Another "photograpy isn't permitted here" story

[inTempus]

I just got back from getting dinner at the Irvine Spectrum Center (mall) in Irvine California. I pulled my camera from its bag and within the first 10 shots had security all over me. The lady stuttered out the sentence, "We can't allow you to take pictures of the fountains and stuff, it's against the law." This is an outdoor mall in a tourist area and they jump on tourists with DSLR's apparently. I mean, everyone knows terrorists have DSLR's and not less conspicuous cameras like cell phones or pocket P&S cameras.

Wow, this state is bad.

I can walk anywhere in Chicago and take pictures unmolested by police/security. Heck, I sat for 30 minutes this morning eating breakfast at Chicago O'Hare and snapped pics and not a soul said anything to me.

 

[genie]

Hard times. if you were photographing the merchandise I would understand, but I've never heard of that happening. You should have asked them why.

 

[Unmanedpilot]

I don't know the exact laws, but there nothing against shooting in public places. Or anywhere for that matter unless your invading someones privacy or trespassing. Also I know many stock photo places don't accept photos of buildings or private property without a property release, and even then there's nothing against taking the photo in the first place. You just cant sell it. I don't know if a mall would count as private property but I see no reason for them to tell you to leave.

I don't remember where I read this, probably somewhere around here, or an aviation site that I go to. But unless your trespassing (A mall hardly falls under that category) or invading someones privacy, I say shoot on.

I often find my self around local airports taking photos and rarely have trouble, one of the only times I actually was told to leave by the airport security was at a military base. They were very polite about it and really didn't care I was there, I think they just wanted to stop getting calls from the paranoid people driving by. :er:

If another Rentacop tells you to leave, politely ask for their manager or superior or whatever. I doubt they could find a real reason to tell you to leave.

 

[astrostu]

As has been said before, if the property actually is privately owned, and there is a policy of no photography by the owners, then they are within their rights to tell you no photography. However, it is likely that this is not the case, and in any event, you can always check with the management.

 

[abraxas]

As has been said before, if the property actually is privately owned, and there is a policy of no photography by the owners, then they are within their rights to tell you no photography. However, it is likely that this is not the case, and in any event, you can always check with the management.

I'd disagree, it probably is the case. As it was explained to me by a California mall management firm, it is private property. Although it is not illegal to take pictures, if someone is performing unapproved activities, they will be asked to stop. If they do not stop, they will be asked to leave. If they do not leave, they can be escorted off the property (or arrested if there is a problem with that). There is far more to be considered than just the rights of the photographer- This being the rights of the individual store owners and their customers while they are on private property. It is usually no big deal getting permission from a mall for photography. They will typically grant it with the following caveats;

1. No photos clearly showing a store front, store name or trademark names or logos.
2. No photos clearly showing customer's faces without a pre-signed release.
3. No soliciting customers to sign releases.

Pretty easy stuff to adhere to. A professional demeanor and asking in advance will usually get someone permission. It's about respect and socially concious behavior on someone else's property.

 

[epp_b]

As has been said before, if the property actually is privately owned, and there is a policy of no photography by the owners, then they are within their rights to tell you no photography.

Indeed. If they own it, they have every right to enforce stupid rules.

 

[abraxas]

Indeed. If they own it, they have every right to enforce stupid rules.

And that's the difference between the cheap seats and playing on the field. Thank you.

 

[allipuffandrew]

Im going to be having my first photo shoot in a couple a weeks and i am concerned on where the best place is to photograph. I am not rich, and i want to avoid paying a studio. First off let me say I live in Los Angeles and i already know im gonna get that "no photography allowed" crap probably everywhere i go. I wanted to photograph at a park of some sort...but is that wise with not only my camera but photo equipment, umbrellas,changing tents, stylists, and model in toe. Im not trying to do this on a small scale. I just don't plan on showing up with just my camera. I guess my question is if any one is willing to answer...is this wise and is it even legal to go to a park and start shooting pictures on this type of scale?

 

[epp_b]

And that's the difference between the cheap seats and playing on the field.

I don't get what that means.

 

[TheLionKym]

We are based in London, England and commissioned a photographer to take pictures in the City of properties that we manage. He has been in the business many years and told us that this is the first time that he has been questioned although not stopped from doing his work. He felt very uncomfortable. Unfortunately this seems to be a feature of our new age of the 'War On Terror' and post 9/11. The world indeed has changed.


****************************
luggage suitcases

 

[Torus34]

Within the US, the normally strong cultural emphasis on property rights [in some parts of the country a person can defend property with lethal force and have but minimal concern about paying any penalty] has been exacerbated by the 9/11 event. I've been questioned by the city police while photographing a school and, quite possibly, rightly so. Polite discussion, including a comment on my understanding of their concerns and a willingness to provide identification, including my address, took care of things nicely.

When in doubt, asking the appropriate authority about restrictions beforehand or politely trying to resolve any unforseen problems can avoid much difficulty.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Technically whether or not they "Own' it its a protected activity in Shopping malls in "California". The mall enclosed or not constitutes a public square where such activity is allowed, BUT since no cases have been fought yet over photography in a mall its a moot point. Its just a matter of time until the ACLU sees a case through in this. But since security doesn't understand the law anyways its not worth fighting about it. There just trying to do their job. You can get their supervisors number and ask them to show you in writing where its against the law. Call the police too, but ultimately they will give you a written paper telling you your not allowed to come back if you push it too far.

Usually I can talk them through letting me take pictures of my family with no problem, but beyond that I don't see any way to prove what the law says to them. I just shrug it off, save my energy for when I know Ill need it on public sidewalk later on... Pick your battles.

PS - The block of orange has a sign saying you can take pictures as long as they are not for commercial use. I have not been hassled there once and its a lot more fun then the snobby spectrum anyways. Its also not too far from many cool buildings to photograph in downtown santa ana..

 

[henkelphoto]

but is that wise with not only my camera but photo equipment, umbrellas,changing tents, stylists, and model in toe.

If you show up with all this stuff anywhere in Los Angeles, you will not be allowed to take any photos. Let's face it, LA is a city used to dealing with commercial photography. And that's what you are doing. You will need a commercial photo permit, have to post a liability bond, probably in the range of $2 million, and with all that stuff, will probably be asked to provide security.

If you can afford a stylist, paying models, changing tents, etc., pony up the money for the permit and liability insurance, it really in your best interest.

Jerry

 

[JE Kay]

Yep seems like the US, and other places as well I guess, have gone completely stupid with misguided authority. I've never been asked to stop shooting or even asked what I was doing and I've shot all over Toronto and surrounding areas in public and not so public places.

Mall cops are so hilarious, they're at the top of the list as far as people with no real authority that somehow believe they're enforcers of everything. :lmao:

I watched a mall cop grab a man by the arm once, the guy was a lawyer. HE called the police, made the mall cop stay until the police arrived. Police show up, lawyer says a few things to the officer, result - Mall cop charged with assault something or other. I don't know what the lawyer actually did, but when the mall cop grabbed him, that was the end of him. You can't put your hands on people.

 

[Seefutlung]

As earlier stated, in SoCal you can shoot in most any public place as long as you call in advance and make the proper arrangements which may or may not include a shooting fee. I suggest the Huntington Library, very scenic, plenty of room and while they charge a fee ... you are pretty much unrestricted and left alone.

I used to be a news photog back in the film only days. Disneyland was the worst. They had a PR person meet you at the front gate and escorted you for the entire visit ... making sure you didn't take any photos which made the happiest place in the world a look little less than happy. Consenquently, after one escorted trip at Disneyland, nobody went back ... which is propably was the Magic Kindom wanted in the first place.

Gary