Busted again and again and again!

[Gregg Humphrey]

It could have been worse, you could have been wearing a "Give Peace a Chance" t-shirt.

Today my wife and I and another couple went for a trip to Columbus,
Ohio. We first stopped at the Polaris mall complex. I decieded to
take my D60 and shoot entirely with my new 20 mm 2.8 Canon lens all
day. Wrong!

I get busted by mall security for taking pictures! Why? Security
reasons?? "We do not allow pictures in the mall due to the
architectual one of a kind designs" said the security cop. "No
pictures!" He said.

We then traveled to the Easton shopping area on the West side. I
was in the Apple store taking a shot of my friend looking at a new
Powerbook g4. A store clerk approached and said "Apple corporate
does not allow picture of any kind to be taken in the store."
"Please stop or you will have to leave." What?????????

We left had some lunch and I thought "What a day." This all seems
so silly.

I was taking several pictures of out group outside in a fountain
area not realizing that a policelady pulled up in her truck and
called to me to step over to the vehical. (I later found out her
vehical ariving at the scene is in one of my pictures!) She
informed me that "You are not allowed to take picture anywhere on
the ground without permission from management. Do you have
permission?" I said " No" She responded with "Put the camera
away and do not take any more pictures."

I give up - busted 3 times in six hours!

I did go see Easton management an office near the theater. They
informed me I would have to get permission and that such permission
is seldom approved. I did get the persons name and number to reach
who has the authority to allow me to take picture.

No big deal - just a day out to try out my new 20 mm 2.8 Canon lens
with a group of friend and my wife. Maybe a trip to the county
next time . . . .

===============================
Tom 'turk' Terleski
===============================

 

[Gregg Humphrey]

Totally agree with this. If you want to be the center of attention (good for wedding shoots) pull out the DSLR and the biggest lens you have. If you want to shoot unobtrusively, w/o drawing unwanted attention, leave the DSLR at home.

This is where P&S cameras come into play. Sometimes
small is better. I'm sort of tweaked at Phil for not reviewing
the S230. A lot of us care about the advances at that end
of the market. The S400 looks real good and I can't wait
for that review.

Someone else posted today about getting busted at a sports
arena with a 1D and a white 70-200L. I mean, that's kind
of a "Duh" if you ask me. (no offense to the poster, I've been
there and I know how much it bites).

Complaining about clueless security people is pointless.
Either cooperate with them or try to outsmart them, or just
don't draw their attention in the first place...

 

[Leif Olstrup]

We, here in Europe, always learned at school that America is the
land of 1 mio possibillities and opportunities, the land of
freedom, the land where anything is possible.

When I read posts like this, I'm happy I live in Europe. We can
shoot (pics) where we want and no police or some strange rule is
bothering you. I have the feeling that 9-11 still is a big
influence in America, many things are restricted and under rules.

If you want real freedom, come to the Netherlands.

Joep Leenen, the Netherlands
http://www.JoepLeenen.net
D60, Sigma 15-30, Canon 50 f1.8 I, Canon 28-105, 550EX, Image Tank
20 Gb

Actually I had trouble with a security officer at the University Hospital in Utrecht, Holland, for taking pictures of the building. This was as early as 1984. I experienced the same thing in Madrid, Spain, last autumn.

Likewise you are likely to get in trouble if you publish shots taken from the Eifel Tower in Paris. The tower is private property and the Eifel Company have ensured the copyrights for these shots.

So mayby it's creaping in on us Europeans as well.

 

[Mike Fulton]

...its all an illusion.

I believe (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong - I can't find
the copyright FAQ I read it in a year ago to verify this) that in
America you do not hold the copyright on a photograph of any
building built since some time in the 70's - even if you take it
from a public place. i.e: the photograph is not yours and you may
not publish it without the permission of the owner of the building
(or it could be the architect - I can't remember).

This is not a copyright issue, it's a trademark issue, which is different in many ways. If you use a trademark without permission in some context other than news reporting, you've violated the rights of the trademark holder.

The "Business" of a building is based in large part on the building's appearance, so a distinctive building's design is by its very nature a trademark. If you reproduce that design without permission, you're violating the building owner's property rights.

Let's look at this another way. If you took a photo of a Coca-Cola billboard, and then started selling poster-sized prints of that photo, would you really be surprised if Coca-Cola took steps to stop you?

And by the way, this situation is certainly not limited to buildings built since the '70's, although it may have been about then when some building owner first made a court case out of it.

Mike

 

[Mike Fulton]

on how much the cute female clerk at the apple store likes you

I'm curious... if you pick up one of the cameras they have on display in the Apple store and start taking pictures with it, do they still come ask you to stop?

 

[zidar]

I've been a photographer for most of the time since the late 60s. I've shot pictures which included thousands of buildings. Some of the pictures were editorial and appeared in magazines or newspapers, but some appeared in advertisements. I've never had anybody sign a property release. So where's the lawsuits? Where are the lawyers for the building owners or architects? You've constructed some sort of fantasy view of the situation, based on a few true facts, but not consistent with reality.

The largest American brewery recently sued a Czech brewery for using "their" copyrighted beer name. The Czechs pointed out that they had been continuously brewing Budweiser beer in the same location since 1397...and they had the documents to prove it. An international court upheld the Czechs. Do you think they should have been told their right to the name Budweiser ran out in 1467? Have you ever tasted mass-market American beer?

You sound like a guy who doesn't think musicians have any right to collect royalties.

Zidar
Alaska
--
It's not about stuff.
http://www.pbase.com/zidar

 

[Mikael]

Everyone doing what they want is a kind of freedom - but it is also
anarchy.

And what was ever wrong about anarchy?

 

[Nigel Pond]

They are more of a threat than the Christian right, with their puppet president? I think not.

 

[Nigel Pond]

That will not happen unless there are reforms in other areas such as election of judges and proper campaign finance reform. You also need to suppot the loser pays rule with a system of legal aid otherwise legitimate but poor potential plaintiffs are stuck.