Ignorant Bliss of a Mall Photographer

[David_Senesac]

Despite being a serious photographer nearly three decades, until I poked around a bit this afternoon on the net, I'll readily admit to being rather ignorant about where one can and can't practice the game in urban areas. Thus in the past have narrowly practiced my craft in public natural areas. Well the past month I decided to try my hand at capturing some images in the large urban area I live in. So I started eyeing things around town with more interest though after several weeks of occasional wanderings had not found a single worthy subject. This morning on the way to pick up a large print at my lab due to be sent out to a customer, I passed by what is one of the largest, fanciest upscale malls in the West. A lightbulb clicked on since this is the Christmas season and all such places are of course decorated and lit up. Unfortunated I'm also rather ignorant about what one can do in malls as a relatively infrequent visitor. I decided to take my little Coolpix along and size up some potential images with snapshots. By time I walked in, my brain had started telling me a lot of reasons why it might be prohibited. Right at the top of that was the curious thought that I'd never seen anyone take a photo in a mall except for maybe kids with Santa and that did seem odd?

Well it was an early morning weekday a week before Christmas and even at 10am the parking lot was filling quickly. I went in and immediately looked at a Store Directory sign looking for the mall business office. Wasn't any? But I did see a Security Office and noted where that was so I could drop by and ask some questions. Now I knew I'd seen others take pictures at malls especially at Christmas. Like getting a pic of little Billy on Santa's lap and all. But what about just taking some images down the long isles of colorful shops and wares. This mall had shops on two levels with a limited third floor. There were fancy skylights above all the corriders and many indoor street lights making for excellent photography conditions. Enormous Christmas decorations twenty feet long dangled from the ceilings along with lights and other special decorations. Here and there were elegantly decorated Christmas trees. Even without the decorations the mix of colors in the mall seemed like a photographer's dream.

I noticed a couple mall security people near an elevator and got the idea of seeing what they would do if I innocently pulled my camera out near them and snapped some images. They looked at me but didn't pay me much interest so I thought well maybe it is ok to shoot some little digital pics? But I would still visit the Security office as I made my way down the several corriders. No where did I see any signs about what customers were allowed to do. In fact I can't remember ever seeing such in malls which is not surprising given the interest in making customers feel free. Well I snapped several dozen pics before reaching the security elevator. There the sign showed the business offices were up there too. Good. Thus I went up to the office and after noting the receptionist didn't have much to say spoke with one of the mall managers who explained photography was verbotten.

According to her, the main problem is with all the businesses in the mall. Of course these days most are all corporate brand stores carefully controlling any media exposure. Any advertising photography is supposedly carefully shot so only the store making an ad is in any shots without logos of nearby stores. And she said there are issues of invasion of privacy of customers. I related the Christmas decorations were quite beautiful and that people would find photographing the mall wonderful but she went back to the business issues tangled up with legal issues. I related I'd taken a number of shots, gave her my business card, and said I would not take any more images. I could have related to her a few other reasons why I'd expect photography to be prohibited in stores or malls like security and store marketing issues. I'm sure she could have elaborated more too if she made time to do so.

After returning home I poked around a couple hours on the internet searching for articles relating to what one can and cannot photograph or do in public or private locations. The below links are enlighting. Interestingly I didn't see any comments on the corporate stores as being reasons why malls prohibit such and am inclined to think it has more to do with not irritating customer shopping experiences. It will be interesting to see what is allowed a decade from now. With the proliferation of tiny digital cameras in pockets or on cell phones it will be difficult to enforce at least at a recreational level. Now if I can just figure out how to get the megacorp mall owners to let me bring my view camera inside??? ...David

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columni...era-laws_x.htm

http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rig...tographers.pdf

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphoto...l?print_page=y

[Bill_1856]

They probabily didn't recognize a camera as an image capture device, since you weren't talking into it.

[QT Luong]

I am not an attorney, but from what I learned recently from another reader of this forum, the pieces by Kantor (a self-acknowledged know-it-all) look flawed. They focus mostly on privacy rights, but ignore contract laws that apply when you enter private properties. Those laws let property owners control your activities on their properties in exchange for letting you in. The Popular Photography piece is more accurate.

In practice, if one suspects that permission will not be granted, he might be better off remaining blissfully ignorant and get his images until trouble comes, which might never happen since in general there is little to be gained by taking a tog to court. Shoot first, and ask latter !

[Dirk Rösler]

The fact that photography in public places is seen as a threat by those depicted is worth a project alone.

[cyrus]

Malls often restrict photography for fear of crooks casing the joint (or so they say) but I suppose a lot of the attitude towards photographersdepends on the culture of the area where you're shooting and not just the technicalities of the law. Travel photographers, take note!

Interestingly I ran into this exact problem in Iran of all places once when I started shooting snapshots inside a large mall in Tehran which sells computers and electronics - only second time I ever ran into any problems anywhere there (the bazaar is of course the grand-daddy of the modern shopping mall, but this wasn't a bazaar which is traditionally considered to be a public place - this was an American-style mall complete with muzak and marble fern plant holders.)

When the security guard told me to turn over my film I had a knee-jerk reaction of an American and firmly said heck no and demanded to see the police. He was sort of shocked and didn't know how to respond. I noticed that carefully and decided to press my advantage. We sat around arguing in his office until another more senior security guard came along and said that the police had no jurisdiction over private property such as the mall so he wasn't going to involve the police, but I retorted that there was no sign prohibiting photography, that film was my personal property and the mall had no jurisdiction over it and I wanted to file a police report for the attempted theft of my film. We went back and forth until the guards agreed to let me go if I signed a statement accepting responsibility in case the place was ever robbed. It was sort of naive and funny, since I was leaving the country in a couple of days anyway but I decided to continue the resistance just for fun. I indignantly refused on the grounds that if the place was ever robbed, I'd be responsible even if the robbers had never seen my photos. I didnt really care about the film but the issue had become an interesting cross-cultural communication experiment for me. They obviously didn't want to tanlge with the cops and instead wanted a face-saving way out and were looking for a workable compromise, or else they wouldn't have offered to accept a nonsensical note written by me taking responsibity for any potential robbery. This is a culture in which compromise is expected, and soothing ill-feelings is considered to be more important that defining a winner who is "right" and a loser who is "wong". Blatant in-your-face refusal to compromise - and worse, threats of calling the cops! - is considered to be a an indication that you've really offended someone quite seriously. So my attitude threw them off. They could also tell that I was visting from abroad, and this is also a culture where hospitality to guests is taken quite seriously. So, feigning disgust I turned over a roll of unused film that I had in my pocket and indigantly stormed out. Culturally, that was a serious rebuke to them. And as I expected, just as I got out the door, I heard my name called and the younger security guard ran up to me and quietly slipped the film roll back into my hands. That was that. By backing down and giving him the film, I had allowed the security guard to prove himself to the store owners who were probably genuinely concerned about burglary. In return, he had made amends for being "rude" to me by quitely and apologetically giving back the film - so all was well, and everyone wins even though the "rules" of the mall weren't technically enforced.

Anyway, the more interesting question in the US is to what extent can this private/public distinction go on. There was a time when the cultural/economic center of a city was the town square and other public property. If you wanted to express yourself, that's where you went to speak and demonstrate and pass out flyers and take photos etc. Now, the local shopping mall is the communal center - a private area, dedicated and carefully climate controlled for one thing: selling you a lot of crap made by large corporations - and that's all. Is that what the town square has been reduced to?

[Emrehan Zeybekoglu]

Cyrus,

It would be interesting to see what reactions one might get by repeating this experiment in different countries.

Personally, I find so much emphasis on private property nauseating. I bet you this problem does not exist if you do the same thing in the bazaar.

The crappy artificial mall with all its corporate pretensions is nothing but a good old bazaar reinvented in the advanced capitalist regions. However, it lacks all the charm and mystique and personal attention that one usually finds in the traditional shopping center. Perhaps photographers should declare an all out war on these bastions of mindless consumerism. Seriously, what's the big deal if I take photographs of a store or of the general shopping area?

Cheers.

[cyrus]

Nope - never had a problem taking photos in the bazaar:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4107650

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL...you better not try that one here in Mexico...then you would have to bribe both the security guards AND the cops.....

Malls often restrict photography for fear of crooks casing the joint (or so they say) but I suppose a lot of the attitude towards photographersdepends on the culture of the area where you're shooting and not just the technicalities of the law. Travel photographers, take note!

Interestingly I ran into this exact problem in Iran of all places once when I started shooting snapshots inside a large mall in Tehran which sells computers and electronics - only second time I ever ran into any problems anywhere there (the bazaar is of course the grand-daddy of the modern shopping mall, but this wasn't a bazaar which is traditionally considered to be a public place - this was an American-style mall complete with muzak and marble fern plant holders.)

When the security guard told me to turn over my film I had a knee-jerk reaction of an American and firmly said heck no and demanded to see the police. He was sort of shocked and didn't know how to respond. I noticed that carefully and decided to press my advantage. We sat around arguing in his office until another more senior security guard came along and said that the police had no jurisdiction over private property such as the mall so he wasn't going to involve the police, but I retorted that there was no sign prohibiting photography, that film was my personal property and the mall had no jurisdiction over it and I wanted to file a police report for the attempted theft of my film. We went back and forth until the guards agreed to let me go if I signed a statement accepting responsibility in case the place was ever robbed. It was sort of naive and funny, since I was leaving the country in a couple of days anyway but I decided to continue the resistance just for fun. I indignantly refused on the grounds that if the place was ever robbed, I'd be responsible even if the robbers had never seen my photos. I didnt really care about the film but the issue had become an interesting cross-cultural communication experiment for me. They obviously didn't want to tanlge with the cops and instead wanted a face-saving way out and were looking for a workable compromise, or else they wouldn't have offered to accept a nonsensical note written by me taking responsibity for any potential robbery. This is a culture in which compromise is expected, and soothing ill-feelings is considered to be more important that defining a winner who is "right" and a loser who is "wong". Blatant in-your-face refusal to compromise - and worse, threats of calling the cops! - is considered to be a an indication that you've really offended someone quite seriously. So my attitude threw them off. They could also tell that I was visting from abroad, and this is also a culture where hospitality to guests is taken quite seriously. So, feigning disgust I turned over a roll of unused film that I had in my pocket and indigantly stormed out. Culturally, that was a serious rebuke to them. And as I expected, just as I got out the door, I heard my name called and the younger security guard ran up to me and quietly slipped the film roll back into my hands. That was that. By backing down and giving him the film, I had allowed the security guard to prove himself to the store owners who were probably genuinely concerned about burglary. In return, he had made amends for being "rude" to me by quitely and apologetically giving back the film - so all was well, and everyone wins even though the "rules" of the mall weren't technically enforced.

Anyway, the more interesting question in the US is to what extent can this private/public distinction go on. There was a time when the cultural/economic center of a city was the town square and other public property. If you wanted to express yourself, that's where you went to speak and demonstrate and pass out flyers and take photos etc. Now, the local shopping mall is the communal center - a private area, dedicated and carefully climate controlled for one thing: selling you a lot of crap made by large corporations - and that's all. Is that what the town square has been reduced to?

[Steve J Murray]

I've brought my D70 to malls a couple of times, including the Mall of America, and walked around snapping photos. No one even paid any attention to me. Street photography in a mall, basically. I probably just looked like a visitor or tourist taking photos for the home album.

[Scott Davis]

I know one concern about photographing in the mall is "pedophiles" doing their own "shopping". There are sickos out there who would do that, and then there are hyper-paranoid parents who think that any admiring observance of their child, no matter how innocent or brief, is tantamount to a drooling leer and a snatch-attempt.

I've seen postings about malls ejecting photographers on other forums before, and in the end, I think a lot of it comes down to does the rent-a-cop in question have sufficiently large an inferiority complex that they have to go and exert their "authoritah!" to make themselves feel good and prove to their boss they're doing something other than ogling the teenage girls in the food court.