I got read the riot act by security for taking pics of holiday lights

[Sveen]

So last night Detroit was getting hit with a snow storm and I decided to go to an outdoor mall here called Partridge Creek. I was there at 11PM after the stores were closed to take some shots of holiday lights & snow. Ended up taking lot's of nice shots (IMO) for about 1 hour before the security spotted me and booted me out. His excuse was that I can't have/use a tripod to take "professional" pictures of the mall. WTF?! Isn't anything visible to the public a public domain to observer & record? Well except when it comes to national security rules & stuff. A couple bars at the mall were still open so it's not like I was there "after closing hours".
May be the guard just wanted me out of there cause the mall was closed, but why not just say so, why bring up the whole tripod thing? Oh and he asked me several times what company I worked for & if I was a professional photographer LOL Man people really get nervous when you whip out even an entry level SLR hahah

I know the outdoor mall is privately owned so it is private property however it is also a public place IMO. Are they really within their rights to tell people you can't take pictures of our holiday lights and decorations? I mean if I had published the pictures for money/fame without their permission I understand their gripe, but I haven't broken any "copyright" laws as of yet, argh!

Have you ever run into problems like that while photographing things?

[tkbslc]

They can ban you from ever setting foot on mall property. It is NOT a public place, it is a privately owned peice of land.

[TheHoff]

But if you stand on the street, feel free to photograph it.

Guard was off his rocker and on a power trip or just repeating whatever he thought was the policy or law. I doubt it was anything about terrorism but just the mall protecting their "intellectual property" ... which is too bad for them if you do it from across the street.

[tsw910]

well .. even in the parking lot is still their private property ..

there's alot of " malls " like that .. I've asst another photographer at a outdoor mall in san fran. They will require you to have a permit to shoot there. otherwise, out you go

also, in Grand Central Station in NYC, if you use a trip-pod of any kind inside, they will also ask for permits to shoot there as well .. otherwise, out you go

3rd .. in Time Square, NYC .. if you use a tri-pod to shoot, NYPD can and will ask you to stop and move on, only if you get caught

[BGgraphy]

sad but true, a damn shame

[TheHoff]

well .. even in the parking lot is still their private property ..

Well yea but the street isn't :)



also, in Grand Central Station in NYC, if you use a trip-pod of any kind inside, they will also ask for permits to shoot there as well .. otherwise, out you go

Needing permits to shoot professionally in places like that is normal; a tripod means a pro just like 4 profotos and extension cords everywhere. Obviously if you want to get around this just don't bring a lot of gear.


3rd .. in Time Square, NYC .. if you use a tri-pod to shoot, NYPD can and will ask you to stop and move on, only if you get caught

This isn't terrorism prevention just for public safety. Same with the sidewalk outside of the White House. Tripods make it easy for people to trip on crowded sidewalks.

[sb1975]

well .. even in the parking lot is still their private property ..

there's alot of " malls " like that .. I've asst another photographer at a outdoor mall in san fran. They will require you to have a permit to shoot there. otherwise, out you go

also, in Grand Central Station in NYC, if you use a trip-pod of any kind inside, they will also ask for permits to shoot there as well .. otherwise, out you go

3rd .. in Time Square, NYC .. if you use a tri-pod to shoot, NYPD can and will ask you to stop and move on, only if you get caught

Grand Central and Time Square I can see. With that many people walking at a time I can see a tripod becoming a safety hazard

[440roadrunner]

Every little craphead has to have his little power trip. Far too many security types have their jobs BECAUSE they are on a power trip, and aren't stable or smart enough to be a "real" cop

[FlyingPhotog]

Every little craphead has to have his little power trip. Far too many security types have their jobs BECAUSE they are on a power trip, and aren't stable or smart enough to be a "real" cop

Or they're working a second or third job to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

Yeah, they suck...

[JeffreyG]

May be the guard just wanted me out of there cause the mall was closed, but why not just say so, why bring up the whole tripod thing? Oh and he asked me several times what company I worked for & if I was a professional photographer LOL Man people really get nervous when you whip out even an entry level SLR hahah

I know the outdoor mall is privately owned so it is private property however it is also a public place IMO. Are they really within their rights to tell people you can't take pictures of our holiday lights and decorations? I mean if I had published the pictures for money/fame without their permission I understand their gripe, but I haven't broken any "copyright" laws as of yet, argh!

Have you ever run into problems like that while photographing things?

Malls are private property that are also public spaces. This means that they can ban photography if they chose to.

Most malls ban photography because their tenants demand it. They were well within their rights to tell you to stop and/or leave.

BTW - the mall's existance as a 'public space' only affects their responsibility to accomodate the disabled and how they must deal with solicitors / protestors etc. They are free to ban your ass for life if you give them grief.

[TheHoff]

^^ that's interesting; I always wondered about the duality of public/private spaces.

[blackhawk]

Malls are private property that are also public spaces. This means that they can ban photography if they chose to.

Most malls ban photography because their tenants demand it. They were well within their rights to tell you to stop and/or leave.

BTW - the mall's existance as a 'public space' only affects their responsibility to accomodate the disabled and how they must deal with solicitors / protestors etc. They are free to ban your ass for life if you give them grief.

truth.

Malls are a bore anyway. They can just f-f-f-fade away!:p

[birdfromboat]

I can't say I have never trespassed to get a shot, so I can't have a very valid opinion of a security guard that is just trying to do his job-since I am one of the many rerasons his job exists.
I totally get that some areas are private property and some owners insist that there be no photography there. I have broken those rules, but I always comply with the wishes of the security guard as soon as I am caught in the act, I stop. I now carry lens caps with me whenever I am doing street photography just in case I wander onto private property and get a guard on my case. I do the big flourish of puting on the lens cap and turning off the camera with as big a click as I can muster from my aging equipment. that usually gets a nod and a smile, as mall cops are usually people first and cops second.
It's the rare jerk that wants to escort you rudely and awkwardly from the premises because he can that really gets me fired up, but what the heck, its still no big deal after the adrenaline subsides and I am off taking pictures elsewhere. Being read the riot act is no fun, but it doesn't leave a mark.
I say collect photons first and answer questions later. It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, even easier to just put the cap on and go elsewhere. Better luck to you in the future

[ssim]

Ended up taking lot's of nice shots (IMO) for about 1 hour before the security spotted me and booted me out. His excuse was that I can't have/use a tripod to take "professional" pictures of the mall. WTF?!
This hardly seems like being read the riot act. Another thread of pot stirring.

I don't see why everyone gets so upset with the security guards when all they were doing is their job. We don't know that they acted like they were on a power trip. What we do know is that a photographer was trespassing. I don't like the rules but I live by them.

I was hired by a shopping mall's advertising agency to do a three day shoot at the mall. I start the night that I was awarded the contract but it had not yet fitered down to the guards walking the grounds and I got stopped in my tracks. Once they found out that I was supposed to be there they were more than helpful in directing traffic around my shots and literally would do anything that I asked.

[Butch Cassidy]

Being is charge of Security for a Group of Banks, and also a supporter of free rights to shoot pics. Common sense must play a part in these times in which we live. I also have a CHL to carry a weapon( but cannot use it to carry as on job protection) Lots of laws today.in Texas there are places (by state law that you cannot carry gun) just because places post that you cannot carry, unless st law dictates that you can't, you can,(But I respect their wishes) they have the right to ask you to leave, UNLESS the company policy,that you work for says that you as employ cannot, they can fire you.
30 years ago while in NY, wife has her P&S inside Macy's and starts to take a pic of Christmas decorations, sales lady very nicely tells
her if she is seen, they will take her camera away from her. no problem end of story.Competition worries
If we see a person ( From Our Business position) taking pics of one of our locations, inside or outside, we put a halt to it. they made be casing us. So from companies trying to protect themselves from, competition or protection, there is another side in Today's environment.

[dontcallmeash]

they could think you're casing the joint, but in all reality there are so many photographs of the place and you can walk freely through it at daytime (and look a lot less suspicious) only a re-tread would ever think you're doing anything 'disruptive' and illegal.

honestly, any places that threaten to take your camera away or crap like that are violating one of the most basic fundamental freedoms of our nation.

[400dabuser]

It happens a lot, if you are inside the mall, you would have to get permission from management, otherwise they will come heavy on you

[Ballen Photo]

OK Guys, You may notice that almost half of the posts here have been deleted. Now I don't think this should really take a mental giant to figure out why.
If you must really bring up the subject of CCW, please do it on a forum about that subject.
If you do a search, I'm sure you will find more than a few out there.
Constantly bringing this subject up on an International photography forum is only hurting your cause. Wise up, PLEASE! :confused:
-Bruce

[Mark_Cohran]

Subscribing.

[dugcross]

also, in Grand Central Station in NYC, if you use a trip-pod of any kind inside, they will also ask for permits to shoot there as well .. otherwise, out you go



That's why I'll use a monopod- if confuses them plus nobody is gonna trip over it.

[nphsbuckeye]

I know the outdoor mall is privately owned so it is private property however it is also a public place IMO.
Your opinion doesn't matter.

It's outside, however, if it's private property, which you already stated it is, security can throw you out. Is it a bummer? Certainly. Is it private property, even if it is outside? Yes.

[tsw910]

i guess i must've missed all the drama LOL ..

what i meant to say is .. if you dont want any hassles, try not to use a tri-pod ..

and from what i've seen with malls ... they are kinda touchy on this subject

[BioSpark]

I had the same experience (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=808297). What I recommend is going back and asking to speak to the marketing manager of the mall. If you get ahold of him/her, explain the situation and give them your business card. The worst thats gonna happen is their gonna throw it away, the best is you got yourself a contact.

[CalPiker]

That's why I'll use a monopod- if confuses them plus nobody is gonna trip over it.

Monopod, resting on the top of my foot. :D It's not touching the ground, so they can't say anything about it!

[tone.tran]

Every little craphead has to have his little power trip. Far too many security types have their jobs BECAUSE they are on a power trip, and aren't stable or smart enough to be a "real" cop

That's a bit of a low blow no? I'm sure the guy was just acting under what he's been told. As has been said, tripods are not allowed at many venues because the safety hazard. Now, being the time it was when the incident occured may mean that someone tripping over the tripod was unlikely but, it's still a possibility. If it does occur, the mall is held accountable, not the photographer so I believe the mall is in full right to stop anyone from using one in their premises.

Far too many ignorant people make posts that are intended to attack people just trying to do their job. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that everyone is going on a power trip and abusing their position. I see no foul play in this mall securities actions.

[blackshadow]

I'm amazed they still have malls in Detroit; isn't Detroit a wasteland these days?

[JeffreyG]

I'm amazed they still have malls in Detroit; isn't Detroit a wasteland these days?


There is almost zero retail within the 134 square miles of the city of Detroit, but there are malls in the surrounding metro area.

[FlyingPhotog]

I'm amazed they still have malls in Detroit; isn't Detroit a wasteland these days?

Hmmm...

And people like to call Americans ignorant.

[nphsbuckeye]

Hmmm...

And people like to call Americans ignorant.
Ironic, isn't it?!

[20droger]

Hmmm...

And people like to call Americans ignorant.
Unfortunately, many are. And far too many of them are proud of it.

As for malls, almost all of them have policies that state no professional photography without a permit, and certainly no tripods at any time without a prior written agreement.

The first policy is to please the tenants, who want their intellectual property protected. Management themselves usually don't care, but this is an example of the Golden Rule—as in he who has the gold makes the rule. The tenants have the gold.

As for the "I'm not a professional" argument, so what? It you have equipment that appears to be of a type that a professional would normally use, you present the appearance of being a professional. It's appearance that matters, not fact.

As to the "they don't stop people with point 'n' shoots or camera phones" argument, again, so what? As I just said, it's appearance that matters. Professionals are not perceived as normally using SureShots or Nokia phones to take pictures.

Why is it that it's the appearance that matters? Simple. The rule is there because of the tenants. If your appearance is such that a tenant, any tenant, might think he's being professionally photographed, then the management is contractually bound to put a halt to it. And, being private property, they have that right.

The second, no-tripods policy is a safety and liability issue. People trip on and/or knock over tripods. The mall needs to protect itself. It's that simple.

As to the private property issue, private property does not cease to be so because it is open to the public. The property remains private, and the owners and/or their agents get to make the rules. This is fair and just. After all, they own the property, pay taxes on the property, and are the ones sued if something happens on the property.

Turn the tables and look at it from this perspective. Let's suppose you decide to sell your house. So you get together with your realtor and hold an open house. BINGO! You have just opened your private property to the public for commercial purposes!

Does that mean that anyone who walks in can therefore do any damned thing they want? Of course not. They have to abide by your rules.

Extend the same courtesy to the mall owners.

Also, your ownership and authority does not end at the walls of your house but extends to your property line. The same applies to the mall owners' parking lots and other grounds.

Their property, their rules. Period. It's a simple concept that, for whatever reason, seems to be beyond the grasp of so many.

As for the rudeness of the security guards, rudeness is a perception. It has been my experience that most persons create their own rudeness.

I have personally witnessed instances where the persons involved were ask quite politely to cease what they were doing, only to find letters to the editor the next day about how rude the guards were. The rudeness was entirely a (false) perception on the part of the persons breaking the rules.

At other times, I have witnessed the guards being polite and being treated to verbal vitriol in return. In most such cases, the guards remained reasonably polite, but also insistent. In other case, the guards reciprocated in kind, usually with more than ample justification.

My point is that the vast number of people confronted by rude guards make their own rudeness, either out of whole cloth or by their own actions.

As for "standing up for your rights" (advocated by more than a few here), fine. Just be sure you have the rights for which you make a stand. If you don't, you may find yourself in more trouble than you wish.

First, your right to take a picture and/or use a particular piece of equipment never, repeat, never supercedes the right of the property owner to make the rules. His property, his rules. Period.

Second, the manner in which many stand up for their rights is often a criminal act in and of itself. Creating a public nuisance and disturbing the peace come to mind.

Two last things to bear in mind. First, almost all malls have a firm policy that if, for any reason whatsoever, they are forced to call the police, changes will be filed and, once filed, will not be dropped. This policy exists because calling in the police creates a huge hassle for management, and if they didn't follow through each and every time, people would soon abuse the system, creating even more hassle.

Second, especially in smaller malls, the guards are often off-duty police officers. Off-duty is a relative term. Mouth off to one of them or otherwise cause him/her grief, and he/she can be on-duty so fast you'll be wearing bracelets before you know what hit you.

In both cases, you'll most likely be out on bail in a few hours, but also most likely is that your equipment will be seized as evidence. Yes, you will definitely get it all back. Of course, your brand new camera body will probably be obsolete by then, but that's not their problem.

[neilwood32]

Unfortunately, many are. And far too many of them are proud of it.

As for malls, almost all of them have policies that state no professional photography without a permit, and certainly no tripods at any time without a prior written agreement.

The first policy is to please the tenants, who want their intellectual property protected. Management themselves usually don't care, but this is an example of the Golden Rule—as in he who has the gold makes the rule. The tenants have the gold.

As for the "I'm not a professional" argument, so what? It you have equipment that appears to be of a type that a professional would normally use, you present the appearance of being a professional. It's appearance that matters, not fact.

As to the "they don't stop people with point 'n' shoots or camera phones" argument, again, so what? As I just said, it's appearance that matters. Professionals are not perceived as normally using SureShots or Nokia phones to take pictures.

Why is it that it's the appearance that matters? Simple. The rule is there because of the tenants. If your appearance is such that a tenant, any tenant, might think he's being professionally photographed, then the management is contractually bound to put a halt to it. And, being private property, they have that right.

The second, no-tripods policy is a safety and liability issue. People trip on and/or knock over tripods. The mall needs to protect itself. It's that simple.

As to the private property issue, private property does not cease to be so because it is open to the public. The property remains private, and the owners and/or their agents get to make the rules. This is fair and just. After all, they own the property, pay taxes on the property, and are the ones sued if something happens on the property.

Turn the tables and look at it from this perspective. Let's suppose you decide to sell your house. So you get together with your realtor and hold an open house. BINGO! You have just opened your private property to the public for commercial purposes!

Does that mean that anyone who walks in can therefore do any damned thing they want? Of course not. They have to abide by your rules.

Extend the same courtesy to the mall owners.

Also, your ownership and authority does not end at the walls of your house but extends to your property line. The same applies to the mall owners' parking lots and other grounds.

Their property, their rules. Period. It's a simple concept that, for whatever reason, seems to be beyond the grasp of so many.

As for the rudeness of the security guards, rudeness is a perception. It has been my experience that most persons create their own rudeness.

I have personally witnessed instances where the persons involved were ask quite politely to cease what they were doing, only to find letters to the editor the next day about how rude the guards were. The rudeness was entirely a (false) perception on the part of the persons breaking the rules.

At other times, I have witnessed the guards being polite and being treated to verbal vitriol in return. In most such cases, the guards remained reasonably polite, but also insistent. In other case, the guards reciprocated in kind, usually with more than ample justification.

My point is that the vast number of people confronted by rude guards make their own rudeness, either out of whole cloth or by their own actions.

As for "standing up for your rights" (advocated by more than a few here), fine. Just be sure you have the rights for which you make a stand. If you don't, you may find yourself in more trouble than you wish.

First, your right to take a picture and/or use a particular piece of equipment never, repeat, never supercedes the right of the property owner to make the rules. His property, his rules. Period.

Second, the manner in which many stand up for their rights is often a criminal act in and of itself. Creating a public nuisance and disturbing the peace come to mind.

Two last things to bear in mind. First, almost all malls have a firm policy that if, for any reason whatsoever, they are forced to call the police, changes will be filed and, once filed, will not be dropped. This policy exists because calling in the police creates a huge hassle for management, and if they didn't follow through each and every time, people would soon abuse the system, creating even more hassle.

Second, especially in smaller malls, the guards are often off-duty police officers. Off-duty is a relative term. Mouth off to one of them or otherwise cause him/her grief, and he/she can be on-duty so fast you'll be wearing bracelets before you know what hit you. Police officers still have the same rights of arrest even off duty (certainly here , not sure about US)

In both cases, you'll most likely be out on bail in a few hours, but also most likely is that your equipment will be seized as evidence. Yes, you will definitely get it all back. Of course, your brand new camera body will probably be obsolete by then, but that's not their problem.

Roger - well said!

Malls are public spaces because their private owners open them up as such but they have the right to restrict access as they see fit (subject to discrimination laws).

If you are within their property, you have whatever rights they decree you can have and photography is one they generally dont let you have! Unless you get prior permission that is.

Outside on the street, you can shoot all you want.

[20droger]

Here in the U.S., too, police officers can arrest anyone at any time (for cause, of course).

The way I heard it described is that a cop is never really off-duty, just off the clock.

[neilwood32]

Thats certainly the way it is here.

I was warned about that when I was looking at it as a possible career.

So if you create too much of a scene, you might actually find that "Rent-a-cop" actually arrests you!

[birdfromboat]

yeah, private property is just that, and you don't have the right to record photon reflection patterns in places that some people don't want you to.
Lets hope that as a society we are headed towards a state that shows a little more common sense about it, and eventually gets away from the arbitrary 'if it could be used for a bad purpose, it must always be stopped" attitude. If, a few years down the road, we are still seeing posts about photographers being harrassed for taking pictures that could be used to violate the copyrights of store advertising, or include bridges-nuclear plants-dams in the background, or posts about questioning based on the fact that a photographer is taking pictures of children and nothing else, I will be sure we are headed in the wrong direction.

I am hoping there will be a test case and a high court ruling on these problems in the US soon. It will save alot of time for a alot of people, and save some space on this forum and others.

[FlyingPhotog]

yeah, private property is just that, and you don't have the right to record photon reflection patterns in places that some people don't want you to.
Lets hope that as a society we are headed towards a state that shows a little more common sense about it, and eventually gets away from the arbitrary 'if it could be used for a bad purpose, it must always be stopped" attitude. If, a few years down the road, we are still seeing posts about photographers being harrassed for taking pictures that could be used to violate the copyrights of store advertising, or include bridges-nuclear plants-dams in the background, or posts about questioning based on the fact that a photographer is taking pictures of children and nothing else, I will be sure we are headed in the wrong direction.

I am hoping there will be a test case and a high court ruling on these problems in the US soon. It will save alot of time for a alot of people, and save some space on this forum and others.

But as has been pointed out, it's not always because of "Terrorism" concerns...

There are competition and logo/trademark issues as well.

Again, it's a case of common denominators. Mall Security either can't or won't take the time to determine who is shooting for fun and who is trying to steal ideas from other stores, their artwork, clothing designs, etc. so they ban it all.

But as is often the case (really always the case) they "descriminate" by immediately assuming that someone with a dSLR must be "professional" and is therefore engaged in some kind of a commercial endevour.

The notion that someone could be walking around with a MkIII + Brick or (God Forbid) one of them white bazookas "just for fun" is a tough sell. We know people do it but the rest of the general population doesn't.

If you don't believe me, go read the "Rediculous Comment" thread and see what kind of reaction photographers get with something as simple as a 24-105mm...

[birdfromboat]

Yep, it's snap judgement based on fear and ignorance. It is easier to assume that I am a professional of some sort because I have a big white lens than it is to realise that it means nothing and that it is no better a tool to get the kind of images that would suit a terrorist or copyright infringer or pedaphile than a P+S, in fact quite the opposite. If I truly was out to get shots for questionable use, would I have a big honkin camera and look at me lens on? No way.
Again, I say lets hope someone gets a little national attention soon, and makes this whole society sit back and reflect on the fact that it is only recorded light, and it is easier to allow those who wish to engage in their hobby do so in peace than it is to try and control every last photographer out there.

I have a card that says I can be trusted to return a library book, I have a card that says I will comply with the wishes of the society when driving my truck, I even have a card that says I can and will catch fish legally or be willing to prove to an officer of the state that I have when asked. I am afraid we are headed toward carrying cards stating we have never been convicted copyright infringement or of terrorism or of any sexually deviancy. That is still favorable to trying to prove innocence to some over zealous security guard, just doing his job.

[FlyingPhotog]

I have a card that says I can be trusted to return a library book, I have a card that says I will comply with the wishes of the society when driving my truck, I even have a card that says I can and will catch fish legally or be willing to prove to an officer of the state that I have when asked. I am afraid we are headed toward carrying cards stating we have never been convicted copyright infringement or of terrorism or of any sexually deviancy. That is still favorable to trying to prove innocence to some over zealous security guard, just doing his job.

I have a card that can trump that...

Outside an airport boundary fence, the government feels I'm a security risk.

Inside an airport boundary fence, that same Government says I can go wherever I need to go and fly virtually anywhere in the country I care to fly.

That card is called A Private Pilot Certificate.

How's that for irony? :rolleyes:

[20droger]

I have a card that can trump that...

Outside an airport boundary fence, the government feels I'm a security risk.

Inside an airport boundary fence, that same Government says I can go wherever I need to go and fly virtually anywhere in the country I care to fly.

That card is called A Private Pilot Certificate.

How's that for irony? :rolleyes:
Well, of course you're a security risk. Just look at that spinner!

[BioSpark]

It's funny, at my mall, I see people walking around with P&S cameras all the time. No one says anything. I just laugh.

[tone.tran]

BioSpark, most malls that I know of don't care about taking pictures. It's more about tripods and having photo gear that may intimidate other shoppers or mall staff.

[yogestee]

It's funny, at my mall, I see people walking around with P&S cameras all the time. No one says anything. I just laugh.

Yeah,, I can shoot anything, anyone at anytime in my local shopping mall and the security guys carry AK-47s..

http://www.pbase.com/jurgentreue/talatsao&page=all

[Bumgardnern]

I think that a lot of problems like this can be adverted. If you talk to the individual in charge of the space ahead of time and explain to them what you would like to do odds are they will allow you to shoot. I have found that many times people are flattered that you would even consider their location for a shoot. They might have a fee, permit, or require you to carry insurance, but it is better to know ahead of time and plan accordingly. Also it is important to remember that even in "public places" (the term is often used with a loose public understanding of what a public place is), that you should inquire before shooting. Often times even cities have rules about what where and when you can shoot. A prime example is that in DC you have to have a permit to shoot with a tripod, because of public safety concerns. I have also found that being nice will go a really long way. By forming relationships with security personnel I have been able to get some awesome editorial photographs that other photographers around me were not allowed to get.