"No Photography" - Security Guard at Retail Center

[parsec1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by troym

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/viewt...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/downloa...s_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]

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

[parsec1]

Originally Posted by photomoof

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]

Originally Posted by Erik L

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]

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

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by photomoof

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]

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/siniste...es/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]

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]

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

[George S.]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by evergreen2253

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.]

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]

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

[bmattock]

Originally Posted by ElectroWNED

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Michael Markey

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 !

Can they really do that?
Do we have no freedom any more!

[arj7297]

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