Well, it happened to me; Bugged by security.

[THORHAMMER]

you'll never get permission to shoot somewhere commercial like that unless you know someone in the management and can come up with a million dollar insurance bond.

 

[abraxas]

It sounds/looks like you've arrived at a point where this is becoming quite a professional enterprise. You may want to become familiar with where and when permissions are required for shoots with models. There most likely will be money involved. This can determine the feasibility of a location. There's a lot that can be gotten away with going outlaw and renegade, but why jeopardize yourself, your model, and client?

I used to work with a regional film commission which covered commercial photography- seeing the ugly innards, if some folks get the chance, they can become quite "prickish."

 

[skieur]

Malls and parking lots are not public places. They are private places open to the public.

I'm uncertain what you mean by "regular laws." In all states in the U.S. that I'm aware, you can not get a ticket for running a stop sign in a parking lot but you can get arrested for drunk driving. As far as law enforcement is concerned, it's not any different from your own property. Misdemeanors can not be enforced but felonies (called "high misdemeanors in some states) can be enforced.

The only other distinction is related specifically to "private property open to the public," such as malls, stores, restaurants, etc. The governing bodies have the authority to write and enforce "public safety" laws, such as related to discrimination, food safety, handicap access, etc. (Yeah, some of those laws are a stretch.)

In the absence of any specific law to the contrary, the owner of the property has the same rights as the owner of a private home.

Socrates, The US Supreme Court defined a public place as a place to which the general public has access. That makes malls public places.

skieur

 

[THORHAMMER]

before you guys fight over semantics all night,


its simple as pie.

public access = public access

private owned can be also public access like the mall for example.

they can make up whatever rules they want as long as it doesn't violate state law.

they are not telling you you cannot be there, just what you can and cannot do while there, just as you would tell someone your house rules inside your house. just this is not your house its a huge commercial entity.

you can shoot ANYTHING in there as long as you are not violating privacy laws like shooting into bathroom stalls or changing rooms etc..(common sense)

they can ask you to leave, you can challenge it if its not a written policy , ask them to call their supervisor.

if they ultimately ask you to leave you must leave. end of story.
or its trespassing and the police will take you away
---------------------------------------------------------

 

[usayit]

Socrates, The US Supreme Court defined a public place as a place to which the general public has access. That makes malls public places.

skieur

Please post a reference.....

I do believe you are confusing the definition of a place accessible by the public (Private business open to the general public) and a place that is public property (Property owned by the local government). Two completely different things...

This has already been brought up several times in this thread.

This is similar to some state's concealed weapon laws. You have the right to carry a concealed weapon (assuming proper licensing) but a private establishment (malls, restaurants, clubs, etc) retains the right to refuse you entry.

 

[abraxas]

This is interesting;

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

However, I'm not sure if/how it applies to a commercial shoot with models.

 

[usayit]

The key in that article is the last section.. Risk Factors which still fall in line with what is being posted here.

In the place I work, you are more than welcome to have a camera but the security guards don't have to let you past the lobby.

 

[abraxas]

I'm getting an education out of this.

http://www.photosecrets.com/law.take.html

 

[RMThompson]

I'm getting an education out of this.

http://www.photosecrets.com/law.take.html

Yes. Interesting... especially since I wasn't specifically asked to leave the mall, and once we were in the parking lot she didn't follow us... I think that would fall under:

<H3>What if a mall security guard says to stop taking photos?

This comes down to photographing and trespassing being two different things. If a private security guard asks you to stop taking photos, you do not have to comply; you can still take photos. But if they ask you leave, then you have to leave, as your permission to enter has been revoked and you are now trespassing. However, you can take photos while walking out, and you can still publish those pictures. For more, see trespassing.

</H3>

 

[Socrates]

Socrates, The US Supreme Court defined a public place as a place to which the general public has access. That makes malls public places.

skieur

Can you elaborate? What case?

 

[skieur]

Please post a reference.....

I do believe you are confusing the definition of a place accessible by the public (Private business open to the general public) and a place that is public property (Property owned by the local government). Two completely different things...

This has already been brought up several times in this thread.

This is similar to some state's concealed weapon laws. You have the right to carry a concealed weapon (assuming proper licensing) but a private establishment (malls, restaurants, clubs, etc) retains the right to refuse you entry.

No, not confusing anything. The US Supreme Court defined public place in terms of access, which is no surprise since other countries have done the same thing in Europe and elsewhere.

Betamax decision: Disney versus Sony. You find the web site. I have a written version buried somewhere.

skieur

 

[skieur]

I'm getting an education out of this.

http://www.photosecrets.com/law.take.html

Not totally correct on use, but on the whole very good.

skieur

 

[skieur]

This is interesting;

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

However, I'm not sure if/how it applies to a commercial shoot with models.

The only difference with a commercial shoot is that you cannot interfere with the normal operation of the mall as in interfering with the movement of customers or the business of a particular store that you may be close to while shooting. To do so, might lead to different charges.

skieur

 

[Socrates]

No, not confusing anything. The US Supreme Court defined public place in terms of access, which is no surprise since other countries have done the same thing in Europe and elsewhere.

Betamax decision: Disney versus Sony. You find the web site. I have a written version buried somewhere.

skieur

Help me out here. I'm completely unable to locate any reference to "the US Supreme Court defined public place in terms of access."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417

 

[abraxas]

Not totally correct on use, but on the whole very good.

skieur

I decided long ago to stay the hell out of malls, let alone go to take pictures. The film commission meetings I attended for a few years reinforced my decision with their attitude/behavior. Anyway though, I'm wondering how the mall situation applies to commercial shoots with a model. I'm pretty in National Parks a permit is required for product shoots or with models/actors. Just can't find anything on it regarding malls/private property with public access.

Hm.