Legality of taking some photos of my car, at a business parking lot...

[White40thGT]

Last night some buddies and I had met up to grab a coffee at a local Starbucks and talk cars, we are all car nuts so this is nothing new to us.

We were standing in the parking lot and I grabbed my camera out of the trunk and started taking a few pics of our cars. I got a few mins into it and a Starbucks Employee came outside and said that I could not take photos of our cars while we were still at Starbucks.

I'm a little annoyed by that. I could see if we were inside, or shooting customers, or something. But outside away from the building taking pics of cars that we own - was a little excessive I think.

We moved along and got some pics at another location - what are the laws and regulations about shooting at a business parking lot though? Are they able to do that or could I have just told them where to shove it and continued snapping pics ?

[photoguy6405]

They probably can legally restrict you from shooting while on their private property, but I think it's unnecessarily anal in your case. I'd probably write a letter to their corporate office complaining about how a good customer is being treated shabbily. If nothing else, maybe you'll get some coupons for some freebies.

[chauncey]

Odds are that it was another customer that complained.

[White40thGT]

Yea, we werent exactly two $5 orders either. They easily made $500+ off us last night. I know that is crap in comparison to the days sales but hell man, cut us some slack. We weren't doing anything bad or causing trouble, just enjoying our drinks and chatting. We chose to BS outside rather then inside because inside we would have interfered with other customers and business.... it was a decent sized group of buddies.

[LBaldwin]

Sorry but unless the Starchuks owns the P-Lot or has rights over it then they are out of gas, tell him in a polite way to PO. The parking lot is common area with other stores in most cases. When and if approached again ask for the written instructions from managment regarding photography in the parking lot.

Then ask for his full name, and the district managers name, so that you can turn it over to your attorney. Unless they have it posted and have full control over the lot (ie no other businesses) then they have no direct control. The property management or owner does have the right to ask you to cease and leave, but cannot seize your gear, images or any other personal belongings.

Then if you really want to piss him off go to the nearest public street and take shots of him from there, when he makes the inevitable international hand gesture for personal relations make sure that you get the starchucks logo in the background and send it to the corporate office, youtube, local TV stations. He will soon be an out of work barista.

[White40thGT]

It's a HUGE shopping center.

There is a Starbucks, McDonalds, Del Taco, grocery store, many small shops like UPS store, hair and nail places, etc... I doubted Starbucks owns much. Thanks..

[kevin92285]

Odds are that it was another customer that complained.


You and your friends really drank $500 worth of coffee?

[LBaldwin]

You and your friends really drank $500 worth of coffee?


WHAT??Thats only two super lattes with fixxyfoam and sprinkels:)

[LotsToLearn]

Yea, we werent exactly two $5 orders either. They easily made $500+ off us last night.

I know they're pricey... but you spent 500 bucks at Starbucks?!? :shock:

[cosworth]

By leaving you empowered them to harass public citizens minding their own business AGAIN.

When anyone tells me I can't do X I tell them to call the police. I have yet to see one police cruiser.

[LBaldwin]

Or even better, next time your club meets there have EVERYBODY bring their camera!!
I really hate retail ****s.

[kevin92285]

Wow I totally quoted the wrong person. Haha

[White40thGT]

I know they're pricey... but you spent 500 bucks at Starbucks?!? :shock:

$7 average price for the big one, Thats 71 people, or 36 Guys with their girlfriends/a passenger

In my photos I counted 42 cars (not all at once, some came some left throughout a few hours) Probably 20 cars there at all times the whole night until we got run out.

Yea I could see $500 at least from us between 7-9pm..

[White40thGT]

Oh, and not one person did anything wrong or broke any kind of traffic law arriving, during, or leaving. We made it a point to play nice, park and hang out off to the side to not interfere with business, and didn't scare off the regulars.

I could totally see them saying something about loitering, but we were customers, and IMO Starbucks encourages people to hang around a while with their surroundings, so we did.

[tracknut]

In my photos I counted 42 cars (not all at once, some came some left throughout a few hours) Probably 20 cars there at all times the whole night until we got run out.


Been there and done that at a hamburger place... and I don't think it has anything to do with your photos.

Two friends and I stopped with our cars (a Ferrari and two gorgeous Porsches) at a burger joint, and were chatting in the parking lot after eating the burgers. We were asked to move along or the police would be called. After chasing this around for a while, it turns out lots of kids use the place as a hangout and the neighbors have called the police multiple times about noise, etc. Now the place is worried that they'll lose their business license if they allow folks (I'm 49) to "hang out" in the parking lot, so they vigorously try to get people out of the lot if they're not just coming or going from eating.

So we eat burgers elsewhere now.

Dave

[440roadrunner]

Last time I went through a similar deal, and we also were not causing any noise, litter, or disturbance, I told the "manager" "Congratulations. In less than two minutes, you have lost about 10 customers who will never come back." We haven't, either.

[Wilt]

What probably happened was that a female customer was walking by, at the same time that some photos were being taken. Rather than directly confront you with 'taking pictures of her butt' (same level as the car, after all!) she went into Starbucks and complained to the manager. She could have called the police to voice accusation about your pictures of her butt, but it was less confrontational to have the Starbucks employee intervene in her behalf. You're lucky because an anal cop might have asked you to erase the pictures from your CF! :rolleyes:

[breal101]

Several businesses in my area sponsor car nights and bike nights, they must think it is good for business. Many people bring the kids to the show. If the police are there, it is to direct traffic. Looks like Starbucks is missing out on a good thing to me.

[LBaldwin]

Yea but Starchucks is not really a car culture to start with, more along the lines of the prius or bike to work crew....

So no matter the cash you spend I don't think they will miss you. I just get irked sometimes,. I am cranky today anyway not enuf sleep prior to a nice 12 hour grave shift...

[shastrich]

Starbuck's is a joke out here. About 10-15 of us would meet at the local Starbucks in a shopping lot out here after car shows to grab a drink and chat. We got booted because people were complaining about having to wait too long to get served. Last time I checked, we were paying customers as well. They actually called the police though. They said we were having a car show in their lot. Little ridiculous, if you ask me. They lost our business. Coldstone Creamery loves us. ;)

[Tom W]

Or even better, next time your club meets there have EVERYBODY bring their camera!!
I really hate retail ****s.

Better still, take your business elsewhere. Nothing talks louder than an empty cash register.

[HuskyKMA]

I'd get my hands on the biggest L lens I could, then go back there and sit next to my car and take pictures of the barista through the windows.

[azpix]

By leaving you empowered them to harass public citizens minding their own business AGAIN.

When anyone tells me I can't do X I tell them to call the police. I have yet to see one police cruiser.

I'd get my hands on the biggest L lens I could, then go back there and sit next to my car and take pictures of the barista through the windows.

the 2 best answers in the thread!

[SkipD]

Better still, take your business elsewhere. Nothing talks louder than an empty cash register.I don't think that JUST taking the business elsewhere would get the point across. One would need to tell the owner and/or manager that you are doing so and why. Otherwise, your action would have little, if any, impact.

[argyle]

Unless posters are lawyers, this is the last place that I'd take legal advice. The parking lot may be a "shared" lot, buts its possible that all the businesses pay a leasing fee as part of their arrangement. And since it is a shared space, and possibly costing each business money, its there for the coming and going of customers. Granted, you and your buddies spent some money at Starbucks earlier, but when you can have upwards of maybe 40+ cars in the lot taking up space for picture taking, this means that other customers have to park further away. Someone probably complained that they had to park the Volvo further away than they liked and were inconvenienced (most of them could use a longer walk anyway). Its probably nothing more than that. Like someone else said...if you don't like the policy, take your money elsewhere. TBH, a smaller shop would probably love to have the business of 70+ people on a regular basis...nothing brings in more business like more business.

[matthew h]

Why were you drinking coffee - I have been to a few geek car meets & its always at the pub.................

[Jeff]

a Starbucks Employee came outside and said that I could not take photos of our cars while we were still at Starbucks.


Just say you're the Paparazzi. Those guys seem to be able to take pictures of anything, anywhere and claim the "right" to do it.

[shack]

Why were you drinking coffee - I have been to a few geek car meets & its always at the pub.................

Or more to the point...WHY WERE YOU AT STARBUCKS?

Even if it wasn't some of the most vile liquid one could drink...it would still be extremely overpriced. I am constantly amazed at what people will pay for something that is perceived to be "trendy".

[cosworth]

Why were you drinking coffee - I have been to a few geek car meets & its always at the pub.................

Drinking & Driving is an illegal act.

[dugcross]

Yea, we werent exactly two $5 orders either. They easily made $500+ off us last night. I know that is crap in comparison to the days sales but hell man, cut us some slack. We weren't doing anything bad or causing trouble, just enjoying our drinks and chatting. We chose to BS outside rather then inside because inside we would have interfered with other customers and business.... it was a decent sized group of buddies.

Well you know, that's how the trouble always starts. First you let a couple of guys take photos in the parking lot next thing you know the place is mobbed with drug dealers, muggers, low lifes and prostitutes. LOL

[argyle]

Drinking & Driving is an illegal act.

Only if you're over the limit...;)

[cosworth]

What Englishman goes to the pub and has ONE drink? ;)

[Steve Parr]

I'll start by saying I think them approaching you like that is pretty silly.

I would, though, like to point out a few issues in the points you've made:

You say it was in the parking lot of a huge shopping center. If you're standing in that parking lot, you're no longer a "customer", you're a guy standing in the parking lot of a huge shopping center. When they say they want you to hang out and enjoy their environment, I doubt they're thinking about the parking lot.

When he said you couldn't take photos while at Starbucks, you should've said that you were no longer at Starbucks, you were at the grocery store next door to the Starbucks. That would've ended it.

I also think it's silly to refer this to any attorney. That's the thing that frivilous lawsuits are made of.

You wanted photos of your cars, and you ended up getting them.

Isn't that what matters?

[FZ1dave]

And if you were using a P&S or your cell phone, you would have never even been approached.

I can't stand the double standard when it comes to cameras. Use an SLR and you're instantly a threat.

[Steve Parr]

And if you were using a P&S or your cell phone, you would have never even been approached.

I can't stand the double standard when it comes to cameras. Use an SLR and you're instantly a threat.

I don't think "threat" is the right word. I think the right word is "pro".

Let's face it, a lot of people see someone with a DSLR and think "that guy must be a pro".

I think it's funny that, if someone with a DSLR is approached, they automatically lean on the "They think I'm a threat" defense.

Pretty silly stuff...

[Michael_Lambert]

I was at the local Tim Horton’s here in town ( A real COFFEE place :D ).

A gentleman showed up on a really really nice bike so i asked if i could get a couple of shots of my girlfriend at the time on it and he was more than happy - if i photographed his wife on it after which i was more than happy to do.

The manager came out and said that i could not use the parking lot as a "Studio" i advised him that what i do while i am consuming my product i purchased from his store was none of his business i was only occupying one parking spot and so was the bike and they where a paying customer and that i was doing nothing illegal, He said i still had to leave.

I told him that i would finish doing what i was doing and when i completed my coffee i would glady go on my way, if that was an issue for him i suggest he contact his landlord.

Well 10 mins later the Metro police showed up seen me with coffee in hand and asked if there was a problem, I told him nope i bought the coffee 8 mins ago took a few shots of the bike at the request of the owner and as soon as i was done my coffee i would be on my way.

The Officer told the manager that i had paid for the product, that i had the right to use the facilities of the location for a "Reasonable" amount of time and that the use of a camera is no forbidden with in a parking lot unless photographing a subject who does not want there picture taken. That if they wanted to provide me a full refund they would gladly ask me to leave until then they suggested that a 30min sitting time is good and if i was still there then i could be considered as loitering.


Now ofcorse the next time i went into this Tim's i was advised that they reserve the right not to serve me and asked that i leave.. lol, Oh well its Toronto... i walk a block and pass two more on the way!

[matthew h]

What Englishman goes to the pub and has ONE drink? ;)

Not the passengers?

[Steve Parr]

I was at the local Tim Horton’s here in town ( A real COFFEE place :D ).


I love Tim Horton's.

I spend a lot of time driving through Canada, and an extra large coffee and a box of Timbits go a long way...

[cosworth]

I ate two doughnuts from timmies before 8am. ;)

[Michael_Lambert]

I love Tim Horton's.

I spend a lot of time driving through Canada, and an extra large coffee and a box of Timbits go a long way...

Yea it last you the 50 some odd KMs untill the next rest stop :D

[randy98mtu]

Large car meets are a tricky thing. You are attracting various kinds of attention and are closely watched. I have gone a few times to a local meet. They go there EVERY Tuesday and in the summer there are usually 20-50 cars there EVERY week. It is in a large shopping center and they all go in and eat at a restaurant and then usually hang out and bs for ... well I've never been the last one to leave. Police and security have been around and the main organizers have spoken with both. They send stern warnings to anyone attending not to do anything illegal or make noise and whatnot and they are left alone (but watched closely)

The main trouble is other people who aren't there with the group see all of the cars and want to hot rod and "show off" and this is what they can't control.

I haven't seen an SLR there yet. I had my P&S a few times, but haven't gone since I got my SLR.

[FZ1dave]

I think it's funny that, if someone with a DSLR is approached, they automatically lean on the "They think I'm a threat" defense.

Pretty silly stuff...

What's silly is being given grief for the type of camera you use. Nobody bats an eye when people stand in bunches and snap away with their cell phones, but the one guy with an SLR must be doing something illegal. Pure BS.

That's because you're a threat, not because you're a pro. Though I suppose you could be a pro and still be a threat. :lol:

[argyle]

...That's because you're a threat, not because you're a pro...

I don't get the whole 'threat' thing. Threat to what? What kind of threat? Since the businesses don't have a clue as to what folks with large, attention-grabbing cameras are doing or how/where the pictures will be used, they're most likely (1) trying to prevent excessive loitering and (2) protecting they're brand image from possibly being photographed and potentially depicted in a publication that they're not entirely comfortable with. A good example of this is when Playboy ran a shoot a few years back dubbed the "Girls of Wal-Mart"...you can infer that Wal-Mart was being depicted by the obvious blue and white vest/uniform, however, the Wal-Mart name was not shown anywhere in the pictorial.

Business owners sometimes have valid reasons for doing what they do, although most people are quick to conclude that they're acting like fascists.

[White40thGT]

FWIW The 40 cars, were over a 2 hour period. We did not have 40 cars at one time, some left, more showed. 20-25 max at the peak.

We were behind starbucks and left al the "premium" spots for customers. We were also outside to leave the "premium" seats to customers - I'd say we were MORE then courteous.

[Wilt]

FWIW The 40 cars, were over a 2 hour period. We did not have 40 cars at one time, some left, more showed. 20-25 max at the peak.

We were behind starbucks and left al the "premium" spots for customers. We were also outside to leave the "premium" seats to customers - I'd say we were MORE then courteous.

Sounds like you had a Crappuchino while you were there.

[Steve Parr]

What's silly is being given grief for the type of camera you use. Nobody bats an eye when people stand in bunches and snap away with their cell phones, but the one guy with an SLR must be doing something illegal. Pure BS.

That's because you're a threat, not because you're a pro. Though I suppose you could be a pro and still be a threat. :lol:

I've been shooting with SLR's (big lenses and all) for the better part of 35 years, and I've never been approached by someone telling me I couldn't shoot somewhere. Ever.

I've never known anyone who was approached because someone thought their actions were illegal.

Ever.

When such things are reported, I am absolutely convinced that there was something else happening which attracted attention. Maybe something minor, but something else nonetheless...

[Canonista]

I know they're pricey... but you spent 500 bucks at Starbucks?!? :shock:

They were awake for the next three days!

[FZ1dave]

I don't get the whole 'threat' thing. Threat to what? What kind of threat?

I have no idea and that's exactly my point.

Why was the OP approached? What was the perceived threat? Why couldn't he take photos in the shared lot?

If he had a P&S, there's no thread here.

All I'm saying is when you have an SLR, for some reason that puts you on another level where the casual observer is concerned. 'Wow he's got a nice camera... he must be spying for our competitor...' or whatever. It's ridiculous and prejudiced at the very least.

Steve, that's quite a run you've had without being approached about your camera. I'm a complete newb who's only been shooting for a couple years and I've been asked what I was doing twice. Once at a high school basketball game and the other outside work, and the work incident I wasn't even shooting our building. I was aiming the opposite direction shooting the Chicago skyline.

[neil_r]

What Englishman goes to the pub and has ONE drink? ;)

me when I was a very very broke student :-(

[JWright]

I've been shooting with SLR's (big lenses and all) for the better part of 35 years, and I've never been approached by someone telling me I couldn't shoot somewhere. Ever.

I've never known anyone who was approached because someone thought their actions were illegal.

Ever.

When such things are reported, I am absolutely convinced that there was something else happening which attracted attention. Maybe something minor, but something else nonetheless...

Yeah, you do... Me.

When our local group went to San Diego's Gaslamp Quarter last year, we were approached by a security guard at the Horton Plaza Mall who advised us we couldn't shoot in the shopping center. Since the mall is private property, he was within his rights to prohibit us from shooting in the mall. Problem was we weren't in the mall, we were on the public sidewalk outside. We didn't make much of an issue of it at the time, but if something like that ever happens again, I'm going to make a complaint to the management of the shopping center.

See, you need to come to more of the shoots...

[Ridebmx]

legally if its a public place, you can take pictures, only time they have a say, is if they own the parking lot and arnt a paying customer

read these rights

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

[neil_r]

Yep them their "rights" are sacrosanct and apply throughout the known universe, they must be right cos they were on tinternet :-)

[photoguy6405]

I don't get the whole 'threat' thing. Threat to what? What kind of threat? Since the businesses don't have a clue as to what folks with large, attention-grabbing cameras are doing or how/where the pictures will be used, they're most likely (1) trying to prevent excessive loitering and (2) protecting they're brand image from possibly being photographed and potentially depicted in a publication that they're not entirely comfortable with. A good example of this is when Playboy ran a shoot a few years back dubbed the "Girls of Wal-Mart"...you can infer that Wal-Mart was being depicted by the obvious blue and white vest/uniform, however, the Wal-Mart name was not shown anywhere in the pictorial.

Business owners sometimes have valid reasons for doing what they do, although most people are quick to conclude that they're acting like fascists.

"Threat" that you may be casing the place for a robbery. "Threat" that you may be a competitor (or working for a competitor) observing their operation and wanting to steal marketing ideas.

[rowdyred94]

It's pretty clear to me that the situation in the OP wasn't about taking pictures. It was about a car gang (term used loosely) taking up space and possibly intimidating other customers. Those types of gatherings are usually undesirable because they can inhibit other customers from patronizing the business. That's not an unreasonable motivation for asking you to leave.

Let's not get all hotheaded about "those **&$*&$*&$% retailers". They're just protecting their business.

[hastur]

The next time you get together, at another place, save all of the the receipts and show them to the starbuck's owner. "Dude, this is what you missed because you manager was unimformed the last time" Be polite and accurate. $500 might be the difference between black and red on his books for the month, you never know.

Just thought.

Rob

[Steve Parr]

Yeah, you do... Me.

When our local group went to San Diego's Gaslamp Quarter last year, we were approached by a security guard at the Horton Plaza Mall who advised us we couldn't shoot in the shopping center. Since the mall is private property, he was within his rights to prohibit us from shooting in the mall. Problem was we weren't in the mall, we were on the public sidewalk outside. We didn't make much of an issue of it at the time, but if something like that ever happens again, I'm going to make a complaint to the management of the shopping center.

See, you need to come to more of the shoots...

I heard about that, John.

From what I can gather, though, he told you that you couldn't shoot in the mall, which you've already said he was within his rights to do. My question is whether or not he stopped anyone from shooting while they were there on the sidewalk?

Also, because of the size of the group, he may have just been going for the "pre-emptive strike" before a bunch of photographers decided to enter the mall (for those of you who don't know, the architecture of Horton Plaza is really pretty cool). I can't say I blame him; I'd likely have done the same thing. Whatever the case, I doubt he approached you because he thought you were in the process of doing something illegal. I think he probably approached you so you'd know not to bother entering the mall.

But I don't believe that's a fair comparison, anyway, as this is was the comment I was responding to: "but the one guy with an SLR must be doing something illegal". You were a large group of people, and it would be pretty clear to even the most casual observer what your intentions were. The comment I responded to concerns a very different scenario...

[argyle]

legally if its a public place, you can take pictures, only time they have a say, is if they own the parking lot and arnt a paying customer

read these rights

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

[hamlong]

Is it legal to take a picture of a girl who is sunbathing at a public swimming pool deck? I was confronting with a lifeguard but I did not know who was not right, him or me?

[ANGUS]

Is it legal to take a picture of a girl who is sunbathing at a public swimming pool deck? I was confronting with a lifeguard but I did not know who was not right, him or me?

Expected privacy = Ilegal!

[LBaldwin]

Is it legal to take a picture of a girl who is sunbathing at a public swimming pool deck? I was confronting with a lifeguard but I did not know who was not right, him or me?

It is perfectly legal. She has no expectation of privacy in a public venue. The lifeguard probably rec'd a complaint about you, you, you perv. So now we want to see those images, NOW Buster!!:oops:

Just kidding - - no really, post the shots!

[ALaS]

I would have asked why, and where it states that photography was prohibited. Show me the paper, or get out of my face.

You should go there and show him this:

http://skim07.smugmug.com/photos/271567675_cYbGb-O.jpg

Then start taking pictures of him.

[photoguy6405]

Is it legal to take a picture of a girl who is sunbathing at a public swimming pool deck? I was confronting with a lifeguard but I did not know who was not right, him or me?

This, to me, falls under two distinctly different categories...

1) Is it legal?

2) Is it a good idea?

I believe that it's perfectly legal. She's in public. There is absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy. Is it a good idea? Ummm, no, probably not. Shooting women or underage minors is an extremely sensitive issue that will quite often attract unwanted attention.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

ETA: There are times that fighting for one's rights should be done, but I also believe in the "pick your battles wisely" concept, too.

[Steve Parr]

I would have asked why, and where it states that photography was prohibited. Show me the paper, or get out of my face.

You should go there and show him this:

http://skim07.smugmug.com/photos/271567675_cYbGb-O.jpg

Then start taking pictures of him.

If I didn't think someone should be shooting photos, and they pulled that tripe out as though I should, for whatever reason, be impressed, I'd laugh at him right before I fed it to him...

[BottomBracket]

If I didn't think someone should be shooting photos, and they pulled that tripe out as though I should, for whatever reason, be impressed, I'd laugh at him right before I fed it to him...

Dude, you may be right, but can't you do it without being condescending?

[neil_r]

Dude, you may be right, but can't you do it without being condescending?

Yes the least you could do is provide Salt, Pepper and Relish

[BottomBracket]

Yes the least you could do is provide Salt, Pepper and Relish

:D:D:D

[Steve Parr]

Dude, you may be right, but can't you do it without being condescending?

No, I don't think I can.

The unwavering willingness of so many people to blindly put their faith in that particular piece of garbage is absolutely staggering...

[KYmom]

Odds are that it was another customer that complained.


I agree with that, maybe somebody was there with somebody they shouldn't be and was afraid you were getting evidence. LOL . .

[BottomBracket]

No, I don't think I can.

The unwavering willingness of so many people to blindly put their faith in that particular piece of garbage is absolutely staggering...

And you're going to laugh at a fellow photographer who carries that piece of paper and force feed it to him? It's quite clear who's going to be arrested in this case, unless of course you're not really going to do it in real life and are just posturing here on the net.

[KYmom]

Starbuck's is a joke out here. About 10-15 of us would meet at the local Starbucks in a shopping lot out here after car shows to grab a drink and chat. We got booted because people were complaining about having to wait too long to get served. Last time I checked, we were paying customers as well. They actually called the police though. They said we were having a car show in their lot. Little ridiculous, if you ask me. They lost our business. Coldstone Creamery loves us. ;)



LOL. We have a Dairy Queen in our small town and they have a rod show about one sunday a month. They love it when people in nice rods hang out and take pics, they say it draws more people in. LOL. . .

[Steve Parr]

And you're going to laugh at a fellow photographer who carries that piece of paper and force feed it to him?

Yep.

Look at the prevailing attitude in the post I responded to. That attitude is far too prevelant.

If my daughter was sunbathing at a public pool, and someone was taking photos of her, the only thing that little piece of paper he pulls out of his pocket is going to do is jam up his airway. If my arrest is to be subsequent to that, so be it. I can guarantee, though, that the camera will be in less than operational condition before the cuffs go on.

My problem is that too many people absolutely don't care about whether or not they should take a photo. Legally they can, so they don't care about anything else. They become the center of the universe.

I read an awful lof of bitching and whining about how photographers are treated. What these whiners fail to realize is that one of the main reasons they're treated in such a manner is because of people like the guy who I replied to; a photographer.

"Get out of my face"??

I don't think it would be possible to be in someone's face more...

[photoguy6405]

The unwavering willingness of so many people to blindly put their faith in that particular piece of garbage is absolutely staggering...

I don't think it's "garbage", per se, but I do think that many people would do themselves a favor to understand that 'rights' on paper don't necessarily add up to 'rights' as they are applied and enforced in the real world.

[neil_r]

I am going to print a shed load of those Photogs Right sheets and sent them to all the guys with cameras in Tibet, that should make life a lot easier for them.

[BottomBracket]

Yep.

Look at the prevailing attitude in the post I responded to. That attitude is far too prevelant.

If my daughter was sunbathing at a public pool, and someone was taking photos of her, the only thing that little piece of paper he pulls out of his pocket is going to do is jam up his airway. If my arrest is to be subsequent to that, so be it. I can guarantee, though, that the camera will be in less than operational condition before the cuffs go on.

My problem is that too many people absolutely don't care about whether or not they should take a photo. Legally they can, so they don't care about anything else. They become the center of the universe.

I read an awful lof of bitching and whining about how photographers are treated. What these whiners fail to realize is that one of the main reasons they're treated in such a manner is because of people like the guy who I replied to; a photographer.

"Get out of my face"??

I don't think it would be possible to be in someone's face more...

Man, that situation is so different from the OP's and I would fully understand if you stuff that piece of paper down the pervert's (the one taking photos of your daughter) throat. In that case I would fully understand why you would do it. I'm not a fan of showing that piece of paper to the authorities, but I believe that every photographer should know his/her rights and not be allowed to be shoved around unnecessarily.

[Steve Parr]

Man, that situation is so different from the OP's...

And yet the reaction by many (far too many, frankly) would be exactly the same as if they were told to stop shooting photos in a shopping center parking lot...

[Karl C]

There's a time to shoot and a time to not. Unfortunately, some amateur photogs think their "rights" trump common sense and good judgment. Some are wanna-be PJ's, hoping to be the next W Eugene Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Eugene_Smith). Others just lack basic common sense.

Just because the law allows a person to shoot photographs doesn't mean they should.

[ALaS]

If I didn't think someone should be shooting photos, and they pulled that tripe out as though I should, for whatever reason, be impressed, I'd laugh at him right before I fed it to him...

The unwavering willingness of so many people to blindly put their faith in that particular piece of garbage is absolutely staggering...

Yep.

Look at the prevailing attitude in the post I responded to. That attitude is far too prevelant.

If my daughter was sunbathing at a public pool, and someone was taking photos of her, the only thing that little piece of paper he pulls out of his pocket is going to do is jam up his airway. If my arrest is to be subsequent to that, so be it. I can guarantee, though, that the camera will be in less than operational condition before the cuffs go on.

My problem is that too many people absolutely don't care about whether or not they should take a photo. Legally they can, so they don't care about anything else. They become the center of the universe.

I read an awful lof of bitching and whining about how photographers are treated. What these whiners fail to realize is that one of the main reasons they're treated in such a manner is because of people like the guy who I replied to; a photographer.

"Get out of my face"??

I don't think it would be possible to be in someone's face more...

The OP asked for the legality of shooting in public areas. This is a general overview of what is and what isn't allowed. Common sense is a good thing to have as well. He was doing nothing close to photographing your underage daughter in a bikini. I tried to lighten up with a little humor. With your attitude I'd be surprised if you haven't been fed some fists and papers at least a couple of times..

[Steve Parr]

Common sense is a good thing to have as well.

And, insofar as I can tell, there are way too many photographers out there who lack it...

He was doing nothing close to photographing your underage daughter in a bikini. I tried to lighten up with a little humor.

A - She's not underage. B - I wasn't the one who initially brought up a public swimming pool...

With your attitude I'd be surprised if you haven't been fed some fists and papers at least a couple of times..

I can assure you, I have not. Wanna' know why? Because I'm not stupid enough to pull some list of "rights" out of my pocket as if I think it might stop someone dead in their tracks. Anyone who believes it will is naive or stupid, and is well on their way to being in a physical altercation they hadn't prepared for. Why not? Well, because they were stupid enough to believe that pulling out some list of "rights" might actually impress someone and stop them in their tracks.

I like shooting. When someone gets overly upset because I'm shooting, it's usually because they previously ran into some yahoo-wanna' be with a camera and a list of "rights" in their pocket.

My attitude is one of utilizing common sense, and respecting the wishes of others. Truth be told, their are a number of people on this thread who, clearly, couldn't give a damn about what anyone else might want. They'll cross people left and right to do what they want, everyone else be damned.

These are usually the same people who piss and moan about photographers being treated poorly...

[JWright]

Yep.

Look at the prevailing attitude in the post I responded to. That attitude is far too prevelant.

If my daughter was sunbathing at a public pool, and someone was taking photos of her, the only thing that little piece of paper he pulls out of his pocket is going to do is jam up his airway. If my arrest is to be subsequent to that, so be it. I can guarantee, though, that the camera will be in less than operational condition before the cuffs go on.

My problem is that too many people absolutely don't care about whether or not they should take a photo. Legally they can, so they don't care about anything else. They become the center of the universe.

I read an awful lof of bitching and whining about how photographers are treated. What these whiners fail to realize is that one of the main reasons they're treated in such a manner is because of people like the guy who I replied to; a photographer.

"Get out of my face"??

I don't think it would be possible to be in someone's face more...

I'm inclined to agree with Steve. If I were faced with a similar situation I'd react the same way. (Besides, he's bigger than me... ;))

As far as the OP's issues is concerned, there are many reasons not to patronize Starbucks. A court in California recently ruled the chain owed $106 million to employees because shift managers were sharing in tips placed in the tip jars on the counters. The court stated this was in violation of california law and the money was to be returned to the employees. Now the CEO of Starbucks is saying there is no money to repay the employees... I wonder what his salary is? Maybe the court will garnish his wages.

Besides, Starbucks makes lousy coffee...

[ALaS]

I never photograph anyone without their permission. I don't keep that list in my pocket. I found it, read it, and decided to share it since it was asked about. Have your opinions about me.

[bbulldog]

What Englishman goes to the pub and has ONE drink? ;)
not me hicks

[DucoNihilum]

Sorry but unless the Starchuks owns the P-Lot or has rights over it then they are out of gas, tell him in a polite way to PO. The parking lot is common area with other stores in most cases. When and if approached again ask for the written instructions from managment regarding photography in the parking lot.

Then ask for his full name, and the district managers name, so that you can turn it over to your attorney. Unless they have it posted and have full control over the lot (ie no other businesses) then they have no direct control. The property management or owner does have the right to ask you to cease and leave, but cannot seize your gear, images or any other personal belongings.

Then if you really want to piss him off go to the nearest public street and take shots of him from there, when he makes the inevitable international hand gesture for personal relations make sure that you get the starchucks logo in the background and send it to the corporate office, youtube, local TV stations. He will soon be an out of work barista.

By leaving you empowered them to harass public citizens minding their own business AGAIN.

When anyone tells me I can't do X I tell them to call the police. I have yet to see one police cruiser.

Or even better, next time your club meets there have EVERYBODY bring their camera!!
I really hate retail ****s.

Oh, and not one person did anything wrong or broke any kind of traffic law arriving, during, or leaving. We made it a point to play nice, park and hang out off to the side to not interfere with business, and didn't scare off the regulars.

I could totally see them saying something about loitering, but we were customers, and IMO Starbucks encourages people to hang around a while with their surroundings, so we did.

Guys, you don't have the right to do whatever you want on private property. Chances are starbucks has the rights to their own property.

[PhotosGuy]

The Photographer’s Right (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)

PHOTOGRAPHERS RIGHTS - USA, UK, & Australia (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide)

What Can I Photograph? (http://www.photosecrets.com/law.take.html) By Andrew Hudson

Photographers Becoming Security Concerns (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4705698)

[xn2b8r]

This whole thread reminds me of the time I tried to bring a Mega Venti Starbuchino Gulp into my local camera shop and they told me I had to leave. I pointed out all the customers who had regular-sized coffees, but the manager said anyone drinking from a flagon as big as mine must be a threat. ;-)

[YamahaRob]

Kinda funny that a bunch of us on bikes were treated like this at a local burger joint years ago. We rode in, parked all 8 bikes in 2 stalls, went inside and ordered food. Well since it was nice outside, we ate next to the bikes. The manager came waddling out (lets just say estimating her weight at 350lbs was understating it) screaming at us that we cant stay. Really WTF? Theres a couple eating in their car 3 stalls down and she didnt say squat to them. She threatend to call the cops for loitering. Funny one was one of the guys told her the cops are already here and pulled his badge out and told her we are leaving AFTER we finish eating the food we BOUGHT at this store. She waddled back into the store. Well we all called the franchise owner and complained. She was no longer the mgr there the next week.

[birdfromboat]

I wonder how many similar threads have passed on in the 31 months since this one dwindled? Basically the same old story, private property protected by anoying, overzealous small little nippy dog types is still private property. Act like a big dog and just go away silently is what i have learned in the past 31 months. They are just doing their jobs and going away quietly probably takes ALL the fun out of it for them. Theres nothing worse for a nippy little dog than having absolutely nothing to bark about.

[MP4/8]

Yep.

Look at the prevailing attitude in the post I responded to. That attitude is far too prevelant.

If my daughter was sunbathing at a public pool, and someone was taking photos of her, the only thing that little piece of paper he pulls out of his pocket is going to do is jam up his airway. If my arrest is to be subsequent to that, so be it. I can guarantee, though, that the camera will be in less than operational condition before the cuffs go on.

My problem is that too many people absolutely don't care about whether or not they should take a photo....
And the determination as to whether it's right or wrong, is yours, and yours alone, right?

Pffft...

Get real.

My attitude is one of utilizing common sense, and respecting the wishes of others...
So you say...

Here's some common sense...and respecting the wishes of others...

Your rights stop where the other person's rights begin.

A camera captures light rays that are bouncing OFF a subject. Not the rays of light that are emanating FROM a subject. So, I don't see where any sense of entitlement to 'privacy' would come from, in public.
We're all just another brick in the wall, whether we happen to be 'in focus', or not.

The truth is, we are ALL photographed and videographed all the time, in this day and age.

------------

As far as the OP, technically, the parking lot is private property, but the building is probably leased to Starbucks, so, they probably have zero rights to demand you to stop taking photographs of your cars, or each other.
If you're not breaking a State or Federal law, then, the police could not be called to enforce a 'private' policy of the corporation that owns the parking lot (AFAIK).

And technically, you would probably not even be 'loitering', if you were consuming 'their' beverages in 'their' parking lot, as smoking indoors is illegal (most places I know), so they'd have a hard time if they called the police.
The worst they could probably do, is have you towed away.

In any event, ya, I would have told them to buzz off, or call the cops.

.

[ImCBParker]

As someone who runs a successful business on leased property, the OP has absolutely no right what-so-ever to utilize space for photography purposes without permission. Same scenario if they had attempted to shoot inside a mall or any other private facility.

They were on private property and if any one of the occupants of the business object to their presence, They have to go, period. A parking lot is not public property. These companies are running legitimate businesses whether you like it or not. Utilizing the space that they pay for for one's private use outside of the store's best interest is contrary to running a successful business.

If other paying clients are not able to comfortably park, or are uncomfortable with the presence of cameras, it does not matter how much they spent, it is time to go. Starbucks and other fast food type of places have an unstated agreement. Purchaser pays for a product, receives product, consumes product, and leaves. Short of hanging out in said place of business while continuing to make further purchases, their AVERAGE consumer is not in or at the facility for more than five minutes. They have the right to serve or refuse service to anyone they want. The loss of $500 and their future business is not as large a concern as satisfying customers who are looking to do legitimate business.

Get a permit/agreement to use a proper location and stop complaining. It is these scenarios that make legitimate photographers look bad.

[Chris Searle]

Jeez! How people get worked up! Now wonder there is occasional unpleasantness between folks........ I have occasionally been told that I cant photograph something, when it happens I apologise ( it costs nothing) and move on, lots of other things to photograph after all. Lifes just too short.