Harassed by security guard in mall..

[jbhthescots]

I was once stopped by security in Macy's in Downtown Seattle just because I walked in with a camera hanging around my neck, as is my wont at most times.

I had no intentions of taking any pictures, but the security guy got all flustered, telling me in no uncertain terms that I couldn't take pictures in the store. So I said to him: "What makes you think I'm here to take photos?" He replied: "Well, you have a camera around your neck." "True, I do," said I, before adding: "...and I'm also wearing a pair of boxer shorts, but somehow I don't think you'll be seeing me boxing in here either!"

And with that, I just left him hanging on that thought.

 

[Keith]

What's with the sexist generalisations about 'bored women' ... it's 2019 people!

 

[css9450]

Westfield is well known as having an official "no photography" policy. The Simon malls are the same way.

The irony of course is that at any given moment, there's probably a dozen different people filming selfies right there in the mall, with their phones. I wonder if they ever get hassled?

 

[markjwyatt]

i wonder how policies will change when smartphone cameras get "good enough." ...

Wasn't that 3-4 years ago?

 

[Bill Clark]

Pretty hard to stop people from taking photos now. With electronic devices, it seems like some people have their smart phone glued to one of their hands.

Not long ago, at the Guthrie theater here in Minneapolis, no photos allowed was their policy. Now anyone can take photos in the theater before, at intermission and the end of the play.

https://www.guthrietheater.org/globalassets/pdf/photopolicy_flyer.pdf

Notice the cost of wedding and portrait photography.

Some have woke up to the fact that this is the 21st century and taking photographs with electronic devices happens. Almost all the time!

As far as malls are concerned it’s just another nail in their coffin and an additional reason to buy from Amazon. By the way several malls here have a lot of available space to lease. Tongue in cheek, I wonder why?

Take a look here:

http://www.startribune.com/rosedale...hor-space-into-housing-green-space/507118882/

Other shopping malls in the Twin Cities and across the country have added hotels and nearby apartments in recent years as the rise of online shopping has forced brick-and-mortar retailers to innovate.

 

[Austintatious]

We all know that in a shopping mall like this, we are all being photographed without our permission by the security cameras on the property. They can do it but we can not ?

 

[markjwyatt]

Usually if a private concern has a rule it needs to be fair and enforceable on everyone. They cannot pick on one person but not another. You cannot exclude tall people or fat people. Cell phones have cameras, so if they had a rule that certain types of cameras are allowed but not others then they would need some rational for it. A camera is a camera is a device that can produce an image. Saying that you can use a 40 MP cell phone mounted camera but not 24 MP traditional camera or an approximately 8 MP 35mm film camera is arbitrary, and the person with the traditional camera is being discriminated against. Cameraist! Cameraist! Call the FBI! I am being discriminted against because my camera is not packaged in a cell phone that takes excellent quality images and can transmit them worldwide at light speed! I am poor and can only afford this old 1940s German Leica film camera. Are you discriminating against poor people here in Westfield Mall?

 

[Archiver]

The one time I was stopped by someone at a mall was in 2003(?) in a department store. There was a rather fetching Wedgwood teapot and I wanted a picture of it, so I took out my silver pocket camera and took a photo. Not very conspicuously, either.

A stern woman approached me and told me that I wasn't allowed to take photos in the store. I was polite and friendly, said I was sorry, and put away my camera.

Next thing I know, my friend said that we were being followed by a security guard. A security guard! I laughed and said I didn't give a shxx. This guy followed us around the department store until we left. What a pair of bozos.

 

[Archiver]

And yep, it gets silly. I was in a local 'designer food' store (no, not that one, another one). I had a Rolleiflex around my shoulder. A manager approached me soon after I came in and told me that I couldn't photograph in the store. I asked why- retail display and design, and customer privacy. As we spoke, someone came along with a phone and took a series of photos of the vegetable diplay, aisles, etc. The manager watched him and said nothing. I asked him what was up there, and he mumbled something and then made it clear I was not to use my camera.

At that point you should have said, 'Cool beans, man!' and whipped out your phone. 😀

 

[aizan]

Not true. Shopping malls are privately owned and they might have no-photography policies. At the very least they have a clause "The shopping center cannot be used for commercial or business purposes by visitors" (quote from the Westfield Mall regulations) and if you have a professionally looking camera, they'll chase you away because of that.

That's basically what I said, though a "no photography" policy in a privately owned area doesn't make photography in that area illegal. It's just against their rules, but they can't have you arrested for taking photos. They can have you arrested for not leaving the premises when they ask you, which is trespassing and therefore illegal.

 

[aizan]

Wasn't that 3-4 years ago?

I wish they were "good enough" 3-4 years ago.

 

[philosli]

Whether the laws say you can take a photo in a public space is no matter to the security guards. They'll always ask you not to photograph, even the law is not on their side. Since you either call the police to settle the disagreement, or oblige and move on. And they know very well 100% people will just let go. That's exactly what they want.

 

[kxl]

He was worried you might be taking pictures of wayward students from Beverly Hills HS ditching their classes.

 

[aizan]

Whether the laws say you can take a photo in a public space is no matter to the security guards. They'll always ask you not to photograph, even the law is not on their side. Since you either call the police to settle the disagreement, or oblige and move on. And they know very well 100% people will just let go. That's exactly what they want.

Actually, the law IS on their side if they ask you to stop and/or leave the mall, and yet you refuse to stop taking pictures and leave the mall. It's trespassing if you do that since it's private property, and then they have the right to call the cops to come arrest you.

 

[coogee]

The thing I find challenging is when the security guard is all aggressive and up in your face from the get-go. It's hard not to feel defensive when that's the starting point and those exchanges rarely go 'well' from my point of view.

I never had success with equating some kind of similarity between mobile phone cameras and other cameras, it's like some mental disconnect that cannot be spanned.

When people are calm, things have been fine. I even pre-emptively seek out security guards if I feel like my presence could be too challenging for them. They are always fine when that's the case, often even a little embarrassed at even being asked.

 

[nikon_sam]

Malls = Private Property
They have their rules and will quote them all day long but ask them to show you the rules in writing and they won't...
They will allow anyone with a phone to shoot all they want because if they didn't no one would be allowed in the mall and then they would have to follow them around like they did to you or you could accuse them of singling you out and harassment...
Following you around a mall because you have a camera they feel you might use could be seen as harassment...
They will also try to quote some sort of Copyright crap but that wouldn't apply unless you profit off the photos you took in their mall...
Bottom line if you resist they will pull the Trespassing Card to get you gone...
Been there, done that...

 

[Larry Cloetta]

People seem to have become frighteningly comfortable with being pushed around.
As many here have noted, you would be able to get away with taking photos with a phone in any mall in the country, all day long, because it is too hard for the insecurity guards to tell if you are taking a picture with your phone or just checking your makeup. You know it, and they know it. So, pictures with a phone, no problemo. The same pictures with something recognizable as a “camera” are verboten. So, the rule about “no pictures” is enforced arbitrarily, so if you feel like you are being singled out in an unjustifiable way, you are. Simply because they can. That’s why the fact that it is “legal” doesn’t make it any less harassment. The word has a definition, and this fits it.

Die Papieren, Bitte!

Once back outside though, since it’s L.A., you can poop on the sidewalk and nobody will bother you much. But a camera in a mall, no sir! That’s wrong!

 

[sepiareverb]

I was stopped for photographing in a mall in CT some years back. Security Guard very sternly telling me that “no photographs can be taken on this property”. As he finished up his harrangue I pointed at the photo booth behind him and asked if I could use that camera. His response was “that’s not a camera”, then he escorted me to the door.

 

[Bill Clark]

I was stopped for photographing in a mall in CT some years back. Security Guard very sternly telling me that “no photographs can be taken on this property”. As he finished up his harrangue I pointed at the photo booth behind him and asked if I could use that camera. His response was “that’s not a camera”, then he escorted me to the door.

Is that mall still n business? I wonder what the vacancy rate is.

 

[kuuan]

Usually if a private concern has a rule it needs to be fair and enforceable on everyone. They cannot pick on one person but not another. You cannot exclude tall people or fat people. Cell phones have cameras, so if they had a rule that certain types of cameras are allowed but not others then they would need some rational for it. A camera is a camera is a device that can produce an image. Saying that you can use a 40 MP cell phone mounted camera but not 24 MP traditional camera or an approximately 8 MP 35mm film camera is arbitrary, and the person with the traditional camera is being discriminated against. Cameraist! Cameraist! Call the FBI! I am being discriminted against because my camera is not packaged in a cell phone that takes excellent quality images and can transmit them worldwide at light speed! I am poor and can only afford this old 1940s German Leica film camera. Are you discriminating against poor people here in Westfield Mall?

agreed! Yes, though of course, because I don't want to spoil my time, nor that of the poor security guy, I'd try not to be very confrontational and for a buddy like conversation, but certainly I'd also try to make my point explaining why he effectively is discriminating against a few without any logic and real basis that would justify that. Injustice should not be simply accepted out of laziness, justice always should and must be fought for.