bmattock
Veteran
If all that was enforceable, Google Earth would owe a LOT of money...
George S.
How many is enough?
bmattock,
I did not say "prosecuted" I said you could be detained or arrested. If your freedom has been restricted by the authorities for approx. 20 minutes, technically, you were arrested and you could theoretically sue. And there ARE some anti-photo laws on the books in NYC. (paragraph 3)
Here's an excerpt from the NPPA's release concerning the Republican National Convention, and note that paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 refer to other restrictions on "non-media" ... it seems that members of the media will get cooperation if they're working on a newsworthy job. It seems others probably will not get such cooperation
Photography restrictions?
Police officials emphasized that there are no photography restrictions on members of the media in any area under their jurisdiction. Some shooters have been prevented from taking photos in the subway, but there are no laws on the books that prevent photographers from taking photos at this point. In fact, it is legal for civilians to take photos on subways.
(The MTA is attempting to pass a law preventing non-media members from taking photos in the subways and stations. It is opposed by the NPPA.) Officials say anyone taking photos of sensitive sites on mass transit -- i.e., train tunnels, surveillance equipment, power supplies, etc .-- could expect to be questioned by police. However, Browne said NYPD policy is to facilitate photography.
There are laws against taking photos at Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority bridges and tunnels. Those taking photos at checkpoints should approach personnel at the site, state their purpose, and show identification. In most cases, photos will be permitted so long as they are not of the entrances to the tunnels or bridges.
Those seeking to take more photos of any of the structures can call TBTA spokesman Frank Pasquale at 646-252-7417. Pasquale has a history of being very cooperative and accommodating for legitimate media. Photography at Port Authority bridges and tunnels will attract the attention of police at those facilities, so be ready to answer questions and produce identification for authorities.
Those having problems with private security or other agencies in the city may call DCPI for assistance as NYPD considers photography in the city their jurisdiction. Problems have also been encountered from National Guardsmen augmenting security. Most are told not to prevent photographers from doing their jobs, but some have interfered in media operations - threatening some press with arrest. DCPI can assist with any problems in these cases too. NYPPA and NPPA leaders say outreach will be done with Department of Defense officials on these matters. Officials advise no matter what police or others try to do to prevent photography, "Don't argue with them." Instead, contact DCPI at 646-610-6700.
I did not say "prosecuted" I said you could be detained or arrested. If your freedom has been restricted by the authorities for approx. 20 minutes, technically, you were arrested and you could theoretically sue. And there ARE some anti-photo laws on the books in NYC. (paragraph 3)
Here's an excerpt from the NPPA's release concerning the Republican National Convention, and note that paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 refer to other restrictions on "non-media" ... it seems that members of the media will get cooperation if they're working on a newsworthy job. It seems others probably will not get such cooperation
Photography restrictions?
Police officials emphasized that there are no photography restrictions on members of the media in any area under their jurisdiction. Some shooters have been prevented from taking photos in the subway, but there are no laws on the books that prevent photographers from taking photos at this point. In fact, it is legal for civilians to take photos on subways.
(The MTA is attempting to pass a law preventing non-media members from taking photos in the subways and stations. It is opposed by the NPPA.) Officials say anyone taking photos of sensitive sites on mass transit -- i.e., train tunnels, surveillance equipment, power supplies, etc .-- could expect to be questioned by police. However, Browne said NYPD policy is to facilitate photography.
There are laws against taking photos at Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority bridges and tunnels. Those taking photos at checkpoints should approach personnel at the site, state their purpose, and show identification. In most cases, photos will be permitted so long as they are not of the entrances to the tunnels or bridges.
Those seeking to take more photos of any of the structures can call TBTA spokesman Frank Pasquale at 646-252-7417. Pasquale has a history of being very cooperative and accommodating for legitimate media. Photography at Port Authority bridges and tunnels will attract the attention of police at those facilities, so be ready to answer questions and produce identification for authorities.
Those having problems with private security or other agencies in the city may call DCPI for assistance as NYPD considers photography in the city their jurisdiction. Problems have also been encountered from National Guardsmen augmenting security. Most are told not to prevent photographers from doing their jobs, but some have interfered in media operations - threatening some press with arrest. DCPI can assist with any problems in these cases too. NYPPA and NPPA leaders say outreach will be done with Department of Defense officials on these matters. Officials advise no matter what police or others try to do to prevent photography, "Don't argue with them." Instead, contact DCPI at 646-610-6700.
40oz
...
As far as taking pictures in stores goes, I once worked for Activision, the company that makes video games. I was asked to check out displays in Taret and Walmart whenever I happened to be there. If our game wasn't on the top shelf, to grab a dispoable camera and start taking pictures. We paid for the top shelf, and the pictures would show we were not getting our money's worth. Once I happened on such a display, and started snapping away. I was asked by an employee what I was doing, so I told him. That was the end of it on his side.
The Sunday after Thanksgiving I was pulled over by a local police officer after leaving my parent's business. Apparently the Saturday manager had seen me there the day before waiting to make a left from the lot, and thought I took a picture so she called 911. I guess Barney Fife is alive and well. Despite my best efforts to cooperate, the cop harassed me and threatened me for 20 minutes that afternoon for not committing a crime as far as I could tell. I did call the mayor and emailed the chief of police, but his second in commmand demonstrated a masterful grasp of how to be an idiot in a position of little power, I must say, lying and BSing about how there was an "investigation." It'll be a cold day in hell before I give a that town's cops the benefit of the doubt from that day forward, thanks to their behavior.
The Sunday after Thanksgiving I was pulled over by a local police officer after leaving my parent's business. Apparently the Saturday manager had seen me there the day before waiting to make a left from the lot, and thought I took a picture so she called 911. I guess Barney Fife is alive and well. Despite my best efforts to cooperate, the cop harassed me and threatened me for 20 minutes that afternoon for not committing a crime as far as I could tell. I did call the mayor and emailed the chief of police, but his second in commmand demonstrated a masterful grasp of how to be an idiot in a position of little power, I must say, lying and BSing about how there was an "investigation." It'll be a cold day in hell before I give a that town's cops the benefit of the doubt from that day forward, thanks to their behavior.
hitmanh
dum de dum de doo
It isn't, in the UK private security have no more powers than a private citizen. They have no legal right to confiscate equipment, demand photo's are deleted or physically detained you. All they can do is ask you to leave the premises.
As for the original post... it's private property and the owner can have any rules they like (within certain limits) and they have no requirement to explain the reasoning behind those rules to you. Why people waste time demanding to know reason behind the rules is beyond me. The security guard has neither the power or the inclination to change things just for you.
Last edited:
George S.
How many is enough?
40oz,
You were given some slack beecause you identified yourself as an employee of Actvision, who had a display there. A lot of vendors do take shots of their displays after they set them up, either because they think it looks good, or they need to prove to their boss that the store display was done properly. We regularly threw out comparison shoppers from other stores as well as the amateur videographer who wanted to shoot a scene from his movie when I worked for Home Depot. You can spy all you want up and until the point that you whip out a camera, that is their policy. ( And many other retail chains' policies )
You were given some slack beecause you identified yourself as an employee of Actvision, who had a display there. A lot of vendors do take shots of their displays after they set them up, either because they think it looks good, or they need to prove to their boss that the store display was done properly. We regularly threw out comparison shoppers from other stores as well as the amateur videographer who wanted to shoot a scene from his movie when I worked for Home Depot. You can spy all you want up and until the point that you whip out a camera, that is their policy. ( And many other retail chains' policies )
Last edited:
ElectroWNED
Well-known
I just have to wonder what danger a camera poses inside of a shopping mall...?
bmattock
Veteran
Who says it is a 'danger'? Even if there is danger, who says it is the 'camera' that causes it?
Inside private property the owners and managers have the right to restrict photography if they wish to, although I certainly suspect that's going to become harder and harder to enforce, with more and more people wandering around with cell-phone cameras these days.
Why do they often choose to restrict it? I don't know the reasons, but I can take a few guesses - and ultimately, they don't have to have any reasons.
One reason might be as simple as liability. Malls get sued all the time - slip and fall, etc. Photographic evidence of a spill or a leak might not do them any good in court. Or, they might get sued by someone who was wandering around looking through a lens and stumbled over a balcony - stupid people love to sue other people for how stupid they are. Or they might get sued by someone who tripped over another person who stopped and took a photo suddenly. Things like that. Ridiculous? Sure, but lawyers are paid to think up things like that - and try to prevent them from happening, or at least 'forbidding it' so that the mall is less liable if it does happen.
Another might be pressure from their tenants, who don't want corporate espionage, like photos of how full or empty their store is, how well-lit, how attractively decorated, mall location, what their customers look and dress like, blah, blah, blah. That's not to say that such things can't happen anyway, with hidden cameras and so on, but they stop what they can, the low-hanging fruit, that kind of thing.
And I'm not arguing that their reasons are good ones - but that doesn't mean they don't have reasons. Anyway, in the end, it's their mall, their rules. I worry about what I can do something about - like restrictions on photography in public spaces outdoors.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The most rediculous "no photograpy" restrictions are the ones at places like airports. Many such places have video cameras all over the interior, nice and high up near the ceiling too, and if you go to their website you can tour the facility on your computer screen. If nobody else has control of one of the cameras at the moment then you can take over, panning, tilting, and zooming to your heart's content. You can do it from your home, office, or even with a laptop.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Recently went to take some pictures at Lancaster castle just up the road from where I live.It is 800 years old but still used as a prison and court room. The court was in session that day. About to fire off a few shots when I noticed the sign saying that any attempt at photography carried a min of two years in prison. Camera quickly put away !
astroman
-
arj7297
Newbie
LA Metro
LA Metro
Hi all,
new to the forum..last week I went to take some pix on the La Metro starting at Hollywood/Highland towards Union St.
I was taking some b&w's of the metro and trains, and when I got in the car a guy came up to me and said, "do you have a permit"? I said, "no, I'm just a tourist". He said, "you're not allowed to take pictures!", in a really bossy tone. I said, "im just taking a light reading" (white lie).
Anyway, I'm originally from NYC and have taken tons of photo's on the subway...So I emailed metro and got this response:
If you use a hand held camera, refrain from taking pictures of METRO
passengers or any models you bring to the stations, refrain from taking
pictures while riding inside the train, and conduct your activities in
a safe and professional manner, as most tourist do, you are ALLOWED to
take photo in the METRO.
Herman Hagan
Film Manager
213 922-5616
LA Metro
Hi all,
new to the forum..last week I went to take some pix on the La Metro starting at Hollywood/Highland towards Union St.
I was taking some b&w's of the metro and trains, and when I got in the car a guy came up to me and said, "do you have a permit"? I said, "no, I'm just a tourist". He said, "you're not allowed to take pictures!", in a really bossy tone. I said, "im just taking a light reading" (white lie).
Anyway, I'm originally from NYC and have taken tons of photo's on the subway...So I emailed metro and got this response:
If you use a hand held camera, refrain from taking pictures of METRO
passengers or any models you bring to the stations, refrain from taking
pictures while riding inside the train, and conduct your activities in
a safe and professional manner, as most tourist do, you are ALLOWED to
take photo in the METRO.
Herman Hagan
Film Manager
213 922-5616
dave lackey
Veteran
arj7297
Newbie
exactly!:bang:
ElectroWNED
Well-known
it means you print that out and carry it with you, so the next time some Fascist pig tries to stop you from taking pictures, you hand him the copy and keep shooting.
bmattock
Veteran
Standing up for your rights is important. Be aware that when you do, you risk having to be arrested, go to jail, and then fight in court to defend that right.
The chances are that if a police officer tells you that photography is forbidden in this place or that place, he or she is not going to be out-argued by you or read your little print-out, or give up and go away because you ignore them and keep shooting. Chances are, you'll be arrested.
I'm not advocating bowing down and giving up. Nor am I advocating standing up to 'the man' at every chance. I am suggesting that you be aware of what might happen and make your decision about what you wish to do about it.
I've done both - sometimes because I had to be at work on Monday, and being in a cell makes it tough to phone in sick. Pick your battles. You have my respect if you are willing to go all the way with it - people do need to do that if the police are going to amend their ways.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Given that "private property" of that scale is often funded with taxpayer money, well...
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I know this forum hosts afficionados of classic camera technology, but these circumstances are ideal for the technology of the cell phone camera. The right tool for the right job.
Of course, taking photos of passengers on the LA metro is still illegal, even with a cellphone camera; it's just the chances of getting caught are less. So Bill's point is very relevant: there's a point where we must stand up for our rights, but be prepared for the consequences of doing so.
I suspect the only way this situation is going to get better for photographers universally is an organized movement or campaign. Education, lobbying governments for legal reform and protection, etc. One problem I can foresee is conflict of interest with others who favor continued isolation and restriction of the photography populace, in the name of "privacy", protection of trademark or intellectual property, or "terrorism".
You'd think the camera manufacturers would have a vested interest in this issue, as restriction of use would seemingly affect long term viability of sales, especially regarding specialist equipment marketed to the enthusiast sector, where profit margins are higher. Like street photographers.
~Joe
Of course, taking photos of passengers on the LA metro is still illegal, even with a cellphone camera; it's just the chances of getting caught are less. So Bill's point is very relevant: there's a point where we must stand up for our rights, but be prepared for the consequences of doing so.
I suspect the only way this situation is going to get better for photographers universally is an organized movement or campaign. Education, lobbying governments for legal reform and protection, etc. One problem I can foresee is conflict of interest with others who favor continued isolation and restriction of the photography populace, in the name of "privacy", protection of trademark or intellectual property, or "terrorism".
You'd think the camera manufacturers would have a vested interest in this issue, as restriction of use would seemingly affect long term viability of sales, especially regarding specialist equipment marketed to the enthusiast sector, where profit margins are higher. Like street photographers.
~Joe