"No Photography" - Security Guard at Retail Center

[dave lackey]

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-p...scription.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?

[ddimaria]

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]

Originally Posted by ddimaria

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....

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by ddimaria

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...

[ddimaria]

Yeah well, you should have taken his picture.

[srichmond]

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.

[andrewmore]

Originally Posted by srichmond

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

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by dave lackey

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.

[Ken Ford]

Originally Posted by bmattock

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

Same here.

[Argenticien]

Originally Posted by bmattock

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, 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

[morback]

Originally Posted by Argenticien

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, 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]

Originally Posted by photomoof

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"...

[bmattock]

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]

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.

[Merkin]

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.

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by Merkin

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]

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 ).

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]

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

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by btgc

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]

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.

[marke]

Originally Posted by 35mmdelux

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.

[George S.]

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....

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by George S.

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.

[Bob Michaels]

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.

[morback]

Originally Posted by bmattock

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...