DC News: Photog Arrested For Taking Pictures

[mjdmike]

Just some food for thought.

This person was approached by a parent for taking pictures of a child in Santa's lap at a mall. He was then arrested for being combative with the police. Mall policy states that strangers can't take photos of kids in Santa's lap.

Why are some people so scared of someone having a photo of their child? It seems that a large majority of the population attaches some sort of perversion to a person wanting to take any photo with a child in it. Why?

Photog Arrested For Taking Pictures

[Cope]

Mike, shopping malls are private property, and the photographer violated mall policy and then became combative with security, which was off duty LEO.

[CaptainTom]

I'm breaking out the popcorn and bourbon for this one.

Have you ever entered a mall and seen a sign posted that said " NO PHOTOGRAPHY " ?
I'm sure someone will claim to, but I've never noticed one in the last 50 years.

Selective enforcement of the rules is anti-American. If you single out the guy who has the biggest camera, is it because he's the easiest target. What about the lady over there who has the cell phone with the 6mp camera ? Or the news people who are shooting for the local channel 5 nightly mumbo jumbo ?

Oh, don't give me that trite stuff about "there's no cell phone with a 6mp camera", or the news people are allowed to do journalistic work"
Why does a guy with a point and shoot camera pose a national threat? The police are called. They attempt to grab the camera ( illegal ) and the owner of the camera attempts to protect his personal property. That's not resisting arrest in my book. It seems like a case of 'resisting absurdity'.

[johnastovall]

Capt, actually there is a cell phone camera with 12.7mp and flash.

NEC model N-02B available through DoCoMo -- 12.2mp sensor, with flash.

"'resisting absurdity'.", I like that. I can see a bumper sticker "Resist Absurdity".

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Capt, actually there is a cell phone camera with 12.7mp and flash.

NEC model N-02B available through DoCoMo -- 12.2mp sensor, with flash.

"'resisting absurdity'.", I like that. I can see a bumper sticker "Resist Absurdity".

Ok, change that to " a cell phone with a web site in English" then.

[johnastovall]

Ok, here's English

Oh, there are 2 other 12+ mp phones at the bottom of the page.

[Kalrog]

Yeah, the mall is private property. And after being informed of the rules or being asked to leave, you then have to do so. But even then, you can't take the camera or destroy the pictures... which the photog already deleted because asked to do so by the dad of the child in question. How dare the photog take a picture of the police!

Of course we only have one side of the story here, but it seems a plausible story.

[klynam]

Here's your reading list comrades...

1. "1984" Orwell
2. "Animal Farm" Orwell
3. "Liberty and Tyrany" Levin
4. "The Art of War" Tsu
5. "The Prince" Machiavelli
6. "Manifesto of the Communist Party" Marx

Mix them all together and wake up to what's really going on...

[hotshot38]

Just a short excerpt from Legal Rights of Photographers by Andrew Kantor:

Private citizens, including security guards, do not have the right to confiscate your equipment or to
require you to erase your memory cards (or film). They do not have the right to threaten you in order to
make you do so “voluntarily.”
If you are on private property, the owner of that property (or his representative — e.g., a security guard)
can make permission to be on that property contingent upon your compliance. In other words, “Stop
taking pictures and erase your memory card or I’m kicking you out.”

The full document and more of 'in a mall with security guards' here:
http://www.andrewkantor.com/useful/L...tographers.pdf

[Jeff_Green]

Originally Posted by hotshot38

If you are on private property, the owner of that property (or his representative — e.g., a security guard)
can make permission to be on that property contingent upon your compliance. In other words, “Stop
taking pictures and erase your memory card or I’m kicking you out.”[/I]

Wrong. The owner can grant you permission to shoot on HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY *IF* you follow his rules. That means ASK PERMISSION and wait for it to be granted.

I thought it was generally acknowledged that you get permission FIRST before shooting on private properly.

[tessai4]

I never saw, and still haven't seen, any signs posted restricting photos being taken in a mall. Even today in the galleria , I go in and take pictures of their christmas tree and other yearly events....no issue from the mall security guards.

If it is policy, how about they make it as big as the sale signs that they have in any given store? I know it is in 8 point font and behind the counter in the food court or something...lol.

[ChuckW]

You are not likely to see any signs specifically restricting photography in malls; can you imagine how long a sign would have to be in order to list all of the things a mall owner doesn't want people to do? Since a mall is private property it would be best to stop doing whatever mall security/management tells you to stop doing. If a person doesn't like it they can always take their future business elsewhere.

Regarding the photographing of children in general, it is sad that things have gone as far as they have in an anti-phototography direction. If one looks at notable photographers and images from years past it is amazing how many photos depict children. That certainly is no longer the case.

[mjdmike]

Sure, I understand the private property thing, and certainly can respect the LEO's handling of the situation if the photographer was aggressive. The problem with debating that, is that we'll never really know what happened. We've heard his side of the story and read the press' probably-not-so-accurate twist of the facts.

I was asking more from the Father's perspective, and the LEO's first question of, "Why are you taking photos of children?"

I have three kids and like most, they've spent many hours in the public eye playing sports, speaking, riding horses, etc. I've always been well aware of the evils in the world, and yet not once did I see a person with a camera and suspect them of taking a photo of my kids for anything other than capturing an interesting moment in time. (And I've only been into photography for 3 years, so didn't have a photographer's perspective until well after they were grown)

• Where/why did things change regarding kids and photos?
• Do child pervs really go to malls and profile their next victim by taking their photo? For those that might say "YES", is this fact, or myth?
• Do you as a parent object to your child being photographed when in public? <--- trick question. If so, how do you know when he/she is being photographed? Or do you only object when you see the photo being taken?
• Did you notice the press running a video of a child sitting in Santa's lap at the same mall? Why wouldn't that upset the Father and security guards just as much?

Please understand I'm not making light of crimes involving children. There's no debate regarding that.

I'm just wondering if I'm the only Father that really doesn't think the child pervs are running around in the malls or on playgrounds with cameras. Maybe I'm nieve.

[Carl Stone]

This was posted elsewhere by an attorney. It's two reasons why malls restrict photography on the inside.

"1) Retailers spend a significant portion of their advertising budget on visual appeal to lure shoppers into their stores, and most if not all of their product, packaging and advertising designs are copyrighted. They have spent a great deal of money trying to do something unique, and they don't like the thought of their competitors from outside copying their ideas. Paranoid? Maybe, but they pay the rent, and therefore have leverage with the mall owners.

2) Malls are generally a family destination and people probably would prefer to shop in peace without photographers disturbing them or taking pictures of their daughters and children (if this is how they see it). If there is any risk that a certain behavior will disturb the shopping experience for the general public, you can bet there will be a rule against it - whether it be loitering, skateboarding, loud music, smoking, or - you guessed it - photography. If shoppers are being disturbed, whether in an actual or perceived way, then they leave, taking their money with them, and...

Makes more sense now? Not exactly rocket science."

[z-monster]

I was quite shocked to read that the police grabbed the camera out of the photog's hands. I'm a huge supporter of police but what these officers did was 100% illegal.

Sigh...so cameras are weapons now?