Well, it happened to me; Bugged by security.

[RMThompson]

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]

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

 

[mrodgers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.