

01-04-2009, 09:57

None of these restrictions make much sense to me but they are within their legal rights as it is their property. Recently I posted about my own run-in when I was taking a few snaps of a hospital building (outside). You would have thought I committed a crime.

But, you know, its not worth my time to deal with management knuckleheads. Way too many foto-ops elsewhere.

George S.

01-04-2009, 10:04

bmattock

01-04-2009, 10:14

Agree that these restrictions don't make much sense, but they are within their right to make the rules. One of the dumbest restrictions I ever came across was it's now illegal to photograph any bridge in NYC, you WILL be detained if not arrested. But just wait a week or so and there'll be a program on the History Channel which will take you through the complete construction of said bridge step-by-step, complete with the position of every load bearing beam and cable....

There are no such laws that I am aware of. I have seen the signs posted that say photography is prohibited, but I can find no laws stating that. You can't make something illegal without a law that says so.

Bert Krages states that there are no provisions under the Patriot Act or the Homeland Security Act which prohibit public photography.

I have yet to hear of someone successfully prosecuted for taking a photo of a bridge. Hassled, yes. Arrested, yes. Always resolved by charges being dropped, gear returned, and generally a letter of apology issued.

Not that I am in any hurry to be arrested.

Dave Wilkinson

01-04-2009, 10:31

[quote=dave lackey;....... but it was not worth my time to talk to a lowly paid security guard who is only doing what he is told. Perhaps he did'nt realize you were such a VIP! ;)

marke

01-04-2009, 10:39

But, you know, its not worth my time to deal with management knuckleheads. Way too many foto-ops elsewhere.

Well, I found it worth my time (as did two clients). You can either get frustrated over the matter, or create another photo-op.

This was a result of creating that relationship with mall authorities.

http://www.pbase.com/marke/image/106770375/original.jpg

dave lackey

01-04-2009, 10:49

[quote=dave lackey;....... but it was not worth my time to talk to a lowly paid security guard who is only doing what he is told. Perhaps he did'nt realize you were such a VIP! ;)

I take note of your emoticon...presuming it to be a light-hearted comment.:D I, who is not even employed at the moment, is lower than he ever will be, so my comment was not a put-down of anyone. :angel:

Like I said, he was apologetic and nodding as if to acknowledge the stupidity of his orders. But, he did his job in a professional way and that is why I smiled and waved as he drove off.

Back OT...

Bob Michaels

01-04-2009, 10:53

I have found that response to any of these situations to be completely dependent on the circumstances and location. I am an adamant believer in constitutional rights but also know you have to know when and where to pick your fights.

I have at various times:

1) told a policeman who detained me that he must either charge me with a crime and arrest me or I was leaving. That was when I was finished photographing on private property marked "no trespassing".

2) followed a local police chief's demand that I "leave town". That was while I was photographing an old building while I was on public property.

The first situation was where I was legally wrong but close to home, knew the officer's police chief, his mayor, my police chief and my mayor.

The second situation was 100% within the law but in a small town 150 miles away where I had no contacts. I knew he could detain me for 12-18 hours until I could post bond. Then I would have to go back for a court date. I knew I could legally win but at great hassle.

l have taken on Amtrak and told them I was going to continue to photograph while riding the train until they cited some law that said I could not. They relented when they could find no such law or Amtrak regulation.

I have adhered to a Salvation Army worker's demand that I not photograph them. Legally I could do so but decided that he might have some personal reasons.

It turns out to always be a function of the situation. After 65 years, I have learned to pick my battles.

SergioGuerra

01-04-2009, 11:15

If I enter what seems to be an abandoned building with an open door, am I supposed to know that is private property? (I guess so)
It happened to me recently, the owner dropped by and forced me to expose the film or else he would call the police. I exposed it since I wanted no problems, and I had been caught inside the "abandoned" factory, but the owner could at least close the doors...
It is too tempting to see a cool place to photograph with an open door ..

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic...

Regards,

Sergio

morback

01-04-2009, 11:40

There are no such laws that I am aware of. I have seen the signs posted that say photography is prohibited, but I can find no laws stating that. You can't make something illegal without a law that says so.

Bert Krages states that there are no provisions under the Patriot Act or the Homeland Security Act which prohibit public photography.

I have yet to hear of someone successfully prosecuted for taking a photo of a bridge. Hassled, yes. Arrested, yes. Always resolved by charges being dropped, gear returned, and generally a letter of apology issued.

Not that I am in any hurry to be arrested.

Interesting. My friend and I got almost arrested (& deported?) for taking pictures of a train yard in Hoboken NJ. Whatever it means, we are now "in their system".

I used to work for a "photographer" and I had to check for permissions. My impression was that in New York you need a permit from the mayor (they have a special office for film/photography) to photograph anything public.

I thoroughly hate it to be told not to take pictures. I'm not sure why, but for some reason I take it personally. I actually stopped going to museums that don't allow pictures, just like I walk out of any store that asks me to check my bag in.

I'm glad this discussion came up, because I find that the more interesting places to photograph are the most "sensitive" ones. Airport, train stations, museums, industrial complexes, etc...

Photography since 911 has had its image changed drastically it seems...

btgc

01-04-2009, 11:44

Sergio, you and good lawyer could sue enough money from owner to get another M body or glass you want because he made threat to your health and life by not marking property as dangerous (and IT IS dangerous - while his lawyer is not better than yours), leaving door opened - imagine, if kids would run into and fall into some hole etc etc etc. !

At least he would be fined for not ensuring against accidental injuries in there.

Sometimes such tactics works best, while I'm not angry lawyer. Sorry for joking on this, I realize you had no fun at all then.

bmattock

01-04-2009, 11:55

Interesting. My friend and I got almost arrested (& deported?) for taking pictures of a train yard in Hoboken NJ. Whatever it means, we are now "in their system".

Train yards are private property, but their railroad police are real police officers. Unusual situation, but true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police

Train yards are not like bridges.

I used to work for a "photographer" and I had to check for permissions. My impression was that in New York you need a permit from the mayor (they have a special office for film/photography) to photograph anything public.

That is not correct. You may need a permit to set up equipment, such as professionals often do. The same is often true of zoos and national parks - pros need permits - amateurs do not. Police and other security personnel sometimes mistake having professional-looking equipment as 'being a pro' and act accordingly, but they may be exceeding their authority.

I thoroughly hate it to be told not to take pictures. I'm not sure why, but for some reason I take it personally. I actually stopped going to museums that don't allow pictures, just like I walk out of any store that asks me to check my bag in.

I do not like not being able to take photos in a museum, but it is their right to restrict such. I have talked to some of them and found that you can take photos in some parts of the museum, not in others. This has to do with restrictions placed on them by owners of artwork on loan and so forth - they are protecting the copyrights of others and do so by contract, not because they want to.

As for stores asking me to check in my bag, I have no problems with that if that is their policy. I do not let them check my bag upon exiting, however. I never consent to be searched, and would prefer to be arrested - I'd love to sue them for false arrest. It hasn't come to that yet, but I do get followed by security guards from time to time, saying "Sir, I need to look in your bag. Sir? Sir? Please stop, sir!" I never stop. Let them tackle me.

I'm glad this discussion came up, because I find that the more interesting places to photograph are the most "sensitive" ones. Airport, train stations, museums, industrial complexes, etc...

I really suggest that Bert Krages book. It's cheap, you can get it on Amazon, and it's worth it. Good advice from a real lawyer who works in that field - invaluable.

Photography since 911 has had its image changed drastically it seems...

Fear does a lot of bad things to people. That's the point of terrorism.

nikon_sam

01-04-2009, 12:30

If you really want to start a nice discussion ask to see this "Mall Policy" in writing...
Only do this if you have the time and are looking for a nice long, possibly heated discussion...my money is on the fact they will refuse to show you anything and then revert to "Private Property" issues...and again don't do this unless you want a good long waste of time arguement...time you'll never get back and time taken away from photography...

Keith

01-04-2009, 12:39

I'm photographing that enormous pink rabbit over there ... can't you see it?

Here take one of these and wait a few minutes! :p

parsec1

01-04-2009, 13:19

Fear not photographers. When shopping Malls have no customers because of the present financial climate and are closing and going out of business they will begin to welcome you with 5 Leica's and ten Nikons round your neck.

Gumby

01-04-2009, 13:49

"Mall Photography"

Which word confuses you? :D

Rprice

01-04-2009, 14:03

Photographing public always is a risky business, I have been apporached many times both on private property, as well as public, while photographing a subject. Most time a polite exchange takes place. Only one or two times have I been treated rudely. I always take it in stride. If the person is demanding my equipment I politely refuse, and walk away. I have yet to be arrested or detained by any form of law inforcement.

Unfortunately it is a risk we take when photographing in public.

MickH

01-04-2009, 14:30

There's a 1930's English Music Hall song which has the repeated refrain:

You can't do that there 'ere,
You can't do that there 'ere,
Anywhere else you can do that there,
But you can't do that there 'ere.

It seems like this may have been adopted as the mantra of the private security industry world-wide.

Gumby

01-04-2009, 14:34

In the US midwest they don't walk the streets, but drive, so there is no "street," only "mall."

Same in SoCal!

crawdiddy

01-04-2009, 14:38

Ducky

01-04-2009, 14:53

Cell phone cameras are getting better all the time and you can point your phone in any direction when making a call. I only mention this since this whole security/privacy thing is getting ridiculous.

charjohncarter

01-04-2009, 14:59

I was told at the admissions desk of Blackhawk Automobile Museum that I could photograph the cars, the building anything as long as I didn't use a tripod. This Museum is actually owned, as well as the cars, by the University of California. Is that public property? Anyway, handheld an Alfa Romeo BAT:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5403871-md.jpg (http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5403871&size=lg)

bmattock

01-04-2009, 15:02

I was told at the admissions desk of Blackhawk Automobile Museum that I could photograph the cars, the building anything as long as I didn't use a tripod. This Museum is actually owned as well as the cars by the University of California. Is that public property? Anyway handheld a Alfa Romeo BAT:

Sweet-looking car.

The 'no tripods' thing is generally a safety rule, I've found. They don't want the liability if someone else trips over your tripod and sues them. And yes, they would be the ones sued, since they have (presumably) deeper pockets than the photographer.

Gumby

01-04-2009, 15:03

Is that public property?

No... but they gave you permission. Auto museums seem to be rather good about photos. Every one I've been to allows photos but no tripods and one specifically requested no flash (so what... ). I woinder how they would feel about a monopod, though.

marke

01-04-2009, 16:05

To the OP:

Is there a camera store in this shopping center? If there is, and assuming you are on occasion a customer, complain to that establishment that the mall harrasses photographers.

The best leverage you have is your power as a consumer. Mall security may not care much either way, but the mall management will care if their tenant intervenes on your behalf.

In the outdoor mall that I mentioned in a previous post, there is a large chain camera store. I've talked with the owner of the store, and he has said that one of his own employees has even been told that they can't photograph right outside of the store, on the mall-owned sidewalk or street. There are mall restrictions that the store owners had agreed on when the mall was rebuilt, so I suppose there is not much even they can do about it. I really don't think it has caused much of a problem, as people seem to be allowed to use cell phone cameras and not get harrassed. I think we're in the middle of something interesting. But OTOH, it would seem that someone has to eventually give in. And with all cell phones coming out of our ears...

marke

01-04-2009, 16:09

Sweet-looking car.

The 'no tripods' thing is generally a safety rule, I've found. They don't want the liability if someone else trips over your tripod and sues them. And yes, they would be the ones sued, since they have (presumably) deeper pockets than the photographer.

Yes, that's seems to be the case with most museums I've visited.

morback

01-04-2009, 16:21

Great info here. I'll will check that book for sure, it should be quite handy in NYC.

Shok

01-04-2009, 17:21

My personal favorite is the sign that states "NO digital photography".
So what does that mean anyhow? Does that mean because my camera is actually mechanical, I'm free to do / shoot as I please?

KenR

01-04-2009, 17:43

I was once told that I couldn't use a tripod in Rockefeller Center near an outdoor display, as I was on private property. I asked the guard where the public street began. He pointed to a spot about 3 feet from the leg of my tripod. I obligingly move the 3 feet to the public street, and took my photos without any trouble from the guards. You do have to know your rights as well as the local geography.

bmattock

01-04-2009, 17:52

My personal favorite is the sign that states "NO digital photography".
So what does that mean anyhow? Does that mean because my camera is actually mechanical, I'm free to do / shoot as I please?

I was informed by a flight attendant on a plane that I needed to 'turn my camera off for takeoff'. It was an Agfa Karat IV. I tried to explain to her that it didn't take batteries, she didn't care. Just wanted me to 'turn it off'.

So I went "Click!" and put it in my lap. She looked daggers at me, but proceeded with her duties.

Erik L

01-04-2009, 18:06

Thardy

01-04-2009, 18:18

I saw these guys at the base of the Eiffel Tower. For some reason I nervously put the camera away after this quick grab.

chut

01-04-2009, 18:22

I was informed by a flight attendant on a plane that I needed to 'turn my camera off for takeoff'. It was an Agfa Karat IV. I tried to explain to her that it didn't take batteries, she didn't care. Just wanted me to 'turn it off'.

So I went "Click!" and put it in my lap. She looked daggers at me, but proceeded with her duties.

That's a funny analog story.

peterm1

01-04-2009, 18:53

I have been stopped in retail malls from taking photos - not that they can indicate to me why its "against the rules." I have also been stopped in some art galleries - but not in others (although the latter generally prohibit flash photos for good and proper reasons associated with preservation of exhibits.) In general there are widely divergent attitudes to taking photos in public and semi public spaces. In situations where I know I am in the right as in an open shopping precinct / street I just move away from security guards and carry on snapping. If its a privately owned mall then I might have second thoughts. occasionally I argue if I am feeling p*ssed off at their attitude. Some local governments in Australia have also prohibited photo taking in certain situations (as on the famous Bondi beach in Sydney where a few "drop kicks" with cell phone cameras have caused a predictable over reaction from petty beaurocrats and minor politicians.

troym

01-04-2009, 20:06

Interesting. My friend and I got almost arrested (& deported?) for taking pictures of a train yard in Hoboken NJ. Whatever it means, we are now "in their system".

I used to work for a "photographer" and I had to check for permissions. My impression was that in New York you need a permit from the mayor (they have a special office for film/photography) to photograph anything public.

I thoroughly hate it to be told not to take pictures. I'm not sure why, but for some reason I take it personally. I actually stopped going to museums that don't allow pictures, just like I walk out of any store that asks me to check my bag in.

I'm glad this discussion came up, because I find that the more interesting places to photograph are the most "sensitive" ones. Airport, train stations, museums, industrial complexes, etc...

Photography since 911 has had its image changed drastically it seems...

As bmattock noted earlier, a rail yard is private property, and therefore the owners of the railroad can restrict photography. If you were at New Jersey Transit's Hoboken Terminal, however, you should have been permitted to take pictures, so long as you were in a publicly accessible part of the facility and were not obstructing passenger flow or train operations. You don't even need a permit for non-commercial photography. (They tried to ban photography in the system but then dropped the policy because of public opposition.) Of course, that doesn't prevent railroad employees from trying to stop perfectly permissible photography. http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=57966&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

As for photography in New York City, if you are on public property, you can snap away, so long as you don't obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The old rule that required a permit for the use of a tripod has been modified. It's not always required. http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_rules_QA_final.pdf

BobPS

01-04-2009, 21:41

I had this happened to me once, a security guard told me that taking pictures is not allowed without permission from the property management. He was polite and he told me that after I had finished shooting. He just stood there watching me taking pictures of my family before approching and told me about the restriction. When I asked him why, he said apologitecally that he only followed order, so I just smile and comply.

In one shopping mall (or perhaps food mall, cause it's a mall consist of restaurants) there's a sign saying that photographying the building construction is not allowed, but it doesn't say anything about taking pictures in the building, and I never have any problem taking pictures there.

Some shopping malls have signs that say camera is not allowed, but I asked security guards in two of these malls and they told me that one can ask for a permission to take pictures in the mall from the building management. I have never tried that though (obtaining a permission to take pictures in the mall).

Bob

evergreen2253

01-04-2009, 22:28

Here in the UK there have been some unpleasant incidents where people have been manhandled by security personnel & had cameras confiscated etc - none of this is likely to be legal.

parsec1

01-05-2009, 01:31

Here in Essex the Chief Constable has given 'advice' to his officers that any attempt to 'confiscate' equipment or delete images by them will be regarded as 'Common Theft' and they will be severly disciplined or even charged'.

StefanJozef

01-05-2009, 01:50

I was on the street in Edinburgh a couple of weeks ago taking a photograph through an open door into a betting shop. There was a guy hanging about outside who said " it's against the law to take a photograph of a betting shop". I ignored him. I think he was one of the punters out for a smoke.

JoeV

01-05-2009, 05:19

If you are stopped by security, simply place your camera up to your ear and explain the them that it's not a camera, it's a phone.

Although, yes, private property owners retain the right to restrict photography on their property, regardless of how privileged we, as photographers, may feel.

~Joe

mojobebop

01-05-2009, 06:59

I had an experience exiting a veterans hosp. in NY.
Was actually outside the property, leaving, on the street, and the guard,
(police)? told me if i took a photo he would confiscate, keep my camera.

There would have been a problem had he done so as I wasn't on the property.

Stores, they do not allow of course.

Once had an experience in 98 outside supreme court after jury duty.
Turned around to shoot a photo while on public phone.
Suddenly surrounded by detectives. Had to show id.
I guess back then they may have been getting terror alerts.
However, I know tourists shoot all the time.
May have something to do with the fact I had long hair.

parsec1

01-05-2009, 07:38

Almost all likely terrorist targets are all well documented on the web and no 'hood' is likely to want to spend an hour or two wandering round taking pics of Buckingham Palace or the Houses of Parliment from every angle when they can buy the postcards from the stall opposite. Just don't understand what all the fuss is about. Unless this is all a precurser to the introduction of a 'police state' which is something we should be much more concerned with here in the UK.

morback

01-05-2009, 08:23

As bmattock noted earlier, a rail yard is private property, and therefore the owners of the railroad can restrict photography. If you were at New Jersey Transit's Hoboken Terminal, however, you should have been permitted to take pictures, so long as you were in a publicly accessible part of the facility and were not obstructing passenger flow or train operations. You don't even need a permit for non-commercial photography. (They tried to ban photography in the system but then dropped the policy because of public opposition.) Of course, that doesn't prevent railroad employees from trying to stop perfectly permissible photography. http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=57966&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

As for photography in New York City, if you are on public property, you can snap away, so long as you don't obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The old rule that required a permit for the use of a tripod has been modified. It's not always required. http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_rules_QA_final.pdf

Yes, I think it was by the Lakawannah terminal with my friend, I was outside by the tracks, shooting some trains for my father (train addict). An NJ transit employe came by and said something about photography and I did not pay attention. At that time I was shooting with Hasselbladski (Kiev88) and I thought that would be enough to not make him fear me. But soon thereafter a police car came around, took ID, asked questions, put our names in his computer and then left with the usual sermon. I didn't quite know what all that was about.
I was outside the train property since it said "keep out". I was not blocking anyone since there was no one around.

We should sticky this, or maybe make an official post with basic photographer's right? I'm glad this came up, legal gray zones (percieved or real) are so dangerous...

andrewmore

01-05-2009, 08:40

I think that in generally true. It's best to know beforehand, so that you're prepared. In the UK, train stations and airports are private property, so you need to be careful.

Whilst railway stations in the UK are indeed private property, photography in the stations operated by Network Rail is welcomed (they make money out of selling tickets to trainspotters after all) - track down their website and have a look. Sensible restrictions apply from time to time. The London Underground requires permission (which I think for still photography would be easy to obtain) - normal tourist type snapping (without flash) seems to be totally ignored.

UK airports are variable - plane spotting is quite popular and tolerated (if not actively encouraged). High security areas where photography is not permitted are always labelled accordingly.

Where permission for photography is required in private buildings in the UK it is generaly slanted towards movie film requirements - I expect simplified procedures would apply for still cameras, especially without flash or tripods etc.

In true public areas here in the UK there is no restriction upon photography despite the run-ins people have had with Police and others - these have generally been sorted out eventually. I think awareness of the lack of restriction is gradually getting better, but it may take a while yet.

Regards

Andrew More

parsec1

01-05-2009, 09:23

99% of it seems to be centered around stores (or malls), who have traditionally not wanted competitors to shoot photos or record prices in their stores. It is an old habit, hard to break, they think everyone is a spy from another company.

Ahhhhh 'The Company' not the guys and gals from Langley by any chance.( RAOTFLMBO ).

Good fortune and a happy new year to you and all my American friends

Very best :)Regards
Peter D

mojobebop

01-05-2009, 09:26

actually around here theres sometimes a similar saying. for some reason film is taken a lot less seriously. i dont understand why.

well you can shoot hundreds of images and could transmit images on the spot.
in ny i have found there to be no difference.
one time in time warner almost got into a thing w/a guard who wanted to see what i
was shooting. i was trying to explain he could not, as it was film and he misunderstood.

Argenticien

01-05-2009, 09:46

I have been told that photographers at the Renaissance Center in downtown Detroit often have run-ins with the local security guards, who inform them that they cannot take photographs of the RenCen, even from public sidewalks. This is actually amusing, since the RenCen is part of the Detroit skyline - you can't take a photo of Detroit without the RenCen being in it, basically.

Related: I happened to notice in the credits of the movie Hancock a line about "the image of the Empire State Building was used with permission from ESBC."
After a groan, an eye-roll, and some Googling, I found this (http://www.empirestatebuildingny.info/main.cfm?sid=boperations&pid=rmpsfcrews), which initially sounds aimed at professional and/or movie shooting, but the second paragraph sounds universally applicable. I'm sure they wouldn't seek fees from just any hobbyist photographer, but if you happened to make a skyline picture so fabulous that you could sell prints of it for profit at your gallery, and ESBC got wind of that, they might try to collect. Isn't greed (sorry, "monetization of intellectual property") lovely?!

BTW: On the subject of museums, maybe as others have said they are trying to protect exhibits. Maybe copyright owners are "forcing" them to forbid photography. But I suspect greed mostly governs here too: Museums quite happily forbid photography so that if you love an exhibit so much that you want to see it from time to time at home, you must pay their extortionate gift shop prices for books/prints rather than snap a picture for yourself.
--Dave

Gumby

01-05-2009, 10:08

99% of it seems to be centered around stores (or malls), who have traditionally not wanted competitors to shoot photos or record prices in their stores. It is an old habit, hard to break, they think everyone is a spy from another company.

... and if it isn't to protect pricing info, it is to protect marketing displays, etc.

Here's a funny, semi-related, story. A couple of years ago my wife and I were shopping for a new refrigerator. We went to a local appliance mega-mart. Our plan was to shop around since there were two other applicance mega-marts within about 500 yards. The salesman overheard us talking about leaving to check prices and interrupted. He pointed to a lady who was standing in another aisle with a clipboard, recording information, and told us that we should ask her since she is from the competetor store. That was her weekly chore... to go from store to store with her pencil and clipborad. so we did as he suggested and she showed us pricing information from all of the local stores, including hers, on the item were were considering. The store we were in had the best price... and we couldn't complain about the service.

simonSE15

01-05-2009, 11:49

When Lehman Brothers went under I went to take a photo of the London building and a security guard said "no photos". under polite questioning he admitted that if I photographed from across the street there was nothing he could do. I doubt he was within his rights anyway but there you go.

Over Christmas I took some pics in Woolworths, which just went under too. Got followed by a teenage jobsworth, then two other employees. A discussion with a more reasonable employee ensued and no problem.

It's not uncommon in the UK to be given one of these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3027248609/

Community Support Officers P*** me off the most as they are normally stupid, do not have police powers but act like they do and like bothering people for no good reason.

morback

01-05-2009, 11:57

Related: I happened to notice in the credits of the movie Hancock a line about "the image of the Empire State Building was used with permission from ESBC."
After a groan, an eye-roll, and some Googling, I found this (http://www.empirestatebuildingny.info/main.cfm?sid=boperations&pid=rmpsfcrews), which initially sounds aimed at professional and/or movie shooting, but the second paragraph sounds universally applicable. I'm sure they wouldn't seek fees from just any hobbyist photographer, but if you happened to make a skyline picture so fabulous that you could sell prints of it for profit at your gallery, and ESBC got wind of that, they might try to collect. Isn't greed (sorry, "monetization of intellectual property") lovely?!

BTW: On the subject of museums, maybe as others have said they are trying to protect exhibits. Maybe copyright owners are "forcing" them to forbid photography. But I suspect greed mostly governs here too: Museums quite happily forbid photography so that if you love an exhibit so much that you want to see it from time to time at home, you must pay their extortionate gift shop prices for books/prints rather than snap a picture for yourself.
--Dave

Well, I wish they were a little more discerning at museums. I don't take picture of artworks, those don't interest me (gasp!) per se. What I love is the interaction of the public within the space & art. I tried to take a picture of my friend in front of a weathered wall at the PSONE in Queens and I got prevented from that too. No artwork in the frame or proximity. But I guess they blanket prohibition to avoid being bogged down in arguments and exceptions.

Argenticien

01-05-2009, 11:59

They would not stand a chance in court in the US.

Yes, I thought it sounded like a load of bollocks. I don't know when they started trying to collect fees for use of the building's image, but "recently" I would think. And given the building has been part of the public viewshed for 78 years, something about failure to enforce this in the past ought to undercut a claim to enforcing it now. (Though I am not a legal scholar.)

Or if ESBC does collect from anyone, the state of New York ought in turn to collect from them for use of the term "Empire State". Then the British Crown should collect from the state for use of the term "Empire"... :D

bmattock

01-05-2009, 12:25

If all that was enforceable, Google Earth would owe a LOT of money...

George S.

01-05-2009, 19:51

bmattock,

I did not say "prosecuted" I said you could be detained or arrested. If your freedom has been restricted by the authorities for approx. 20 minutes, technically, you were arrested and you could theoretically sue. And there ARE some anti-photo laws on the books in NYC. (paragraph 3)

Here's an excerpt from the NPPA's release concerning the Republican National Convention, and note that paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 refer to other restrictions on "non-media" ... it seems that members of the media will get cooperation if they're working on a newsworthy job. It seems others probably will not get such cooperation

Photography restrictions?
Police officials emphasized that there are no photography restrictions on members of the media in any area under their jurisdiction. Some shooters have been prevented from taking photos in the subway, but there are no laws on the books that prevent photographers from taking photos at this point. In fact, it is legal for civilians to take photos on subways.

(The MTA is attempting to pass a law preventing non-media members from taking photos in the subways and stations. It is opposed by the NPPA.) Officials say anyone taking photos of sensitive sites on mass transit -- i.e., train tunnels, surveillance equipment, power supplies, etc .-- could expect to be questioned by police. However, Browne said NYPD policy is to facilitate photography.

There are laws against taking photos at Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority bridges and tunnels. Those taking photos at checkpoints should approach personnel at the site, state their purpose, and show identification. In most cases, photos will be permitted so long as they are not of the entrances to the tunnels or bridges.

Those seeking to take more photos of any of the structures can call TBTA spokesman Frank Pasquale at 646-252-7417. Pasquale has a history of being very cooperative and accommodating for legitimate media. Photography at Port Authority bridges and tunnels will attract the attention of police at those facilities, so be ready to answer questions and produce identification for authorities.

Those having problems with private security or other agencies in the city may call DCPI for assistance as NYPD considers photography in the city their jurisdiction. Problems have also been encountered from National Guardsmen augmenting security. Most are told not to prevent photographers from doing their jobs, but some have interfered in media operations - threatening some press with arrest. DCPI can assist with any problems in these cases too. NYPPA and NPPA leaders say outreach will be done with Department of Defense officials on these matters. Officials advise no matter what police or others try to do to prevent photography, "Don't argue with them." Instead, contact DCPI at 646-610-6700.

40oz

01-05-2009, 19:53

As far as taking pictures in stores goes, I once worked for Activision, the company that makes video games. I was asked to check out displays in Taret and Walmart whenever I happened to be there. If our game wasn't on the top shelf, to grab a dispoable camera and start taking pictures. We paid for the top shelf, and the pictures would show we were not getting our money's worth. Once I happened on such a display, and started snapping away. I was asked by an employee what I was doing, so I told him. That was the end of it on his side.

The Sunday after Thanksgiving I was pulled over by a local police officer after leaving my parent's business. Apparently the Saturday manager had seen me there the day before waiting to make a left from the lot, and thought I took a picture so she called 911. I guess Barney Fife is alive and well. Despite my best efforts to cooperate, the cop harassed me and threatened me for 20 minutes that afternoon for not committing a crime as far as I could tell. I did call the mayor and emailed the chief of police, but his second in commmand demonstrated a masterful grasp of how to be an idiot in a position of little power, I must say, lying and BSing about how there was an "investigation." It'll be a cold day in hell before I give a that town's cops the benefit of the doubt from that day forward, thanks to their behavior.

hitmanh

01-08-2009, 08:50

Here in the UK there have been some unpleasant incidents where people have been manhandled by security personnel & had cameras confiscated etc - none of this is likely to be legal.

It isn't, in the UK private security have no more powers than a private citizen. They have no legal right to confiscate equipment, demand photo's are deleted or physically detained you. All they can do is ask you to leave the premises.

As for the original post... it's private property and the owner can have any rules they like (within certain limits) and they have no requirement to explain the reasoning behind those rules to you. Why people waste time demanding to know reason behind the rules is beyond me. The security guard has neither the power or the inclination to change things just for you.

George S.

01-08-2009, 09:22

40oz,
You were given some slack beecause you identified yourself as an employee of Actvision, who had a display there. A lot of vendors do take shots of their displays after they set them up, either because they think it looks good, or they need to prove to their boss that the store display was done properly. We regularly threw out comparison shoppers from other stores as well as the amateur videographer who wanted to shoot a scene from his movie when I worked for Home Depot. You can spy all you want up and until the point that you whip out a camera, that is their policy. ( And many other retail chains' policies )

ElectroWNED

01-24-2009, 12:24

I just have to wonder what danger a camera poses inside of a shopping mall...?

bmattock

01-24-2009, 12:35

I just have to wonder what danger a camera poses inside of a shopping mall...?

Who says it is a 'danger'? Even if there is danger, who says it is the 'camera' that causes it?

Inside private property the owners and managers have the right to restrict photography if they wish to, although I certainly suspect that's going to become harder and harder to enforce, with more and more people wandering around with cell-phone cameras these days.

Why do they often choose to restrict it? I don't know the reasons, but I can take a few guesses - and ultimately, they don't have to have any reasons.

One reason might be as simple as liability. Malls get sued all the time - slip and fall, etc. Photographic evidence of a spill or a leak might not do them any good in court. Or, they might get sued by someone who was wandering around looking through a lens and stumbled over a balcony - stupid people love to sue other people for how stupid they are. Or they might get sued by someone who tripped over another person who stopped and took a photo suddenly. Things like that. Ridiculous? Sure, but lawyers are paid to think up things like that - and try to prevent them from happening, or at least 'forbidding it' so that the mall is less liable if it does happen.

Another might be pressure from their tenants, who don't want corporate espionage, like photos of how full or empty their store is, how well-lit, how attractively decorated, mall location, what their customers look and dress like, blah, blah, blah. That's not to say that such things can't happen anyway, with hidden cameras and so on, but they stop what they can, the low-hanging fruit, that kind of thing.

And I'm not arguing that their reasons are good ones - but that doesn't mean they don't have reasons. Anyway, in the end, it's their mall, their rules. I worry about what I can do something about - like restrictions on photography in public spaces outdoors.

Al Kaplan

01-24-2009, 12:59

The most rediculous "no photograpy" restrictions are the ones at places like airports. Many such places have video cameras all over the interior, nice and high up near the ceiling too, and if you go to their website you can tour the facility on your computer screen. If nobody else has control of one of the cameras at the moment then you can take over, panning, tilting, and zooming to your heart's content. You can do it from your home, office, or even with a laptop.

Michael Markey

01-24-2009, 13:01

Recently went to take some pictures at Lancaster castle just up the road from where I live.It is 800 years old but still used as a prison and court room. The court was in session that day. About to fire off a few shots when I noticed the sign saying that any attempt at photography carried a min of two years in prison. Camera quickly put away !

astroman

01-24-2009, 13:20

arj7297

01-28-2009, 09:46

Hi all,

new to the forum..last week I went to take some pix on the La Metro starting at Hollywood/Highland towards Union St.

I was taking some b&w's of the metro and trains, and when I got in the car a guy came up to me and said, "do you have a permit"? I said, "no, I'm just a tourist". He said, "you're not allowed to take pictures!", in a really bossy tone. I said, "im just taking a light reading" (white lie).

Anyway, I'm originally from NYC and have taken tons of photo's on the subway...So I emailed metro and got this response:

If you use a hand held camera, refrain from taking pictures of METRO
passengers or any models you bring to the stations, refrain from taking
pictures while riding inside the train, and conduct your activities in
a safe and professional manner, as most tourist do, you are ALLOWED to
take photo in the METRO.

Herman Hagan
Film Manager
213 922-5616

dave lackey

01-28-2009, 09:59

arj7297

01-28-2009, 10:06

exactly!:bang:

ElectroWNED

01-31-2009, 07:21

it means you print that out and carry it with you, so the next time some Fascist pig tries to stop you from taking pictures, you hand him the copy and keep shooting.

bmattock

01-31-2009, 07:44

it means you print that out and carry it with you, so the next time some Fascist pig tries to stop you from taking pictures, you hand him the copy and keep shooting.

Standing up for your rights is important. Be aware that when you do, you risk having to be arrested, go to jail, and then fight in court to defend that right.

The chances are that if a police officer tells you that photography is forbidden in this place or that place, he or she is not going to be out-argued by you or read your little print-out, or give up and go away because you ignore them and keep shooting. Chances are, you'll be arrested.

I'm not advocating bowing down and giving up. Nor am I advocating standing up to 'the man' at every chance. I am suggesting that you be aware of what might happen and make your decision about what you wish to do about it.

I've done both - sometimes because I had to be at work on Monday, and being in a cell makes it tough to phone in sick. Pick your battles. You have my respect if you are willing to go all the way with it - people do need to do that if the police are going to amend their ways.

Gabriel M.A.

01-31-2009, 07:47

I always thought that if you were on private property (malls, shopping centers) then the owners have the right to forbid photography. Am I wrong in this assumption?

Given that "private property" of that scale is often funded with taxpayer money, well...

JoeV

01-31-2009, 07:54

I know this forum hosts afficionados of classic camera technology, but these circumstances are ideal for the technology of the cell phone camera. The right tool for the right job.

Of course, taking photos of passengers on the LA metro is still illegal, even with a cellphone camera; it's just the chances of getting caught are less. So Bill's point is very relevant: there's a point where we must stand up for our rights, but be prepared for the consequences of doing so.

I suspect the only way this situation is going to get better for photographers universally is an organized movement or campaign. Education, lobbying governments for legal reform and protection, etc. One problem I can foresee is conflict of interest with others who favor continued isolation and restriction of the photography populace, in the name of "privacy", protection of trademark or intellectual property, or "terrorism".

You'd think the camera manufacturers would have a vested interest in this issue, as restriction of use would seemingly affect long term viability of sales, especially regarding specialist equipment marketed to the enthusiast sector, where profit margins are higher. Like street photographers.

~Joe