Ignorant Bliss of a Mall Photographer

[Randy H]

I ad the opportunity to visit Saudi about 20 years ago, took some 35mm pics, was relieved of all I had taken. There was no "face-saving> I gladly handed all the film, both exposed and unexposed to the nice gentleman wearing the military uniform and carrying the automatic weapon that had demanded the film.

Seems they were adamant about foreigners taking pictures that may be construed as demeaning to their country and/or citizens. Things may have changed since then, but I was not and am not willing to argue with a gun-wielding person. Their cannon makes a lot bigger mess than my Canon.

[Jim Ewins]

The security people at Northgate Mall in Seattle let me know I was on private property and that their rules prohibited photography.

[Donald Brewster]

In the US at least, under the Pruneyard case and its progeny, malls are private rather than public property. The owners can set up such rules as they see fit to limit a wide variety of activities, including photography. Individual stores often have rules about photographs because of corporate espionage concerns and the fact that designs of franchise stores are usually copyrighted. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" in the greater sense is another matter entirely.

[walter23]

The mall as recreational / cultural center is about the worst thing to happen to our culture in a long time. My city is cold and unpleasant outside for about 5 months of the year, but we don't have many indoor public spaces to just hang out in. It's got to be the mall, surrounded by flashy advertising and the pressure to spend money.

[D. Bryant]

The mall as recreational / cultural center is about the worst thing to happen to our culture in a long time. My city is cold and unpleasant outside for about 5 months of the year, but we don't have many indoor public spaces to just hang out in. It's got to be the mall, surrounded by flashy advertising and the pressure to spend money.

Hell, I've been rousted by security cops just for looking at sites with a viewing filter. No camera anywhere. I'm not kidding; one incident that occured in Decatur Alabama was outside of a tire plant and the security cops thought I was a union organizer. I thought I was on a public street but found out that I was standing on private property. Even after explaining that I was an amateur photographer I was told to leave immediately or be subject to arrest and prosecution.

It's been years since I've photographed in malls, mainly because I kept getting harassed by mall security. It just wasn't worth the trouble.

So yeah, photographing on private property has it's consequences. Even standing on the right of way and trying to photograph something on private property can cause people to react very negatively.

Don Bryant

[cyrus]

The rule that you can't photograph on private property has an exception - if there is an easement over the private property in question which allows the public to be present. This is often the case in New York, when the "sidewalk" is actually part of the property of adjoining buildings. Often, there is even a brass property line marker embedded into the ground. However, the public is allowed to use the sidewalk even if it is technically private property.

[Colin Robertson]

Just a personal thing, but I feel many of these restrictions are no more than a symptom of our increasingly regulated and over legislated societies. I believe that the USA has more people in prison per head of population than any other country. Is that because yanks are by nature more crooked? I doubt that very much- I suspect it's more because you have 'criminalised' more aspects of human behaviour. Here in the UK we are going down the same path. Recently we had special laws about stealing mobile phones- you'd think that a law which just said 'don't steal' would be enough, but hell no. Last year our politicians discovered there were no laws prohibiting sex outdoors, and had to rush some into place. Really? If any of you have been here you'll know that we don't actually have a big problem with people getting jiggy-with-it on our streets (too cold) but we HAD to have those laws. It feels as if we are moving towards having specific, criminal statutes to govern everything we do, or might do, or might even think. As a result, anything which is not absoloutely conformist is viewed as suspicious, and therefore probably criminal.
Shop, eat burgers, watch tv, be safe. As soon as we exhibit behaviour which is 'deviant' (as in, prowling the streets photographing strangers) we come under suspicion. I've been asked to stop a couple of times. Most recently with a bogus reason- the 'data protection act'. Because its something which I know about I did make an issue of it with the security droog. It was, of course, pure bullshit, but I still wasn't going to get any shots. I think France might be even worse. They have privacy laws which mean you might be able to photograph outdoors, but can then make little use of your material without the consent of any identifiable person included. Will things get any better? Not likely. We now have the spectre of 'international terrorism' as a ctach-all to justify any further outrageous intrusions on our freedom.
Make hay while the sun shines, boys.

[Ralph Barker]

. . . Make hay while the sun shines, boys.

Colin, doesn't that require a permit of some sort now?