Taking "secret" photographs inside a shop?

[boliston]

OK, so I don't say much here, although I browse the post daily but this one has really got my goat.

The OP clearly is young and new on the forum but I say to you that you can't have it both ways. I suspect that you will agree with all the effort photogrpahers have made to ensure that takling photos in public is respected and photographers shouldn't be hassled by the police and security guards.

No doubt you would complain bitterly if you were stopped from taking picturs in a public place. Rightly so.

But the store is private property. You asked for permission and they said no. That is entirely their right. To go in and now take photos would be utterly wrong. In doing so you could start a backlash against photographers when so much has been achieved over the last couple of years.

Presumably you are talking about Blockbuster. What happens if you get stopped by a security guard and they hold you thinking you are genuinely casing the store. ......

The guard would be committing a criminal offence of assault as they can only physically detain (ie "hold you") if they have seen you commit a criminal offence such as theft of stock - to hold someone on suspicion is a power only applicable to a police officer.

 

[Carter64]

A citizen's arrest is permitted to be made on any person under section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for an indictable offence, including either way offences (in this section referred to simply as "an offence"), but excluding certain specific ones listed below. It is thus permissible for any person to arrest:

Anyone who is in the act of committing an offence, or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be in the act of committing an offence, or
Where an offence has been committed, anyone who is guilty of that offence or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it

In order for the arrest to be lawful, the following two conditions must also be satisfied:

It appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead
The arrestor has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest is necessary to prevent one of the following:
The person causing physical injury to himself or others
The person suffering physical injury
The person causing loss of or damage to property
The person absconding before a constable can assume responsibility for him

 

[faddius]

Seems to be a common problem these days that people can't accept No as an answer

Dont do it, dont get into trouble, dont make everyone else with a camera look like troublemakers...its selfish and irresponsible.

As for Boliston...no...just no...I cannot wait for your "hero" video to appear on youtube...

As for the OP, why does he need photographs of a multinational store? What sort of art is it? If he merely needs references as to how the store is laid out, or where advertising appears why doesnt he just go in with a sketchbook and sketch out the details he needs whilst browsing the store? Im really struggling to see why he specifically needs what he has asked for. Why can't he do it for himself? Has he been refused permission or already been kicked out for trying to acquire the images? Does he plan on using the images for something that could get someone in trouble and wants a scapegoat?

I wouldn't do it, if one of my friends approached me asking for the same, I would run a mile unless they told me every single last detail of what they wanted and what they wanted it for. The fact that it was your friend who suggested that you take photos secretly or until you get thrown out is setting off the alarm bells for me, seems he is happy for you to run the risk of getting in trouble yet he isn't going to do it for himself.

It all seems suspicious to me...like there is a big chunk of vital information missing, but that is probably just me...and Im very sorry, I know this post hasn't come across as being very friendly, but I genuinely dont want you to get in trouble for someone elses gain.

 

[antihero]

Jeezzz.....some people. How many times do some photographers whine that they are quite legally photographing on public property, but end up getting hassled by uneducated security staff threatening them with this and that, I know my rights blah blah blah.....then start telling people it's perfectly OK to disregard a companies wishes to not photograph on their private property.

Double standards?

No means No. Full stop.

(this isn't aimed at anyone in particular)

 

[TinaC]

I really need to take some pictures inside a shop, it is to help a friend out for an art project he is doing and I don't want to let him down. The shop is a big national dvd rental shop and I did call their head office for permission to take some pictures but they just flat refused which they said they always do, they never grant permission.

I then spoke to my friend who said I could just go into one of their shops and take some pictures until I get thrown out or even take some secretly. I am not sure how I can do this? I don't have a camera phone only a small digital camera and a dslr which is too big.

I don't think going in and taking pictures brazenly until I get thrown out is an option really but perhaps I could try and take some pictures secretly with my smaller camera but is it worth it? What could happen to me if I get caught could I get in serious trouble?

I am not a very brazen person and so am quite worried about doing this but I do want to help my friend.

Any suggestions?

Don't do it. :nono: End of

Sorry but I think that's where it ends, they have every right to say no and you should just tell your friend that they have refused permission.

 

[norters]

It just makes me sad that people with cameras are vilified quite often as it is without the macho 'I have a camera and YOU can't stop me' brigade making it worse. Permission has been denied for this person to take photographs on private property and yet some people think 'ah sod it, I'll do it anyway'. Selfish.

 

[itsdavedotnet]

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...

 

[gramps]

So as well as the O/P defying the head office refusal, you want the staff to defy it as well?

 

[SnapperMatt]

Jeezzz.....some people. How many times do some photographers whine that they are quite legally photographing on public property, but end up getting hassled by uneducated security staff threatening them with this and that, I know my rights blah blah blah.....then start telling people it's perfectly OK to disregard a companies wishes to not photograph on their private property.

Double standards?

No means No. Full stop.

(this isn't aimed at anyone in particular)

Agreed. I firmly believe we (all of us, not just photographers) should, sensibly and reasonably, stand up for our reasonable rights when they are threatened, but with those rights come responsibilities - in this case the responsibility to respect another's reasonable and legal right to refuse permission on their private property.

Specifically in this case, it would also be worth pointing out that if this is for a college project, the college may be clued up on the need for permission to take photographs on private property, and they may want to see that such permission had been given.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

When I first read the title I did ask myself if this was some sort a wind-up? it all sounds very clandestine and cloak and dagger....

Sorry to be cynical, in your other thread entitled 'Doing street style photography?' You ask a very similar question - is this something you are doing for your exhibition ?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=394572

I can only echo the other comments made here in respect of the company wishes. Ethics and manners should prevail and you need to accept that. Permission denied.

Another consideration, if you did start taking close-ups of DVD artwork etc and it forms the main part of the image, you could hypothetically cause an infringement of copywrite.

Furthermore, If you photograph any brand name for example 'Bustblockers' they own the 'intellectual property rights to 'the name which also includes (C) so you could find yourself as the defendant in a civil claim potentially if the company came into contact with your images.

I think you need to re-evaluate this and think again. Maybe, you and your friend, could pose the question on TP with a 'Here's the concept...... how can I / we go about this to best achieve this ?' type question.

Good luck with your endeavours but let this one go its a no-brainer !

 

[On the Huh]

Boliston...As photographers who play by the rules, we get upset when we get hinded by jobsworth police/security etc. where we have a right to photograph. If there are photographers who break the rules it reflects on all of us and create these jobsworths. How can we complain about where we have a right to take a photograph if we ignore the right of those who legitimely say where we can't. Respect is needed for both sides.

 

[HMansfield]

What does he need? Just a shot up the aisles? Some well stocked shelves?

Don't go to the store you contacted. They don't want you there, you are aware of this, so to turn up and do it anyway could be considered causing a nuisance.

Find another decently stocked store with double doors and that opens directly out into the street. Long lens for a narrower view. You stand in the street and shoot in through the doors. You'll probably need a tripod as it won't be that bright in the store.

Plonk it down, line it up, click away (bracket if you can), bugger off again. All done in less than a minute and you haven't entered the shop. Everyone's happy.

 

[weybourne]

"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission" - Grace Hopper

That sounds amazingly like the justification given by those that flout the copyrights of photographers. It also hinges on the premise that a disingenuous request for forgiveness will right all wrongs and that forgiveness will be given unconditionally - fundamentally it is wrong.

Don't go to the store you contacted. They don't want you there, you are aware of this, so to turn up and do it anyway could be considered causing a nuisance.

Find another decently stocked store with double doors and that opens directly out into the street. Long lens for a narrower view. You stand in the street and shoot in through the doors. You'll probably need a tripod as it won't be that bright in the store.

Plonk it down, line it up, click away (bracket if you can), bugger off again. All done in less than a minute and you haven't entered the shop. Everyone's happy.

That sounds like a plan - the tripod could cause problems if it is deemed to be an obstruction. I don't think there would be an invasion of privacy being as it is a shop that opens its doors to the public and displays its wares. It seems that it would be a legitimate way of avoiding the gamble of being refused permission to take pictures in the store.

 

[ernesto]

Just go in with a camera phone set to silent. Camera phones are usually have a widish angle lens and you can make out you are texting.

Oh, and steal a couple of DVDs while you are in there as you clearly don't want to live by anyones rules'

 

[andya700]

I cannot believe that there is any debate about this. The company has said no to photography in their store, so you have to abide by that, or suffer the consequences. Their store/premises their rules (which you are fully aware of) - end of.

 

[boliston]

I cannot believe that there is any debate about this. The company has said no to photography in their store, so you have to abide by that, or suffer the consequences. Their store/premises their rules (which you are fully aware of) - end of.

Then why are you joining in the dabate?

 

[Ricardodaforce]

"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission" - Grace Hopper

I had a lot of fun when I was younger with her sister, Space.

 

[Just Dave]

I had a lot of fun when I was younger with her sister, Space.

Me too

 

[norters]

Then why are you joining in the dabate?

It wouldn't be a debate if everyone agreed with you.

 

[cambsno]

When I went to Rome I sneakly took pics inside Cistine chapel which u r not allowed to do so I am probably different to the moral majority here. Have also seen parents take some at local kids soft play area despite signs saying to to, although the owner is one of those idiots hiding behind health and safey all the time.

 

[cambsno]

Just go in with a camera phone set to silent. Camera phones are usually have a widish angle lens and you can make out you are texting.

Oh, and steal a couple of DVDs while you are in there as you clearly don't want to live by anyones rules'

I am sure everyone here has broken the law in the past, drinking underage or exceeding the speed limit. We all choose what rules we live by, most of us respect the serious ones like theft, murder, violence, drink driving etc... But make decisions which serious ones we break.

 

[PaulF]

I really need to take some pictures inside a shop, it is to help a friend out for an art project he is doing and I don't want to let him down. The shop is a big national dvd rental shop and I did call their head office for permission to take some pictures but they just flat refused which they said they always do, they never grant permission.

Any suggestions?

Yes, it's his art project, shouldn't be first of all his own work not his and a few mates he got to do the work for him? don't schools/colleges frown on that sort of thing these days.

Oh and they said no anyway so why does 'your' friend not respect that.

What would be your or your friends response if a company saw the finished images and thought they'd look good on our website, the company asks for permission, you or your friend say no but the company thinks 'well they said no but it's ok we'll just ignore that and use them anyway'. Answer that honestly to yourself and you have the answer that your or your friends morals allow.

Paul.

 

[new2me]

"It's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to get permission" - Grace Hopper

Without knowing of this quote, I was just thinking about this attitude the other day, again. It really hacks me off that people go about doing what ever they want knowing they might get away with it because they apologise afterwards.

 

[ernesto]

I am sure everyone here has broken the law in the past, drinking underage or exceeding the speed limit. We all choose what rules we live by, most of us respect the serious ones like theft, murder, violence, drink driving etc... But make decisions which serious ones we break.

Okay, so let's just all ignore the less serious laws and hope we all agree on what deems a law serious or not. Can't see a problem there.

 

[cambsno]

Okay, so let's just all ignore the less serious laws and hope we all agree on what deems a law serious or not. Can't see a problem there.

So I assume you have never hit someone, drank underage, broken the speed limit ever or done anything wrong? In which case you must be in the 0.001% of people never to have done anything wrong.

 

[ernesto]

So I assume you have never hit someone, drank underage, broken the speed limit ever or done anything wrong? In which case you must be in the 0.001% of people never to have done anything wrong.

Of course I have done some things that are wrong but are acceptable to my moral code but to suggest that people should decide which laws they feel are serious and then decide whether they break any that they do not deem serious is dangerous ground.

By the way, my moral code would mean I am quite happy to take a photograph in a shop without permission but also live with the consequences if I was caught/found to be breaking a law as I realise the laws don't always match my morality.

 

[new2me]

By the way, my moral code would mean I am quite happy to take a photograph in a shop without permission but also live with the consequences if I was caught/found to be breaking a law as I realise the laws don't always match my morality.

So no concern about how it could impact other people who share your passion for photography and restrictions that might be imposed. You get get your kick up the bum and that's the end of it for you :shrug:

 

[ernesto]

So no concern about how it could impact other people who share your passion for photography and restrictions that might be imposed. You get get your kick up the bum and that's the end of it for you :shrug:

Why would it impact others. I am breaking an existing law and would be punished under that law. It is hardly going to be an act taken to parliament is it. I would be very surprised to find anyone even keeping stats on such trivial offences.

 

[new2me]

But what if everyone broke that little law?

 

[ernesto]

But what if everyone broke that little law?

While I find taking a photo inside a shop morally acceptable I am assuming others don't so why would everyone break this little law?
And if everyone broke the little law and you couldn't move inside shops for people taking photos then I would suggest the law is not working and would need to be assessed.

This has no bearing on other types on photography as it is a very specific law/case.

 

[munch]

Forgive me if I have got this wrong but what you are saying is my "morals" mean that what ever I deem to be, is OK, doesn't matter about anybody else. what their rights are. Provided I find it morally acceptable?

Isn't that the problem with fundamental religion. (My way is the only way)

 

[ernesto]

Everyone lives by what they deem as morally acceptable. Luckily that generally fits within the laws (this country at least) because of a moral majority.
If your moral compass is out of whack then you will probably end up in front of a judge at some point.

Laws such as this one are not exactly discussed or up for public debate before being made are they so the moral majority view is probably unknown. If it was up for debate it would probably surprise people to even know it was a law and who knows most people may vote to remove it (or abstain)

So, whatever I think is fine I will do. If that is wrong or against the law then I will pay the price (no porblem with that) The law us there to protect everyone from exactly this.

 

[new2me]

While I find taking a photo inside a shop morally acceptable I am assuming others don't so why would everyone break this little law?
And if everyone broke the little law and you couldn't move inside shops for people taking photos then I would suggest the law is not working and would need to be assessed.

Maybe not the law, but the enforcement of that law would be reassessed and the punishment for breaking it?
Of course, I'm exagerating the scenario by suggesting everyone broke this 'law' ... but what if there was groups of 'rebels', flash mobs, deciding to do this to uphold their right to take photos on private property, because they feel it's morally harmless?

 

[ernesto]

Maybe not the law, but the enforcement of that law would be reassessed and the punishment for breaking it?
Of course, I'm exagerating the scenario by suggesting everyone broke this 'law' ... but what if there was groups of 'rebels', flash mobs, deciding to do this to uphold their right to take photos on private property, because they feel it's morally harmless?

Yes, it would be reassessed which is fine as it would need to be. It will be in the queue behind driving while using a mobile phone...

Not sure of your point on the rebels. Their protest may end up in removal of the law or it may end up in harsher penalties for the law. They are still breaking the current law and would get whatever they get.

 

[munch]

ernesto I find that attitude very sad.

You are basically saying you don't care about other people.

 

[sc0ttie]

Had a good laugh at this thread.
Can't you stand outside and take shots through the windows? LOL

 

[ernesto]

ernesto I find that attitude very sad.

You are basically saying you don't care about other people.

You are VERY much mistaken. I care greatly about other people, to the point that there would be many more laws if the laws were in place to match my moral standing.

What I don't have a problem with is taking a photo in a shop as in the big scheme of things it doesn't even register on my moral radar. And if I am caught taking a photo in a shop I will get prosecuted, fined whatever.

Please tell me how that affects others/means I don't care about other people?

 

[new2me]

Not sure of your point on the rebels.

I suppose I'm suggesting that your only motivation for doing it is out of rebelion.
But I'm gonna drop out of this interesting thread, now that I see that you are willing to pay the price for such actions. Not everybody can, be it financially or other penalties.

 

[Philx1979]

Permission was sought and Permission was refused end of, if you want to push your luck and go and take the photo anyway, then why ask in the first place.

Generally speaking if you had a valid reason and could show what you wanted the photo for then thats the best way to get a company/business onside but again in this case they dont want to know, so, move on.

I dont understand why photographers have got to take the p@@@ with their photographic rights sometimes, it was like that guy who was stood outside Golden Wonder factory arguing with the security guards and filming it, at the end of the day he only made himself look stupid, yes he was on a public walkway and could shoot what he liked but did he really want a picture of a golden wonder factory? no he was there just provoking an arguement, any other photographer would get their pic and move on, or ask for their permission.

At the end of the day they ruin it for other photographers, photographers rights do exist but also please have some common sense with it.

 

[Bend The Light]

You are VERY much mistaken. I care greatly about other people, to the point that there would be many more laws if the laws were in place to match my moral standing.

What I don't have a problem with is taking a photo in a shop as in the big scheme of things it doesn't even register on my moral radar. And if I am caught taking a photo in a shop I will get prosecuted, fined whatever.

Please tell me how that affects others/means I don't care about other people?

Because, if you were asked not to take photos, but decided to do it anyway as it doesn't even crop up on your "moral radar" you make out that all photographers are morons.

Think about it...the people in the shop, or the owners of the shop will not be saying "Oooh, how annoying...that ernesto is one naughty chap for taking those photos".
No, what they will say is "Bloody photographers! Is nothing sacred anymore...That's it...no more photographers in this shop...no more photographers in my big shopping centre...etc."

So, you manage to tar every photographer with the same brush because your "moral Radar" is not up to scratch. Thanks a bunch...