Why do some shopping malls have notices claiming that photography is banned?

RJDG14 said:

There are plenty of amateur photos online of the area I took photos of, so I doubt the rule is particularly enforced. It looks like this discreet notice has been there since at least the mid 2000s from a couple of things I could find online, and was probably there since the area opened in 1999, and there's a possibility that the rule would have been better enforced 20 years ago, but photography has become so commonplace that most places that claim to have restrictions turn a blind eye to it these days.

Click to expand...

RJDG14 said:

As far as I know, it is legal to take photos in the UK of private land without any form of permission (certainly for non commercial purposes) provided that they are taken from a public right of way (public rights of way can cut through private land). I have a feeling that the walkways along the canal here were there in some form before the late 1990s when this development dates from and so wouldn't be surprised if they are public rights of way.

Click to expand...

RJDG14 said:

I know in the case of the centre in the UK city of Bath, Milsom Street for example does count for legal purposes as a public place while the outdoor Southgate development legally speaking counts as private land. There is an outdoor smoking ban in the Southgate area while there are no restrictions on outdoor smoking in other parts of the city centre. I think generally speaking, nearly all public places (with exceptions) are open to the public, but not all areas open to the public are public places.

Click to expand...

RJDG14 said:

There are plenty of amateur photos online of the area I took photos of, so I doubt the rule is particularly enforced. It looks like this discreet notice has been there since at least the mid 2000s from a couple of things I could find online, and was probably there since the area opened in 1999, and there's a possibility that the rule would have been better enforced 20 years ago, but photography has become so commonplace that most places that claim to have restrictions turn a blind eye to it these days.

As far as I know, it is legal to take photos in the UK of private land without any form of permission (certainly for non commercial purposes) provided that they are taken from a public right of way (public rights of way can cut through private land). I have a feeling that the walkways along the canal here were there in some form before the late 1990s when this development dates from and so wouldn't be surprised if they are public rights of way.

I know in the case of the centre in the UK city of Bath, Milsom Street for example does count for legal purposes as a public place while the outdoor Southgate development legally speaking counts as private land. There is an outdoor smoking ban in the Southgate area while there are no restrictions on outdoor smoking in other parts of the city centre. I think generally speaking, nearly all public places (with exceptions) are open to the public, but not all areas open to the public are public places.

Click to expand...

Aberaeron said:

Jestertheclown said:

Miller_bike said:

Lol, I actually live in the British town of Reading and regularly pass through the Oracle. I've never even noticed the no photos signs and I've taken plenty of snaps there. I suppose security might possibly get arsey if you looked commercial.

Click to expand...

I think you're right.

I used to frequent Borough Market and have taken probably hundreds of shots in there using crop frame DSLRs without any issues.

It all changed when I got a Z7 though. The security guy ; who's intelligence was in inverse proportion to his uniform, insisted that because I was using a "professional" camera, I must have been taking shots commercially.

I haven't ben back since.

Click to expand...

The security guard was probably not fully baked, or a few loaves short of a dozen if you get my meaning. Probably bored and wanted to push his weight around to stop himself/herself falling asleep on the job.

Click to expand...

RJDG14 said:

I was in the British town of Reading earlier today and noticed that both its main two shopping malls had discreet photography prohibition notices by their entrances, in both cases featuring a pictogram of a crossed through camera. Other than the fact that shopping malls are technically private property, I don't really see any rational for banning photography inside such a place when it's perfectly fine to take photos on an outdoor shopping street in the UK, and photography bans are generally these days associated only with security checkpoints, cinemas and specific museums (and were historically more common in a wider range of museums and venues).

In the case of the larger of the two shopping malls, I later saw a discreet outdoor prohibition sign claiming the same thing, but by that point I had already taken numerous supposedly "prohibited" photos on the grounds with my DSLR:


The canal by The Oracle shopping centre in Reading, UK, taken earlier today on one of my DSLRs. There are some discreet outdoor prohibition pictograms at the external entrances to this area, one of which appears to claim "no photography". There is nothing here that would be dodgy to photograph.

There were a number of cases I've read about from the 2000s where various British shopping malls claimed that photography was banned on the grounds of "security", but even then, I believe passengers can take photos of British airport terminal lounges (just not the security checkpoints) so I don't really get what the catch is. Allowing photography inside a mall is very unlikely to increase shoplifting rates either. I don't think using security as a rationale for prohibiting photography in a retail (or walkway, in the case of a mall) environment really makes much sense. I believe a handful of British shopping malls have also used "architectural copyright" as a ground for restricting photography even though this is baseless under UK law since Britain has among the world's most liberal freedom of panorama laws.

I would generally interpret "no photography" signs at entrances to places like shopping malls these days to generally mean "professional photographers require permission from the management" as opposed to an outright ban on photography, especially given that most people nowadays walk around with a camera in their pocket.

An even stranger prohibition until a few years ago at a shopping mall close to where I live (which did not have a photography prohibition notice) was "no hoodies".

Click to expand...

Overrank said:

It’s private land. The owners can put up any restrictions they like for granting access (within the law, and possibly local bylaws). They don’t have to justify it, or even have a reason judged ‘valid’ by the internet. Just go to a different shopping centre with a different policy.

Click to expand...

Franglais91 said:

RJDG14 said:

I was in the British town of Reading earlier today and noticed that both its main two shopping malls had discreet photography prohibition notices by their entrances, in both cases featuring a pictogram of a crossed through camera. Other than the fact that shopping malls are technically private property, I don't really see any rational for banning photography inside such a place when it's perfectly fine to take photos on an outdoor shopping street in the UK, and photography bans are generally these days associated only with security checkpoints, cinemas and specific museums (and were historically more common in a wider range of museums and venues).

In the case of the larger of the two shopping malls, I later saw a discreet outdoor prohibition sign claiming the same thing, but by that point I had already taken numerous supposedly "prohibited" photos on the grounds with my DSLR:


The canal by The Oracle shopping centre in Reading, UK, taken earlier today on one of my DSLRs. There are some discreet outdoor prohibition pictograms at the external entrances to this area, one of which appears to claim "no photography". There is nothing here that would be dodgy to photograph.

There were a number of cases I've read about from the 2000s where various British shopping malls claimed that photography was banned on the grounds of "security", but even then, I believe passengers can take photos of British airport terminal lounges (just not the security checkpoints) so I don't really get what the catch is. Allowing photography inside a mall is very unlikely to increase shoplifting rates either. I don't think using security as a rationale for prohibiting photography in a retail (or walkway, in the case of a mall) environment really makes much sense. I believe a handful of British shopping malls have also used "architectural copyright" as a ground for restricting photography even though this is baseless under UK law since Britain has among the world's most liberal freedom of panorama laws.

I would generally interpret "no photography" signs at entrances to places like shopping malls these days to generally mean "professional photographers require permission from the management" as opposed to an outright ban on photography, especially given that most people nowadays walk around with a camera in their pocket.

An even stranger prohibition until a few years ago at a shopping mall close to where I live (which did not have a photography prohibition notice) was "no hoodies".

Click to expand...

I live in France and in my experience there is a sign saying "No photography" at the entry to ALL shopping malls. There may be restrictions on other indoor facilities like museums, sports halls and "public" parks. I always ask before getting the camera out.

The only place where I can do Street Photography is outside, on the street.

Why would the situation be different in the UK?

Click to expand...

tbcass said:

Maybe it's a British thing because I have never seen that in the US.

Click to expand...

Aberaeron said:

Overrank said:

It’s private land. The owners can put up any restrictions they like for granting access (within the law, and possibly local bylaws). They don’t have to justify it, or even have a reason judged ‘valid’ by the internet. Just go to a different shopping centre with a different policy.

Click to expand...

It’s contagious though. Like a virus or disease that should be fought against.

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

You can take pictures of private land, but not on private land, if the owner of the land prohibits it. It's civil, not criminal law.

Click to expand...

Miller_bike said:

Lol, I actually live in the British town of Reading and regularly pass through the Oracle. I've never even noticed the no photos signs and I've taken plenty of snaps there. I suppose security might possibly get arsey if you looked commercial. God knows what the oracle thinks it's protecting though.

Click to expand...

Overrank said:

Aberaeron said:

Overrank said:

It’s private land. The owners can put up any restrictions they like for granting access (within the law, and possibly local bylaws). They don’t have to justify it, or even have a reason judged ‘valid’ by the internet. Just go to a different shopping centre with a different policy.

Click to expand...

It’s contagious though. Like a virus or disease that should be fought against.

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t want people in my back garden taking photographs if I hadn’t invited them to do so. Just because it’s a company doesn’t make it any different.

Click to expand...

Aberaeron said:

Overrank said:

Aberaeron said:

Overrank said:

It’s private land. The owners can put up any restrictions they like for granting access (within the law, and possibly local bylaws). They don’t have to justify it, or even have a reason judged ‘valid’ by the internet. Just go to a different shopping centre with a different policy.

Click to expand...

It’s contagious though. Like a virus or disease that should be fought against.

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t want people in my back garden taking photographs if I hadn’t invited them to do so. Just because it’s a company doesn’t make it any different.

Click to expand...

If your back garden is overlooked by houses or publicly accessible land then anyone is perfectly at liberty to photograph anything they can see with their eyes. That’s not to say they can snoop into your toilet window of course or to harass you with surveillance, but otherwise there is nothing wrong with taking photographs of anything that can be seen from a public space. Not in the vast majority of jurisdictions or countries.

What you ‘want’ is a different matter. Want total privacy? Then you have to make provision yourself to block all visibility in to your property, which usually means blocking all visibility out as well.

Click to expand...

john isaacs said:

tbcass said:

Maybe it's a British thing because I have never seen that in the US.

Click to expand...

It's quite common. Indoor malls where I live all have that policy. Also, fast food restaurants like McDonalds/Wendys/BurgerKing.

It's a blanket policy so security doesn't have to make decisions about whether a particular photo shoot is commercial or disruptive. It's simpler to ban it all.

Of course, they can issue permits for commercial exceptions, either for the owners purposes or for a fee.

As for smartphones; it's rare that they stop their use. I've even seen photo stands pop up in the malls lately. Just backdrops, not photo stands that take pictures.

There are some places in downtown areas that have been leased to a commercial management company, including sidewalks, where photography is also banned. Same argument; they want to control commercial photography and they use a blanket ban to enforce it.

Click to expand...

Nigvo said:

The British newspaper, the Guardian did a lot of journalistic investigation into what are called "Pseudo public spaces". Here is a link to take you off on a disturbing journey.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Google Guardian and private public spaces for more disturbing stuff.

I live in Italy and there is a "terror" of "professional" photography in Italy's monuments. A tripod is the barrier here between amateur and professional photography in the eyes of the security jobsworths.

I have a huge collection of photographs of Italian monuments, which technically I can look at home, but cannot publish.

France has some pretty tight laws about photography in public spaces, and photographing the Eiffel tower at night is illegal

Click to expand...

Member said:

The Bonapartists in France have the same terror as the Italians regarding photography. and the two countries both have "Freedom of Panorama" laws, that our very own DPR wrote about.

I once innocently went to a local shopping mall to photograph a spiral staircase, that I had done the structural engineering. I got stopped by the guards, but I spoke with management and got permission to shoot when the mall was closed.

Click to expand...

RJDG14 said:

shopping malls are private property

Click to expand...

Frankie J said:

It's a rude experience to be in a private space and have someone shove a camera in your face, or worse yet, lurk and photograph you remotely for who knows WHAT purpose.
THAT'S WHY!

I don't understand your post.
Is the point of your post that you desperately want to photograph inside of a mall and feel so ENTITLED to do whatever you want, that you are angry over any resistance?
You want to take photos of unsuspecting people while they shop on private property?
That boarders on the perverse.

Click to expand...

RJDG14 said:

There are plenty of amateur photos online of the area I took photos of, so I doubt the rule is particularly enforced. It looks like this discreet notice has been there since at least the mid 2000s from a couple of things I could find online, and was probably there since the area opened in 1999, and there's a possibility that the rule would have been better enforced 20 years ago, but photography has become so commonplace that most places that claim to have restrictions turn a blind eye to it these days.

As far as I know, it is legal to take photos in the UK of private land without any form of permission (certainly for non commercial purposes) provided that they are taken from a public right of way (public rights of way can cut through private land). I have a feeling that the walkways along the canal here were there in some form before the late 1990s when this development dates from and so wouldn't be surprised if they are public rights of way.

I know in the case of the centre in the UK city of Bath, Milsom Street for example does count for legal purposes as a public place while the outdoor Southgate development legally speaking counts as private land. There is an outdoor smoking ban in the Southgate area while there are no restrictions on outdoor smoking in other parts of the city centre. I think generally speaking, nearly all public places (with exceptions) are open to the public, but not all areas open to the public are public places.

Click to expand...