Re: [Leica] photography in stores, malls, etc.

["Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>]

Steve,

>>If I am taking pictures in Home Depot, and they tell
me to stop and I don't, I'm certain they can evict me,
probably even bar me from return - but I have broken
no law,    <<

If you are asked to leave (with your camera) and didn't, in most
jurisdictions you would be guilty of a criminal trespass. Not the most
serious offense, I grant you, but it can rise to the level of a misdemeanor
in most places.

Bryan


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Patriquen" <patriquen@yahoo.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 2:36 AM
Subject: [Leica] photography in stores, malls, etc.


> This seems to be a recurring subject, and it appears
> that while frustrating to many of us, the law is
> relatively clear on what rights we have and what
> rights property owners have.
>
> However, more important to me a a couple of associated
> issues.
>
> First, there are only a few places where it is
> *illegal* to *take* a photograph. The best example I
> know is in a court room (or court house) where (at
> least in Canada) you can be found instantly in
> contempt and literally "go directly to jail". Oddly,
> different court houses (again in Canada) have
> differing rules. Some allow no photography anywhere
> (and fellow Americans should note that cameras in the
> court room in Canada are almost unheard of). Other
> court houses allow photography in designated areas,
> varying from a specific, signed, location to
> "downstairs".
>
> It is also quite risky to photograph military
> installations anywhere. Just being present in the
> wrong place can get you arrested. Taking pictures
> makes it worse. OTOH, photography is encouraged at air
> shows and the like.
>
> But really, can't we can walk into Home Depot or The
> Mall and take photos to our hearts content until
> someone tells us to stop? There is no *law* (in the US
> or Canada, or the UK) against taking pictures in the
> Mall, HD, or at concerts. What we have is a property
> "owner" (rightfully) restricting the privilege of
> access based on some terms.
>
> If I am taking pictures in Home Depot, and they tell
> me to stop and I don't, I'm certain they can evict me,
> probably even bar me from return - but I have broken
> no law, I also imagine it would be very difficult for
> them to take any action against me, as I did no damage
> and they suffered no loss. I know I'm on thin ice here
> (I'm no lawyer) but I'm sure I'll be corrected :-)
>
> Further, they have no right to my film (that would be
> theft on their part).
>
> I think this is an important point. Sign or no sign, I
> can take pictures until told to stop. The sign is just
> an interim measure (at Fry's it appears no one is
> around to tell you :-)
>
> Finally, many of you may be aware that Canada and the
> UK both routinely "prohibit the identification" of
> some individuals - most typically a minor victim of a
> sexually-related offence.
>
> Note this does not prohibit you from photographing
> this person (sometimes the perpetrator is a family
> member, and therefore their identification is also
> prohibited) but only the *act* of identifying them to
> others (i.e. publication of this photograph).
>
> Similarly, the new French laws on privacy and the
> recent Québec ruling on publication of an individual's
> likeness both appear to be directed toward publication
> - not the act of photographing.
>
> To me, this means I can photograph what I want when I
> want in most cases, but must consider carefully what I
> do with those images later, as any professional would.
>
> Nomex on
> Steve Patriquen
> London
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>