Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B. D., True, but I have noticed that many malls have signs on the doors notifying you about handing out literature, soliciting, etc. Have not noticed any about photography. I have in the past taken some inside malls and have never been questioned but they are usually discrete with attempt made not to draw attention, that is, I tend to use a camera that requires little setup time thus it's over quickly and I'm on my way. I would have been surprised to be approached by the rental cops for doing it. I'm in the camp that thinks the restrictions are imposed by Barney Fife wannabes and that pushing the issue would unearth a can of worms for the mall. But, your mileage may vary..... Bill - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of B. D. Colen Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:02 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Inspired but arrested That may indeed be true, Rolfe. But if I'm not mistaken courts have restricted soliciting in malls, handing out literature, etc. - and I hope that one of our attorneys would correct me if I'm wrong. And that mall owners have used their 'property rights' to enforce regulations against gatherings of teenagers in the malls. The law is indeed evolving, but that, unfortunately, makes it even more likely that one can be caught up in a very ugly, very messy, legal situation. B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Rolfe Tessem Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:39 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Inspired but arrested > Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:10:56 -0500 > From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> > Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Inspired but arrested > Message-ID: <003a01c3c820$125820e0$6501a8c0@CCA4A5EF37E11E> > References: > > What don't you understand about the word's "private property?" I > certainly wish that malls weren't private property, and I think it's > ludicrous that photography in them is barred, but that's the legal > reality. You can bring your camera to the U. S. and photograph in > public places. You can photograph people in the street; but you can't > take photographs on private property, or do anything else on private > property, without the permission of the owners of that property. Actually, it's not quite that simple. Various courts have held that if a property owner allows unfettered public access then the owner cannot unduly restrict the public's activities on such property. In other words, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it is a duck :-). The case that got the most attention along these lines was one from Salt Lake City in which the Mormon Church owned a piece of property in front, I believe, of a Mormon temple that was treated day in and day out as public property in terms of the access that was allowed. Some demonstrators wanted to demonstrate on the property and the Mormon Church tried to kick them off. The court relied on the "walks like a duck" principle in holding against the Church. Now, this was one case, in one court, in one state, but I believe there have been similar cases with respect to other "pseudo-public" places such as malls. There is usually a distinction made between the "public" part of the mall and the interior of individual stores. I think the law in this area is evolving and is far from settled. Rolfe - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html