Forums > Photography Talk > mall cop vs. bystanders with camera phones

Photographer

rp_photo

Posts: 42494

Houston, Texas, US

rp_photo wrote:
An emotional response and perhaps fueled by a bit of drink smile

-Ira wrote:
Cheers.  Next round is on me!

On top of that, I saw her as symbol of the excessive rules and regulations forced on us today.

May 20 13 07:56 pm Link

Photographer

-Ira

Posts: 2187

New York, New York, US

rp_photo wrote:

rp_photo wrote:
An emotional response and perhaps fueled by a bit of drink smile

On top of that, I saw her as symbol of the excessive rules and regulations forced on us today.

Yeah, I hear that.  It's quite frustrating to me as well.  Especially living in NYC, the US capital of terrorism.  I frequently run into overzealous authority figures who overstep their bounds.  That said I've never allowed any of those situations to escalate into physical confrontations.

May 20 13 08:10 pm Link

Photographer

4point0

Posts: 687

Los Angeles, California, US

rp_photo wrote:

rp_photo wrote:
An emotional response and perhaps fueled by a bit of drink smile

On top of that, I saw her as symbol of the excessive rules and regulations forced on us today.

Yay! Finally someone sees the point to my original post. Yay.

The reference to how she (the guard) learned her behavior is a direct reference to how the police react to being lawfully documented in the line of duty with endless references of passerby being prosecuted criminally for doing so legally. Shocked it's taken so long for anyone to see the reference.

Are we as a culture so beaten down that we are willing to hand over basic rights because a mall cop demands we delete images? Oh, I on command of the grand mall pooh-bah demand you delete your images.

And somehow you're breaking the law if you "disobey"?

May 20 13 08:47 pm Link

Photographer

AJ_In_Atlanta

Posts: 12835

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Wow more wild speculation and Internet lawyers.  They can restrict people on private property but there is a case of news worthy events; as it was the scene of major accident it would be one.  Perhaps some PJs can chime in, I am sure sure there are differences between locals

May 20 13 09:06 pm Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10556

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

AJScalzitti wrote:
Wow more wild speculation and Internet lawyers.  They can restrict people on private property but there is a case of news worthy events; as it was the scene of major accident it would be one.  Perhaps some PJs can chime in, I am sure sure there are differences between locals

there is no special legal protection afforded journalists.  no one is under any obligation to let them cross police lines or enter private property without permission - newsworthy or not.

May 20 13 09:10 pm Link

Photographer

4point0

Posts: 687

Los Angeles, California, US

AJScalzitti wrote:
Wow more wild speculation and Internet lawyers.  They can restrict people on private property but there is a case of news worthy events; as it was the scene of major accident it would be one.  Perhaps some PJs can chime in, I am sure sure there are differences between locals

May 20 13 09:27 pm Link

Photographer

rp_photo

Posts: 42494

Houston, Texas, US

I'm beginning to think that the whole thing was staged, possibly someone's attempt at a short film or a school project. The guard in particular comes across as someone who is into the villian role, and the uniform somehow seems cobbled together and sized for someone larger:

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/adams-298x300.jpg

The fight scene also come across as being rehearsed.

Also, it could very well be along a public roadside, as I don't see any evidence of Mall nearby.

May 20 13 09:30 pm Link

Photographer

4point0

Posts: 687

Los Angeles, California, US

rp_photo wrote:
I'm thinking there's the possibility that the whole thing was staged, possibly someone's attempt at a short film or a school project. The guard in particular comes across as someone who is enjoying acting their role, and her uniform somehow seems cobbled together:

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/adams-298x300.jpg

The fight scene also come across as being rehearsed.

That's what I said to my husband. It's almost a perfect viral from the mall cop's behavior to the bystanders to the eventual shove/ fight to the driver that breaks it up.

/side note. Not to detract from the corrosion of constitutional rights conversation.

May 20 13 09:40 pm Link

Photographer

-Ira

Posts: 2187

New York, New York, US

rp_photo wrote:
I'm beginning to think that the whole thing was staged, possibly someone's attempt at a short film or a school project. The guard in particular comes across as someone who is into the villian role, and the uniform somehow seems cobbled together and sized for someone larger:

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/adams-298x300.jpg

The fight scene also come across as being rehearsed.

Also, it could very well be along a public roadside, as I don't see any evidence of Mall nearby.

Someone call Alex Jones:

http://www.infowars.com/support-tickets/

May 20 13 09:41 pm Link

Photographer

rp_photo

Posts: 42494

Houston, Texas, US

Fat Kitty Studios wrote:
That's what I said to my husband. It's almost a perfect viral from the mall cop's behavior to the bystanders to the eventual shove/ fight to the driver that breaks it up.

/side note. Not to detract from the corrosion of constitutional rights conversation.

If it is fake, it has fooled a lot of people.

May 20 13 09:41 pm Link

Photographer

Matthew Gwinn

Posts: 129

Ypsilanti, Michigan, US

Here's the news footage shot from 10 feet away from where the fight happened. You can see the same security guard at the 0:19 mark. She didn't seem to have any issues with anyone at that time.

http://www.wtrf.com/story/22215509/truc … alley-mall

May 20 13 09:54 pm Link

Photographer

4point0

Posts: 687

Los Angeles, California, US

Isn't that the brilliance of viral?

Back to the matter at hand if we can. More viral brilliance detracting from the real issue- never mind the man behind the curtain.

May 20 13 09:58 pm Link

Photographer

Eros Fine Art Photo

Posts: 2600

Torrance, California, US

I've read some articles on the what happened.  The mall also provided a statement to the media. 

Apparently, there was a huge accident on some freeway or something nearby.  These people were standing on the mall property, but shooting video and photos of the crash.  The security guard told them to stop filming and asked them to leave, but the situation escalated. Hence the video. 

In my opinion, the security guard should not have made a major out of a minor.  They were doing what tons of people do (now that camera phones and video are so common) and taking photos of something news worthy. 

Ideally, she should've kindly asked them to step off the property and directed to another area where they'd be free to shoot all they want.  In turn, the people there should've respected her request and walked away.  Both sides were stupid though and allowed their egos to get in the way of better judgement. 

From the article I read, the mall supports the actions of the guard and are in contact with the local sheriff's department, regarding assault charges against the woman who fought the guard. 

For what it's worth, I'd say the guard was within her right to escalate her use of force from verbal commands to some type of control hold (In her right, but definitely NOT the best course of action; especially since she's outnumbered and hasn't called for backup).  She's performing her job, so when the woman fought back, SHE actually put herself in the position of being the law breaker.  It's no different if a doorman at a bar asks you to leave and you resist. 

Also, just because she calls herself "Officer", that is NOT the same as "Impersonating an Officer".  Security Guard/Security Officer are synonymous and interchangeable. That particular crime is for anyone who is not a member of law enforcement AND tries to impose some sort of unlawful detention against someone for either financial gain or intimidation.

May 20 13 10:14 pm Link

Photographer

Robert Lynch

Posts: 2484

Bowie, Maryland, US

nyk fury wrote:
think the problem there is that it says 'copyright' rather than 'trademark'.

Copyright is what was being discussed, however, if you think trademark attempts are a sure thing, ask the owners of the Rock ‘N Roll Hall of Fame Museum how well their trademark lawsuit worked out for them.

May 20 13 10:22 pm Link

Photographer

Imageography

Posts: 6768

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Regardless of the outcome, the fact I quit my security job after 1 night now seems like an even better idea after seeing this from both sides of the coin.

No respect for Mall cops, and Mall cops think they are the terminator.

May 20 13 10:51 pm Link

Photographer

Ruben Sanchez

Posts: 3503

San Antonio, Texas, US

rfordphotos wrote:
That may be true, however she had NO right to assault the woman, or demand the images be erased, or to threaten confiscating the cameras.

Put a uniform on a moron---get moronic behavior.

I think they do have a right to demand the images be erased and confiscate the cameras, since it is private property.  Someone comes into your home, takes a photo of your wife (the mall stores) in the bathtub, after you've asked them to leave, and now who has rights?

Is there a lawyer in the house?  Everyone with a camera now thinks they can violate all the rights of others.  Even better, try taking a photo of the inside of the Alamo, and see how quickly all your stuff is confiscated.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

May 20 13 11:19 pm Link

Photographer

Seismic Images

Posts: 525

Morisset, New South Wales, Australia

The modern age saddens my soul...

May 20 13 11:23 pm Link

Photographer

Big Apple Models

Posts: 340

New York, New York, US

If it's staged, she deserves an internet Emmy.

rp_photo wrote:
I'm beginning to think that the whole thing was staged, possibly someone's attempt at a short film or a school project. The guard in particular comes across as someone who is into the villian role, and the uniform somehow seems cobbled together and sized for someone larger:

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/adams-298x300.jpg

The fight scene also come across as being rehearsed.

Also, it could very well be along a public roadside, as I don't see any evidence of Mall nearby.

May 21 13 01:47 am Link

Photographer

Virtual Studio

Posts: 5825

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Eros Fine Art Photo wrote:
From the article I read, the mall supports the actions of the guard and are in contact with the local sheriff's department, regarding assault charges against the woman who fought the guard. 

For what it's worth, I'd say the guard was within her right to escalate her use of force from verbal commands to some type of control hold (In her right, but definitely NOT the best course of action; especially since she's outnumbered and hasn't called for backup).  She's performing her job, so when the woman fought back, SHE actually put herself in the position of being the law breaker.  It's no different if a doorman at a bar asks you to leave and you resist.

????

So if people dont do what you tell them then it's OK to hit them?

I thought that's what calling the police was for - so that we dont have to resort to physical violence as soon as someone does something we done agree with.

May 21 13 04:19 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 21900

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

Clarence Zimmerman wrote:
Some will argue that so is taking a photograph of a building. most Architects these days not only retain copyrights to their buildings but they are also starting to trademark them or at least trademark certain features of them.

There is a  - - - B I G - - - exception in the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act [see: 17 USC Ch1 §120] to the effect that photographing a building that is subject to copyright is not an infringement of that copyright.

§120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works

(a) Pictorial representations permitted. The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

Trademarks are a much more arcane area of protected IP, however, and merely taking a photograph of something that may be trademarked [registered, unregistered, or a service mark] does not in and of itself infringe the mark. The use of the photograph might but that is a completely different matter altogether.

Something ^^^^ to keep in mind next time some rent-a-cop runs out to tell you that the building is copyrighted / trademarked and you can't take pictures of it.

Studio36

May 21 13 04:38 am Link

Photographer

Caradoc

Posts: 19743

Scottsdale, Arizona, US

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
I think they do have a right to demand the images be erased and confiscate the cameras, since it is private property.

You'd be wrong. Very wrong, as it turns out.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf - well worth a reading.

May 21 13 05:58 am Link

Photographer

Caradoc

Posts: 19743

Scottsdale, Arizona, US

Oh, and it looks to me like the "road" they're on *is* mall property:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=ohio+val … 10847&z=17

May 21 13 05:58 am Link

Photographer

rp_photo

Posts: 42494

Houston, Texas, US

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
I think they do have a right to demand the images be erased and confiscate the cameras, since it is private property.  Someone comes into your home, takes a photo of your wife (the mall stores) in the bathtub, after you've asked them to leave, and now who has rights?

Would you passively comply and hand over your camera or erase images if confronted? Somehow I doubt it.

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to use the very weak residential private property vs. commercial private property analogy. There is an expectaton and need that the public enter commercial property unannounced but not so with residential.

Under Texas law, you would have the right to use deadly force against an intruder in your home with no duty to retreat (Castle Doctrine), and that might be the most appropriate response since sane reasonable people don't stroll into private homes and take pictures like they might at a mall.

May 21 13 06:41 am Link

Photographer

Robert Lynch

Posts: 2484

Bowie, Maryland, US

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
I think they do have a right to demand the images be erased and confiscate the cameras, since it is private property.  Someone comes into your home, takes a photo of your wife (the mall stores) in the bathtub, after you've asked them to leave, and now who has rights?

Is there a lawyer in the house?  Everyone with a camera now thinks they can violate all the rights of others.  Even better, try taking a photo of the inside of the Alamo, and see how quickly all your stuff is confiscated.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

What is it with you people in Texas that think you get to steal my property just because I'm standing on yours?  If you don't like my conduct and I'm not threatening your safety, you get to ask me to leave.  Period.  If you think I have violated your rights in some way, you get to pursue a civil action in court.  Period.  You don't get to steal my property.

May 21 13 07:07 am Link

Photographer

Richard Klein Photo

Posts: 175

Buffalo Grove, Illinois, US

On the extremely rare occasions that my wife and I have won on Las Vegas slots, we have taken pictures of the machines and ourselves with the winning jackpot and never have been approached by security telling us to stop.

May 21 13 07:11 am Link

Photographer

Image Works Photography

Posts: 2890

Orlando, Florida, US

Security guards or officers which is the stupid same thing are there to observe and report. If you are in their property you can be told to leave. If you refuse then the police can be called. The mall has the right to do so and I am sure they have a policy in place to back them up. She has a problem that many security personnel has and that's their ego- mistake number 1. Mistake # 2 is lack of show of force. Looks like she is the lone ranger.

May 21 13 07:32 am Link

Photographer

rp_photo

Posts: 42494

Houston, Texas, US

GreatMomentsPhotography wrote:
She has a problem that many security personnel has and that's their ego- mistake number 1. Mistake # 2 is lack of show of force. Looks like she is the lone ranger.

She is behaving a lot like Barney Fife, the eager deputy on the Andy Griffith show who believes in enforcement of all rules without discretion.

Yes, the mall may prohibit photography, but I'm sure that the main concern is interier prhotography that might impact with customers or store personnel vs. in the outskirts.

It also crosses the line as far as going after their "bread and butter", i.e. non-photographers who are no doubt taking pictures all over the mall property with similar devices, and probably spending money while doing so.

May 21 13 07:45 am Link

Photographer

AJ_In_Atlanta

Posts: 12835

Atlanta, Georgia, US

Fat Kitty Studios wrote:

May 21 13 07:52 am Link

Model

Big A-Larger Than Life

Posts: 33411

The Woodlands, Texas, US

Robert Lynch wrote:

What is it with you people in Texas that think you get to steal my property just because I'm standing on yours?  If you don't like my conduct and I'm not threatening your safety, you get to ask me to leave.  Period.  If you think I have violated your rights in some way, you get to pursue a civil action in court.  Period.  You don't get to steal my property.

"you people"?   Quit being racist against texans.   cool   And in Texas that's just how it works.  He who owns the land has the authoritah.  We don't pursue actions in court.  We handle it on the lawn.   big_smile

May 21 13 08:09 am Link

Photographer

Robert Lynch

Posts: 2484

Bowie, Maryland, US

Big A-Larger Than Life wrote:
"you people"?   Quit being racist against texans.   cool

Texans are a separate race?  I didn't know that. 

Rest of obvious retort redacted

May 21 13 08:32 am Link

Photographer

Image Works Photography

Posts: 2890

Orlando, Florida, US

"Race" I will keep that in mind smile

May 21 13 08:44 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Daemon

Posts: 345

West Hazleton, Pennsylvania, US

P O T T S wrote:
Nope, but they can legally not allow them to be published.

Not necessarily, they were taking shots of an accident, which is editorial. Most malls have the photography prohibited notice on the entrance doors, it would be an interesting question to see if that could apply to photos taken in an outdoor parking lot, and the images are of an event that occurred off mall property. I don't think this is nearly as cut and dried as you are presenting.

May 21 13 08:46 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Daemon

Posts: 345

West Hazleton, Pennsylvania, US

Good Egg Productions wrote:

I believe they DO have the right to confiscate your property if by property you mean your digital images.

Try taking a photo on a Las Vegas casino floor by the slot machines.  People come out of the walls and rappel from the ceilings to ask you to erase those images.

I lived in Vegas for 3 years, never had anyone ask me to not take photos on a casino floor or try to confiscate my images.

May 21 13 08:54 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Daemon

Posts: 345

West Hazleton, Pennsylvania, US

rp_photo wrote:

If it is fake, it has fooled a lot of people.

If it's a fake, why did the mall make a statement?

May 21 13 08:56 am Link

Clothing Designer

GRMACK

Posts: 2169

Bakersfield, California, US

Caradoc wrote:

You'd be wrong. Very wrong, as it turns out.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf - well worth a reading.

We have a case here now where people were using cell phones on a "public street" and they were confiscated for their videos that may incriminate the police involved in the alleged beating to death of a man.  The cell phone owners were made to wait 10 hours while a "Court order for evidence" was issued and their phones seized.

Oddly, one was returned without video (the most incriminating one).  It's made the international news too.

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/l … on-strikes

It's a big mess and who knows how it will play out.

No doubt a regular camera could be seized as well while the owner was detained, and I believe they can detain one for up to 48 hours now too.  They've done it to the local newspaper photographer here before on an editorial piece and kept him in jail (detained) for the weekend.  No formal arrest, just a detainment and release.

May 21 13 09:19 am Link

Photographer

Matthew Gwinn

Posts: 129

Ypsilanti, Michigan, US

Some cities have laws that prohibit people from filming law enforcement.
Some cities just think they have such laws.
Usually the cops just assume such laws exist and say to hell with your rights.

In regards to Vegas. I took thousands of pictures in 2006 both inside and outside the casinos. The only people that ever gave me a problems was a store that didn't want anyone taking pictures of product and they had multiple signs up.

May 21 13 09:34 am Link

Photographer

Kelvin Hammond

Posts: 17360

Billings, Montana, US

robert b mitchell wrote:
That was a minimum wage want to be displaying a maximum attempt to intimidate with her minor authority. It other words she was power tripping. It is Also sad to see other people standing around  like a bunch of morons and not attempt to break up the scuffle. I am surprised that the violence did not escalate even more to some kind of weapon.

That IS her job. I rent out my studio for security officer training, and while you might imagine that "mall cops" are powerless, their job, which they are trained to do, is to secure that property, and to use force when there is no other viable alternative, and to call the cops to assist. They are actually trained to take a bullet for you if necessary to ensure YOUR safety. The things they do are what they are instructed to do in given situations, not to impugn your freedoms, but to:

a: ensure that the property is protected
b: ensure that the business's that lease the spaces are protected
c: shoppers are protected
d: shareholders are protected

Not only do they have to deal with stupid customer shit, they have to make sure every light is working, obstructions and potholes are dealt with, and still watch for suspicious packages, while helping little old ladies to their cars. And they do all that for low wages...

Your lack of respect isn't because of them, it's solely because you appear to purposely lack respect for them.

May 21 13 09:40 am Link

Photographer

Click Hamilton

Posts: 34750

San Diego, California, US

Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat.

---


http://ridelifebmx.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/barney-fife-crop-fix.jpg

May 21 13 09:41 am Link

Photographer

Click Hamilton

Posts: 34750

San Diego, California, US

It was refreshing to see the guy with the goatee at the end of the video. I feel hope for the future.

This video illustrates so many things, in so many ways.

Soapbox is gone, so I'm not going to talk about it.


Have a nice day!

bunny

May 21 13 10:02 am Link

Photographer

Click Hamilton

Posts: 34750

San Diego, California, US

.

May 21 13 10:06 am Link