Taking "secret" photographs inside a shop?

The statement "So, whatever I think is fine I will do"
 
Bend The Light said:
Because, if you were asked not to take photos, but decided to do it anyway as it doesn't even crop up on your "moral radar" you make out that all photographers are morons.

Think about it...the people in the shop, or the owners of the shop will not be saying "Oooh, how annoying...that ernesto is one naughty chap for taking those photos".
No, what they will say is "Bloody photographers! Is nothing sacred anymore...That's it...no more photographers in this shop...no more photographers in my big shopping centre...etc."

So, you manage to tar every photographer with the same brush because your "moral Radar" is not up to scratch. Thanks a bunch...
Click to expand...

Best to stick to a factual approach for this type of discussion. What the shop owner may or may not think is unknown. If there is already a law against taking photos in a shop then how would breaking that law change anything for the shop owner. If the shop owner had a shoplifter would then they say "no more people in my shop as they are all shoplifters"?
You are tarring everyone with the same brush, not me.
 
Jesus !

from this thread one can assume that it's the matter of national security and should be the first thing they talk in House of Commons.

chill out ffs !

if the store says no (which they all do as it is their property) and you still do it's your own risk. but just to blindly follow the rules is more stupid, as we can remember there was an issue with dad taking snaps of his daughter in shopping mall.
 
munch said:
The statement "So, whatever I think is fine I will do"
Click to expand...

Back to the question I was asked - have you ever broken a law in your life and if you have how why, because you felt it was acceptable to you?
 
There seems to be a lot of talk about "law" here when we are talking about what is purely a civil matter as there is no "law" against photography on private land in the UK.

The landowner can ask someone not to take photos or post signs saying photography is not allowed but there is certainly no law to say photography is banned by default.

If you ingore this rule they can ask you to leave and use force if you refuse, but there is no law broken so long as you leave when asked to as until you refuse to leave it remains purely a civil matter.
 
ernesto said:
Best to stick to a factual approach for this type of discussion. What the shop owner may or may not think is unknown. If there is already a law against taking photos in a shop then how would breaking that law change anything for the shop owner. If the shop owner had a shoplifter would then they say "no more people in my shop as they are all shoplifters"?
You are tarring everyone with the same brush, not me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok. Whatever. I am sorry at the state that this country, and no doubt many other countries in the world are in. I shall leave this thread now...it is a shame the lack of respect that so many people have. Obviously they haven't been taught basic manners or common sense...
 
boliston said:
I can't really see the big deal here - I have taken quite a few pictures in shops, supermarkets and malls but have simply been discreet and hardly ever get any bother even though I have a D700 which is not small. If you take pics in front of a store detective then they will likely tell you to stop, but common sense is the key here.
Click to expand...

Common sense tells me- dont do it- you have been Refused Permission and it is after all Private Property :shrug:

Find a friendly independant retailer and GET PERMISSION, is my advice

Les :thumbs:
 
Bend The Light said:
Yeah, ok. Whatever. I am sorry at the state that this country, and no doubt many other countries in the world are in. I shall leave this thread now...it is a shame the lack of respect that so many people have. Obviously they haven't been taught basic manners or common sense...
Click to expand...

+1
 
Philx1979 said:
like that guy who was stood outside Golden Wonder factory ... but did he really want a picture of a golden wonder factory?
Click to expand...
Yes, as he was documenting the local industries for a website. A project that he'd been doing for about 5 years at that point.
 
The bit I have trouble with is why, despite being refused permission YOU seem bent on finding a way around it.
Now your friend is the art student but has no idea of composition and seems unable to even use a mobile phone to take his/her own pictures. I think theres more going on here than we are being told......
 
swanseamale47 said:
The bit I have trouble with is why, despite being refused permission YOU seem bent on finding a way around it.
Now your friend is the art student but has no idea of composition and seems unable to even use a mobile phone to take his/her own pictures. I think theres more going on here than we are being told......
Click to expand...

well said :thumbs:
 
Is it a particular shop you need to get the photos of? I have just spoken to a store manager of our local HMV shop. Ok I said I was enquiring on behalf of my stepson who is doing an art project and needs a few shots of inside the shop. He was more than obliging and just pointed out that obviously there are a couple of restrictions, but if he whent in and spoke to him there would be no problem. My advice would be " Shop Around " :D
 
swanseamale47 said:
The bit I have trouble with is why, despite being refused permission YOU seem bent on finding a way around it.
Now your friend is the art student but has no idea of composition and seems unable to even use a mobile phone to take his/her own pictures. I think theres more going on here than we are being told......
Click to expand...

You mean you think his friend is really a Russian spy trying to infiltrate the capitalist societies from the insides?
 
HMansfield said:
Yes, as he was documenting the local industries for a website. A project that he'd been doing for about 5 years at that point.
Click to expand...

then he could have gone a better way about it, he would have sought permission beforehand OR got the pic and moved on instead of hanging around and making the situation worse, POINTLESS
 
Anyway

back to the OP`s question...

no its not worth the hassle if they have already said no, just ask another shop, if they say no tell your mate its not `doable`
 
If you rent enough of the dvds you could turn your living room into a mock store.
 
I've got quite a large DVD collection.....
Oh sorry it's against the law to take photos in my house....
Well that's what my daughters keep telling me when I point the camera at them :p

Seriously though, I have to agree, that if you ask permission and it's refused, then end of....
 
I ain't read the whole thread but here is an idea, not sure its been mentioned yet.
Some shops are now viewable on Google street maps. You can walk right in and have a ganders.
Maybe this would be an idea instead of covertly sneaking shots. Also what is the result of these images? Could they be potentially damaging to the store, its owners and staff? If so then just scrap the idea and move on as you may just upset the wrong person in your quest for photographs of dvd racks
 
boliston said:
There seems to be a lot of talk about "law" here when we are talking about what is purely a civil matter as there is no "law" against photography on private land in the UK.

The landowner can ask someone not to take photos or post signs saying photography is not allowed but there is certainly no law to say photography is banned by default.

If you ingore this rule they can ask you to leave and use force if you refuse, but there is no law broken so long as you leave when asked to as until you refuse to leave it remains purely a civil matter.
Click to expand...

Minor point; I've suggested before that you don't have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to legal matters, and you seem to be proving it again.

Civil law is law, full stop. If you've been told in advance that you cannot photograph on private property, then you are committing trespass. Yup, it's not an arrestable offence, but it is still against the common law of trespass - in this case trespass against goods, for which you can be sued.
 
Last edited:
Simon photo said:
I ain't read the whole thread but here is an idea, not sure its been mentioned yet.
Some shops are now viewable on Google street maps. You can walk right in and have a ganders.
Maybe this would be an idea instead of covertly sneaking shots. Also what is the result of these images? Could they be potentially damaging to the store, its owners and staff? If so then just scrap the idea and move on as you may just upset the wrong person in your quest for photographs of dvd racks
Click to expand...

Google maps won't allow you to "walk in" and have a look, and even if you could you couldn't use them as all google earth / streetmap images are subject to copyright!
 
odd jim said:
Google maps won't allow you to "walk in" and have a look, and even if you could you couldn't use them as all google earth / streetmap images are subject to copyright!
Click to expand...
http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html
For permissions from Google
http://www.gadgetreview.com/2012/01/google-street-view-offering-store-view.html
To walk around a shop with street view, and oh! One of the first to sign up was rather fitting as it was the Manhattan branch of b&h
And for the cherry on the top
http://www.photomichaelwolf.com/intro/index.html
Just one of many artists using street view as part of their medium.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Minor point; I've suggested before that you don't have a clue what you are talking about when it comes to legal matters, and you seem to be proving it again.

Civil law is law, full stop. If you've been told in advance that you cannot photograph on private property, then you are committing trespass. Yup, it's not an arrestable offence, but it is still against the common law of trespass - in this case trespass against goods, for which you can be sued.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to know how they would sue if I had caused no damage.

Also I would not be legally obliged to give any personal details to a security guard and I'm pretty sure they would need some sort of details in order to sue in the first place.
 
boliston said:
I'd be interested to know how they would sue if I had caused no damage.

Also I would not be legally obliged to give any personal details to a security guard and I'm pretty sure they would need some sort of details in order to sue in the first place.
Click to expand...

An owner doesn't need to stop you on the premises. They can sue after the event, when the photograph appears in public.
 
DemiLion said:
An owner doesn't need to stop you on the premises. They can sue after the event, when the photograph appears in public.
Click to expand...

at which point they'd have your details from the college - QED or whoever publshed/displayed the prints

also you don't have to cause damage (in fact if you did cause damage that would be an agravating act making you potentially liable for agravated tresspass/criminal damage both of which are arrestable ) if photography is banned and you have been notified of this but choose to still take them you can be sued for the act of taking photographs, ie as demi said earlier 'tresspass against goods'
 
Last edited:
An interesting thread with a clear majority agreeing that if permission is sought and refused, don't do it. I am also in this camp.

On a lighter note, for blatant disregard of no photography rules, go and visit the Drach caves on Majorca. Despite signs at the entrance, and a prohibition printed on the tickets in multiple languages, the enduring memory is a constant illumination by flash and the guides chasing around everywhere yelling 'no photos'. All nationalities were at it, even shoving the guides out of the way to get the shot.
 
ernesto said:
You mean you think his friend is really a Russian spy trying to infiltrate the capitalist societies from the insides?
Click to expand...

Errr... I have to admit that wasn't my first thought, but now you mention it... :D
 
big soft moose said:
at which point they'd have your details from the college - QED or whoever publshed/displayed the prints
.....
Click to expand...

I'd imagine a college would be in a lot of trouble if they passed student's personal details to a third party as this would be a serious breach of the data protection act.

That would definitely be a criminal rather than civil matter!
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
I'd imagine a college would be in a lot of trouble if they passed student's personal details to a third party as this would be a serious breach of the data protection act.

That would definitely be a criminal rather than civil matter!
Click to expand...

Again your lack of grasp of the law is breath taking

for a start breaching the DPA isnt an arresstable offence , again its a civil matter that would be resolved by suit

secondly if you are displaying work in an exhibition its usual to have your name on the prints - and in this day an age given a name it wouldnt be difficult to get an address

and thirdly the agreived party could slap a suit on the college or publisher for publishing/displaying photo's taken on private property without consent - at the very least this would force them to take them down (which wouldnt have good consequences iif the exhibition was part of a course work assignment), and its likely that they would also have to name the photographer as part of their defence to said suit
 
Mods - you may as well lock the thead....

Some accept NO means NO!!!
Others think they can do what they like...

It's life - ain't one camp going to change the others mind....

I pass a car every morning on my way to work parked on double yellow lines on a bend outside a school.....the justification being he is dropping his kids off.....
It just makes me laugh that he would do this up until the point a police car etc was parked within range and then strangle he would nt do it.....
 
2blue4u said:
It's his project. Tell him to go take the pictures himself.
Click to expand...
I agree, tell your mate to do it themselves. If I was going to do a nice photoshoot in the park with a model, I would want to do it myself.

But if it was covert or sneaky pics that could land me in trouble, I will ask a mate to do it instead ;)
 
kennysarmy said:
Mods - you may as well lock the thead....

Some accept NO means NO!!!
Others think they can do what they like...
Click to expand...

Nobody is forcing you to read or contribute to the thread if you don't like it.

Anyway I am not simply going to blindly follow every instruction when told "No" - for example about 3 years ago I was photographing at Temple Quay in Bristol which is privately owned and was told by a security guard that they do not allow photos to be taken at Temple Quay. As I was only passing though I was not really bothered, but I can see that it is a popular place for photography generally and it's a bit strange that they have banned photography there.

If I were to blindly follow the "No" rule then it means I should never again take any photo at Temple Quay as I have been told it is banned yet I often see other people happily snapping away there so I continue to take photos there as it's one of the main pedestrian routes between the station and the city - I guess this makes me a "bad" person!
 
Right, all round to Boliston's house to take some pictures. Don't mind do you mate? :D
 
boliston said:
If I were to blindly follow the "No" rule then it means I should never again take any photo at Temple Quay as I have been told it is banned yet I often see other people happily snapping away there so I continue to take photos there as it's one of the main pedestrian routes between the station and the city - I guess this makes me a "bad" person!
Click to expand...

people keep telling me that robbing banks and burgaling houses is against the law, but i've seen all these other people doing it on crimewatch , so if I do it too it'll be okay :shrug:

also loads of people speed everday so theres clearly no need for me to follow the speed limit :shake:

and all these chav's are driving round in untaxed, uninsured , un mot'd cars so I neednt bother with any of that red tape :thinking:

And if anyone doesnt like it i can smack them in the face because load of other people do that :bang:

*heads off to rob boliston of his camera kit, driving like a **** in an undeclared red top corsa *
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Again your lack of grasp of the law is breath taking

for a start breaching the DPA isnt an arresstable offence , again its a civil matter that would be resolved by suit
Click to expand...

You're just making this up as you go along. The DPA defines a number of criminal acts that can result in prison sentences.
 
boliston said:
for example about 3 years ago I was photographing at Temple Quay in Bristol which is privately owned and was told by a security guard that they do not allow photos to be taken at Temple Quay. As I was only passing though I was not really bothered, but I can see that it is a popular place for photography generally and it's a bit strange that they have banned photography there.

If I were to blindly follow the "No" rule then it means I should never again take any photo at Temple Quay as I have been told it is banned yet I often see other people happily snapping away there so I continue to take photos there as it's one of the main pedestrian routes between the station and the city - I guess this makes me a "bad" person!
Click to expand...

Photography isn't banned in Temple Quay, though you might get asked what you are doing.
 
Johnd2000 said:
You're just making this up as you go along. The DPA defines a number of criminal acts that can result in prison sentences.
Click to expand...

it does , but releasing data as discussed on this thread isnt one of them and the college releasing the name and address of a student who had committed an act of trespass against property by covertly taking photos on private land where permission had been refused , would not in fact be breaching the DPA at all because DPA 1998 , section 35, sub section 2 provides

Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary— .
(a)for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or .
(b)for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, .
or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights
Click to expand...

the full act can be viewed here for anyone who want to check
 
Last edited:
ZoneV said:
Right, all round to Boliston's house to take some pictures. Don't mind do you mate? :D
Click to expand...

Realise said in jest but I think this is the key difference here. A shop is virtually a public place, in fact they want people to come in to the shop as they may buy something. That is a totally different situation to a house.

This is why I don't see the problem with taking photos in a shop. However if told not too then I wouldn't as that is the polite thing to do (I don't really care about the legalities)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top