There's a weird man in the supermarket.

D

Doog

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,812
Name
Dougie
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't mind that much when I'm asked to report to the supermarket desk before taking pictures but some of the excuses are incredibly stupid like... "you know what it's like, there's lots of weird people about". I wonder if he would have said the same to someone holding a mobile phone.

Maybe he's right though, maybe I am weird. The camera goes everywhere with me:lol:
 
The phantom strawberry dodger :D
 
Doog said:
I don't mind that much when I'm asked to report to the supermarket desk before taking pictures but some of the excuses are incredibly stupid like... "you know what it's like, there's lots of weird people about". I wonder if he would have said the same to someone holding a mobile phone.

Maybe he's right though, maybe I am weird. The camera goes everywhere with me:lol:
Click to expand...

Assosia?
 
I think it's safe to say - Playgrounds and inside supermarkets are two places a big dslr will be stand out most :D

Did you get your needed shots in the end? And did you get some weird stares from the Trolley brigade?
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I think it's safe to say - Playgrounds and inside supermarkets are two places a big dslr will be stand out most :D

Did you get your needed shots in the end? And did you get some weird stares from the Trolley brigade?
Click to expand...

I was collard 30 seconds after entering the store. :lol: So no I didn't get any shots. Not to worry though, I got some the last time I was in. :D
 
Where there's a will, there's a way. I've a couple of friends at ASDA's HQ. I might be able to get you in to somewhere like the Grangemouth store for an hour or so, with the GSM's blessings, but probably not during a busy period like crimble.
 
Maybe it's just where you were pointing the camera....perhaps if you said that you were setting up a British version of peopleofwalmart dot com
 
Why does the OP seem to think he can just go into a supermarket & take photos without asking permission first?
 
munch said:
Why does the OP seem to think he can just go into a supermarket & take photos without asking permission first?
Click to expand...

Ok Munch, tell me what's on your mind. What's so wrong with taking a picture or two in a store. Anyway I said straight off I didn't mind being asked to report first to the desk. It's just the lame excuse they give you for having to do so that's annoying.
 
Doog said:
Ok Munch, tell me what's on your mind. What's so wrong with taking a picture or two in a store. Anyway I said straight off I didn't mind being asked to report first to the desk. It's just the lame excuse they give you for having to do so that's annoying.
Click to expand...

munch is right though, a supermarket is private property so they can dictate terms.

i thought it was pretty well known that a lot of supermarkets frown on photography in stores (without permission).
 
I think it depends on how discreet you are - I've taken the occasional shot in supermarkets but they key is to take a shot and move on. I'd imagine the people who have problems are those that take ages and invariably attract attention as a result. Common sense is the key.
 
common sense should dictate here....most supermarket staff aren't photographers (and therefore have no reason to know why someone would want to photograph inside a supermarket) so will be suspicious if they see someone taking pictures or even asks to take pictures.

They have every right to ask you to stop, their house, their rules.
 
Exactly. Their house there rules. No problem from my side. Why do they have a problem though. What freaks them out at the sight of a DSLR. I hadn't even put camera to eye. It was over my shoulder? What are they frightened of exactly?:shrug:
 
I'm a photographer who works in a shop, and I'd question why you want to take pictures in a supermarket!
 
Doog said:
Exactly. Their house there rules. No problem from my side. Why do they have a problem though. What freaks them out at the sight of a DSLR. I hadn't even put camera to eye. It was over my shoulder? What are they frightened of exactly?:shrug:
Click to expand...

it's down to the media and public paranoia for the most part :thumbsdown:
 
put supermarket pranks into youtube and you might see the type of thing they are trying to avoid ;)
 
if it was my shop i would say no for many reasons.

getting in the way of shoppers,potential claims if you cause damage or injure someone while you have a camera to your eye in a crowded aisle etc.etc.
 
straycat said:
if it was my shop i would say no for many reasons.

getting in the way of shoppers,potential claims if you cause damage or injure someone while you have a camera to your eye in a crowded aisle etc.etc.
Click to expand...

You are joking right? No wonder this country's in the state it's in! Anyway, that wasn't the reason given if you read my original post.
 
Private property. They don't need a reason to stop you. People who disregard the rules surrounding photography on private property are only making things harder for people with cameras in the future.
 
straycat said:
if it was my shop i would say no for many reasons.

getting in the way of shoppers,potential claims if you cause damage or injure someone while you have a camera to your eye in a crowded aisle etc.etc.
Click to expand...

There is far more risk of damage by taking a typical kid into a supermarket they way they run about and treat it like an adventure playground, but do they ban kids? :shrug:
 
norters said:
Private property. They don't need a reason to stop you. People who disregard the rules surrounding photography on private property are only making things harder for people with cameras in the future.
Click to expand...

One problem is that rules are often not made clear at the point of entry.

Often the first sign that a camera ban is in force is when you are actually approached a security guard and told there is a ban.
 
boliston said:
One problem is that rules are often not made clear at the point of entry.
Click to expand...

Nahh. Etiquette. You're under no illusions that you're entering private property. There are no signs at the entrance to a store stating that you can't eat ice cream in the store. You just don't do it, because you're not pig-ignorant.
 
boliston said:
One problem is that rules are often not made clear at the point of entry.

Often the first sign that a camera ban is in force is when you are actually approached a security guard and told there is a ban.
Click to expand...

It's a supermarket. I don't think you need a sign telling you you can't take photographs. There are literally thousands of places where it is perfectly dandy for you to the photographs. To go into one and just start snapping away seems to me like an attempt to be provocative for provocatives sake. Kind of like Eric Kim firing a Flash right in someone's grid. Absolutely no srtistic merit and only done to annoy and provoke!
 
Ok, let's expand the debate that's ensued here and I'll ask what you think of street photographers. Are they wrong to shoot on busy streets? Are they likely to cause accidents? Should they seek permission to take photographs? What about shopping malls. There's been some notable cases. How do you feel about the dad that snapped his daughter in a mall and then was made to feel like a criminal. Was that OK. Was he causing any harm by wanting to take a picture of his daughter in the mall. Maybe Boliston (above) was right when he said there should be signs up warning people that no photography with DSLRs or camera phones allowed. How many of you have whipped out the mobile to take a picture of a bar-code in-store. Should that be banned. Maybe it already is under these store rules. The lines are becoming a bit blurred now are they not?

Now I don't mind opposite views to mine but can we at least be civil to each other. The last thing I want is for this to become heated:rules:;)
 
Last edited:
the rules shouldn't really prohibit a dad taking a nice picture of his daughter with an ice cream, and the rules can be enforced on a case by case basis. that is their right. and I'm glad that the father in scotland made a fuss, good for him!
however, on private property, including places where the public are allowed free(ish access), which includes malls, supermarkets and canary wharf; the public do not have the default right to take photos.

I've taken photos in shopping malls before. it was some advertising work for a company scouting for mcdonalds.
I always was allowed, with some minor grumbling sometimes, but I asked permission.
one place required that I wear a luminous vest because I was a hazard (so I did: their house, their rules obviously)

these rules aren't blurred, they're just there.
Supermarkets and private businesses are particularly paranoid because of litigation as mentioned, and then if you can prove they're doing something wrong you can cause problems for them. a nice photograph is always a decent way to prove a point.

in the highstreet, rules (the law) are completely different
 
Last edited:
DizMatt said:
the rules shouldn't really prohibit a dad taking a nice picture of his daughter with an ice cream, and the rules can be enforced on a case by case basis. that is their right. and I'm glad that the father in scotland made a fuss, good for him!
however, on private property, including places where the public are allowed free(ish access), which includes malls, supermarkets and canary wharf; the public do not have the default right to take photos.....
Click to expand...

On private property there is no "right" to do anything really (apart from breathe I guess).

The trouble is where do you draw the line unless a specific activity is actually signed as "banned". Can you eat? Can you use a mobile phone? Can you draw? Can you talk? Can you read a book?

Obviously if you wish to undertake any sort of commercial activity then it's wise to ask specific permission, but these days taking a picture for pleasure is no worse than for example someone who makes an intrusive mobile phone conversation or someone who has a noisy and unruly child. The main thing I would bear in mind is "am I causing a nuisance to anyone" before doing something (unless that thing is actually signed as banned of course).
 
Last edited:
Common sense should prevail. You're probably going to be OK if you approach the right people first. In this case, it's common sense to have the store duty manager and the security guard on your side - so clear it with them first, ideally before you walk in there with a camera.

With good manners and decent communication skills nearly every one of these 'photographer as terrorist' episodes we keep hearing about in the press could have been avoided.
 
I for one would think it odd for someone standing in a supermarket taking pictures but then there is stranger things people do out there. I guess asking beforehand could go along way save having to be approached by security/police involvement etc you never know is this day what some daft person might think your doing when your not and soon point a finger.


SimonH said:
Nahh. Etiquette. You're under no illusions that you're entering private property. There are no signs at the entrance to a store stating that you can't eat ice cream in the store. You just don't do it, because you're not pig-ignorant.
Click to expand...

I see several people feeding kids in trolleys around supermarkets where I live it just strikes up pure rudeness on there part specially when you know come check out time they won't be admitting there child has scoffed a pack of sweets and honestly pay for them should be escorted out the shop on the spot.
 
I dont think the issue is that it might appear to be odd taking photos in a supermarket. The reason they gave you is basically a default reason they always give. The issue could potentially be far greater. Imagine if you took a photograph in a supermarket and captured something questionable. It could be as innocent as a staff member leaving a ladder in the isle because he/she has gone off to get some signs to put up, but your image only captures the ladder. This could appear to be a health and safety issue which could land the store in trouble even though it's completely innocent. Or you're image could capture a member of public clearly in a situation that they might want to hide (with a lover for example). These members of public expect some privacy when they are shopping in what is private property. If that image were to be made public and their wife or husband has seen that then this could bring legal implications for the store for allowing photography in their store and not enforcing their no photography policy. I'm just making up some scenarios here but hopefully this will give you an idea of why some shops etc might not like photography.

If it was my store I'd tell you not to take pictures and if you gave me cheek in returen i'd have you kicked out. They really don't have to give you a reason at all.
 
KayJay said:
...... Or you're image could capture a member of public clearly in a situation that they might want to hide (with a lover for example). These members of public expect some privacy when they are shopping in what is private property. If that image were to be made public and their wife or husband has seen that then this could bring legal implications for the store for allowing photography in their store and not enforcing their no photography policy. I'm just making up some scenarios here but hopefully this will give you an idea of why some shops etc might not like photography......
Click to expand...

This is quite an amusing example - someone has an affair and goes shopping with their mistress then has the gall to sue the supermarket because a third party has taken a photo of them together. It would certainly fail if the supermarket had not clearly signed such a policy. Essentially there is no expectation of privacy in a place that is openly accessible to the public even if it is private property.
 
One thing I'm not clear on...

Were you going in there to take photos, or did you just walk in with your DSLR over your shoulder?
 
I've been away for a couple of days. Doog you have been on this forum long enough that you should know that you need permission before you start taking photographs in private places. Even if you din't know, I would have thought common sense would prevail.

As the OP didn't seem to be getting "the poor hard done by photographer" response he wanted he then openend it up to other things that again have been debated on here several times.

As you can see by my response I think what doog did was wrong and doesn't help photographers in general. Just my opinion.
 
boliston said:
This is quite an amusing example - someone has an affair and goes shopping with their mistress then has the gall to sue the supermarket because a third party has taken a photo of them together. It would certainly fail if the supermarket had not clearly signed such a policy. Essentially there is no expectation of privacy in a place that is openly accessible to the public even if it is private property.
Click to expand...

These kind of things happen all the time. It is a far fetched example. People sue for the most ridiculous reasons. And they always look for someone else to blame.
 
RichardtheSane said:
One thing I'm not clear on...

Were you going in there to take photos, or did you just walk in with your DSLR over your shoulder?
Click to expand...

munch said:
I've been away for a couple of days. Doog you have been on this forum long enough that you should know that you need permission before you start taking photographs in private places. Even if you din't know, I would have thought common sense would prevail.

As the OP didn't seem to be getting "the poor hard done by photographer" response he wanted he then openend it up to other things that again have been debated on here several times.

As you can see by my response I think what doog did was wrong and doesn't help photographers in general. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Hopefully I can answer both points at once here although I thought I had already made clear. When the guy came up to me I had been in the store all of thirty seconds and had the camera over my shoulder. I had not shot any pictures although I may have (if I'm honest) been tempted to do so, if I had seen something of note, but I was in with my wife to purchase goods not to take pictures.

Munch, I wasn't looking for the poor hard done by photographer response and right from the beginning I've stated that I had no problem with the store having a quiet word. Not a problem. It's their house as has been quite rightly pointed out. No, the reason I started this post was to bring to the attention of those interested, the excuse given. ie. "that there are some strange people about." Well yes, I suppose there are, they may or may not be carrying a DSLR though so that was not the real reason was it? Munch, again I will freely admit I underestimated the reaction I'd get to this thread but I opened the debate up in order to show that people with a DSLR are still treated with suspicion. Mobile phone cameras are in just about every pocket nowadays and some of them are very good too but I don't see people being taken aside in store and warned about their use. What's the difference? Actually, what I hope for now is for someone who provides store security like this to state the real reason for their stores disapproval of DSLR use in-store because I just don't buy the strange people line and I'd also like to know if they look out for mobile use too.

So Munch, in what way did my actions here, hinder photographers? :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top