| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/13/2006 12:52:00 PM · #1 |
LONG POST ALERT!
Add me to the ranks of those who have been asked to leave the premisis.
I was out and about yesterday, with a mind to get some "Singled Out" photos. In the afternoon my wife and I went to a rather upscale outdoor mall near us. I had my D70 and my very scary 90mm macro lens.
The crowds were non existent. I got a couple candid shots, which I'll post up after I get a chance to PP them, but nothing suitable for the challenge. We went off to dinner in the (indoor) food court. Inside the food court I shot a couple more candids before sitting down for dinner. When we were about to leave I noticed some very colorful stained-glass skylights (something I've never seen before) so I popped off a couple shots of the skylights.
It was at this point, that I noticed Mr. Security guard ambling towards me. He was very polite, and informed me that I was not allowed to take photographs of the "structures" (his word exactly) without permission from the management office. No problem, I said, and packed up the camera. He didn't ask for my camera, my film or memory card, or anything else. Just instructed me not to take pictures of the structures, and off he went.
My wife, son, and I continued to shop, and at one point we were near one of the entrances, where I noticed poster with the mall "Code of Conduct" which I hadn't seen before. I read it, and sure enough one of the points was "No non-recreational photography, videography,..." (Yes, that's an exact quote...)
About an hour later, my wife was buying shoes for my son, a project I had absolutley no interest in, so I wandered outside. There was a newly installed Zen Garden type fountain thingie, with lots of auqatic grass, rolling and bubbling water, etc. This was a great chance to practice the technique of slow shutter speed to make moving water look all misty and "cottony," something I've been wanting to try. I took pause though, and considered my options... The two things I knew: no taking pictures of structures, and no "non-recreational" photography. I figured a fountain isn't a structure, and the photo was recreational, so I was safe. I took a few pictures (none of which turned out that great) like this one...
Clicky for biggie... Bigger version in my blog...
It wasn't a minute later that a different security officer was on my tail, asking if I had permission to take pictures. I told him I was instructed not to take pictures of "structures," but that was all, and was a fountain a structure? "You can't take pictures of ANYTHING" was his response. OK, I said, packing up the camera again, no problem. No pictures of ANYTHING. He left, I headed back to the store where my wife was.
He got about 25 yards away, turned around, and started calling "Sir!" at me. I waited for him to come back, and when he got back to me he told me that I had already been warned once, and that since I didn't listen I was being asked to leave the mall. I could wait in the parking lot, but if I stayed or returned to the property they would call the police and have me arrested for trespassing. I asked if I could go to the mall office to talk to the General Manager, or whoever was on duty, and I was told no, that I had to leave.
I got the keys from my wife and let her know what was going on. She clucked at me (her silly photobug husband, in trouble with the law!) and promised to go to the office for me. The security mangager and assistant general manager, she was told, were willing to talk to me, but they were in a meeting for about another half an hour. So I waited in the car.
Eventually they called my wife back and she went to the office, where she was assured I wouldn't be arrested on my way to the office, and I re-entered the mall. We ended up having a nice 20 minute chat in the room where they usually arrest shoplifters (tactic one, I suspect at making me feel off guard). I was nothing but polite and concilitory. I told them that I am fully aware that they have the right to prohibit whatever they want on their property. I asserted, however, that I have the right to take pictures of whatever I wanted, as long as I wasn't invading the expectation of privacy or violating the land owner's rules. A sign admonishing "non-recreational photography" and a verbal instruction to not photograph "structures" didn't mean to me, that I couldn't photograph a fountain, I said. They huffed and puffed several times, made reference to their tennants not wanting their stores photographed, security concerns, etc. etc. They kept saying "archetichural" photography, like they are afraid their competitors are going to rip off their roof lines or something. They said they don't mind people taking pictures of their family in front of the fountain, "if you know what I mean." Not ONCE could they clearly or succintly state for me what I could and couldn't take a picture of.
In the end it took me asking the direct question "Can I take a picture of the fountain, if my family is not standing in front of it" THREE seperate times before finally the assistant general mangaer spoke up and told me "No."
So that's that. I told them I had absolutley no problem at all complyling with their rules, as long as they tell me what the rules are. They kept talking to me like a punk, and I left, swearing to never patronize that particular mall again. Which is a real shame, because it's a VERY pretty place, very photogenic, and I would LOVE to take some recreational photos of it. Oh well, let them be troglodites if they wish.
Be careful out there people.
If you were in my shoes, would you have handled it differently? Is a fountain a structure?
edit: fixee linkee
Message edited by author 2006-01-13 13:04:27.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 12:54:45 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 12:59:41 PM · #3 |
| The most salient point in your post (IMO) was your effort to maintain perfect civility and politeness in the face of such idiotic drivel. I would have done exactly the same thing and handled it the same way. It's not easy being polite and level while this type of thing is going on, is it? |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:05:33 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
No image. |
Friggin Blogger. All better now.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:16:05 PM · #5 |
| Always carry a copy of the Photographer's Rights with you. Then if something like this happens, you'll have something to back up your assertions. I suspect that if you contacted a lawyer, they would would have a hard time justifying their actions. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:17:46 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:19:50 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Always carry a copy of the Photographer's Rights with you. Then if something like this happens, you'll have something to back up your assertions. I suspect that if you contacted a lawyer, they would would have a hard time justifying their actions. |
Really their only "actions" in this case was asking him to leave though wasn't it? Do they need to have a reason to ask him to leave? (serious questions - I don't know) |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:21:37 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Always carry a copy of the Photographer's Rights with you. Then if something like this happens, you'll have something to back up your assertions. I suspect that if you contacted a lawyer, they would would have a hard time justifying their actions. |
They don't have to justify their actions. They did nothing wrong and well within their rights as owners.
They don't have to let you shop/photograph/ walk anywhere inside their mall and can kick you out for whatever reason they like.
It's their mall. Once they tell you to leave and you don't, you are trespassing. All the photographer's rights cards and the like are all pretty clear on that point.
No, you don't have to give back pictures, hand over cards or any of that, but nobody appeared to ask for that in this case. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:22:39 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Always carry a copy of the Photographer's Rights with you. Then if something like this happens, you'll have something to back up your assertions. I suspect that if you contacted a lawyer, they would would have a hard time justifying their actions. |
Actually, Shannon, that's kind of the point of my post. Did my actions break their rules of no "non-recreational photogtaphy" and no "photography of structures"?
In the end they told me not to take pictures of anything, unless it's of my family, which is their right as the land owners. So I never will (and based on how I was treated, I'll probably do my own personal boycott of that company's properties).
I was more taken aback at being treated like a common criminal, and annoyed at their lack of a clear policy. It seems like they purposely wrote the policy so they could throw out whomever they wanted, and they wanted me out.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:30:13 PM · #10 |
It sounded like you stopped taking pictures and went back in the mall to meet up with your wife. When the security guard came back and stopped you for THAT (i.e. doing nothing), I think he overstepped his bounds. At that point, he had only asked you not to take pictures, and you weren't.
Message edited by author 2006-01-13 13:32:45. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:33:48 PM · #11 |
You acted in a civil manner and asked to speak with the authorities - it was all you could do. You discussed the policies, asked clarification and came to an understanding. Not all parties agreed. And unfortunately, a photo opportunity cannot be explored because of the policies that this mall is enforcing. Since it is an indoor mall and their are private businesses it can be considered private property (even though they are offering goods and services to the public). One could take them to task legally but the question becomes is it worth the effort: it is up to each and every individual to answer.
One can argue that the fountain is on private property and as such the oweners can legally limit what is done on their property - they MAY have been concerned that you were using that as a cover to hide criminal intent. Case in point I had an encounter with a business owner who was making sure I was not "Casing" his business.
I had an encounter where I was taking pictures and was 'confronted' by the owner. It turned out O.K. as that every situation is different. I had constantly driven past by this old looking building near a busy public street. I had noticed that there were murals hidden and faded under the vines and plant life growing on them. I stopped one day to photograph them. 5 minutes later a 6 foot gentleman walked up to me informed me he was the owner of private property and asked why I was taking pictures.
Having heard of other photographers getting confronted I handled it like they recommend you do. Speak truthfully and civilly I introduced myself. I told him that I was interested in the murals half hidden underneath and that I am a photographer. I told him I could give him my business card and proceeded to ask him if he knew the history about the murals. He came over to look at what I was looking at and then relaxed a little. He said that their had been a rash of break-in\'s to his catering business (you would never have guessed that it was a catering business if you saw the building which looked like a mix between a barn and an airplane hanger). For the next 10 minutes I asked questions about the murals and he told me what he could but all the time he seemed to be studying/watching me just in case I wasn\'t truthful. I can understand his concern as that he originally believed I was Casing the place and that his business had suffered enough break-in\'s. I asked again if he wanted my business card but he declined and went back inside when he saw that I was done. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:34:31 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by livitup:
It seems like they purposely wrote the policy so they could throw out whomever they wanted, and they wanted me out. |
Well, that's the point isn't it ? The policy is just some guidelines - probably at the end is some blanket statement like 'and any other reason we feel like it' in legalise. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:35:45 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It sounded like you stopped taking pictures and went back in the mall to meet up with your wife. When the security guard came back and stopped you for THAT (i.e. doing nothing), I think he overstepped his bounds. At that point, he had only asked you not to take pictures, and you weren't. |
I assumed he'd called it in and got told about the previous warning and then followed through.
Again - they are perfectly within their rights to throw you out for doing nothing at all. They can't physically toss you out, but they could have you arrested for just standing there quietly, once they tell you that you are trespassing. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:35:54 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It sounded like you stopped taking pictures and went back in the mall to meet up with your wife. When the security guard came back and stopped you for THAT (i.e. doing nothing), I think he overstepped his bounds. |
The guard who threw me out is the same one who told me not to take pictures the second time. He admonished me, walked away, and probably 15 seconds later turned around and started back towards me. He stated that I was being thrown out because I took pictures a second time, after I was warned the first time.
What I imagine happened is that someone contacted him on his walkie talkie and instructed him to throw me out after he "cleared the scene." It probably took them that long to realize I was the same person.
My assertion at the time was that the policy was unclear, and that the verbal warning of the first officer to not take pictures of "structures" didn't match up with the management's expectation that I would only take snapshots of my family.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:37:18 PM · #15 |
Livitup,
I can contribute something to the question: Is a fountain a structure? The answer is probably, "yes" subject to the zoning of that community. As a Zoning Commissioner of our comunity we were faced with the question often. In our zoning code, a structure was any construction 2 feet or higher off the ground not including any foundation. Next question we would get: Do I need a permit for a bird house then?! Our zoning went on to describe other dimensions which excluded "bird houses." In truth, the fountain would have also come under County zoning codes in our area as well. My guess is that this is also true of the mall in your area.
Please understand this is only a thumbnail response to the zoning code.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:40:20 PM · #16 |
Everyone will have a different opinion and we'll have to take your word that you remained uber calm. The non-photography public will almost always have something to say about seeing a camera where they weren't expecting to..like at the mall :-) And mall security guards are probably bored out of their minds to begin with and have probably zippo training. Next time, carry some ninja stars in your camera bag and pull a James Bond exit on their asses! Throw in a dive/roll: very cool.
:-)
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:41:49 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Again - they are perfectly within their rights to throw you out for doing nothing at all. They can't physically toss you out, but they could have you arrested for just standing there quietly, once they tell you that you are trespassing. |
Gordon, this is absolutely right, and I said that in as many words to the managers when I had my "day in court" with them. I told them that I understood fully their right as property owners to set about whatever rules they wanted to for people to be on that property. My assertion to them is that their rules are very vague, and that if they don't want people to take close up pictures of streams of water, then they shouldn't say "no non-recreational photography."
Again, their loss, because it's a really pretty place. :(
P.S... C Novack, it's an outoor mall, not that it changes anything. They can still bar admittance to whomever they want, recreational photographers included. :)
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 01:44:05 PM · #18 |
I'm going to reframe from making any assertions about rights and loss of freedom. I've stated my opinion on this matter enough in other threads.
I just want to say that livitup handled himself well in this matter. We're not going to win many friends in fighting for our rights, if we don't do it with civility.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 02:34:53 PM · #19 |
| I think you handled yourself excellently and it's just a shame everybody has their panties in a wad these days about pictures. Good on you. End of story. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 02:53:40 PM · #20 |
| I agree with DrAtchoo; I think you handled it well. In similar circumstances, I have twice recently had people try to get me to desist in shooting photos. I immediately tried to get them to see how cool the images I was shooting appeared through the lens of the camera, and in starting them 'chimping' at my images, ended up with them asking cor copies of the images. Maybe it was luck, I hope my enthusiasm for the subject was infectious. In any event, both sets of censors ended up being positive experiences rather than otherwise. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 02:55:49 PM · #21 |
Sorry you had to run into people like that, it's really frustrating when you're just trying to get photos of stuff.
I think you did well too, except for one thing - after the guard said the thing about taking pictures of 'structures', I would have interpreted that to mean 'put the camera away until you leave the premises'.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 03:09:00 PM · #22 |
Another option to consider in some circumstances is to ask permission and guidelines FIRST, if you think there might possibly be any issues.
I have found that presenting my card, giving a little background about why I want to shoot there (and probably the fact that I'm a harmless looking, middle-aged woman) before I shoot anything, helps! I get the name of whoever it is I've spoken to, just in case the lines of communication aren't clear (assume that they are not.) I also always point out on my card my online gallery. That way they can see that yep...I really do just like to take pictures!
Of course, it's not always possible to do ask first, but I think it's a good policy when it is possible. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 03:15:10 PM · #23 |
i had a small assignment for the paper where i had to go shoot a new outdoor mall here.
i shot one photo before a security guard stopped me and told me i couldn't take any photos. i explained i was with the paper and she said i had to talk to management.
so i spoke with some overly-made-up PR chick and told her what i was doing. she wanted to know what the story was about ("i don't know, i'm just the photographer.") she wanted to know about the paper ("it's a lifestyle paper, ma'am...it just details things around town that people might want to do.") she wanted to know if she could proofread the article before it went to press...
...it was at that point in time that i got slightly snippy. i was like "you DO understand how newspapers work, right?" of course she couldn't proof it. she started to get all huffy and was telling me about how since this is a "new" concept, people might want to steal their ideas. i pointed out that the newspaper hadn't yet done a story about the OTHER new outdoor mall that had JUST opened up on the other side of town and that i could go over there instead.
"new" concept? shopping outdoors? haven't these people ever watched little house on the prairie? how do they think people shopped before there were malls?
anyway, she "graciously" said i could proceed, but i had to have a security guard walk around with me. we got outside (it was about 10 degrees that day) and i asked the guard where i could go. he goes "man, i don't give a sh*t. shoot whatever you want." lol. i proceeded to do just that, and the mall got a really nice fluff piece in the paper.
anyway, that's not totally related, but i thought it was funny. long story short: it's their right to boot you. in this case, it was totally in their interest to let me stay there 'cause i would have gotten paid either way. :) |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 03:23:03 PM · #24 |
| I would have been escorted out even more quickly by pointing out that I wasn't photographing the fountain, and that they'd have a hard time convincing anyone that flowing water constitutes a "structure," and besides, I was only shooting for my own recreation. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 03:28:31 PM · #25 |
I have seen this thread theme before & I am sure it was started by someone else who was taking photographs in a mall. I myself had a run in with security guards & got asked to leave when taking photograhs for the Lucky 7 challenge back in 2004. It was the first time this had ever happened to me & I was a little shocked to say the least especially as it was in a very public place. Unfortunetly I cant find the thread to link to but basically the result was that when taking photographs anywhere public there is always an official somewhere that wants you to ask permission.
|
|
