Well, it happened to me; Bugged by security.

[skieur]

Can you tell me how you came to such conclusion or if there was a quote in the case I can look at? I read that case a while back and I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.

There is a quote in the judgement.

skieur

 

[schumionbike]

There is a quote in the judgement.

skieur

I didn't find the quote you're referring to and even if there is such a quote and that your interpretation of the quote is correct, the case you cited got nothing to do with the right to exclude in real property which is what being discuss.

 

[Mystwalker]

I believe a private property such as a "mall" because it is open to public, is considered "public".

If you were a TV person and wanted to go around with a TV camera, I suspect they have to let you.

Because you are not, and security guys probably get misinformation, they are trying to do what they think is their job.

Real question is how much time do you want to spend getting hassled when you can be somewhere else doing something productive? Even if you win "this fight", I bet next time you are there, the same problem will occur.

 

[Mystwalker]

The paparazzi would love to have such laws....

Didn't go through entire thread, but I'm pretty sure paparazzi follow similar type of law. They do sneak around with super zooms sneaking shots of celebrities.

 

[Socrates]

There is a quote in the judgement.

skieur

Can you tell us how to find it?

 

[Socrates]

I didn't find the quote you're referring to and even if there is such a quote and that your interpretation of the quote is correct, the case you cited got nothing to do with the right to exclude in real property which is what being discuss.

Do you get the feeling that we're never going to get an explanation?

 

[usayit]

I believe a private property such as a "mall" because it is open to public, is considered "public".

If you were a TV person and wanted to go around with a TV camera, I suspect they have to let you.

Because you are not, and security guys probably get misinformation, they are trying to do what they think is their job.

You guys have this all screwed up. A Public place is completely different from the legal definition of public property.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/public property

"public property n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public. (See: common property)"

Legal definition of private property

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/private+property

"private property n. land not owned by the government or dedicated to public use."

No... A TV crew can be escorted out of any privately owned property... so can a photographer. If I own private property (mall for example), I have every right to enforce rules set by myself assuming they do not violate any local, state, or federal laws as they supersede any rules I set forth . That includes escorting you off the premises if I see behavior deemed in appropriate by my definition. This includes taking photos or video. This does not include taking possession of your property.

For example... a public accessible event or show has every right to not allow cameras and video. Usually th reason given is protection of intellectual property, which includes store fronts and displays. Just because I make my private property accessible to the public, I do not relinquish my right to manage and control said property.

Sheesh....


Also... here is the legal definition of "public access":

The availability of television or radio broadcast facilities, as provided by law, for use by the public for presentation of programs, as those of community interest.

Again... absolutely nothing to do with what is discussed here. "public access" in terms of property publicly accessible by the general public isn't even a legal term.


Again... photography isn't illegal but as a private property accessible to the public, I can make it impermissible on my property. You can take all the photos you want from the sidewalk or street outside that IS PUBLIC PROPERTY (owned by the state).

:x :x :x :x :x :x

You can bend all you want.... the rent-a-cops are in their right as long as they stay within:

1) Federal laws
2) state laws
3) local laws
4) rules set by property owner

in that order...

 

[usayit]

Didn't go through entire thread, but I'm pretty sure paparazzi follow similar type of law. They do sneak around with super zooms sneaking shots of celebrities.

Actually most of what they do is limited to shooting from public property (street or sidewalk for example). Even if they shoot from a public property location, they are still breaking the law if they are shooting into a location where the subject can assume reasonable expectation of privacy.

There is no laws protecting the paparazzi on private property or into an area of reasonable expectation of privacy.

My post was being sarcastic.. and I think the paparazzi are the lowest form of people holding a camera. There work is 100% money and nothing to do with photography itself. A peeping tom with a camera...

 

[RMThompson]

Actually most of what they do is limited to shooting from public property (street or sidewalk for example). Even if they shoot from a public property location, they are still breaking the law if they are shooting into a location where the subject can assume reasonable expectation of privacy.

There is no laws protecting the paparazzi on private property or into an area of reasonable expectation of privacy.

My post was being sarcastic.. and I think the paparazzi are the lowest form of people holding a camera. There work is 100% money and nothing to do with photography itself. A peeping tom with a camera...

This discussion has gone far away from my original post.

I would like to discuss the rights of paprazzi, but in another thread. Anyone care to start one? I'm sort of ready to see this one die.