I was just told to leave or police would be called

[bhop]

I bet you wouldn't have been hassled if you were using a small silver pocket sized p&s

 

[table1349]

=maxalmon;1445184]ME=OP Yes there is, I can turn this into a total marketing nightmare. local paper (only 1) and several of the radio stations are interested....
"snapshot - don't got to the districts if you want to take photos, they throw you out or will have you arrested" Gota love that kinda free publicity, shop keepers have also been informed as to this and they are PISSED

A couple of things to keep in mind here. Publicity goes both ways. The fact is they are the property owner and they exercised their rights. What does that make you look like?

Second and most obvious thing in any situation like this. Ask yourself a couple of questions. 1. Is is your property? 2. Is this public property? If the answer is no then the simple thing to do is go and ask someone. It is amazing how easily this is and how often it works.

There is absuoltley no reason for this and it's pure stupidty

Well I have to agree with this point, but not your point of view. As a property owner are you willing to give up you rights to your property? If not then by what stretch of common sense do you feel that they should give up their rights to their property? The notion of someones rights is meaningless unless those rights are equally applied to all.

 

[skieur]

even if (as in the example I was answering) there was a policy on private land and suitable visual notification that photography was not allowed? Whilst the photos are the property of the photographer it would be argued that they were obtained without permission and thus are illegal. Might take time, but I can't see how the photographer would win in this case - granted the police have to get the warrent before they can force you to delete

You are forgetting the rights of photojournalists that apply in almost all western countries and are also enshrined in the constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms. Freedom of expression includes the right to take photos. Taking photos is not illegal on private property even if permission is NOT granted. That is WHY, the ONLY charge that can be laid is TRESPASSING and that is too often forgotten.

So you are wrong, the photographer would certainly WIN. It is his right to take photos and the photos are his property. Whether he trespassed to take the photos is irrelevant to ownership and copyright of his pictures. They belong solely to the photographer and the police can be charged for destruction of private property if they erase them.

By the way, I remember reading an American case somewhere in which a property owner tried to say that a photographer could not benefit from crime as in selling a photo taken while trespassing. The property owner LOST. The judge indicated that taking pictures was not a crime even while trespassing.

skieur