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

[Chris Noble]

I find it really weird that that many people who have replied here are in favour of restrictions on photography, in what are actually public spaces, like the shot the OP posted.

Surly, as photographers we should be pushing for freedom to take pictures, and not restricting our right to carry out photography.

We're like an association of motorcyclists who insist that its members always wear their helmets while riding.

Encouraging other photographers to break the law does nothing good for social support of street photographers.

No, you have twisted what I wrote. I would hope all photographers would be in favour of greater freedom to take photographs, which is different to encouraging people to break the law.

I was responding to the OP, who said among other things that he chooses to interpret a "No Photography" sign to only apply to professional photographers.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

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".

Since most malls are considered "private property" (despite them being open the public, they are not like on the side-walk which is considered more "public" ) this would make sense that photography would be banned. Now are they going to stop you from taking a photo of your friend who is a model, that's posing for you? Probably not.

But I think it's primarily done for insurance reasons. Some states have a policy where if you fall in a public place, it's your fault, but most places some of the liability comes back on the owner of the premises, in this case the owner of the mall. Now shooting professionally or with a smartphone carries the same liability, but part of the reason that they likely don't want professional photographers is because of potential tripping hazards (obviously, with light stands) and also a Mall is a business. They are there to make money, not be a backdrop for a photoshoot.

Also they likely may feel that a "commercial" photo shoot (anything beyond someone using a smartphone) to be a distraction to other mall guests.

Malls may also have policies against photographing workers within the mall (including in the stores, plus the little "mobile" stores/carts you see around the mall.

It likely comes down to the insurance though. To an extent, a certain level of risk is there just operating the mall, but by banning photography (specifcally professional photography) it further reduces the risk to a minimum. Now, I have heard from friends who have shot in malls without a problem, but it usually was one person, one model, and a small softbox, if any.

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..