Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I want to thank everyone for the great responses to my post. As a lawyer, I am probably not smart (at least informed) enough to understand the dynamics of taking photographs at a mall. I have not worked seriously in photography since the late eighties. Your collective experience provides a lot of insight. I am sympathetic to arguments in favor of privacy and protection from "casing out" a business. But, how does that play for the business on a public street? Should that business have less protection? I tend to side with the post that questioned where does it end? Do we wait for corporate America to control every inch of land? I am easily able to distinguish my home or other personal property from the walk ways in a mall. Those walk ways are quasi public. What limits should be placed on ownership? I have been banned for one year from all malls in Madison. Is that an appropriate response? Would it matter if I could not afford to go to Milwaukee or Chicago to obtain necessities? I will not go to jail and I can probably settle this matter for a couple hundred dollars. I could also spend the rest of my life slowing down the growth of corporate control of quasi public space by pursuing the case in the courts and media. If that is not done by someone, will only the elite have access to store fronts? I think I would prefer to make a living practicing law and spending my free time taking advantage of my art degree. I was not belligerent but I was argumentative - no worse than I am in court, however. But this issue presents a very different twist. The police tried to get me to escalate. I did not. When it became apparent that communication was pointless, he charged me with Disorderly Conduct and specifically stated that he was doing so because I would not discuss the matter further. The impact on me is minimal but it does impact people who are trying to get a job or apartment and have to deal with charges such as these on the Internet. It can seem a lot bigger on the Internet than the true facts suggest. I am self-employed and a home owner. These charges are not criminal and will only cost me time or money. As promised in my original post, I have been digging through boxes of old photos and will try to post a few to get acquainted. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 4:10 PM Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Inspired but arrested > 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. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of RUBEN > BLĘDEL > Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:02 PM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Inspired but arrested > > > This Mall thing of yours - when is it going to cover all of the US? and > by the way is there a camera shop in the Mall ? - if so - do you have > to leave the Mall before you can try your purchase ? - It is like you > are asuming that the arrested person is a complete idiot - is he, and > were along this thread did we decide he was - you US LUGgers should put > small stickers on the Malls were photographers are asulted this way ! > would not want to visit the US and end up in jail for bringing a camera! > Ruben > > Eric wrote: > > >If I invite somebody to enter my building on my land, shouldn't I as > >the owner still have some rights? > > > >It's not quite so simple as that. But turn it around and look at it > >from the owners' vantage point. If you have photographers harassing > >your paying customers, you'll do something about it. I'm willing to > >bet that the reason there are these strict rules is because some idiot > >with a camera annoyed the wrong person and kept annoying him when asked > > >to desist. > > > >Common courtesy goes a long way in situations like these. When we're > >not on public land, our right to shoot doesn't trump somebody else's > >right to privacy. On public land, we can shoot as much as we want. > > > > > >Eric > >-- > >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 > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html