Taking "secret" photographs inside a shop?

think is it isnt a public place - if it was you'd have a right of entry 24/7 , its a private place to which you have entry only by permission which means they can set any condition of entry they like (so long as the condition isnt itself illegal - they wouldnt get away with saying no blacks for example)

which is exactly the same situation as a house - I can only enter your house by your permission , and if you invite me in but say I can't take pictures then you'd expect me to respect that

The situation is a bit greyer when a shop (or any landowner) doesnt explicitly state "no photography" because then a case would turn on whether you'd have a reasonable expectation of being able to take pictures (visiting a museum or stately home it might be ruled that you would, in a private residence you almost certainly wouldnt, while a shop could go either way. However in the OPs case the shop has already said no explicitly and setting out to "take secret photos" in those circumstances is asking for trouble
 
Last edited:
because people didnt listen to common sense on page 1
 
I can't believe this debate is still going on - pythonesque at best, or, tedium beyond belief ?

Unfortunately some people can't be educated, unwilling to learn, lack moral fibre, or are just plain ignorant.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I can't believe this debate is still going on - pythonesque at best, or, tedium beyond belief ?

Unfortunately some people can't be educated, unwilling to learn, lack moral fibre, or are just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...

Plain ignorant? Simply plain ignorant? This is *super* ignorance, ignorance beyond the event horizon of ignorance and still accelerating. Some kid half way through a GCSE Law course or something has displayed his ignorance of law on a number of occasions, has had it pointed out where and why he is wrong, often with statue being stated, mostly in quite polite terms, but doesn't have the guts to admit he is wrong and isn't man enough to say 'thanks for pointing it out'.

Time to stop digging, honeybunch.

Edit to add: Statute, not statue :confused:
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
itsdavedotnet said:
surely just walk in when they look quiet and ask nicely? Use the old art student excuse "well I'm taking some pictures for a project on xyz" - bonus points if xyz sounds pretentious, barely makes sense and will make them just humour you) If like every time I've ever walked past blockbuster, they look bored out of their minds (bit of a doomed chain and concept really) so would probably say yes...

if not, go to the next town, try again...
Click to expand...

This :cool: Never bother asking the head office, youll almost always get refused. Go in, ask the manager, invariably theyll say yes....everyones happy. If not go to another store :)
 
Jeff Widener said: The Chinese government denied me a journalist visa so I entered the country as a tourist.
Click to expand...

Jeff went on to take the "Tank Man" photograph, he risked and nearly lost his life for that picture. It is one ot the most iconic images of our generation and is still banned in China.

The point of my post is to ask at what point does it become acceptable to break the rules, and as the majority on this thread would have abided by the Chinese Governments decision this picture would never have surfaced and the massacre could well have been even worse!
 
hard to see how a total masacre could actually have been worse :thinking: but that aside there is a massive difference between defying a totalitarian regimes efforts to supress reporting on human rights abuses, and not respecting someones right to determine whether you can photograph on private premises.

so theres no way to determine what the majority on this thread would have done in those circumstances because what is under discussion is so different that the comparrison is laughable
 
Last edited:
the more important thing is did he get any pictures of the inside of any Chinese shops or did he think that was off limits?
 
big soft moose said:
hard to see how a total masacre could actually have been worse :thinking:
Click to expand...

One more lost life would have made it worse in my book, don't know about yours.


big soft moose said:
because what is under discussion is so different that the comparrison is laughable
Click to expand...

Are they, did you even think about it?

A third party asks a photographer to take a picture somewhere.
Photographer seeks permission but it is refused.
Photographer goes ahead and takes the picture, regardless.

Different extremes of the same dilema, at what point does it become acceptable to break the rules? It must be somewhere between these two extremes!
 
Back in the 60's I used to shoot shop interiors on 5x4. although the sessions were set up with the head offices, I was rarely expected.
I would just set up and start shooting. It was usually about an hour before a manager would ask what I was doing.
I covered most of the big and famous shops in London and other big cities.

It seems that if you look "official", people are afraid to challenge you. I always wore a pinstripe suit and white collar.
I would get the staff to sleeve the suits, and dress the shelves, they just got on with it.
 
ernesto said:
Realise said in jest but I think this is the key difference here. A shop is virtually a public place, in fact they want people to come in to the shop as they may buy something. That is a totally different situation to a house.

This is why I don't see the problem with taking photos in a shop. However if told not too then I wouldn't as that is the polite thing to do (I don't really care about the legalities)
Click to expand...

Museums and art galleries could be construed as being public places, but they are very often privately owned, and many have a strict "no photography" policy.
Their gaff their rules - simples;)
 
ikolpdog said:
One more lost life would have made it worse in my book, don't know about yours.
Click to expand...

yes , but taking the picture didnt directly change anything so its a falacy to suggest that this stopped the masacre getting worse - the rest of the world knows red china is a totalitarian regime which regularly casually murders its own subjects, and they know we know, but they don't care, and our convictions arent strong enough to refuse to trade with them because of it - the tank man picture didn't actually change this an iota


ikolpdog said:
Are they, did you even think about it?
!
Click to expand...

yes and yes

on the one hand we have someone bravely defying a totalitarian regime and taking a picture in public in defence of human rights (however ineffective)

and on the other we have someone abusing the rights of a shop holder

as different as chalk and cheese - and the comparisson with the latter demeans the former.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Back in the 60's I used to shoot shop interiors on 5x4. although the sessions were set up with the head offices, I was rarely expected.
I would just set up and start shooting. It was usually about an hour before a manager would ask what I was doing.
I covered most of the big and famous shops in London and other big cities.

It seems that if you look "official", people are afraid to challenge you. I always wore a pinstripe suit and white collar.
I would get the staff to sleeve the suits, and dress the shelves, they just got on with it.
Click to expand...

Challenge - everybody challenges everybody these days, with the explosion of the internet people are not afraid to research, question and challenge. It's a good thing and it's healthy !

Sadly, looking official doesn't mean anything these days and this is no longer the case. There is very little respect for people in general, including Police Officers which is a sad state of moral decline. Although wearing a suit looks smart it's not de rigueur these days having given away to polar shirts and the removal of ties with jackets. It's no wonder really as it is more comfortable to work in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top