Slashdot Mirror
Illegal To Take a Photo In a Shopping Center?
New submitter Kyrall writes "A man was questioned by security guards and then police after taking a photo of his own child in a UK shopping center. The center apparently has a 'no photography' policy 'to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers and to have a legitimate opportunity to challenge suspicious behavior.' He was told by a security guard that taking a photo was illegal. He also said that a police officer claimed, 'he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.'"
only outlaws will have still cameras.
And the state will have video cameras.
Everywhere.
Long live privacy!
they're so into this privacy thing, they barely have cameras anywhere.
Partial credit. The correct answer is "Hell no." I would also have accepted "Fuck you."
A spokesperson for Braehead said it wanted to "maintain a safe and enjoyable environment" for shoppers.
There is literally nothing I enjoy more than to have a security guard and the police question me in front of my small child when all I was doing was minding my own business.
What about writing in your journal?
How about making a phone call? After all, someone could hear what is going on in the background.
How about closed circuit T.V.? The U.K is famous for having cameras everywhere. Isn't that a privacy issue?
How much of our ability to record the events in our lives is illegal under this logic, and subject to confiscation?
What if we just remember what we had for lunch? That could be terrible. Can we tweet about what we see? Is it okay to post a description of who you see at the mall?
It's not endemic to the UK or Europe. I was told the same thing trying to take a picture in a Target parking lot outside of Baltimore, MD. I didn't think much of it at the time, but what if my car had been damaged and I needed to document it for insurance purposes?
Furthermore, (and this might be a UK/US discrepancy) IANAL but I was pretty sure all a strip mall security guard could do was ask you to leave the premises. Confiscating private property seems like a torts lawyers dream, IMHO. All you would have to do is refuse to surrender your camera/phone and taunt the minimum wage rent-a-cop until he slugs you, and never have to work again.
Actually, I think I might spend more time photographing strip malls... working sucks...
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
The security guard is within his rights to tell the customer that he is not allowed to take photographs within that environment, if it is private property. However confiscating the device is opening another can of worms, that would be considered theft.
In this economy, you'd think they would all but roll out the red carpet for anyone with disposable income.
This, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in the United Kingdom.
Well, it does have one thing in common - I doubt a Canadian (or American) security guard has been given any better (read: significant) training in what is or isn't legal behavior, or what they legally can or cannot do when dealing with a "suspect".
In America we had Homeland Security people telling photographers, post 9/11 (obviously), they couldn't take photos of bridges because they might be used for terrorism. The statement didn't have any basis in law... it seems they were just winging it. Fortunately some photographers pushed back, and now people know a bit more about their rights when it comes to photography in public spaces.
If this UK dad pushes back hard enough, maybe UK security guards (or, more likely, their bosses) will end up a touch better informed regarding what sorts of restrictions can and cannot be placed upon behavior in shopping malls.
#DeleteChrome
Braehead shopping centre has changed their policy on the matter and issued an apology to Mr White. There was a facebook campaign to boycott the shopping centre, perhaps it was the power of social networking that put the pressure on them as it has hit 20,000+ likes in a very short time.
If I ever find myself in such situation, (And I do not live in the UK) I would ask the officer for the law that specifically forbids me from performing a specific action. Having said that, on several occasions in Australia, I have been asked by security guards in shopping centres to show the contents of my backpack. Every single occasion I have refused as I will not accept being treated like a thief. I have had arguments with security staff and even with managers of the largest shopping chains. On one occasion the matter went all the way to the court as I had a security guard forcibly inspecting my backpack and I called the police. The security guard was charged with performing an illegal search, and lost his security license.
The mall cop could ask you to leave, and have you arrested for trespassing if you don't, but he sure as hell couldn't confiscate your camera without a serious lawsuit. If a mall security guard tried tho take my camera, I'd tell him to fuck himself. I am a lawyer (but not your lawyer), so just let them try to place their damned dirty ape hands on me!
Just like I tell them "no" when stores want to see my receipt as I exit the store. Businesses often purport to have rights they don't really have, i.e., "we reserve the right to inspect packages." There is no such right, absent a lawful shoplifting detention.
Don't be a sheep. Know your rights and stand up to unreasonable and intrusive behavior.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The real question here is: why do people need so badly to take pictures and upload them to Facebook all the time?
Yes, I for one am completely perplexed by this new found fascination with photographing your own kids. It's so strange.
Funny, but the real irony is, how many pictures do you supposed the British government got of this man when he walked into this establishment?
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
No, that is NOT the real question. The real question is why the fuck we are building a society for ourselves that is undoing all the hard-won freedoms we've fought for and earned in the last few hundred years. If one of the ways people exercise those freedoms is to tweet and blog all day long, theta's up to them. You're also free to ignore them.
Cherish it, it clearly isn't going to last.
If this happened to me I would make a big scene, refuse to turn over the camera and also charge anyone who tried to take away my camera with assault and theft. If the mall guards detained me I would arrest them for false imprisonment. People cannot go like sheep. You must fight back with barred teeth.
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
Sure, I understand what you're saying. And if enough people did it, it *might* make a difference. Except that most people, especially the kind who shop at "the mall" simply don't care.
I mean, how do you think we in the so-called freedom loving first world countries got to where we are, essentially a collection of Fascist police states?
People are selfish children who care mostly about flashy toys, and as long as we get our flashy toys at prices only sweat-shop workers can produce, we're a happy lot!
In other words, most of us simply don't give a rip.
Sad, but true.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
There are already many posts on here questioning whether or not the security guard could legally confiscate the camera. The posts title is be a bit misleading. It is a case of having too many antecedents to choose from for the pronoun "he". The article does _not_ state that the security guard was within his rights to confiscate the camera. It states that the _officer_ was withing his rights to confiscate the camera.
http://www.google.com/search?q=take+pictures+security+public , and it will get worse. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Seems the mall came to their senses.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15251848
If you don't like it, tell all the vendors inside the mall why the infringement on your personal liberties is keeping you from patronizing their businesses.
It looks like people have. Never let anyone say we are powerless. Now the question is, how can we arrange a boycott of the police force???
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
On y va, qui mal y pense!
Same in Norway. Any private property is considered 'public' if you, the owner, treat it as such. Which means malls, parking lots etc.
You cannot demand or expect privacy by visiting such places (you might get filmed or photographed by someone without consent - and you can photograph someone without their consent).
I assume this particular case is a misguided case of protecting the children from pedos and women from upskirt shooters, coupled with a security guard with a God complex.
Interesting that you say that! It seems there was a fair sized protest on Facebook (and presumably email). From that page:
Further to the previous statement Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC have confirmed that they will be changing the photography policy at the 11 directly owned centres and that at the other 3 centres, which owned in partnership with other companies, they will be discussing with their partners the policy change and recommending that it be adopted.
As you will have seen Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC have issued a formal apology and said that they have changed their policy on photographs and will allow family and friends to take photographs. I do intend to keep the dialogue going with Capital Shopping Centres Group PLC and clarify that this aplies across all of 14 of their shopping centres including The Trafford Centre and Lakeside.
I don't know how many people participated, but it seems to have been enough.
The actual law says that to confiscate his camera they'd have to arrest him for taking pictures likely to be used in a terrorist attack. I imagine the court case that followed, and then the lawsuit, would be an interesting gong show.
In a mall in the U.S., I was taking a picture of a "Wet Floor" sign I found funny because the stickman on it looked like he was falling the same way I did when I broke my leg. I was still on crutches recovering from that injury, and some guy from a cell phone vendor booth had the nerve to tell me that I couldn't take pictures in the mall because "believe it or not it's private property". But he didn't try to take my phone, and I just crutched away.
About a month later, my girlfriend was harrassed in a Canadian sandwich shop for taking pictures of wall art she thought was cute. An employee had the audacity to harrass her (a paying customer, no less), block the exit, and intimidate her into deleting the photos from her phone in front of him. He spouted some nonsense about "corporate espionage". After some very loud complaints by me, the owner of the sandwich chain apologized profusely, disciplined the employee (I think he's actually gone now), and mailed us a gift certificate.
So, needless to say I've done some reading up on this...from what I can tell, the law does actually seem to be on the side of the fascists because civil liberties have eroded so badly. It's difficult to tell if the situation is worse in the U.S. or Canada, but in both countries there are a number of ways in which you can be legally harrassed for taking photos inside a place of business. However, I don't believe anyone but an actual policeman, federal agent, etc. (not a rent-a-cop or employee) can legally confiscate your property (your phone) or look through it.
This "OMG no photos" mindset is not only the product of police-state paranoia, it's fed by the ideologues of intellectual property. The irony is that businesses should be embracing the free advertising...many of these photos will end up on the Web in some form, likely mentioning the location, maybe even tagged with that info and the name of the store, products, and other data-mining fodder. Not to mention the fact that cellphone cameras are an everyday reality now, and bothering anyone who uses them in a store makes for horrible PR and customer service in a very precarious sales economy.
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
Texas has what is known as an "Improper Photography" law. Relax, those of you who couldn't take a good picture to save your life. This law is aimed squarely at people whose photography offends other people, generally the people who shoot photos of complete strangers. The message seems to be that we don't tolerate street photographers in Texas. Now, that isn't how the law is sold to the public. This is supposed to be an anti-unwitting porn star law. It was born of the need to stop people from photographing strangers in locker rooms, dressing rooms and other places where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the law goes beyond that. If you stand at a children's football game and shoot photos of the children, you stand a good chance of an angry confrontation, followed by police investigation. One professional photographer was arrested because people thought he was shooting too many photos of women at a street festival (his case was dismissed). IOW, the people who are being arrested under this law aren't in private places; they are out in public. Most of those arrested people who are now reported in the press do seem seriously sketchy, but nothing in the law would discourage someone from pressing charges against any photographer who shoots photos of several strangers in public.
In theory, the Supreme Court says that I have the Constitutional right to shoot videos of anyone who is in a public place. In practice, several Texans have informed me that if they see me shooting photos of anyone's children, they will inflict on me significant bodily harm. This law is part of their justification that they are in their legal rights to do so.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
4:45 :-)
On the other hand, compassion is free, and compassionate people realize that some sales drones might be there due to hard times, and might be treating you in the sales-drone-fashion that they do because they fear their managers more than they fear your opinion of them.
Not illegal, but perfectly okay to be banned –on private property, in the UK, which this is, the owner is entirely at their liberty to say whether or not you can take a photo.
Open to the public isn't the same as public property, but it DOES impose a number of limitations that would not apply to private property that is not open to the public. For example, in my home, I can be as racist as I like. I need not ever invite anyone of a race I don't like into my home. A place that is open to the public does NOT have that option.
Um, I was the same age as the girl in the photo in 1977, and I can assure you my parents took a ton of photos of me, and now that we're all older, they seem to enjoy them.
Photographing your kids is nothing new and it seems to bring people a lot of joy, so why have a problem with it.
The Dutch government started a new campaign yesterday asking everybody to take pictures in shoppingmalls when ordinary people spot shoplifters, violent behaviour, etc. With this campaign they try to increase the chance of getting the criminals behind bars. When people take pictures of people doing illegal stuff then the court have more evidence to convict the criminals.
The British government? None. Private CCTV on the other hand, yes, very probably, but that's not unusual in a shopping mall in any country.
Actually, reality is a little bit more complex, the owner of the mall is within his rights to forbid the use of camera's within it's confines. However, that has to be clearly marked and the only thing he can legally do is ask you to leave the premises if you do take pictures. He does not have the right to delete your pictures nor to confiscate your device.
I very much doubt they can do much else other than kick you out if you do take a photo, however. Definitely not confiscate your camera.
Well the thing is, on private grounds I make the rules and I can ask you to vacate those grounds if I feel that need. On public property however, the rules are different.
The "thing is" that all property is held in fee simple and ultimately belongs to the government, and most of what you can and cannot do anywhere is defined or enforced or allowed to be enforced thanks to the government. This will never change as long as the world is ruled by humans. So the question becomes whether you want a government which can be bought by the many or bought by the few. The answer will depend on whether the dominant philosophy in the country is to invent rights for the powerful or rights for the weak. America just might possibly be slowly changing its mind, but it's still firmly in the former camp.
"But won't somebody please think of the mall owner!" OK, I'm thinking of him, and I've decided that where lots of public eyes may go, he must permit private photographs as an extension of the natural faculty of memory (which may be photographic).
Not in Scotland, where the Breahead Shopping Centre is located. In Scotland, you own the land outright, not that it makes any practical difference.
the Law is DIFFERENT in Scotland you know........ because we have a separate and distinct legal system.
while you are correct in saying that they might be able to stop you taking a pic there's no chance that a security muppet from a private firm has any rights to confiscate your property.. in Scotland that would theft along with "wilful deprivation of property"
Also doing so i Glasgow would be a bold move..lol the Weedgies would have yer eye out for less! i asked a mate of mine who is a Lothian and Borders(Edinburgh area) police officer and he said and i quote "that's a load of balls bud, they can't really stop you and definitely cannot take your kit, the force of law is not on their side" he then told me what the security dude could be charged with for taking your kit. Also under certain circumstances if the security "man-handle" you they can be done for assault as well!
He also doesn't have the right to say that breaking his mall's rules is illegal. If you break policy, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, you are then trespassing. That is illegal. Despite what cops (or pompous property owners) say, photography is not a crime. They can neither confiscate your camera nor make you delete the photos.
Of course, that only applies to the US; YMMV but I expect most countries are very similar.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Even before that, if you were the feuholder of the land, you owned it outright, whereas the closest equivalent in England, the freeholder, merely has a licence to occupy the land in perpetuity from the Queen. I'm thinking more of the Norman invasion in 1066 which didn't happen in Scotland.
However, you do still need to get planning permission to do things with the land, and you can still be subjected to a compulsory purchase order.
My new mall has a policy that it's against the rules to be black in it. So, can my rent-a-cops call real cops and make black people leave and maybe arrest them too? There's a big difference between "policy" and "illegal." When your "policy" becomes "law" then we're back to fiefdoms.
Shh.
I'm not saying I agree with the mall owner, but that according to the law, he can and has the right to ask you to leave. That's the only right he has. I'm clarifying this solely to inform people of their rights, if you are ever caught in this situation, they do not have the right to confiscate your camera nor can they demand you delete your pictures.
If photography is now illegal in malls, how are they gonna film this movie?
Yeah, you didn't think of that, did you?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Usually malls are private property. Owners generally have the right to dictate behavior on their property. You have the right to forbid people from taking pictures when you allow them into your own place of residence if you so choose, mall owners have the same right.
Now, standing across the street on the sidewalk, taking a picture of the mall, would likely be a permissible activity from public property. But the law doesn't usually force property owners to allow people on their property to do any specific activity.
There was an interesting story recently about someone who ran into similar problems at the Mall of America, as well.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"Causing a public disturbance" isn't actually a criminal offence, at least not in Scotland. The closest I'm aware of is "behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress", but I suspect it would be quite hard to prove in this case. Particularly as the police have recently received guidance that people being offensive to them isn't in actual fact likely to cause them distress, because accepting offense is part of their job...
A common-law "breach of the peace" may also qualify, but in order for that to be proved, the offender must be shown to have threatened damage to person or property (or behaved such that a reasonable person believed they were under threat) whereas it was actually the centre owner who was threatening damage to property by trying to delete the pictures.
Like England and Wales, trespass (by itself) is not a criminal offence in Scotland, so you cannot be arrested for trespass. You can be required to leave, and you can be required to rectify any damage caused by your trespassing, but you cannot be arrested for it. There are exceptions: trespass on crown land, "encamping", and so on, but none would apply here.
Causing a public disturbance *is* grounds to issue an ASBO, so the photographer needs to watch out he doesn't get one of those. If he does, repeating the behaviour *would* be a criminal offence. But without actually issuing the order before the behaviour occurs, this is irrelevant from the point of view of arresting/prosecuting him.
So, no, I don't think they had a legal leg to stand on.
Above is not legal advice. I'm not a lawyer, nor Scottish, but do take an interest in these things.
With few exceptions, the worst a private-property owner can due is escort you off the property, photograph you, and take down your license plate #. They can also intimidate you into providing your ID - more on that later.
IF their rent-a-cops are real off-duty cops, they can get the cop to give you a trespass warning on the spot and the cop can request and in some cases demand ID.
Once they have your ID or enough information to identify you, they can contact the police and get a no-trespass order. This can extend to the entire chain, entire shopping mall, or entire chain of shopping malls with exceptions granted only for things like voting.
They can also sue you to get a court ordered destruction of the photographs.
But they generally can't detain you or block your exit. Well, they can try but they risk facing kidnapping charges.
I say "with few exceptions" - if they see you taking pictures in a way that could be reasonably construed as part of a larger criminal act, then they can call the cops and have you arrested. Examples would include "upskirt photography" which tries to take pictures of what's under a ladies dress by photographing reflections (this is illegal in some states), videoing (or infrared-photography) of people using (or just finished using) ATM or other PIN-entry devices, or other photography that is more often than not associated with criminal activity.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Not quite. Small difference. They have no right to force you to do or not do something, but they can demand that you leave if you refuse their requests. And they certainly can't demand your property. (such as take your camera) or demand your actions (such as delete photos taken) Short summary: you don't lose any of your rights simply because you're on someone else's property. BUT being ON their property is a privilege, one that they can rescind at any time, for any reason, including breaking their "house rules".
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
And of course the post I replied to in the first place! WTF do you think the "fight back with barred (sic) teeth" bullshit was supposed to mean? Didn't you notice my post was about fighting?
If you are going to throw insults such as "coward" and "really not a human being" around you really should try to actually read the thing you are referring to first. Couple that with your self ego pumping of "I'll be with the cowboys" and "knows how to fight" and it's beginning to look as if you've got a fairly loose connection to reality there so I'm obviously not going to give a shit about your easily handed out insults.