"No Photography" - Security Guard at Retail Center

I was once told that I couldn't use a tripod in Rockefeller Center near an outdoor display, as I was on private property. I asked the guard where the public street began. He pointed to a spot about 3 feet from the leg of my tripod. I obligingly move the 3 feet to the public street, and took my photos without any trouble from the guards. You do have to know your rights as well as the local geography.
 
Shok said:
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?
Click to expand...

I was informed by a flight attendant on a plane that I needed to 'turn my camera off for takeoff'. It was an Agfa Karat IV. I tried to explain to her that it didn't take batteries, she didn't care. Just wanted me to 'turn it off'.

So I went "Click!" and put it in my lap. She looked daggers at me, but proceeded with her duties.
 
Shok said:
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?
Click to expand...

actually around here theres sometimes a similar saying. for some reason film is taken a lot less seriously. i dont understand why.
 
I saw these guys at the base of the Eiffel Tower. For some reason I nervously put the camera away after this quick grab.
 
Last edited:
bmattock said:
I was informed by a flight attendant on a plane that I needed to 'turn my camera off for takeoff'. It was an Agfa Karat IV. I tried to explain to her that it didn't take batteries, she didn't care. Just wanted me to 'turn it off'.

So I went "Click!" and put it in my lap. She looked daggers at me, but proceeded with her duties.
Click to expand...

That's a funny analog story.
 
I have been stopped in retail malls from taking photos - not that they can indicate to me why its "against the rules." I have also been stopped in some art galleries - but not in others (although the latter generally prohibit flash photos for good and proper reasons associated with preservation of exhibits.) In general there are widely divergent attitudes to taking photos in public and semi public spaces. In situations where I know I am in the right as in an open shopping precinct / street I just move away from security guards and carry on snapping. If its a privately owned mall then I might have second thoughts. occasionally I argue if I am feeling p*ssed off at their attitude. Some local governments in Australia have also prohibited photo taking in certain situations (as on the famous Bondi beach in Sydney where a few "drop kicks" with cell phone cameras have caused a predictable over reaction from petty beaurocrats and minor politicians.
 
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".

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...
Click to expand...

As bmattock noted earlier, a rail yard is private property, and therefore the owners of the railroad can restrict photography. If you were at New Jersey Transit's Hoboken Terminal, however, you should have been permitted to take pictures, so long as you were in a publicly accessible part of the facility and were not obstructing passenger flow or train operations. You don't even need a permit for non-commercial photography. (They tried to ban photography in the system but then dropped the policy because of public opposition.) Of course, that doesn't prevent railroad employees from trying to stop perfectly permissible photography. http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=57966&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

As for photography in New York City, if you are on public property, you can snap away, so long as you don't obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The old rule that required a permit for the use of a tripod has been modified. It's not always required. http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_rules_QA_final.pdf
 
I had this happened to me once, a security guard told me that taking pictures is not allowed without permission from the property management. He was polite and he told me that after I had finished shooting. He just stood there watching me taking pictures of my family before approching and told me about the restriction. When I asked him why, he said apologitecally that he only followed order, so I just smile and comply.

In one shopping mall (or perhaps food mall, cause it's a mall consist of restaurants) there's a sign saying that photographying the building construction is not allowed, but it doesn't say anything about taking pictures in the building, and I never have any problem taking pictures there.

Some shopping malls have signs that say camera is not allowed, but I asked security guards in two of these malls and they told me that one can ask for a permission to take pictures in the mall from the building management. I have never tried that though (obtaining a permission to take pictures in the mall).

Bob
 
Here in the UK there have been some unpleasant incidents where people have been manhandled by security personnel & had cameras confiscated etc - none of this is likely to be legal.
 
Here in Essex the Chief Constable has given 'advice' to his officers that any attempt to 'confiscate' equipment or delete images by them will be regarded as 'Common Theft' and they will be severly disciplined or even charged'.
 
I was on the street in Edinburgh a couple of weeks ago taking a photograph through an open door into a betting shop. There was a guy hanging about outside who said " it's against the law to take a photograph of a betting shop". I ignored him. I think he was one of the punters out for a smoke.
 
If you are stopped by security, simply place your camera up to your ear and explain the them that it's not a camera, it's a phone.

Although, yes, private property owners retain the right to restrict photography on their property, regardless of how privileged we, as photographers, may feel.

~Joe
 
it's a given

it's a given

I had an experience exiting a veterans hosp. in NY.
Was actually outside the property, leaving, on the street, and the guard,
(police)? told me if i took a photo he would confiscate, keep my camera.

There would have been a problem had he done so as I wasn't on the property.

Stores, they do not allow of course.

Once had an experience in 98 outside supreme court after jury duty.
Turned around to shoot a photo while on public phone.
Suddenly surrounded by detectives. Had to show id.
I guess back then they may have been getting terror alerts.
However, I know tourists shoot all the time.
May have something to do with the fact I had long hair.
 
Almost all likely terrorist targets are all well documented on the web and no 'hood' is likely to want to spend an hour or two wandering round taking pics of Buckingham Palace or the Houses of Parliment from every angle when they can buy the postcards from the stall opposite. Just don't understand what all the fuss is about. Unless this is all a precurser to the introduction of a 'police state' which is something we should be much more concerned with here in the UK.
 
troym said:
As bmattock noted earlier, a rail yard is private property, and therefore the owners of the railroad can restrict photography. If you were at New Jersey Transit's Hoboken Terminal, however, you should have been permitted to take pictures, so long as you were in a publicly accessible part of the facility and were not obstructing passenger flow or train operations. You don't even need a permit for non-commercial photography. (They tried to ban photography in the system but then dropped the policy because of public opposition.) Of course, that doesn't prevent railroad employees from trying to stop perfectly permissible photography. http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=57966&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

As for photography in New York City, if you are on public property, you can snap away, so long as you don't obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The old rule that required a permit for the use of a tripod has been modified. It's not always required. http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/downloads/pdf/moftb_permit_rules_QA_final.pdf
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it was by the Lakawannah terminal with my friend, I was outside by the tracks, shooting some trains for my father (train addict). An NJ transit employe came by and said something about photography and I did not pay attention. At that time I was shooting with Hasselbladski (Kiev88) and I thought that would be enough to not make him fear me. But soon thereafter a police car came around, took ID, asked questions, put our names in his computer and then left with the usual sermon. I didn't quite know what all that was about.
I was outside the train property since it said "keep out". I was not blocking anyone since there was no one around.

We should sticky this, or maybe make an official post with basic photographer's right? I'm glad this came up, legal gray zones (percieved or real) are so dangerous...
 
Private/public photography in the UK

Private/public photography in the UK

srichmond said:
I think that in generally true. It's best to know beforehand, so that you're prepared. In the UK, train stations and airports are private property, so you need to be careful.
Click to expand...

Whilst railway stations in the UK are indeed private property, photography in the stations operated by Network Rail is welcomed (they make money out of selling tickets to trainspotters after all) - track down their website and have a look. Sensible restrictions apply from time to time. The London Underground requires permission (which I think for still photography would be easy to obtain) - normal tourist type snapping (without flash) seems to be totally ignored.

UK airports are variable - plane spotting is quite popular and tolerated (if not actively encouraged). High security areas where photography is not permitted are always labelled accordingly.

Where permission for photography is required in private buildings in the UK it is generaly slanted towards movie film requirements - I expect simplified procedures would apply for still cameras, especially without flash or tripods etc.

In true public areas here in the UK there is no restriction upon photography despite the run-ins people have had with Police and others - these have generally been sorted out eventually. I think awareness of the lack of restriction is gradually getting better, but it may take a while yet.

Regards

Andrew More
 
film vs digital

film vs digital

Erik L said:
actually around here theres sometimes a similar saying. for some reason film is taken a lot less seriously. i dont understand why.
Click to expand...


well you can shoot hundreds of images and could transmit images on the spot.
in ny i have found there to be no difference.
one time in time warner almost got into a thing w/a guard who wanted to see what i
was shooting. i was trying to explain he could not, as it was film and he misunderstood.
 
bmattock said:
I have been told that photographers at the Renaissance Center in downtown Detroit often have run-ins with the local security guards, who inform them that they cannot take photographs of the RenCen, even from public sidewalks. This is actually amusing, since the RenCen is part of the Detroit skyline - you can't take a photo of Detroit without the RenCen being in it, basically.
Click to expand...

Related: I happened to notice in the credits of the movie Hancock a line about "the image of the Empire State Building was used with permission from ESBC."
After a groan, an eye-roll, and some Googling, I found this, which initially sounds aimed at professional and/or movie shooting, but the second paragraph sounds universally applicable. I'm sure they wouldn't seek fees from just any hobbyist photographer, but if you happened to make a skyline picture so fabulous that you could sell prints of it for profit at your gallery, and ESBC got wind of that, they might try to collect. Isn't greed (sorry, "monetization of intellectual property") lovely?!

BTW: On the subject of museums, maybe as others have said they are trying to protect exhibits. Maybe copyright owners are "forcing" them to forbid photography. But I suspect greed mostly governs here too: Museums quite happily forbid photography so that if you love an exhibit so much that you want to see it from time to time at home, you must pay their extortionate gift shop prices for books/prints rather than snap a picture for yourself.
--Dave
 
When Lehman Brothers went under I went to take a photo of the London building and a security guard said "no photos". under polite questioning he admitted that if I photographed from across the street there was nothing he could do. I doubt he was within his rights anyway but there you go.

Over Christmas I took some pics in Woolworths, which just went under too. Got followed by a teenage jobsworth, then two other employees. A discussion with a more reasonable employee ensued and no problem.

It's not uncommon in the UK to be given one of these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinister-pictures/3027248609/

Community Support Officers P*** me off the most as they are normally stupid, do not have police powers but act like they do and like bothering people for no good reason.
 
Argenticien said:
Related: I happened to notice in the credits of the movie Hancock a line about "the image of the Empire State Building was used with permission from ESBC."
After a groan, an eye-roll, and some Googling, I found this, which initially sounds aimed at professional and/or movie shooting, but the second paragraph sounds universally applicable. I'm sure they wouldn't seek fees from just any hobbyist photographer, but if you happened to make a skyline picture so fabulous that you could sell prints of it for profit at your gallery, and ESBC got wind of that, they might try to collect. Isn't greed (sorry, "monetization of intellectual property") lovely?!

BTW: On the subject of museums, maybe as others have said they are trying to protect exhibits. Maybe copyright owners are "forcing" them to forbid photography. But I suspect greed mostly governs here too: Museums quite happily forbid photography so that if you love an exhibit so much that you want to see it from time to time at home, you must pay their extortionate gift shop prices for books/prints rather than snap a picture for yourself.
--Dave
Click to expand...

Well, I wish they were a little more discerning at museums. I don't take picture of artworks, those don't interest me (gasp!) per se. What I love is the interaction of the public within the space & art. I tried to take a picture of my friend in front of a weathered wall at the PSONE in Queens and I got prevented from that too. No artwork in the frame or proximity. But I guess they blanket prohibition to avoid being bogged down in arguments and exceptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom