froyd
Veteran
This is one pic I took at the mall, just before Paul Blart swooped in.
Leica R-E, Summicron 50 ROM, Fuji C200, Nikon Z7 scan, negativelabpro.com
Apparently, Barbie, you can't be a film photographer..
WOW! That's an outrageous image. Count yourself lucky you did not get a beating with a broomstick! Had it been taken with an iPhone on Portrait mode, it would be a whole different thing, but as it stands, I'll have to add you to my RFF ignore list.
Faintandfuzzy
Well-known
Sorry...that is nonsense. I've photographed near the US embassy in the UK and Canada and never saw anyone or had an issue.
ChipMcD
Well-known
I thought that NYC required a tripod permit from the city for use of one on public streets, but I was wrong. See this link (https://www1.nyc.gov/site/mome/permits/when-permit-required.page) and the last sentence under the heading "When a Permit Is Required," which states "Permits are not required for casual photographers, tourists or credentialed members of the media." Nice to know for my next trip, If I am planning on walking the Brooklyn Bridge and photographing Manhattan.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Around here, I get a lot of folks asking me if I work for the county. And I keep my eyes open for dogs that some of them like to let loose on strangers.
PF
PF
olifaunt
Well-known
Those are not client countries of the U.S., and they have some civil rights protections, so maybe the O.P.'s "anywhere" was too broad, but only slightly. Elsewhere, forget about it. I come from a developing country and I can attest that treatment of non-U.S. nationals both outside and inside of U.S. embassies/consulates is atrociously disrespectful, and has been so for decades. Most Americans really don't know how abusively their superpower status is projected in the rest of the world by the functionaries they appoint to represent them and how much ill will towards this country it causes.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Sounds like load of BS.
I was in American embassy, consulate at three different locations as Russian.
No diffrence from UK, Finnish embassies.
Last time I was in American consulate in Toronto, African descent security guard was speaking to me in Russian. He was resently from Russia, where he went to University for four years.
But my wife and I were harassed by typical Toronto white trash, walking with German sherpard unleashed behind USA consulate. Just because we were speaking non English.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
It seems like there are a lot of angry people these days, and they like to vent their anger on photographers. I started noticing this trend about 10-11 years ago so it is not due to any recent event(s) that have people inflamed.
Security guards and government employees also seem to relish targeting photographers, in spite of the fact that there has never been one verified/documented instance of terrorists using cameras. Terrorists prefer to do use AK-47s, Semtex and exploding suicide vests filled with nails to commit their acts of savagery.
Governments - and their employees - like to wield power and control other people though, and apparently photographers have been deemed easy targets for such posing and flexing.
All the above is a sad commentary on life in the modern era, especially for those of us who want to just be able to make photographs and be left alone while doing so.
Security guards and government employees also seem to relish targeting photographers, in spite of the fact that there has never been one verified/documented instance of terrorists using cameras. Terrorists prefer to do use AK-47s, Semtex and exploding suicide vests filled with nails to commit their acts of savagery.
Governments - and their employees - like to wield power and control other people though, and apparently photographers have been deemed easy targets for such posing and flexing.
All the above is a sad commentary on life in the modern era, especially for those of us who want to just be able to make photographs and be left alone while doing so.
willie_901
Veteran
In the United states it is legal to take photographs with any device in a public space. There is ample legal precedent for the definition of individuals' right to privacy and the right to photograph private property.[1]
However, the owner of the property or their authorized representatives (mall cops) have the right to instruct you to stop. If you refuse to comply they have the right to escort you off the property. They also have the right to ban you from the property for any period of time. They can warn you if you return (with or without a camera) you will be charged with trespassing. This rarely occurs.
Private security employees may not touch you or your property. The have no legal right to insist you delete images or to destroy exposed film. But if you refuse their request, they can legally insist you leave.
Of course private security employees often verbally threaten you. But their threats are legally limited to escorting you off of the property. This is not harassment. If you become irate and emotional or just refuse to leave, their only legal recourse is to call local law enforcement officers and press charges (public disturbance, battery, etc). Likewise if the private security employees commit battery against you (unreasonable threats or harassment) and you have witnesses who will testify, you could call local law enforcement and press charges.
I too have been told to stop using my camera by mall cops. I politely tell them I understand and promise to keep my camera in the bag. This ends the discussion.
Image usage is a separate matter. They may not be used for any commercial purpose. They may be used for editorial purposes. If you happen to have exhibited photographs in juried art shows, courts typically accept your usage intent is editorial. However you can not defame subjects.
Finally, when private property is posted with appropriate signage prohibiting any type of photography you can be charged with trespassing without any warning. Even editorial use can result in a law suit.
1. People have a right to privacy unless "The intentional intrusion upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."( Restatement of Torts 2d, Section 652B). The law does not differentiate between minors and adults. Foe example, if you sunbath on your front lawn and someone takes your photograph from public property, you have no expectation of privacy. If you sunbath in your backyard surrounded by an 8 foot wall and someone holds the camera above the wall and takes takes your photograph from public property, you have a legal expectation of privacy.
However, the owner of the property or their authorized representatives (mall cops) have the right to instruct you to stop. If you refuse to comply they have the right to escort you off the property. They also have the right to ban you from the property for any period of time. They can warn you if you return (with or without a camera) you will be charged with trespassing. This rarely occurs.
Private security employees may not touch you or your property. The have no legal right to insist you delete images or to destroy exposed film. But if you refuse their request, they can legally insist you leave.
Of course private security employees often verbally threaten you. But their threats are legally limited to escorting you off of the property. This is not harassment. If you become irate and emotional or just refuse to leave, their only legal recourse is to call local law enforcement officers and press charges (public disturbance, battery, etc). Likewise if the private security employees commit battery against you (unreasonable threats or harassment) and you have witnesses who will testify, you could call local law enforcement and press charges.
I too have been told to stop using my camera by mall cops. I politely tell them I understand and promise to keep my camera in the bag. This ends the discussion.
Image usage is a separate matter. They may not be used for any commercial purpose. They may be used for editorial purposes. If you happen to have exhibited photographs in juried art shows, courts typically accept your usage intent is editorial. However you can not defame subjects.
Finally, when private property is posted with appropriate signage prohibiting any type of photography you can be charged with trespassing without any warning. Even editorial use can result in a law suit.
1. People have a right to privacy unless "The intentional intrusion upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."( Restatement of Torts 2d, Section 652B). The law does not differentiate between minors and adults. Foe example, if you sunbath on your front lawn and someone takes your photograph from public property, you have no expectation of privacy. If you sunbath in your backyard surrounded by an 8 foot wall and someone holds the camera above the wall and takes takes your photograph from public property, you have a legal expectation of privacy.
Huss
Veteran
I understand all that jazz. Weird thing is he told me I can take pics with my phone but not with my camera. FYI I was not taking pics of people.
Ambro51
Collector/Photographer
I would have turned the tables and made it a photo essay about a Security Guard. Did he have a white shirt and Segway?
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
The situation is a reflection of human psychology: someone with a cellphone is perceived as harmless, distracted, and just one of thousands of others in the area. Someone with an actual dedicated camera is perceived as announcing "I am a photographer; I am deliberately recording things". To some, this is vaguely threatening or invasive. To the mall cop, part of his attitude may stem from thinking "I don't want to take any chances in case something happens". Thus he requests you to remove your threatening device and conform to the rest of the crowd: to adopt the cloak of anonymity which removes his uneasiness.
As for photographing trees in Washington DC... Those are secret trees. What the hell are you trying to do, start a war?
As for photographing trees in Washington DC... Those are secret trees. What the hell are you trying to do, start a war?
dotur
od karnevala
It happened to me twice, in two Zagreb malls, some years ago.
Malls are not free public spaces, they are confined and privately owned large traps for buyers, well organized hunting grounds, trade concentration camps. Security guards are there to control the behaviour of consumer venison and to steer us efficiently towards the cash-collecting devices. As for now - due to the pharisaical, apparent defence of individual privacy - they are not allowed to deprive us of our smartphones yet... but classic cameras from past two centuries are something else. Dangerous, unnecessary and distracting toys! Long live Santa! Long live Black Friday!
Malls are not free public spaces, they are confined and privately owned large traps for buyers, well organized hunting grounds, trade concentration camps. Security guards are there to control the behaviour of consumer venison and to steer us efficiently towards the cash-collecting devices. As for now - due to the pharisaical, apparent defence of individual privacy - they are not allowed to deprive us of our smartphones yet... but classic cameras from past two centuries are something else. Dangerous, unnecessary and distracting toys! Long live Santa! Long live Black Friday!
Ambro51
Collector/Photographer
Ohhh Kayyyy
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
When I was in college in the 90’s (New Joisey) I took whatever side jobs to survive and one of them was in security. Security companies are contractors for clients including malls, industrial parks, retailers, etc. When you enter an office building the person signing you in at the elevator lobby is a security guard working for a contractor.
The security contractor takes strict instructions from the client. The client sets the rules. It isn’t some power trip if you are told not to photograph. It’s private property and people there have expectations of privacy. The phones make that a moot point but the failure to keep up with technology is a common issue.
The security contractor takes strict instructions from the client. The client sets the rules. It isn’t some power trip if you are told not to photograph. It’s private property and people there have expectations of privacy. The phones make that a moot point but the failure to keep up with technology is a common issue.
olifaunt
Well-known
Can't you sell an image taken on private property? That sounds highly dubious to me if you are referring to the U.S. with its free speech laws, and I can think of many examples by artists who did and who do just this. Just consider the iconic scenes in airports, department stores, shops, bars, rodeos, county fairs, convention centers, elevators, diners, barber shops, zoos, etc., by Frank, Winogrand, Herzog, Shore, etc.
willie_901
Veteran
Years ago just before demolition was to begin at the St. Louis Cardinals baseball venue (Bush Stadium) I used a tripod while photographing the statues and plaques in the plaza outside the stadium – a public area. I'm sure those statues were on stadium property and there is public access 24 hours per day.
About 10 minutes into working a uniformed employee (not a security guard) drove up in an over-sized golf cart. They did two laps around me and the statue I was photographing and drove away.
When St. Louis light rail system expanded to where I lived, I contacted the PR Director about their photography policies. They sent an email stating photography was permitted with three limitations. One of them was no tripods or light stands. They explained these were a tripping hazard.
willie_901
Veteran
Strictly prohibiting phone photography would be too expensive. They would have to hire many more security people
Strictly prohibiting phone photography would make the mall environment appear hostile to 99% of the people who visit. The 99% with phones will not take photos but they will be disturbed they can't if they want to. The less than 1% who would use a traditional camera don't matter.
raid
Dad Photographer
Brian Atherton
Well-known
I have written about this on posts before: more and more of our public spaces in UK cities that are being redeveloped are being privatised.
Following the redevelopment, quite often there is little or no indiction that one has stepped onto what has now become private property: what used to be a public open space is now owned and managed by a privately owned company, and is managed by security employed by them. They allow the public to access their property on their terms.
My home city, London, is being quietly carved up into private ownership up by developers, most often as a price for the development and improvement of an area. Real estate is very big business.
This said, over the years on my extensive travels around London (and other European cities) I have never, bar a couple of occasions, been harassed or treated unfairly by security, when photographing on their patch… but then I tend not to draw attention to myself when out with a camera.
Following the redevelopment, quite often there is little or no indiction that one has stepped onto what has now become private property: what used to be a public open space is now owned and managed by a privately owned company, and is managed by security employed by them. They allow the public to access their property on their terms.
My home city, London, is being quietly carved up into private ownership up by developers, most often as a price for the development and improvement of an area. Real estate is very big business.
This said, over the years on my extensive travels around London (and other European cities) I have never, bar a couple of occasions, been harassed or treated unfairly by security, when photographing on their patch… but then I tend not to draw attention to myself when out with a camera.