The Lastest Case in the Photography Rights issue

[jamesev]

Row over photo in shopping centre -

Man quizzed by police taking a photo of his daughter

BBC News - Row over photo in shopping centre

[andyw]

Originally Posted by jamesev

The Latest Case in the Photography Rights issue

Sorry but this is nothing of the sort.
This is an overzealous security guard and a policeman who has not read the most recent guidelines and is unaware of the actual law. Nothing new in that and certainly not a "photography rights issue".

The guy was asked to stop taking photographs - perfectly reasonable request.
He was asked to delete the images. Sure ask, but there is no requirement to do so.
The guy was questioned by the police - as they had been called then that is pretty normal.
They took his details - again normal - and he was allowed to leave, complete with photos. No harm, no foul.

Bottom line is that in a shopping centre, which is private land/building, the owners/management can put whatever rules they want. If you break them or do not stop when asked then it is a trespass and the police can become involved.

Yes, it is totally over the top on the part of the security guards but what do people really expect when they employ monkeys on minimum wage ?

[BigFuzzy]

I'm in the weird position where I feel the fear over people taking photos in places has gone waaaaay overboard.

On the other hand, I also want to respect the rights of the PRIVATE ownership of this PRIVATE mall to set the rules as they see fit. If you don't like it, don't come, go elsewhere.

If this were on public ground.. whole other discussion. But it wasn't. Their house, their rules. Simple (to me at least)

[SwissJon]

"However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures."

Ummm... Isn't that EXACTLY what you did do??

[Biomech]

BBC News - Row over photo in shopping centre

"A Facebook campaign is calling for people to boycott a shopping centre after claims a man was questioned by police for taking photographs of his own four-year-old daughter."

Join the campaign
Boycott Braehead - Wall | Facebook

[BigFuzzy]

Psst, already posted here:

As I noted in other thread, Private mall, they can have their own rules.
Plus, it's not at all accurate to say he was 'arrested' in your post title.. he was simply questioned.

Let's not overreact.

[Biomech]

In the UK they have to arrest you for any formal questioning.

My bad on the repost, delete as necessary

And when a privately held building is opened up to the public it becomes a public space. I've had a number of altercations in shopping malls with security guards. I don't know about that mall, but whenever I've been approached with the "no photography allowed" argument there have been no notices what so ever. Plus it's not legal to take the camera from the person, there's a lot of crap floating around the UK in regards to photography and law.

[BigFuzzy]

Was this "formal questioning"?
I guess maybe it was since they took his details.
To me, a cop simply talking to you to figure out the situation isn't really an arrest. Sounds like a discussion on the issue and the officer responding to questions about why they have the right to stop/question him.

As for the mall being public grounds if opened to the public. If that's indeed the case, I didn't know that, so I guess I'm wrong about that and then the public photography regulations would be in place.
Does it change if there are signs posted at entrances then? Would that be considered "house rules" and by entering you accept said rules?

[ceremus]

In the UK...

More CCTV video cameras monitoring the public than anywhere else in the world: Totally fine
Man takes photo of his daughter: OMG CALL THE POLICE

[Biomech]

Usually what happens (speaking from experience), is that when the security guards detain you, they take you out the back to a room/office and call the cops in where they question you. Obviously not being at that incident I couldn't say for sure. Even though it's classed as private property you can still take photos unless it clearly states otherwise, if you're asked to stop you also have to. So I guess it really comes down to whether signs were there and clear and their case vs every other incident of taking photos that has occurred there.

It makes you wonder though, the age old argument that when you enter a place full of CCTV you are doing so in agreement with have your image recorded....

There's a nice piece (although full of typos) on the effects of such an event and social media here:
Braehead Row Puts Scotland on the Map for PR and Social Media Disasters - The CIPR Conversation