# Well, it happened to me; Bugged by security.



## RMThompson (Apr 7, 2008)

This weekend I was doing a photoshoot and my model and I went to the mall for a change of pace, and started snapping some pics.

We went all ninja style, and had her change and we walked around the mall snapping a few pics, on loungechairs in the middle of the councourse, on the escalator, etc. Then, for the next ones we went out to the top of the parking structure, and there was not a SINGLE car parked up there. So we took some pics, on the stairwells, and as the model went into my car to change, I started just taking some general shots of the restaurants below, because of the unique angle. As I was doing so, a security car pulled up and demanded to know "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?"

I told her I was taking pictures.

"WELL YOU CANT BE UP HERE WITHOUT PERMISSION!"

She was very angry and hot under the collar, until I asked... "How do I get permission?" I don't think she saw that question coming! LOL She just looked at me, and then started to tell me where the office was, and gave me a mini lecture on it being private property. Then she proceeded to tell me that the office was close, and she was going to escort me off the property. I made one final plea to stay and take pics, since the office was closed, and she indicated that they already have seen us on the cameras and if I stayed SHE could get in trouble.

Then I threw her another curveball... "Can't I stay and shop?" she didn't know what to say. She was stunned, so I said "Nevermind, I don't want to shop here anyhow", and she followed us until we were off property. We took off, did some shots at another location and then went back to do some more shots near her car. 

All in all, it wasn't that bad, but I just wanted to ask... "WHO am I hurting by taking pics"? 

I mean being on the stairwell they already provide for walking up and down doesn't do anything different. Some would say "liability insurance", but again I'm already on their property as a shopper.

Ridiculous.


----------



## bhop (Apr 7, 2008)

Didn't you know that terrorists shopping for funny tee shirts could get ideas from those pics?


----------



## mrodgers (Apr 7, 2008)

The problem wasn't that you were there taking pictures.  The problem was that you were there loitering and not there shopping.  If you owned a business, would you want people hanging out just taking pictures or would you want them there to shop?

Yes, I'm sure that the security was just being a.......  But the fact remains that you weren't there shopping and that is what the mall and parking area is there for.

The nerve of them kicking you out of their property when you had no intentions of being a customer....


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 7, 2008)

mrodgers said:


> The problem wasn't that you were there taking pictures. The problem was that you were there loitering and not there shopping. If you owned a business, would you want people hanging out just taking pictures or would you want them there to shop?
> 
> Yes, I'm sure that the security was just being a....... But the fact remains that you weren't there shopping and that is what the mall and parking area is there for.
> 
> The nerve of them kicking you out of their property when you had no intentions of being a customer....


 
Well, mrrodgers, if you must know I did make several purchases that day, food, beverage and a small purchase at the music store. So that begs the question, at what point does it become loitering? If a family goes to dinner, and then stands outside of the place for a few family pics to remember the night, surely no one will bat an eye... but after how long is that considered loitering?

Besides, i asked if I could return to SHOP, and she still wasn't sure. How could I not be allowed to shop? WHY should i not be?


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Apr 7, 2008)

You were on private property. 

There is no one on here who supports the rights of photogrphers to shoot in the public, more than me. But in this case, you were on private property.

Could the security person have handled it better- yes. But that is the situation you found yourself in.  You have to deal with it accordingly.


----------



## Lacey Anne (Apr 7, 2008)

Rick Waldroup said:


> You were on private property.
> 
> There is no one on here who supports the rights of photogrphers to shoot in the public, more than me. But in this case, you were on private property.
> 
> Could the security person have handled it better- yes. But that is the situation you found yourself in. You have to deal with it accordingly.


I could be wrong, but isn't a mall and it's parking lot considered a public place? At least during business hours?


----------



## JIP (Apr 7, 2008)

As far as I know (and I ain't no legal scholar) a mall is considered private property.  I think you might have been let in if you had asked beforehand but they can't just have random people walking in off the street and having photo sessions.  I know this was not you but how would it have been if some pro came in with 4-5 studio strobes several models and a couple of assistants.  I think you may have even looked like this to them.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 7, 2008)

Lacey Anne said:


> I could be wrong, but isn't a mall and it's parking lot considered a public place? At least during business hours?



Public place and public property are two different things.  Besides a mall like most any other business is private property that is open to the public.  It just means that you can enter when the doors are unlocked.


----------



## Lacey Anne (Apr 7, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Public place and public property are two different things. Besides a mall like most any other business is private property that is open to the public. It just means that you can enter when the doors are unlocked.


http://photojojo.com/content/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/

#1

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I promise. I'm just curious because I really don't know. Is that right, their #1 rule? If it is then the op was in the right. I just don't know if it's right or not.


----------



## schumionbike (Apr 7, 2008)

Lacey Anne said:


> I could be wrong, but isn't a mall and it's parking lot considered a public place? At least during business hours?


 

It really depend on the jurisdiction. Some considered a mall to be a public place because it serve a public purpose and therefore must be treated as if it is public property. You can't not not allow people into your mall because of the color of their skin. That is one example. You can actually do that if it is your house because it is private property and unlike the mall, it's not considered public.

Some other jurisdictions, their rationale is a mall is a place of business for the owners and if your kind of activities hurt the business of the owner in a reasonable way, then maybe you can't conduct such activity. One example is some malls don't allow campaigning inside the mall and courts upheld such rule even though such rule would go against the freedom of speech. But it is reasonable to say that when people go shopping, they probably don't like to bother by campaigning, just wrong time and wrong place.

As far as RMThompson, I would have to say that the mall has the right here since having a photoshoot at the mall might make others uncomfortable and might give the mall a bad name if every photographers in the world come to that mall to have photoshoots. Taking snapshot with friend and family is one thing, photoshoots is quite another. I'm not saying that your action did any specific damage to the mall, but it is reasonable to say that allowing such behaviors could lead to problems.


----------



## Lacey Anne (Apr 8, 2008)

schumionbike said:


> It really depend on the jurisdiction. Some considered a mall to be a public place because it serve a public purpose and therefore must be treated as if it is public property. You can't not not allow people into your mall because of the color of their skin. That is one example. You can actually do that if it is your house because it is private property and unlike the mall, it's not considered public.
> 
> Some other jurisdictions, their rationale is a mall is a place of business for the owners and if your kind of activities hurt the business of the owner in a reasonable way, then maybe you can't conduct such activity. One example is some malls don't allow campaigning inside the mall and courts upheld such rule even though such rule would go against the freedom of speech. But it is reasonable to say that when people go shopping, they probably don't like to bother by campaigning, just wrong time and wrong place.
> 
> As far as RMThompson, I would have to say that the mall has the right here since having a photoshoot at the mall might make others uncomfortable and might give the mall a bad name if every photographers in the world come to that mall to have photoshoots. Taking snapshot with friend and family is one thing, photoshoots is quite another. I'm not saying that your action did any specific damage to the mall, but it is reasonable to say that allowing such behaviors could lead to problems.


That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying for me. I have no experience with this kind of thing so I was genuinely curious.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 8, 2008)

schumionbike said:


> You can't not not allow people into your mall because of the color of their skin. That is one example. You can actually do that if it is your house because it is private property and unlike the mall, it's not considered public.


Bad example. Discrimination based on skin color is specifically identified in law as as a forbidden practice. There is, however, legal discrimination.  For example, a privately owned public facility, such as a restaurant, can refuse to allow you entrance based on the way that you're dressed.  Similarly, the mall can refuse to allow you entrance because you're carrying a camera.


----------



## schumionbike (Apr 8, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Bad example. Discrimination based on skin color is specifically identified in law as as a forbidden practice. There is, however, legal discrimination. For example, a privately owned public facility, such as a restaurant, can refuse to allow you entrance based on the way that you're dressed. Similarly, the mall can refuse to allow you entrance because you're carrying a camera.


 
That was not the point. The point is that a mall could be considered public property in some circumstances. Race is an easy example. That's why I gave the contrast between a mall and a house. You can discriminate base on race in your house but not in a mall even though both are private property. In your example, I'm sure you can do that on any privately own property.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 8, 2008)

schumionbike said:


> That was not the point. The point is that a mall could be considered public property in some circumstances. Race is an easy example. That's why I gave the contrast between a mall and a house. You can discriminate base on race in your house but not in a mall even though both are private property. In your example, I'm sure you can do that on any privately own property.


Yes, in my example, that can be done on any privately-owned property, whether it's open to the public or not.

Owners of private property that is open to the public can discriminate for any reason whatever (except fopr those reasons forbidden by law).  Race discrimination is, again, a bad example because it's specifically identified in law as illegal in any facility open to the public.


----------



## usayit (Apr 8, 2008)

As someone already said... the mall is private property even though it is open to the public:

Wiki explains it better:

Public property is any property that is controlled by a state or by a whole community. Private property is any property that is not public property. Private property may be under the control of a single individual or by a group of individuals collectively.

Therefore, any property that is not owned by the state or local government is considered private property.  The owners have the right to descriminate anyway they see fit as long as it doesn't violate any laws.

As a photographer, I hate this stuff but as someone who worked in retail in the past I can understand that the rights of the private business owner has to be upheld.


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 8, 2008)

Whoa, whoa whoa!

I never said the mall doesn't have the right to tell me to stop! Of course they do! I never ONCE claimed the mall is public property, it's not! It's PRIVATE PROPERTY that has public access.

There are parts of the mall I, or you, aren't allowed in, store backrooms for example. I would never pretend that this is public property and that we should all be able to do what we want.

Nor do I doubt the right of the security guard to tell me to stop takings pictures... she had the right, and I complied. The law states I can take pictures in a mall, since it's considered public SPACE. However the land is still owned by someone and they have the right to tell me to stop, and they did.

My beef is with the REASONING behind it. We weren't hurting anyone, we weren't endangering anyone, and with being on the roof - we weren't even impeding any transactions or distracting customers from the wares of the stores.

It's just another case of over security... that's all.


----------



## usayit (Apr 8, 2008)

oh yeh... just remember..

Even though it is private property, they do not have the right to confescate equipment that is your property.  This includes rolls of film.


Just out of curiosity... 

Where you shooting with an SLR or point&shoot???


I've been "bugged" by security many times... almost always with an "big" flashy SLR.  P&S or my rangefinder.. rarely.


----------



## Battou (Apr 8, 2008)

RMThompson said:


> It's just another case of over security... that's all.



Actually, if you where in a restricted aria that is not the case at all. She was there to have you remove yourself from the restricted aria, that is a part of her job description. I doubt her original intent was oriented around your photographing, I imagine it branched into it with your stated intrest in continuing your work in said restricted aria. This is likely why you where asked to leave the premisis as you would be unable to gain the permit to shoot in that location. This is a case of better safe than sorry on the part of the security guard. She was likely under the assumption you would return the moment she turned her back.


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 8, 2008)

usayit said:


> oh yeh... just remember..
> 
> Even though it is private property, they do not have the right to confescate equipment that is your property. This includes rolls of film.
> 
> ...


 
Nikon D50, with 50mm lens and an SB-800 flash.


----------



## Battou (Apr 8, 2008)

usayit said:


> oh yeh... just remember..
> 
> Even though it is private property, they do not have the right to confescate equipment that is your property.  This includes rolls of film.
> 
> ...



it should be the other way around, the big flashy SLRs should be an indicator that one knows what they are doing wile the point and shoot more indicating unprofesional.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 8, 2008)

RMThompson said:


> ...
> All in all, it wasn't that bad, but I just wanted to ask... "WHO am I hurting by taking pics"? ...
> 
> ...
> Ridiculous.



I'd think you could get your question answered by calling the mall office and see what it takes to set up a casual shoot like that.


----------



## usayit (Apr 8, 2008)

Battou said:


> it should be the other way around, the big flashy SLRs should be an indicator that one knows what they are doing wile the point and shoot more indicating unprofesional.




Thats my point...


P&S = non-professional which most business owners do not feel threatened by...  so many people carry them just for personal snapping of family and friends.  The is the same for camera phones.  I'm still there to do business and shop... I just happen to snap a few photos of my son running around.  

SLRs = professional which means they are intruding in your place of business.  These are people who are not there to shop.  They are their for their own profiting.  They will take action and/or ask for you to formally request permission.

This is the same for people...  If I'm at the playground with a small camera (with my son), no one takes notice.  If I'm at that same playground with my 1D MII and a 70-200 f2.8L WHITE big lens attached, parents start treating me like I'm a perverted child molester.



My rangefinders almost always are mistaken for just plain jane P&S.   I've had 6 lenses, 2 rangefinder in a shoulder bag that looks like a regular messenger bag... no problems.  I've had 1 SLR and 1 zoom... been asked to leave.


----------



## schumionbike (Apr 8, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Yes, in my example, that can be done on any privately-owned property, whether it's open to the public or not.
> 
> Owners of private property that is open to the public can discriminate for any reason whatever (except fopr those reasons forbidden by law). Race discrimination is, again, a bad example because it's specifically identified in law as illegal in any facility open to the public.


 

I'm just trying to make show how some privately owned facilitity could be subject to public law such as race discrimination.  The fact that race discrimination is specifically identified in law as illegal isn't relavance, it's still a public law that is apply  to privately own property such as a mall due to public policy reason. The same public policy does not hold as much weight when it come privately own homes.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Apr 8, 2008)

Also, as crazy as it sounds, many store owners or managers are paranoid about having their window displays photographed. They are worried about the competition.

Anyone can walk into a mall with a camera and take photos. However, if asked not to take photos by a security person, then you must stop. If you continue to shoot and the guard tells you to either stop or leave the mall, then you have to comply. If you keep shooting, at that point, you are trespassing.

As mentioned before, it is usually the guys with the DSLR's and such that get bothered. If you show up with a P&S, or what _appears _to be a P&S, most of the time, you never get a second glance from anyone.


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 8, 2008)

Battou said:


> Actually, if you where in a restricted aria that is not the case at all. She was there to have you remove yourself from the restricted aria, that is a part of her job description. I doubt her original intent was oriented around your photographing, I imagine it branched into it with your stated intrest in continuing your work in said restricted aria. This is likely why you where asked to leave the premisis as you would be unable to gain the permit to shoot in that location. This is a case of better safe than sorry on the part of the security guard. She was likely under the assumption you would return the moment she turned her back.


 
A parking lot is not a restricted area. I never entered a restricted area, just the parking lot, and the stairwell that customers use to go to the lower parking areas.


----------



## Battou (Apr 8, 2008)

It's my understanding you where in a parking structure.

Was this a parking lot or a parking structure?

A parking Structure is considerably different than a parking lot in the fact it is a structure. Any structure and or section of a structure can be deemed as a restricted aria and enforced, usually for saftey reasons. Restricted arias do not meen that people can not go there, but mearly must have a reason to be in the aria with in a certain set context unless otherwise permitted. Parking sturctures are almost always classified as restricted arias, restricted to motorists using the facility and pedestrians in transit to/from their vehicle to/form the ajoined facility, pedestrians often are not permitted to freely roam about the facility. 

By stopping to take a picture, you in essence became a roaming pedestrian. 

Don't get me wrong, I am all for the rights of photographers, but I look at both sides of the equation and yes this is a liability thing.

To put a blunt answer to the question you posted in the original post: No one, however the security staff are not going to let you do something where you, your model, or company property at risk. This is their job wether you are a patron or not.

You want to shoot there, call the office get the permit....then rub it in her face if you want, but the one fact remains they where well within their right to request you to leave at that time. You did the right thing by complying to that request. 

Truth is what happened to you should be a near perfect example of how to deal with the situation...the only exceptions being the final plea and the return trip to shot near the car, but any who.


----------



## skieur (Apr 8, 2008)

Lacey Anne said:


> I could be wrong, but isn't a mall and it's parking lot considered a public place? At least during business hours?


 
Boy, I am glad someone knows their law.  YES, a mall and parking lot are considered a public place.  If that were not the case, most regular laws would not apply.

Yes, you can legally take photos in a public place such as a mall or parking lot but if the owner or his representative tell you that you are trespassing, then you have to leave.

skieur


----------



## Socrates (Apr 8, 2008)

skieur said:


> Boy, I am glad someone knows their law. YES, a mall and parking lot are considered a public place. If that were not the case, most regular laws would not apply.


Malls and parking lots are not public places.  They are private places open to the public.

I'm uncertain what you mean by "regular laws." In all states in the U.S. that I'm aware, you can not get a ticket for running a stop sign in a parking lot but you can get arrested for drunk driving. As far as law enforcement is concerned, it's not any different from your own property. Misdemeanors can not be enforced but felonies (called "high misdemeanors in some states) can be enforced.

The only other distinction is related specifically to "private property open to the public," such as malls, stores, restaurants, etc. The governing bodies have the authority to write and enforce "public safety" laws, such as related to discrimination, food safety, handicap access, etc. (Yeah, some of those laws are a stretch.)

In the absence of any specific law to the contrary, the owner of the property has the same rights as the owner of a private home.


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 8, 2008)

RM, I would have loved to hear that you did a little homework and got written permission to do a casual shoot in there and that you flabbergasted that guard.

As it turned out, your taking shots there was a bad move and caused you a little grief.

Thats ok, no harm done and you did end up being a gentleman about it, though you were playing with her head a bit with the shopping questions... lol


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 8, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> RM, I would have loved to hear that you did a little homework and got written permission to do a casual shoot in there and that you flabbergasted that guard.
> 
> As it turned out, your taking shots there was a bad move and caused you a little grief.
> 
> Thats ok, no harm done and you did end up being a gentleman about it, though you were playing with her head a bit with the shopping questions... lol


 
I wish I would've too, but the fact is that no one will ever grant this permission... they have no reason too!

Taking the shots wasn't a bad move though! I got the shots I needed, and there was no harm, no foul. I can use any of the pictures I want, so it wasn't a waste.

I did tease her a bit about shopping, because she was more adamant about stopping me from taking pictures. I feel like I could've argued my way back to shopping, but hey, I was on the job!


----------



## THORHAMMER (Apr 8, 2008)

you'll never get permission to shoot somewhere commercial like that unless you know someone in the management and can come up with a million dollar insurance bond.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 8, 2008)

It sounds/looks like you've arrived at a point where this is becoming quite a professional enterprise.  You may want to become familiar with where and when permissions are required for shoots with models.  There most likely will be money involved. This can determine the feasibility of a location. There's a lot that can be gotten away with going outlaw and renegade, but why jeopardize yourself, your model, and client?  

I used to work with a regional film commission which covered commercial photography- seeing the ugly innards, if some folks get the chance, they can become quite "prickish."


----------



## skieur (Apr 8, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Malls and parking lots are not public places. They are private places open to the public.
> 
> I'm uncertain what you mean by "regular laws." In all states in the U.S. that I'm aware, you can not get a ticket for running a stop sign in a parking lot but you can get arrested for drunk driving. As far as law enforcement is concerned, it's not any different from your own property. Misdemeanors can not be enforced but felonies (called "high misdemeanors in some states) can be enforced.
> 
> ...


 
Socrates, The US Supreme Court defined a public place as a place to which the general public has access.  That makes malls public places.

skieur


----------



## THORHAMMER (Apr 8, 2008)

before you guys fight over semantics all night, 


its simple as pie. 

public access = public access

private owned can be also public access like the mall for example. 

they can make up whatever rules they want as long as it doesn't violate state law. 

they are not telling you you cannot be there, just what you can and cannot do while there, just as you would tell someone your house rules inside your house. just this is not your house its a huge commercial entity.

you can shoot ANYTHING in there as long as you are not violating privacy laws like shooting into bathroom stalls or changing rooms etc..(common sense) 

they can ask you to leave, you can challenge it if its not a written policy , ask them to call their supervisor. 

if they ultimately ask you to leave you must leave. end of story. 
or its trespassing and the police will take you away
---------------------------------------------------------


----------



## usayit (Apr 8, 2008)

skieur said:


> Socrates, The US Supreme Court defined a public place as a place to which the general public has access.  That makes malls public places.
> 
> skieur



Please post a reference.....  

I do believe you are confusing the definition of a place accessible by the public (Private business open to the general public) and a place that is public property (Property owned by the local government).  Two completely different things...

This has already been brought up several times in this thread.

This is similar to some state's concealed weapon laws.  You have the right to carry a concealed weapon (assuming proper licensing) but a private establishment (malls, restaurants, clubs, etc) retains the right to refuse you entry.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 8, 2008)

This is interesting;

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

However, I'm not sure if/how it applies to a commercial shoot with models.


----------



## usayit (Apr 8, 2008)

The key in that article is the last section.. Risk Factors which still fall in line with what is being posted here.

In the place I work, you are more than welcome to have a camera but the security guards don't have to let you past the lobby.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 8, 2008)

I'm getting an education out of this.

http://www.photosecrets.com/law.take.html


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 8, 2008)

abraxas said:


> I'm getting an education out of this.
> 
> http://www.photosecrets.com/law.take.html


 
Yes. Interesting... especially since I wasn't specifically asked to leave the mall, and once we were in the parking lot she didn't follow us... I think that would fall under:

*



			<H3>What if a mall security guard says to stop taking photos?
		
Click to expand...

*


> This comes down to photographing and trespassing being two different things. If a private security guard asks you to stop taking photos, you do not have to comply; you can still take photos. But if they ask you leave, then you have to leave, as your permission to enter has been revoked and you are now trespassing. However, you can take photos while walking out, and you can still publish those pictures. For more, see trespassing.


</H3>


----------



## Socrates (Apr 9, 2008)

skieur said:


> Socrates, The US Supreme Court defined a public place as a place to which the general public has access. That makes malls public places.
> 
> skieur


Can you elaborate?  What case?


----------



## skieur (Apr 9, 2008)

usayit said:


> Please post a reference.....
> 
> I do believe you are confusing the definition of a place accessible by the public (Private business open to the general public) and a place that is public property (Property owned by the local government). Two completely different things...
> 
> ...


 
No, not confusing anything.  The US Supreme Court defined public place in terms of access, which is no surprise since other countries have done the same thing in Europe and elsewhere.

Betamax decision: Disney versus Sony.  You find the web site.  I have a written version buried somewhere.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Apr 9, 2008)

abraxas said:


> I'm getting an education out of this.
> 
> http://www.photosecrets.com/law.take.html


 
Not totally correct on use, but on the whole very good.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Apr 9, 2008)

abraxas said:


> This is interesting;
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
> 
> However, I'm not sure if/how it applies to a commercial shoot with models.


 
The only difference with a commercial shoot is that you cannot interfere with the normal operation of the mall as in interfering with the movement of customers or the business of a particular store that you may be close to while shooting.  To do so, might lead to different charges.

skieur


----------



## Socrates (Apr 9, 2008)

skieur said:


> No, not confusing anything. The US Supreme Court defined public place in terms of access, which is no surprise since other countries have done the same thing in Europe and elsewhere.
> 
> Betamax decision: Disney versus Sony. You find the web site. I have a written version buried somewhere.
> 
> skieur


Help me out here.  I'm completely unable to locate any reference to "the US Supreme Court defined public place in terms of access."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417


----------



## abraxas (Apr 9, 2008)

skieur said:


> Not totally correct on use, but on the whole very good.
> 
> skieur



I decided long ago to stay the hell out of malls, let alone go to take pictures. The film commission meetings I attended for a few years reinforced my decision with their attitude/behavior.  Anyway though, I'm wondering how the mall situation applies to commercial shoots with a model.  I'm pretty in National Parks a permit is required for product shoots or with models/actors. Just can't find anything on it regarding malls/private property with public access.

Hm.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 9, 2008)

heheh,.. called the local mall. 

waiting for them to call me back with an answer.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 9, 2008)

Ok, that was fun.

The mall manager told me that as long as I didn't show either customers, or tenants that I could do as I pleased, just shooting the model.  However, I would be escorted by a security guard during what I plan to be an approximately two hour visit/session.  No problem. They asked for a time frame (about 3 weeks) and a couple days advance notice so they could arrange the schedule for the escort.

Heck, that was easy.  Might even do it.  The nice girl/manager sounded kind of hot. Wouldn't mind checking that out up close.


----------



## lostprophet (Apr 9, 2008)

just do what I do and wear one of these

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/photog...9676/pNo_36969676/id_9444127/opt_/pg_/c_/fpt_


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 9, 2008)

usayit said:


> oh yeh... just remember..
> 
> Even though it is private property, they do not have the right to confescate equipment that is your property. This includes rolls of film.


 
Which many many "officials" and not so officials tend to try and overlook.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 9, 2008)

So my point is; What does it hurt to ask permission to use private property even though there is public access? 

It's not hard to ask- you do have that right.


----------



## schumionbike (Apr 9, 2008)

skieur said:


> No, not confusing anything. The US Supreme Court defined public place in terms of access, which is no surprise since other countries have done the same thing in Europe and elsewhere.
> 
> Betamax decision: Disney versus Sony. You find the web site. I have a written version buried somewhere.
> 
> skieur


 
Can you tell me how you came to such conclusion or if there was a quote in the case I can look at?  I read that case a while back and I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 9, 2008)

schumionbike said:


> Can you tell me how you came to such conclusion or if there was a quote in the case I can look at?  I read that case a while back and I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.



My guess is that he can't.  Here is the brief from the case:

 SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, v. UNIVERSAL CITY
STUDIOS, INC. and WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS, Respondents.

http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/betamax_amicus_state.pdf

It has absolutely nothing to do with private property/public property/public access in regards to real property.  It discusses at one point "public access" to television transmission over the public airwaves for public consumption.  Not ever remotely related to the topic at hand.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 9, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> My guess is that he can't.  Here is the brief from the case:
> 
> SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, v. UNIVERSAL CITY
> STUDIOS, INC. and WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS, Respondents.
> ...



I came to the same conclusion here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417


----------



## skieur (Apr 9, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Help me out here. I'm completely unable to locate any reference to "the US Supreme Court defined public place in terms of access."
> 
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417


 
I haven't found a quick reference either but I followed the case at the time because it affected my work as media consultant.  You need to use different terms such as Betamax case judgement or some other rephrasing to try and get the details.

Basically the Supreme Court Issue revolved around the fact that Disney had the right to show their movies in a public place for entertainment purposes.  Sony in turn argued that their manufacture of betamax was for private use which did not impinge on Disney's rights.  The argument progressed to what constitutes "a public place".  The Supreme Court fell back on Webster's dictionnary and the definition that "a public place was a place to which the general public had access."  This coicided with decisions in other countries as well that 'access' determined whether it was public or not.

Recent trials in the U.S. for lewd and indecent conduct have revolved around whether the location was a "public place" or not.  Judgements have been consistently made on whether the  public had access to the particular location even storage rooms in hospitals or other private property locations.  There have even been legal arguments that if the public can see into a location, then it should be deemed a public place in law.  This issue is yet to be decided with any certainty.

A lot of what I have seen on the web is not based on case law and trends.  If you have a stake in current legal trends, positions, and decision then you try your best to know the area.  Having just won a very substantial law suit, I am not exactly an idiot when it comes to the law.

skieur


----------



## usayit (Apr 9, 2008)

but it makes no case that a public place is equivalent to public property (private property with public access) which is the discussion here.


----------



## schumionbike (Apr 9, 2008)

skieur said:


> I haven't found a quick reference either but I followed the case at the time because it affected my work as media consultant. You need to use different terms such as Betamax case judgement or some other rephrasing to try and get the details.
> 
> Basically the Supreme Court Issue revolved around the fact that Disney had the right to show their movies in a public place for entertainment purposes. Sony in turn argued that their manufacture of betamax was for private use which did not impinge on Disney's rights. The argument progressed to what constitutes "a public place". The Supreme Court fell back on Webster's dictionnary and the definition that "a public place was a place to which the general public had access." This coicided with decisions in other countries as well that 'access' determined whether it was public or not.
> 
> ...


 

hey there Skieur, while Supreme court might have gave a definition of a public place, the purpose of that case in my opinion, was for a copyright dispute which have to do with the labor theory of property. I think here we're talking about the owner of private real property and their ability to exclude, after all, you own property that you can't exclude others, what's the point??? As I say before, when it come to mall, the owner ability to exclude really depend on the purpose and method of the exclusion and the jurisdictions. The cases I have read come from the mid 80's and I believed they were decided after the Supreme Court case decided on the Sony case.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 10, 2008)

skieur said:


> I haven't found a quick reference either but I followed the case at the time because it affected my work as media consultant.  You need to use different terms such as Betamax case judgement or some other rephrasing to try and get the details.
> 
> Basically the Supreme Court Issue revolved around the fact that Disney had the right to show their movies in a public place for entertainment purposes.  Sony in turn argued that their manufacture of betamax was for private use which did not impinge on Disney's rights.  The argument progressed to what constitutes "a public place".  The Supreme Court fell back on Webster's dictionnary and the definition that "a public place was a place to which the general public had access."  This coicided with decisions in other countries as well that 'access' determined whether it was public or not.


 
The case revolved around alleged copyright infringement by private citizens and the fact that Sony was selling a product that allowed others to copy for home use transmitted signals to be viewed at a later time.  Universal Studios and Disney were trying to stop the use of the VTR  (video tape recorder for you youngsters out there) for home recording. Black's Law Dictionary is the most commonly used dictionary and cited dictionary for legal proceedings in the United States, not Websters.   



> Recent trials in the U.S. for lewd and indecent conduct have revolved around whether the location was a "public place" or not.  Judgements have been consistently made on whether the  public had access to the particular location even storage rooms in hospitals or other private property locations.  There have even been legal arguments that if the public can see into a location, then it should be deemed a public place in law.  This issue is yet to be decided with any certainty.



You are confusing public place with public view.  Two different things.  You and your wife can have sex legally in your own bedroom can you not?  However if you leave the curtains open and the lights on within view of the public (public view) you have now committed an act of lewd and lascivious conduct.  Are you trying to tell me that your bedroom is a public place?



> A lot of what I have seen on the web is not based on case law and trends.  If you have a stake in current legal trends, positions, and decision then you try your best to know the area.  Having just won a very substantial law suit, I am not exactly an idiot when it comes to the law.



You won your law suit here in the US or in Canada?  The law is just a bit different in the two countries.  What kind of law suit was it that you won? 

Case law is the backbone of a lower courts interpertation of a legal matter.  The lower courts look to case law by the higher courts.  When the Supreme Court makes case law, it is the law of the land. If what you have seen on the web is not based on case law then  your understanding is wrong.

Having spent the last 26 years in the legal field, and with the particular place I hold in my organization, it is my job to follow the rulings of the Supreme court as well as the lower courts.  That is why I receive several publications monthly on just these types of decisions put out by the United States Department of Justice dealing with not only the decisions by the Supreme court, but by those that are handed down by circuit courts and the appellate courts.  Since I deal on a daily basis with the United States Attorneys office I too have a bit of an understanding of U.S. Law.  

As for Canadian Law, well from what I hear they have some up there, but I couldn't tell you what it is, cause it just doesn't effect me one bit.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 10, 2008)

skieur said:


> I haven't found a quick reference either but I followed the case at the time because it affected my work as media consultant. You need to use different terms such as Betamax case judgement or some other rephrasing to try and get the details.
> 
> Basically the Supreme Court Issue revolved around the fact that Disney had the right to show their movies in a public place for entertainment purposes. Sony in turn argued that their manufacture of betamax was for private use which did not impinge on Disney's rights. The argument progressed to what constitutes "a public place". The Supreme Court fell back on Webster's dictionnary and the definition that "a public place was a place to which the general public had access." This coicided with decisions in other countries as well that 'access' determined whether it was public or not.
> 
> ...


Well then, perhaps you can provide a link that supports your allegation.  It's certainly not the case that you identified previously.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 10, 2008)

skieur said:


> There have even been legal arguments that if the public can see into a location, then it should be deemed a public place in law. This issue is yet to be decided with any certainty.


Please identify those legal arguments.  If they are successful, that would mean that my property is a "public place" as would be my living room if I leave the blinds open.


----------



## usayit (Apr 10, 2008)

The paparazzi would love to have such laws....


----------



## skieur (Apr 10, 2008)

schumionbike said:


> Can you tell me how you came to such conclusion or if there was a quote in the case I can look at? I read that case a while back and I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.


 
There is a quote in the judgement.

skieur


----------



## schumionbike (Apr 10, 2008)

skieur said:


> There is a quote in the judgement.
> 
> skieur


 

I didn't find the quote you're referring to and even if there is such a quote and that your interpretation of the quote is correct, the case you cited got nothing to do with the right to exclude in real property which is what being discuss.


----------



## Mystwalker (Apr 11, 2008)

I believe a private property such as a "mall" because it is open to public, is considered "public".

If you were a TV person and wanted to go around with a TV camera, I suspect they have to let you.

Because you are not, and security guys probably get misinformation, they are trying to do what they think is their job.

Real question is how much time do you want to spend getting hassled when you can be somewhere else doing something productive?  Even if you win "this fight", I bet next time you are there, the same problem will occur.


----------



## Mystwalker (Apr 11, 2008)

usayit said:


> The paparazzi would love to have such laws....


 
Didn't go through entire thread, but I'm pretty sure paparazzi follow similar type of law.  They do sneak around with super zooms sneaking shots of celebrities.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 11, 2008)

skieur said:


> There is a quote in the judgement.
> 
> skieur


Can you tell us how to find it?


----------



## Socrates (Apr 11, 2008)

schumionbike said:


> I didn't find the quote you're referring to and even if there is such a quote and that your interpretation of the quote is correct, the case you cited got nothing to do with the right to exclude in real property which is what being discuss.


Do you get the feeling that we're never going to get an explanation?


----------



## usayit (Apr 11, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> I believe a private property such as a "mall" because it is open to public, is considered "public".
> 
> If you were a TV person and wanted to go around with a TV camera, I suspect they have to let you.
> 
> Because you are not, and security guys probably get misinformation, they are trying to do what they think is their job.



You guys have this all screwed up.  A Public place is completely different from the legal definition of public property.  


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/public property

"public property n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public. (See: common property)"

Legal definition of private property

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/private+property

"private property n. land not owned by the government or dedicated to public use."

No... A TV crew can be escorted out of any privately owned property... so can a photographer.  If I own private property (mall for example), I have every right to enforce rules set by myself assuming they do not violate any local, state, or federal laws as they supersede any rules I set forth .  That includes escorting you off the premises if I see behavior deemed in appropriate by my definition.  This includes taking photos or video.  This does not include taking possession of your property.  

For example... a public accessible event or show has every right to not allow cameras and video.  Usually th reason given is protection of intellectual property, which includes store fronts and displays.  Just because I make my private property accessible to the public, I do not relinquish my right to manage and control said property.

Sheesh....


Also... here is the legal definition of "public access":

The availability of television or radio broadcast facilities, as provided by law, for use by the public for presentation of programs, as those of community interest.

Again... absolutely nothing to do with what is discussed here.  "public access" in terms of property publicly accessible by the general public isn't even a legal term.


Again... photography isn't illegal but as a private property accessible to the public, I can make it impermissible on my property.  You can take all the photos you want from the sidewalk or street outside that IS PUBLIC PROPERTY (owned by the state).

:x :x :x :x :x :x

You can bend all you want.... the rent-a-cops are in their right as long as they stay within:

1) Federal laws
2) state laws
3) local laws
4) rules set by property owner

in that order...


----------



## usayit (Apr 11, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Didn't go through entire thread, but I'm pretty sure paparazzi follow similar type of law.  They do sneak around with super zooms sneaking shots of celebrities.



Actually most of what they do is limited to shooting from public property (street or sidewalk for example).  Even if they shoot from a public property location, they are still breaking the law if they are shooting into a location where the subject can assume reasonable expectation of privacy.  

There is no laws protecting the paparazzi on private property or into an area of reasonable expectation of privacy. 

My post was being sarcastic.. and I think the paparazzi are the lowest form of people holding a camera.  There work is 100% money and nothing to do with photography itself.  A peeping tom with a camera...


----------



## RMThompson (Apr 11, 2008)

usayit said:


> Actually most of what they do is limited to shooting from public property (street or sidewalk for example). Even if they shoot from a public property location, they are still breaking the law if they are shooting into a location where the subject can assume reasonable expectation of privacy.
> 
> There is no laws protecting the paparazzi on private property or into an area of reasonable expectation of privacy.
> 
> My post was being sarcastic.. and I think the paparazzi are the lowest form of people holding a camera. There work is 100% money and nothing to do with photography itself. A peeping tom with a camera...


 
This discussion has gone far away from my original post.

I would like to discuss the rights of paprazzi, but in another thread. Anyone care to start one? I'm sort of ready to see this one die.


----------

