"No Photography" - Security Guard at Retail Center

I have found that response to any of these situations to be completely dependent on the circumstances and location. I am an adamant believer in constitutional rights but also know you have to know when and where to pick your fights.

I have at various times:

1) told a policeman who detained me that he must either charge me with a crime and arrest me or I was leaving. That was when I was finished photographing on private property marked "no trespassing".

2) followed a local police chief's demand that I "leave town". That was while I was photographing an old building while I was on public property.

The first situation was where I was legally wrong but close to home, knew the officer's police chief, his mayor, my police chief and my mayor.

The second situation was 100% within the law but in a small town 150 miles away where I had no contacts. I knew he could detain me for 12-18 hours until I could post bond. Then I would have to go back for a court date. I knew I could legally win but at great hassle.

l have taken on Amtrak and told them I was going to continue to photograph while riding the train until they cited some law that said I could not. They relented when they could find no such law or Amtrak regulation.

I have adhered to a Salvation Army worker's demand that I not photograph them. Legally I could do so but decided that he might have some personal reasons.

It turns out to always be a function of the situation. After 65 years, I have learned to pick my battles.
 
If I enter what seems to be an abandoned building with an open door, am I supposed to know that is private property? (I guess so)
It happened to me recently, the owner dropped by and forced me to expose the film or else he would call the police. I exposed it since I wanted no problems, and I had been caught inside the "abandoned" factory, but the owner could at least close the doors...
It is too tempting to see a cool place to photograph with an open door ..

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic...

Regards,

Sergio
 
bmattock said:
There are no such laws that I am aware of. I have seen the signs posted that say photography is prohibited, but I can find no laws stating that. You can't make something illegal without a law that says so.

Bert Krages states that there are no provisions under the Patriot Act or the Homeland Security Act which prohibit public photography.

I have yet to hear of someone successfully prosecuted for taking a photo of a bridge. Hassled, yes. Arrested, yes. Always resolved by charges being dropped, gear returned, and generally a letter of apology issued.

Not that I am in any hurry to be arrested.
Click to expand...

Interesting. My friend and I got almost arrested (& deported?) for taking pictures of a train yard in Hoboken NJ. Whatever it means, we are now "in their system".

I used to work for a "photographer" and I had to check for permissions. My impression was that in New York you need a permit from the mayor (they have a special office for film/photography) to photograph anything public.

I thoroughly hate it to be told not to take pictures. I'm not sure why, but for some reason I take it personally. I actually stopped going to museums that don't allow pictures, just like I walk out of any store that asks me to check my bag in.

I'm glad this discussion came up, because I find that the more interesting places to photograph are the most "sensitive" ones. Airport, train stations, museums, industrial complexes, etc...

Photography since 911 has had its image changed drastically it seems...
 
Sergio, you and good lawyer could sue enough money from owner to get another M body or glass you want because he made threat to your health and life by not marking property as dangerous (and IT IS dangerous - while his lawyer is not better than yours), leaving door opened - imagine, if kids would run into and fall into some hole etc etc etc. !

At least he would be fined for not ensuring against accidental injuries in there.

Sometimes such tactics works best, while I'm not angry lawyer. Sorry for joking on this, I realize you had no fun at all then.
 
morback said:
Interesting. My friend and I got almost arrested (& deported?) for taking pictures of a train yard in Hoboken NJ. Whatever it means, we are now "in their system".
Click to expand...

Train yards are private property, but their railroad police are real police officers. Unusual situation, but true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_police

Train yards are not like bridges.

I used to work for a "photographer" and I had to check for permissions. My impression was that in New York you need a permit from the mayor (they have a special office for film/photography) to photograph anything public.
Click to expand...

That is not correct. You may need a permit to set up equipment, such as professionals often do. The same is often true of zoos and national parks - pros need permits - amateurs do not. Police and other security personnel sometimes mistake having professional-looking equipment as 'being a pro' and act accordingly, but they may be exceeding their authority.

I thoroughly hate it to be told not to take pictures. I'm not sure why, but for some reason I take it personally. I actually stopped going to museums that don't allow pictures, just like I walk out of any store that asks me to check my bag in.
Click to expand...

I do not like not being able to take photos in a museum, but it is their right to restrict such. I have talked to some of them and found that you can take photos in some parts of the museum, not in others. This has to do with restrictions placed on them by owners of artwork on loan and so forth - they are protecting the copyrights of others and do so by contract, not because they want to.

As for stores asking me to check in my bag, I have no problems with that if that is their policy. I do not let them check my bag upon exiting, however. I never consent to be searched, and would prefer to be arrested - I'd love to sue them for false arrest. It hasn't come to that yet, but I do get followed by security guards from time to time, saying "Sir, I need to look in your bag. Sir? Sir? Please stop, sir!" I never stop. Let them tackle me.

I'm glad this discussion came up, because I find that the more interesting places to photograph are the most "sensitive" ones. Airport, train stations, museums, industrial complexes, etc...
Click to expand...

I really suggest that Bert Krages book. It's cheap, you can get it on Amazon, and it's worth it. Good advice from a real lawyer who works in that field - invaluable.

Photography since 911 has had its image changed drastically it seems...
Click to expand...

Fear does a lot of bad things to people. That's the point of terrorism.
 
If you really want to start a nice discussion ask to see this "Mall Policy" in writing...
Only do this if you have the time and are looking for a nice long, possibly heated discussion...my money is on the fact they will refuse to show you anything and then revert to "Private Property" issues...and again don't do this unless you want a good long waste of time arguement...time you'll never get back and time taken away from photography...
 
I'm photographing that enormous pink rabbit over there ... can't you see it?

Here take one of these and wait a few minutes! 😛
 
Fear not photographers. When shopping Malls have no customers because of the present financial climate and are closing and going out of business they will begin to welcome you with 5 Leica's and ten Nikons round your neck.
 
Last edited:
Photographing public always is a risky business, I have been apporached many times both on private property, as well as public, while photographing a subject. Most time a polite exchange takes place. Only one or two times have I been treated rudely. I always take it in stride. If the person is demanding my equipment I politely refuse, and walk away. I have yet to be arrested or detained by any form of law inforcement.

Unfortunately it is a risk we take when photographing in public.
 
There's a 1930's English Music Hall song which has the repeated refrain:

You can't do that there 'ere,
You can't do that there 'ere,
Anywhere else you can do that there,
But you can't do that there 'ere.​

It seems like this may have been adopted as the mantra of the private security industry world-wide.
 
To the OP:

Is there a camera store in this shopping center? If there is, and assuming you are on occasion a customer, complain to that establishment that the mall harrasses photographers.

The best leverage you have is your power as a consumer. Mall security may not care much either way, but the mall management will care if their tenant intervenes on your behalf.
 
I was told at the admissions desk of Blackhawk Automobile Museum that I could photograph the cars, the building anything as long as I didn't use a tripod. This Museum is actually owned, as well as the cars, by the University of California. Is that public property? Anyway, handheld an Alfa Romeo BAT:

 
Last edited:
charjohncarter said:
I was told at the admissions desk of Blackhawk Automobile Museum that I could photograph the cars, the building anything as long as I didn't use a tripod. This Museum is actually owned as well as the cars by the University of California. Is that public property? Anyway handheld a Alfa Romeo BAT:
Click to expand...

Sweet-looking car.

The 'no tripods' thing is generally a safety rule, I've found. They don't want the liability if someone else trips over your tripod and sues them. And yes, they would be the ones sued, since they have (presumably) deeper pockets than the photographer.
 
charjohncarter said:
Is that public property?
Click to expand...

No... but they gave you permission. Auto museums seem to be rather good about photos. Every one I've been to allows photos but no tripods and one specifically requested no flash (so what... ). I woinder how they would feel about a monopod, though.
 
crawdiddy said:
To the OP:

Is there a camera store in this shopping center? If there is, and assuming you are on occasion a customer, complain to that establishment that the mall harrasses photographers.

The best leverage you have is your power as a consumer. Mall security may not care much either way, but the mall management will care if their tenant intervenes on your behalf.
Click to expand...

In the outdoor mall that I mentioned in a previous post, there is a large chain camera store. I've talked with the owner of the store, and he has said that one of his own employees has even been told that they can't photograph right outside of the store, on the mall-owned sidewalk or street. There are mall restrictions that the store owners had agreed on when the mall was rebuilt, so I suppose there is not much even they can do about it. I really don't think it has caused much of a problem, as people seem to be allowed to use cell phone cameras and not get harrassed. I think we're in the middle of something interesting. But OTOH, it would seem that someone has to eventually give in. And with all cell phones coming out of our ears...
 
bmattock said:
Sweet-looking car.

The 'no tripods' thing is generally a safety rule, I've found. They don't want the liability if someone else trips over your tripod and sues them. And yes, they would be the ones sued, since they have (presumably) deeper pockets than the photographer.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's seems to be the case with most museums I've visited.
 
My personal favorite is the sign that states "NO digital photography".
So what does that mean anyhow? Does that mean because my camera is actually mechanical, I'm free to do / shoot as I please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom