Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,926   Posts: 1,585,155   Online: 853
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    14
    Don't want pictures taken inside your mall?...Fine, it is your property. Tell them no pictures and then ban them from your property. If they come back then charge them with trespassing. A property owner would be well within his rights to take such action. What he doesn't have the right to do is confiscate someone else's property or meet them with any kind of unprovoked physical force. The police and the security guards involved should be ashamed.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    186
    Interesting. I'm familiar with the street/documentary thing. Yeah, a mall is "private property" but it is open to public and therefore to me acts similar to public property. Despite this, security in malls can still ask you to stop, however they, nor any other security cannot confiscate film, digital media, or camera equipment (at least not without a warrant, as far as I know).

    Pretty sucky what happened to this kid, I'm glad I've never had to deal with that or see someone deal with that. It is funny how the security couldn't seem to comprehend the "I can't delete the photo...it's film" thing. The news article says that the mall said the teenager failed to comply, well he couldn't. Unless he opened his film door and ruined the entire roll (or at least a portion of it...depending if he left it open and exposed) he could not "delete" the photo.

    I've dealt with this very issue numerous times in photographing daily life. What's strange is it always comes from people who are definitely old enough to remember film's golden age. People just can't comprehend it and then get all fussy because you aren't doing what they tell you (because you can't). Very frustrating. It shows either how little they're actually listening to you and what your saying or how poor they are comprehending the situation at hand.

  3. #13
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,712
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by tomfoo13ry View Post
    If they come back then charge them with trespassing. A property owner would be well within his rights to take such action.
    Not in every country. Trespass is only a civil offence in England.

    Quote Originally Posted by h.v. View Post
    Yeah, a mall is "private property" but it is open to public and therefore to me acts similar to public property.
    Again in England, we have a network of public footpaths, many of which cross over private land. However, the land owner cannot stop you from photographing from a public footpath which is on his land.

    Quote Originally Posted by h.v. View Post
    The news article says that the mall said the teenager failed to comply
    And in this case, comply would mean destruction of property (the image) which would have been an illegal act on the part of the guard/cop ordering it. Therefore, you cannot be arrested for failure to comply to an illegal request.


    Steve.
    Last edited by Steve Smith; 10-26-2012 at 03:57 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    724
    I think a little bit of stepping back and thinking about what you are condemning here.

    We only have one side of the story - his - and that just has to be biased. We don't know what the incident was. (or do we). Was he told to leave the area because of this incident and did he refuse? If he was on private property which it seems he was, that puts him on very sticky ground. If he refused to leave a property the owner or his agent will be entitled to remove him from the property, using reasonable force (in UK) but what constitutes reasonable force can vary world wide.

    Was he getting in the way of those who were dealing with the incident? Was his attitude a factor? We simply don't know the full facts and therefore are not in a position to make a balanced judgement.

    I also happen to agree with Stephanie Brim (previous posting) that there are too many generalisations here when we are not in full possession of information of what went on.
    Last edited by BMbikerider; 10-26-2012 at 04:56 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #15
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,712
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by BMbikerider View Post
    If he refused to leave a property the owner or his agent will be entitled to remove him from the property, using reasonable force (in UK)
    In the UK, you can only use reasonable force to remove someone if you believe them to be a threat to other people or property. This applies to the police as well.

    Police cannot remove you from a property on a trespass charge as it is a civil, not criminal matter (UK). Instead they will use a public order charge, even if it means escalting the confrontation a bit to make it appear relevant.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    724
    Steve I disagree with the removal part. On private property the owner or agent can remove anyone using reasonable force who is a trespasser and refuses to leave after being asked. This is common law. Would you allow anyone to wander onto your property and refused to leave when asked without doing anything about it? (Unless of course there was a right of way). However the incident took place in Canada, so this hardly applies.

    The situation still remains that we are not in possession of all the facts so are not in the position to make a true and balanced assessment.
    Last edited by BMbikerider; 10-26-2012 at 05:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #17
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,712
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by BMbikerider View Post
    Steve I disagree with the removal part. On private property the owner or agent can remove anyone using reasonable force who is a trespasser and refuses to leave after being asked. This is common law.
    It is not. The law states that You are comitting trespass only after you are asked to leave and refuse to do so. You cannot forcably remove someone from your property if they are posing no threat to people or property.

    The problem is that if someone is trespassing, they are unlikely to comply with a polite request to leave, and if they then do not, the landowner has little if any further recourse. Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows the senior police officer attending the scene of an incident involving a trespass or nuisance on land to order trespassers to leave the land and to remove their vehicles as soon as reasonably practicable. The power can only be used when there are two or more people there and "are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, [and] that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave" and either the trespassers have six or more vehicles between them, or they have caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour - or both. So really it's not likely to cover anything other than a major invasion. This power is not often used, but for practical purposes this is the only instance where you might get the police to come and actually remove trespassers from a bit of land.
    From this: http://www.naturenet.net/law/common.html

    The only time you can use reasonable force to eject someone is if they have broken in to your property. If it is on land occupied by a shopping centre, the public have been invited in and are therefore given an implied licence to be there.


    Steve.
    Last edited by Steve Smith; 10-26-2012 at 08:52 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  8. #18
    Jeff L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Toronto ON
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    503
    The mall could use their cameras to make sure cameras aren't being used.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    597
    A mall is a rather tricky thing. Even though it is private property, individuals have no reasonable exception of privacy that is why the owners restrict it. They also can cite copyright of architecture as they did with me once. I was taking pictures of christmas lights at an outdoor mall. However, I was only told that I had to leave. Copyright of the buildings and logos of the stores is something that I am not sure of either. I think I will ask my former media law professor about this. Of course the law is probably different in Canada.
    Bachelor of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Arts: Journalism - University of Arkansas 2014

    Canon A-1, Canon AE-1, Canon Canonet GIII 17, Argus 21, Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RB67, Voigtländer Bessa

    http://darkroom317.deviantart.com/

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,278
    "There’s no real threat to anyone by having a camera and snapping a picture," he [the kid's father] said."

    Yes there is... the threat that is perceived is the threat of law enforcement (and mall cops) being exposed as overly-aggressive, law-breaking thugs. They fear being exposed for what they are. High school dropouts or not... most people in "secuity" jobs are there because they lack the skills to do anything more meaningful... like be a real cop.

    I was tempted to photograph/video a cop the other day. He was driving like a moron because he was yakking on a cell phone, showing pictures on his phone to his partner in the passenger seat... all the while making hand gestures that included every word in the Italian dictionary. I'm glad I resisted that temptation... but it probably would have been so good it would have gone viral on Utube.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin