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

["Ted Grant" <tedgrant@home.com>]

Gee folks,
This is another one of those dumb ass topics that could be easily avoided if
you all went out and took pictures.... wherever!

And if you are on / in someone else's "private space" and they ask you to
stop or leave, why get huffy and all legal rights crap? Just do it, move on!
Go find some place hassle free where you can shoot to your hearts content
having fun taking pictures.

Now don't you think that would be a more peaceful and less stressful common
sense solution?

God I hate confrontation when I'm taking pictures, however if you put
yourself in the place of the other person..... "What would you do if some
photographer came onto your property or into your home and started taking
pictures?"

Wouldn't you kind of ask him to leave or throw him out the door?

I mean if you are not making your bread and butter out of the photography
you're doing, don't get into some pissy ass argument with a security guard
or whatever, as you're probably in a "no win" situation.

Besides you become the  GD photographer who's not making your living from
photography and you leave a pile of crap behind that we who do earn our
living from it, have to wade through after your home and in your cozy bed.

For heaven sake KISS it baby... Keep it simple, move on, have fun, take
pictures some place else.
ted







Ted Grant Photography Limited
www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Caldwell" <bcaldwell@softcom.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] photography in stores, malls, etc.


> 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 misdemeano
r
> 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/
> >
>
>