Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:10:56 -0500 > From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> > Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Inspired but arrested > Message-ID: <003a01c3c820$125820e0$6501a8c0@CCA4A5EF37E11E> > References: > > What don't you understand about the word's "private property?" I > certainly wish that malls weren't private property, and I think it's > ludicrous that photography in them is barred, but that's the legal > reality. You can bring your camera to the U. S. and photograph in > public > places. You can photograph people in the street; but you can't take > photographs on private property, or do anything else on private > property, without the permission of the owners of that property. Actually, it's not quite that simple. Various courts have held that if a property owner allows unfettered public access then the owner cannot unduly restrict the public's activities on such property. In other words, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it is a duck :-). The case that got the most attention along these lines was one from Salt Lake City in which the Mormon Church owned a piece of property in front, I believe, of a Mormon temple that was treated day in and day out as public property in terms of the access that was allowed. Some demonstrators wanted to demonstrate on the property and the Mormon Church tried to kick them off. The court relied on the "walks like a duck" principle in holding against the Church. Now, this was one case, in one court, in one state, but I believe there have been similar cases with respect to other "pseudo-public" places such as malls. There is usually a distinction made between the "public" part of the mall and the interior of individual stores. I think the law in this area is evolving and is far from settled. Rolfe - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html