Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]David Rodgers wrote: > One morning a guard came up to me and stopped > me from shooting. He claimed that all the > storefronts -- window displays, etc. -- were > protected under intellectual property laws. You know, the average pet canary knows more about intellectual-property laws than the average shopping-mall guard. > He said it was unlawful for me to photograph > them even if they were in the background. Not true. However, since you were on private property, the owners of the property can control what you do on the property to a certain extent, and the guard might have grounds to prevent you from taking photographs on that basis (although he apparently did not know this). Then again, some court decisions have held that a shopping mall is sufficiently public that photography cannot necessarily be prohibited, if I remember correctly (sorry, no citations handy). > I thought that was an odd reason to stop me. He had to make up something, I suppose. > Perhaps he didn't want to say that they don't > allow photographs to be taken in the mall. Why not? That would at least be truthful. Then again, if the decisions I mention above were a concern to the owners, they might be wary of trying to use that argument to prevent photography, since it might not hold water if challenged. > I called ahead to get permission the next time. > The mall's property management people told me no. > They didn't gave me a reason. That's because they didn't have a reason. Whenever you ask _permission_, you arouse _suspicion_, and whenever suspicious people are given the opportunity to say no, they will. I'm not saying that you should not ask permission, I'm just saying that if you do, the answer will almost invariably be no, no matter how innocent your intentions, and despite the inability on the part of the refusing party to come up with any kind of reason for its refusal. > I've always been curious. Was it because they > didn't want any type of commercial photography > in the mall? It was probably because they were afraid of the unknown. In fact, I bet that if you walk up to a mall guard at the entrance to a shopping mall, and ask if it's okay to go inside the mall and look around, about half the guards you ask will refuse. Never mind that you are simply asking to do what everyone else already does without asking. Never mind that you are asking to do exactly what the mall was built to provide. The fact that you _ask_ will make the guard suspicious, and so he'll be tempted to refuse, "just in case." > Was it an intellectual property issue? Could be. But since the mall is a public place (or rather a private place open to the public without restriction), and since the stuff in windows is meant to be seen by the public, there are limits to what IP restrictions can do. You can't simultaneously exhibit something to the public and refuse to exhibit it, it has to be one or the other. > What I find interesting is that the guard ignored > me the times I used my Leicas. He stopped me when > I used my Hasselblad. He sounds pretty stupid. But then again, most guards are. It's hard to find competent guards that will work for the pay they get, and I daresay that it's impossible to find guards familiar with intellectual-property laws (or any other laws) who will work for that pay.