Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Nobody in this tale is covered in glory...
dmr
Registered Abuser
I've wondered about this all the time! I would think that shopping malls, subways, casinos, airports, etc. would do this. I would think that a circle-slash-camera icon would be appropriate.
The only reason I can think of why they don't, is that there are no actual laws or rules against it, such as is the case in the NYC/Chicago subways and many casinos ... which brings up a point ...
Some people have stated in this thread that all photography is always prohibited in all casinos. I can say with 100% certainty that as a blanket statement, here and now in the 2000s, that is false. I can re-post my ongoing list of various casinos if anyone wants, but the fact is that many casinos permit it under some conditions, although some still say no. Here are a couple which I've recently shot:
This second one was taken, with flash, with a "suit" type security person standing next to me. I was mainly trying to get the bright red of the chandeliers at the new Encore. His only admonition when I asked if it was ok was along the line of "be considerate, don't get in anyone's face" or something like that.
shenkerian
Established
Memphis, there's no need for personal attacks.
I agree there's a difference here between what should have happened and what a reasonable person should have expected to happen, but that doesn't justify a crime if one was committed.
I agree there's a difference here between what should have happened and what a reasonable person should have expected to happen, but that doesn't justify a crime if one was committed.
iamzip
Ambitious, but rubbish
I think it's worth noting that the author of the blog is not, in fact, a "photographer," but rather a poker player. It's fairly obvious if you look at some of the pictures he's taken. Therefore he surely knows nothing about photographer's rights, and the laws as they apply to us, etc. In my view he was detained because he was being confrontational. He is the one who escalated it. Not to mention he is a self described "professional poker player," so there is a chance that the casino was already familiar with him, and was concerned that he might have been cheating (or whatever, I don't know all the intricacies of gambling).
At the very least I don't think anyone should be jumping to his defense, it is idiots like him who give those of us care about photography a bad name. He even has a more recent post wherin he posits the idea of a photographer's protest, you know, several people start taking pics at the same time. Not only would it be illegal, as well as detrimental to photog's rights, but I doubt he'll get any actual photogs to participate.
BTW I did not read the entire posts, I have a higher caliber of stuff to waste time on
At the very least I don't think anyone should be jumping to his defense, it is idiots like him who give those of us care about photography a bad name. He even has a more recent post wherin he posits the idea of a photographer's protest, you know, several people start taking pics at the same time. Not only would it be illegal, as well as detrimental to photog's rights, but I doubt he'll get any actual photogs to participate.
BTW I did not read the entire posts, I have a higher caliber of stuff to waste time on
shenkerian
Established
Please stop calling this type of photography illegal. In the US, taking photographs on private property is almost never illegal. It might be prohibited by the owner, whose only legal option is to require you to leave.
dfoo
Well-known
Just so we are clear, your contention is that that the security people had either the right to see the photographs that he had taken, or if he did not give permission detain him? Surely, this is patently not the case, especially since according to the blog post neither the police, nor the security people looked at the images while he was in custody!
iamzip
Ambitious, but rubbish
That is a good distinction - thanks for pointing that out.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
It is impossible to take you seriously.There's a big difference between what is illegal and what is policy or rule. What happened to your Grandmother, while unfortunate, was part of something illegal.
/
I agree with Ken. There are no "saints" in this scenario, but for us photographers there are certainly lots of lessons. As dmr clearly demonstrates, you can take photos in casinos and as others have stated it's not illegal. Breaking the law is one thing. Breaking a rule or policy is something else entirely.
/
shenkerian
Established
Memphis, I think it's possible to believe both that this guy's an idiot and that the casino overstepped its authority. I'd want more information before believing either.
Notwithstanding tortuous misuse of felony statutes, the default assumption in the US is almost always that photography is permitted. And again, if it turns out to be prohibited by the property owner, his only legal option is to require you to leave. A property owner doesn't magically gain rights over your person or belongings simply because you're on his property.
Notwithstanding tortuous misuse of felony statutes, the default assumption in the US is almost always that photography is permitted. And again, if it turns out to be prohibited by the property owner, his only legal option is to require you to leave. A property owner doesn't magically gain rights over your person or belongings simply because you're on his property.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
just more assumptions. you can guarantee nothing with regard to these points, except that everybody who enters onto casino property is watched. That's common knowledge. Just look at the ceiling cameras in dmr's photos. It's also impossible to know the intentions of the photographer/poker player at the time he entered the casino.
/
dmr
Registered Abuser
I did find out that they do enforce the no cell phones in the sports book quite strictly. I was meeting some others at the Hilton buffet for breakfast before a conference at the LVCC and I walked in through the back door, right by the sports book, while chatting on the cell phone. The security guy was on me like stink on doodoo!
Then, as I was waiting on line at the buffet I phoned back and the security guy was on me again. He said that anywhere in view of the big board of the sports book was a no cell phone area. He was nice about it, but very assertive.
Here's the ongoing list I keep as to where it's permitted and not. I post this to the LV boards every so often. I admit I've been to a couple of the newer ones (Aliante Station and Cannery East) and have forgotten to ask.
. . . . . . . . . .
On the past several trips, I made a point to ask at the casinos we
visited to see what their photo policy was. I always asked a uniformed
security person or else a "suit", so I would be sure I was getting the
actual policy and not somebody's whim.
. . . . .
Sahara: "Well, you're really not supposed to, but ..."
. . .
Sam's Town: "Over here by the machines is fine, don't shoot the pit."
. . .
Green Valley Ranch: >>>>NO!<<<< Very emphatic. He said that some of the
other Station properties do let you do it.
. . .
Gold Coast: "With you and your friends by the machines is fine, don't
get other people in the background. The pit is off limits."
. . .
Westward Ho: No! (Kind of a moot point now ...)
. . .
Slots-A-Fun: "No tables, no cage, anywhere else is fine."
. . .
Stardust: Long discourse about how the pit, cage, showroom and sports
book are a no-no, but about anywhere else is ok. War story about how the
cage was robbed a couple years back, so if they see you photograph the
cage, they may get nasty. (Kind of moot too ...)
. . .
Imperial Palace: No tables, no cage, no flash. Some entertainment may
be restricted. Be considerate.
. . .
Wynn: Very snooty answer from suit type floorperson:
Me: What is your policy on photos here?
FP: Oh, the same as in all of the better casinos.
Me: What is that.
FP: {condescending look} No gaming, all else is ok.
. . .
South Coast: "Media only, with prior arrangements."
. . .
Rio: Guard took me aside for a grand tour of what could and could not
be photographed ... said while pointing ... "Machines ok, no tables,
no cage, no personal shots of the photos with showgirls. You are
encouraged to take photos of the show in the sky."
. . .
Encore: "Be considerate. Don't get in anybody's face."
Then, as I was waiting on line at the buffet I phoned back and the security guy was on me again. He said that anywhere in view of the big board of the sports book was a no cell phone area. He was nice about it, but very assertive.
Here's the ongoing list I keep as to where it's permitted and not. I post this to the LV boards every so often. I admit I've been to a couple of the newer ones (Aliante Station and Cannery East) and have forgotten to ask.
. . . . . . . . . .
On the past several trips, I made a point to ask at the casinos we
visited to see what their photo policy was. I always asked a uniformed
security person or else a "suit", so I would be sure I was getting the
actual policy and not somebody's whim.
. . . . .
Sahara: "Well, you're really not supposed to, but ..."
. . .
Sam's Town: "Over here by the machines is fine, don't shoot the pit."
. . .
Green Valley Ranch: >>>>NO!<<<< Very emphatic. He said that some of the
other Station properties do let you do it.
. . .
Gold Coast: "With you and your friends by the machines is fine, don't
get other people in the background. The pit is off limits."
. . .
Westward Ho: No! (Kind of a moot point now ...)
. . .
Slots-A-Fun: "No tables, no cage, anywhere else is fine."
. . .
Stardust: Long discourse about how the pit, cage, showroom and sports
book are a no-no, but about anywhere else is ok. War story about how the
cage was robbed a couple years back, so if they see you photograph the
cage, they may get nasty. (Kind of moot too ...)
. . .
Imperial Palace: No tables, no cage, no flash. Some entertainment may
be restricted. Be considerate.
. . .
Wynn: Very snooty answer from suit type floorperson:
Me: What is your policy on photos here?
FP: Oh, the same as in all of the better casinos.
Me: What is that.
FP: {condescending look} No gaming, all else is ok.
. . .
South Coast: "Media only, with prior arrangements."
. . .
Rio: Guard took me aside for a grand tour of what could and could not
be photographed ... said while pointing ... "Machines ok, no tables,
no cage, no personal shots of the photos with showgirls. You are
encouraged to take photos of the show in the sky."
. . .
Encore: "Be considerate. Don't get in anybody's face."
iamzip
Ambitious, but rubbish
Having re-read my original post, I stand by it - except for the part where I stated that a "photographer's protest" would be illegal. As pointed out, it would be prohibited, but not necessarily illegal.
However I make no claims as to the propriety of the security guards action - As I admitted myself, I did not read the entire post. I do still strongly believe, however, that in all likelihood, the author was being rude and confrontational. I doubt that any regulars here would find themselves in a similar situation, as most people here are aware that casinos are private property. I also reiterate that I do not think anyone should be jumping to his defense as it is people like him that give us a bad name, and give those who would further restrict photog's rights an example to point to.
However I make no claims as to the propriety of the security guards action - As I admitted myself, I did not read the entire post. I do still strongly believe, however, that in all likelihood, the author was being rude and confrontational. I doubt that any regulars here would find themselves in a similar situation, as most people here are aware that casinos are private property. I also reiterate that I do not think anyone should be jumping to his defense as it is people like him that give us a bad name, and give those who would further restrict photog's rights an example to point to.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Out of curiosity ...
Out of curiosity ...
Out of curiosity, has anybody else been contacted by the Las Vegas Review-Journal about this topic?
Out of curiosity ...
Out of curiosity, has anybody else been contacted by the Las Vegas Review-Journal about this topic?
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
I carried my SLR through every major casino on the strip. Not a single comment. Las Vegas is very tourist friendly-- the better to get your tourist dollars. I wasn't taking photos inside (slow velvia film, not into "street" at the time). Of course you'll be asked to stop if you're obviously photographing tables.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
Jesus, people! Doesn't really matter what their policy is. Policy does not equal law. If you violate a policy, pretty much all they are allowed to do, legally, is ask you to leave. just because it is the policy of a place to, for example, arrest nose-pickers, does not make it legal.