- Messages
- 2,845
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And we can hope that some of the people on here now have a grasp of the concept of `private property` and the importance of checking whether you can shoot on it before doing so.
and please use their services
Photographing your kids in a shopping centre
- Thread starter snappingsam
- Start date
- Status
And we can hope that some of the people on here now have a grasp of the concept of `private property` and the importance of checking whether you can shoot on it before doing so.
Yes, the concept of "private property" clearly hasn't won through where it is a shopping mall. And shopping mall operators are now, according to news reports, re-examining their policies in relation to photography. It takes a well publicised incident like this (but not the first of its kind) for common sense to win through.
What astonishes me is that there are still people prepared to defend the indefensible. Just hold your hands up and concede that common sense has won.
What astonishes me is that there are still people prepared to defend the indefensible. Just hold your hands up and concede that common sense has won.
- Messages
- 2,845
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll be cheering from the ramparts and waving a big flag when common sense prevails. The Breahead incident will, I think, move things in that direction just a bit. Perhaps tabloid readers will become less paranoid about people who enjoy taking photos, and perhaps security guards with the IQ of cheese will find something else to grunt and point at.
On the other side, perhaps some of those who tote the cameras will spend a few minutes learning how the laws of the land operate in respect of photography on private land - perhaps they will learn what is private land and why it's important (and as has been pointed out basic good manners) to ask before shooting where there may be doubt, and stop acting like arses by demanding their 'right' to take photographs where they have none.
Common sense and better education on both sides would be nice.
I agreed,but you know its the British way,never say anything keep your head down old boy,we know what best for you.
ps we spend a lot of time & money telling the rest of the world what to do,but god damm it,we dont expect you to want to change anything
Just Dave
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 29,876
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Theyve done a U turn in their policy, Fancy Trafford Park Shopping Centre anyone? http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...urn_victory_for_common_sense_news_309964.html
- Messages
- 2,845
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wonder how long it will be before DSLR's are discriminated against as opposed to P&S
Never, I hope. But this will depend on people acting responsibly. The reason I can't enjoy a beer with a picnic in the park these days is because a few morons spoiled it for everyone, and now drink is banned.
- Messages
- 1,628
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- No
Apologies if someone's already replied but regardless of whether you ask or not at my local pool you are not allowed. You can ask and the answer will be no. And that applies if it's your own kid's party taking place and no other children other than those you've invited and know are present.
- Messages
- 5,491
- Name
- Nigel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Braehead's policy was legal. There's no doubt about that, and they're entitled to revise it if they want to, but I suspect this was simply because security - and possibly the police - mishandled the incident, resulting in bad publicity. I sincerely hope that this won't be seen as some sort of victory for people demanding the right to take photographs on private property.
- Messages
- 9,063
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
The question here is what is reasonable. If you're intending to set up a 5x4 field camera on a tripod, then I'd probably agree with your point.
However, taking a pic of your daughter having an ice cream with your mobile phone ought not to require a trip to the security office to clear it beforehand. Braehead appear to have acknowledged as much in their apology.
Frankly, the landowner can impose any restrictions they like about what you may and may not do on their premises (subject to statute law about racial and sexual discrimination, etc.). If they require you to wear deely boppers, or to refrain from passing wind while shopping there, so be it. If they expect you to adhere to such conditions, then they'd better let you know quite plainly and be prepared to put up with public ridicule for their behaviour.
I've never used the place, but judging by the comments posted by people who do use Braehead, their 'no photography' signs are far from clearly posted; maybe they were on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'?
What they can't do, though, is to
a) tell you that the taking of the picture is illegal (it isn't)
b) demand that you delete the photographs
the most that they can do in that situation is to require you to leave the premises, and if you don't, take action against you for trespass.
Nor can the Police reasonably threaten you with action under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Finally, if Braehead were in any way serious about their former 'no photography' rule for the reasons they stated, they really shouldn't have been posting photographs taken on their premises on their Facebook site. I very much doubt they have clearance from the people in the backgrounds of these pics.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.176613129059620.54530.108688469185420&type=3
Last edited:
The common sense bit that still evades some people is that a shopping mall is not really anything more than an extension of a high street. It's not a stately home, a museum, and art gallery, a private home. It's a place where the owner wants as many members of the public to wander around to help further the owners' profit. My common sense view is that the laws and generally accepted levels of behaviour (probably smoking aside) that we aspire to in the high street are all that the shopping mall owner needs to apply in the walkways of the mall.
Quite clearly, as has happened, after a few days of watching the reaction to their ridiculous application of their rules, the owner in question has backed off further alienating the life blood of his business - the general public. And the good news is that others are now following suit to avoid the same type of PR disaster.
Quite clearly, as has happened, after a few days of watching the reaction to their ridiculous application of their rules, the owner in question has backed off further alienating the life blood of his business - the general public. And the good news is that others are now following suit to avoid the same type of PR disaster.
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
not sure what humble pie has to do with anything, being private property the centre had a no photography policy and the guy broke that policy. its black and white to me on that point.
i feel a little sorry for the shopping centre being bullied into changing its policy to be honest by a group of people who have no right to demand such changes.
Another one that still doesn't get it.
Its private property and they can have whatever rules they want. Its up to them to determine what is and what is not allowable, with the law of the land.
You might think them odd you might think well I won't shop there but they own the place and they set the rules.
End of.
A shopping mall isn't an extension of the high street by any stretch of the imagination. It's a private place - much like the ones you quote as counter examples - in law and in fact. This is simple enough, and has nothing to do with what you seem to consider common sense. The owners are entitled to impose whatever lawful terms and conditions of entry they please, and they do. That's it.
The incident was handled badly, and the mall have decided to change their policy because of the publicity, but it was hardly a PR disaster. Were huge numbers of people boycotting the mall? Demonstrating about this? More of a storm in a teacup.
- Messages
- 8,444
- Edit My Images
- No
POAH said:
I took lots of pics in londons new westfield shopping centre in Stratford . No issues whatsoever
IT IS NOW ACCORDING TO THE NEWS TODAY............
According to the news this morning many malls, sorry I am English, shpping Centres, are now to allow photography.
The chaps pic was on the news, PHOTO POWER RULES
Last edited:
I have yet to get an honest answer from someone on here, telling me that the shopping centre in question (or for that matter any shopping centre) had its rules clearly displayed at every entrance, so that members of the public could see them as they walked in.
I know that people on here will argue that a large shopping mall is a "private place/private property", but at the end of the day it does not charge admission, it tries to attract as many members of the public as possible.
In my local, large shopping centre, I have seen signs for "No smoking", "No heelies - (wheeled shoes for those who wonder what they are)". I have seen shops and bars/restaurants displaying signs regarding dress code, and restrictions on alcohol consumption.
I have never seen a sign saying "No photography" in any shopping centre anywhere in the World.
- Messages
- 9,063
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
Actually, it's not necessarily as black and white as you suggest.
While it may not be directly relevant to this discussion of photography, for the purposes of the s45 of the Charities Act 2006, a shopping centre is explicitly defined as a public place (requiring charities promoters to hold a public collections certificate prior to collecting there).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/50/part/3/chapter/1
45 Regulation of public charitable collections
Charities Act 2006 said:
A point which over which objection was made by evidence in the Committee Stage of the Bill in 2004
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200304/jtselect/jtchar/167/167we51.htm
Hospital Broadcasting Association said:
Rather more to the point, with reference to the Human Rights Act, if you're in a shopping centre, your expectations of privacy would be somewhat diminished in contrast with your being in your own home, for example.
Last edited:
Shopping centre,may be private property,but by their very nature,wish to attract the public to come on to their property,yes they can make up any rules they like,but if people don't like the rules or the way they are treated,then they are going to lose trade for the shops in the centre,no trade no centre,simple maths,say a shop like Jessops, it's in the centre,no one can take some photos to test the cameras
.Plus every day,new tec is coming out with better & better camera in them,of course the public will want to used them,plus we have to accept that theses centre have CCTV,their watching us we do not know who behind theses cameras,or even what they are doing with all the footage they take.
- Messages
- 1,195
- Name
- Gordon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 8,444
- Edit My Images
- No
Shopping centre,may be private property,but by their very nature,wish to attract the public to come on to their property,yes they can make up any rules they like,but if people don't like the rules or the way they are treated,then they are going to lose trade for the shops in the centre,no trade no centre,simple maths,say a shop like Jessops, it's in the centre,no one can take some photos to test the cameras
Plus every day,new tec is coming out with better & better camera in them,of course the public will want to used them,plus we have to accept that theses centre have CCTV,their watching us we do not know who behind theses cameras,or even what they are doing with all the footage they take.
spot on
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
Shopping centre,may be private property,but by their very nature,wish to attract the public to come on to their property,yes they can make up any rules they like,but if people don't like the rules or the way they are treated,then they are going to lose trade for the shops in the centre,no trade no centre,simple maths,say a shop like Jessops, it's in the centre,no one can take some photos to test the cameras
Plus every day,new tec is coming out with better & better camera in them,of course the public will want to used them,plus we have to accept that theses centre have CCTV,their watching us we do not know who behind theses cameras,or even what they are doing with all the footage they take.
still doesnt get over the point that the centre is owned by a private body who are entitled to make rules covering that area. which the guy broke.
likewise with the definition of public place, im sure you could apply the same to the park or playground, while theyll have public access theyll be owned by a body (usually a council) and therell be rules covering those too.
whether there are signs is irrelevent. laws arent posted on billboards for our consideration.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,327
- Edit My Images
- No
The problem is that many High Streets are private property too. there is in fact VERY little public land in town centres.
For me I think you should not allowed to have it both ways, if cameras and taking photo is banned then ALL cameras should be banned and more so when we cant even see who is taking/looking at the images.
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
I think we need to look at the motivations here
the private/public debate is a bit of a red herring
the private/public debate is a bit of a red herring
Public park & playground,are not owned by council,their are owned by us the people,they are maintained by the council on our behalf,of course they have rules,but any time you can go to your local council,and request for the rules to be changed.
Even Buckingham Palace is owned by us the people,the Queen is allowed to stay their at the bequest of the people not as a right.
- Messages
- 12,786
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Public park & playground,are not owned by council,their are owned by us the people,they are maintained by the council on our behalf,of course they have rules,but any time you can go to your local council,and request for the rules to be changed.
Even Buckingham Palace is owned by us the people,the Queen is allowed to stay their at the bequest of the people not as a right.
Absolute cods-wallop.
As for the ownership of public parks and playgrounds etc, they are owned by the Local (Parish, Borough etc etc) Council on your behalf, not
by you. Likewise if you think that you can just stroll into the Council offices and get rules/bye-laws changed willy nilly, you are sadly misinformed. You can petition them to do so, but whether or not they listen is entirely within the gift of the elected members.
No it's not,how do council get their money,from the taxes you pay,in which they decide how to spend that money,but public parks and playground,are owed by the people,who are council made up of elected members.
May have to get myself elected,then next time it's a lovely sunny day,go to my local park throw everybody out,after all I wil now own it
And yes you can start a petition to change things,and if your elected members,don't want listen,then maybe if their enough people behind you,next time their an election vote them out
Last edited:
I don't normally get drawn into these type of posts but this one seems to have got to me.
What really gets me is the continual attempts to justify something that is so plainly ridiculous. For all the posters defending the "private property" angle and all that goes with it, please just get with what is happening.
Finally there has been an incident that has brought home to shopping mall owners up and down the country that they have got it wrong regarding photography on the "private property". It is happening; what was happening until now was wrong; their rules were wrong; their application of their rules was wrong.
What really gets me is the continual attempts to justify something that is so plainly ridiculous. For all the posters defending the "private property" angle and all that goes with it, please just get with what is happening.
Finally there has been an incident that has brought home to shopping mall owners up and down the country that they have got it wrong regarding photography on the "private property". It is happening; what was happening until now was wrong; their rules were wrong; their application of their rules was wrong.
- Messages
- 12,786
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
No it's not,how do council get their money,from the taxes you pay,in which they decide how to spend that money,but public parks and playground,are owed by the people,who are council made up of elected members.
May have to get myself elected,then next time it's a lovely sunny day,go to my local park throw everybody out,after all I wil now own it
And yes you can start a petition to change things,and if your elected members,don't want listen,then maybe if their enough people behind you,next time their an election vote them out
Try studying the structure of local government and land ownership rather than living in the world of wishful thinking!
- Messages
- 12,786
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
They are wrong in the moral sense, but in the legally they are right. Two entirely different things!
It might also encourage these places to train their staff. I can't help feeling that none of this would have happened if the security guard had approached the man and said "Sorry to bother you sir, but we have a no photography policy here." Rather than play at Rambo
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Setting aside the "private property/public space" argument, and ignoring the fact that a lot of people seem to think we live in America (we have shopping centres here, not malls), this isn't even really about photography.
What we have here is perfect example of how a big organisation can get their public relations badly wrong and then make things 100 times worse by having a complete lack of understanding of the power of social media.
Essentially all this was was a minor altercation between a parent and a shopping centre security guard, and one that could have been dealt with amicably in 5 minutes. Instead the centre management went on the defensive and ended up being held up to ridicule by the world's media.
I get the feeling the Braehead Case will end up being cited in future college and university lectures as a perfect example of how not to handle minor customer disputes.....
What we have here is perfect example of how a big organisation can get their public relations badly wrong and then make things 100 times worse by having a complete lack of understanding of the power of social media.
Essentially all this was was a minor altercation between a parent and a shopping centre security guard, and one that could have been dealt with amicably in 5 minutes. Instead the centre management went on the defensive and ended up being held up to ridicule by the world's media.
I get the feeling the Braehead Case will end up being cited in future college and university lectures as a perfect example of how not to handle minor customer disputes.....
Moral, legal blah blah. They were wrong; they have now admitted it and have changed their policy.
All sane people know, and now shopping mall operators know, that the prohibition of the general public taking photos in shopping malls is wrong.
Isn't this now a done deal? The people who claimed they were right now acknowledge that they were wrong.
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
They didn't admit they were wrong, they issued a change of policy to prevent any more of a ****storm.
FITP, you are spot on. But having allowed the minor issue to become grow to the extent it has, I'm delighted that centre managers up and down the country are adapting their "no photography" policies to what probably is the real life practical application in most places.
- Messages
- 817
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Shops, shopping centres, factories etc, ban photography for a simple reason as far as I'm concerned, to protect their property against corporate/industrial espionage, not terrorism or privacy. and CCTV is to protect against things like theft and vandalism, not just to watch people walking along picking their noses. Granted though, it is a much bigger problem on the industrial side than it is retail (the espionage, not the picking of noses-that happens everywhere).
How would you feel if you were a wedding photographer who constantly had a member of the public standing over your shoulder taking the same pictures as you, that you set up? Surely that'd annoy you as they're stealing your ideas and your working, although technically there's nothing wrong with it. Yet I've read of plenty of people on here asking them to stop it.
It's a similar, albeit vague, thing when regarding shopping centres and especially their architecture, they pay good money for people to design just for them and part of that it coming up with solutions to design problems that may arise. Now say a rival wanted to copy some aspects of the design and just came in and took loads of photos and then went to a cheaper company to build it, is that not essentially stealing the architects or owners ideas and work?
I experienced this first hand when I was working security for B&Q. One day I found someone taking pictures of the racking, moving along a couple of feet and taking another photo. I asked him what he was doing and wasn't happy with his reply so I ejected him from the shop. I watched him walk across the street and go into another large DIY retailer which I later found out he worked at.
To the original article though, rules are rules but the way in which it was dealt with was completely wrong IMHO.
Last edited:
- Status