login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > mall cop vs. bystanders with camera phones Search   Reply
12345last
Photographer
4point0
Posts: 687
Los Angeles, California, US


This would be hilarious if I didn't think about where she learned that line of instruction.

http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/ohio-m … deo-29639/

OK- maybe it's still hilarious.
May 20 13 10:05 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
-Ira
Posts: 2,187
New York, New York, US


Why is that hilarious?  If that is private property and she represents the owners she has the right to ask them to leave.  When they don't they are trespassing.
May 20 13 11:33 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Matthew Gwinn
Posts: 129
Ypsilanti, Michigan, US


Although they have every right to ask me to leave the property and even call the cops if I don't, they certainly don't have the right to "confiscate" my property or to assault me.

It didn't even look like they were taking pictures of mall property. It seemed like they were taking pictures "from" mall property, so I'm not sure what the real issue was.
May 20 13 11:48 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 4,811
Antioch, California, US


-Ira wrote:
Why is that hilarious?  If that is private property and she represents the owners she has the right to ask them to leave.  When they don't they are trespassing.

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.

I hope the rent-a-cop got charged with assault, I hope she lost her minimum wage job, I hope her employer has to pay to settle a dozen lawsuits...

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

May 20 13 11:52 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
-Ira
Posts: 2,187
New York, New York, 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.

I hope the rent-a-cop got charged with assault, I hope she lost her minimum wage job, I hope her employer has to pay to settle a dozen lawsuits...

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

Agreed.  She does not have the authority to confiscate their property and demand they erase the images.

They outnumbered her and were taunting her by yelling back and standing their ground to spite her.  They should have simply left.

May 20 13 11:56 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 15,452
Orlando, Florida, US


Matthew Gwinn wrote:
Although they have every right to ask me to leave the property and even call the cops if I don't, they certainly don't have the right to "confiscate" my property or to assault me.

It didn't even look like they were taking pictures of mall property. It seemed like they were taking pictures "from" mall property, so I'm not sure what the real issue was.

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.

May 20 13 11:56 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
-Ira
Posts: 2,187
New York, New York, US


Glad that guy in the orange t-shirt showed up to separate them.  Those other people who all just stood around watching the two go at it should be ashamed of themselves.  Seem like bullies and cowards to me.
May 20 13 12:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
robert b mitchell
Posts: 1,378
Surrey, British Columbia, Canada


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.
May 20 13 12:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Evan Hiltunen
Posts: 3,169
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US


Force causes resistance. Pretty standard knowledge.

It appears that the security guard started off with a belligerent attitude, the people responded in a heckling, resisting manner, then the guard escalated the situation physically and got put in her place.

The guard needs extensive training in diffusing situations and needs training in hand to hand combat.

Pretty much everyone was, or became, a jerk in this situation, but the guard was responsible for her own humiliation.
May 20 13 12:20 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,771
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Good Egg Productions wrote:
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.

They will only get mine if they are making me an offer I can't refuse. [wink, wink]. Other than that they can call the local cops and put me out for trespass. That's it!

Studio36

May 20 13 12:20 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,771
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


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.

If you watch closely Barney Fife[ette] was reaching for her mace but just couldn't get at it before the other chick got her by the throat.

1) She identified herself as "officer - - - "] which may in fact be against the law [impersonating a real officer?];

2) She assaulted the other chick first;

3) Someone needs to tell her that she should call for back-up before doing any of that shit she was doing;

4) She really needs a shirt that fits!

Studio36

May 20 13 12:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Good Egg Productions
Posts: 15,452
Orlando, Florida, US


studio36uk wrote:

They will only get mine if they are making me an offer I can't refuse. [wink, wink]. Other than that they can call the local cops and put me out for trespass. That's it!

Studio36

Please let me know when you will be doing this.  I want a front row seat.

May 20 13 12:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 4,811
Antioch, California, 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.

Nevada gaming laws may impact that situation, I dont know.

Otherwise it may vary from state to state, but I dont believe they have a legal right to confiscate anything, or to demand you erase the images. They may be able to sue in a court of law and get a court order restricting any use of those images, but not an on-the-spot confiscation.

They most certainly can ask you to leave, the police will help if you refuse.

May 20 13 12:32 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,771
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Good Egg Productions wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
They will only get mine if they are making me an offer I can't refuse. [wink, wink]. Other than that they can call the local cops and put me out for trespass. That's it!

Studio36

Please let me know when you will be doing this.  I want a front row seat.

AFAIK there is NO current actual law, state or county [as to the strip], or, in the city of LV any city ordinance, prohibiting photography in casinos. All they've got is a trespass.

A couple of years old but still worth a read - see:
http://www.vegasphotographyblog.com/201 … s-casinos/

Studio36

May 20 13 12:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Matthew Gwinn
Posts: 129
Ypsilanti, Michigan, 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.

They don't actually. It's a common misconception because so many people let it happen. Even police can't legally take your camera unless you've been arrested. Even then, they can't make you delete your images without a court order. Granted some cops don't really care.

Generally it's better to just let them erase the images than to risk getting arrested for trespassing, or getting banned from whatever business you happen to be in, but just because people succumb to intimidation doesn't make it legal.

May 20 13 12:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
P O T T S
Posts: 5,342
Lake City, Florida, US


Why does everyone think all property is public? Why does everyone assume they can do what ever they want on private property?

Lets say those 10-12 people standing there refusing to obey they wishes of the owner of the property they were standing on - lets say they ran a website and took your images and posted them there. Then laughed at you when you told them it was your property and you wanted it removed?

You still feel the same way?
May 20 13 12:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael DBA Expressions
Posts: 3,181
Lynchburg, Virginia, 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.

You can believe anything you want; the Universe is not obligated to keep a straight face. And under the laws of every state and locality in the United States of America, NOBODY has the right to confiscate your property, digital images or otherwise, (a) without a court order or (b) absent circumstances that would lead a police officer (NOT a rent-a-cop) to believe you were about to destroy evidence of a crime.

As for photos in a Las Vegas casino, I'm baffled by what that has to do with a shopping mall in Ohio. But even in that Vegas casino, they can ask you to delete them, but they still only have the power to eject you from the premises. If you refuse to delete your images, they cannot force you to do so.

P O T T S wrote:
Why does everyone think all property is public? Why does everyone assume they can do what ever they want on private property?

Lets say those 10-12 people standing there refusing to obey they wishes of the owner of the property they were standing on - lets say they ran a website and took your images and posted them there. Then laughed at you when you told them it was your property and you wanted it removed?

You still feel the same way?

What has this to do with the issue at hand? Nothing as far as I can see.

I mean, it is rude to step on somebody's toes . . . so what influence does that exert over your opinion of chocolate ice cream?

Fact: the shopping mall in the OP is private property. Fact: the management of the mall had instructed the rent-a-cop not to allow people to take photos. Fact: said cop's LEGAL authority extends to telling folks taking photos to leave, and to call for REAL cops if they refuse so they can be arrested for trespassing. When she demanded they delete their photos, she overstepped her authority. When she threatened to confiscate their phones/cameras, she was setting herself up for grand larceny charges. Anyone she touched in the process of attempting to enforce those threats has grounds for filing assault charges. Thus is the state of the law in Ohio today. And in any other state in the Union, for that matter.

May 20 13 12:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
rfordphotos
Posts: 4,811
Antioch, California, US


P O T T S wrote:
Why does everyone think all property is public? Why does everyone assume they can do what ever they want on private property?

Lets say those 10-12 people standing there refusing to obey they wishes of the owner of the property they were standing on - lets say they ran a website and took your images and posted them there. Then laughed at you when you told them it was your property and you wanted it removed?

You still feel the same way?

nobody said the property owner didnt have a right to ask them to stop and leave the property. They do have that right.

What they dont have is the right to physically assault anyone, they dont have the right to confiscate property with out a court order, they dont have the right to delete any photos.

May 20 13 12:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,116
Tampa, Florida, US


studio36uk wrote:
3) Someone needs to tell her that she should call for back-up before doing any of that shit she was doing;

I'm pretty sure her backup was sampling the freebies in the Food Court.

May 20 13 12:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,116
Tampa, Florida, US


rfordphotos wrote:
nobody said the property owner didnt have a right to ask them to stop and leave the property. They do have that right.

What they dont have is the right to physically assault anyone, they dont have the right to confiscate property with out a court order, they dont have the right to delete any photos.

+1

We'll also see how much that security guards actions "represent the owner's interests" of the property, after they fire her for cause (if they haven't already).

May 20 13 12:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,116
Tampa, Florida, US


I do have to give the Mall Cop props though...that is one fierce Dudley Dooright hat they have her sporting.
May 20 13 12:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ELiffmann
Posts: 1,404
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, US


P O T T S wrote:
Why does everyone think all property is public? Why does everyone assume they can do what ever they want on private property?

Lets say those 10-12 people standing there refusing to obey they wishes of the owner of the property they were standing on - lets say they ran a website and took your images and posted them there. Then laughed at you when you told them it was your property and you wanted it removed?

You still feel the same way?

I see your point but that location certainly didn't have the "feel" of mall property.  To me it looks like a public road paid for with tax dollars.

May 20 13 12:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
P O T T S
Posts: 5,342
Lake City, Florida, US


ELiffmann wrote:
I see your point but that location certainly didn't have the "feel" of mall property.  To me it looks like a public road paid for with tax dollars.

IT looks like the perimiter road of the parking lot at many malls. She might not have the authority to confiscate, but she does have the authority to tell them to leave. And what do they do? Laugh? really? It would be funny as hell to watch real cops show up and cuff them all for tresspass. No asking to leave - that already happened and they refused.

As far as deleting the images - she may not be able to tell them to delete them, but if their property is in it, Ohio has a right to publicity law, they can refuse to allow ANY publication of any of the images, including all those people putting them on their favorite social media.

We seem to only repsect private property rights when we - (modern society) when it is ours. Everyone thinks everything is public domain - from private real estate, to music and images on the internet.

May 20 13 01:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
P O T T S
Posts: 5,342
Lake City, Florida, US


rfordphotos wrote:

nobody said the property owner didnt have a right to ask them to stop and leave the property. They do have that right.

What they dont have is the right to physically assault anyone, they dont have the right to confiscate property with out a court order, they dont have the right to delete any photos.

Nope, but they can legally not allow them to be published.

May 20 13 01:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Guss W
Posts: 10,596
Clearwater, Florida, US


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

Why not.  It's editorial.

May 20 13 01:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
nyk fury
Posts: 2,918
Port Townsend, Washington, US


gonna be interesting when google glass is everywhere.
May 20 13 01:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
P O T T S
Posts: 5,342
Lake City, Florida, US


Guss W wrote:

Why not.  It's editorial.

They were tresspassing and there is a right to publicity law.

May 20 13 01:23 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,771
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


P O T T S wrote:
Ohio has a right to publicity law, they can refuse to allow ANY publication of any of the images,

PROPERTY does NOT have a right of publicity. Only people do. Your dog, cat, car, boat, and that mall property, don't!

Studio36

May 20 13 01:25 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,771
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


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

ONLY if they go to the trouble of getting an injunction signed by a REAL judge.

Studio36

May 20 13 01:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Guss W
Posts: 10,596
Clearwater, Florida, US


robert b mitchell wrote:
... It is Also sad to see other people standing around  like a bunch of morons and not attempt to break up the scuffle...

Not all justice is dispensed in a courtroom.

May 20 13 01:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Guss W
Posts: 10,596
Clearwater, Florida, US


studio36uk wrote:

ONLY if they go to the trouble of getting an injunction signed by a REAL judge.

Studio36

What basis in law would they have?

May 20 13 01:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Guss W
Posts: 10,596
Clearwater, Florida, US


P O T T S wrote:
...
They were tresspassing and there is a right to publicity law.

Cites please, on the publicity law?

May 20 13 01:29 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,771
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Guss W wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
ONLY if they go to the trouble of getting an injunction signed by a REAL judge.

Studio36

What basis in law would they have?

That remains to be seen, however, it could very well hinge on a condition, asked for and imposed by a court, as part of a trespass conviction applied to the photographer. Keeping in mind that some [but not all] states prohibit a convicted wrongdoer from profiting from his/her wrongful act.

If the REAL police showed up and asked everyone to leave the property, and they did, it is quite unlikely that a conviction, or even a charge, much less an arrest, would ever happen.

Studio36

May 20 13 01:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ed Woodson Photography
Posts: 2,644
Savannah, Georgia, US


The article says that the accident was "near" the Mall.  Why would near the mall be of any concern to the rent-a-cop?
May 20 13 01:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Guss W
Posts: 10,596
Clearwater, Florida, US


P O T T S wrote:
...
They were tresspassing and there is a right to publicity law.

Cite?
It's already published - It's on YouTube.

May 20 13 01:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Big A-Larger Than Life
Posts: 33,410
The Woodlands, Texas, US


Guss W wrote:

Not all justice is dispensed in a courtroom.

Is any justice dispensed in court rooms?   big_smile

May 20 13 01:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photomezzo
Posts: 235
Venice, California, US


studio36uk wrote:

PROPERTY does NOT have a right of publicity. Only people do. Your dog, cat, car, boat, and that mall property, don't!

Studio36

Oddly enough, from the ASMP:

A property release says that the owner of a certain property, such as a pet or a building, has given you consent to take and use images of the property. You don’t need one for public property, such as government buildings (although you may run into problems just from photographing them, for security reasons). But for images of private property — and particularly of objects that are closely identified with specific people — you are safer if you get a release.

This is why almost all stock photo sites ask for property releases.

May 20 13 01:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Michelle Genevieve
Posts: 933
Austin, Texas, US


Guss W wrote:
Not all justice is dispensed in a courtroom.

Ooh!  That's a great tagline for the movie to be made from this episode . . .

"Not all justice is dispensed in a courtroom. There's street justice, and then there's (hip music sfx) MALL JUSTICE!

Steven Seagal IS Officer Adams in MALL JUSTICE!"

May 20 13 01:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Guss W
Posts: 10,596
Clearwater, Florida, US


Ed Woodson Photography wrote:
The article says that the accident was "near" the Mall.  Why would near the mall be of any concern to the rent-a-cop?

The mall's concern was probably a matter of traffic control within the mall.  They wouldn't want gawkers stepping in front of a car on their land.
Still, the proper (and safer) procedure would have been to watch traffic while calling the police.

May 20 13 01:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
P O T T S
Posts: 5,342
Lake City, Florida, US


studio36uk wrote:

PROPERTY does NOT have a right of publicity. Only people do. Your dog, cat, car, boat, and that mall property, don't!

Studio36

Then why do we often need to have property releases, allowing the use of the image of property - be it real estate, cars, etc?

May 20 13 02:21 pm  Link  Quote 
12345last   Search   Reply