It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We do not have as many freedoms anymore; Its sad. I got thrown out of a mall for videotaping.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by dreamseeker
 



its privately owned and you don't have the right to film there or any other private buisness if they do not want you to.



And yet there are businesses that film their customers in restaurants and stores and run it live on web cams!
Turn-about should be fair play. I bet some of these places do not even warn people they are live streaming video of them.




posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamseeker
They do not live in the mall; it is more or less a public space.


OP you seem like a very nice person but your missing something and this statement is where it is at. doesn't matter what it seems like or if they allow the public to visit.

it is NOT more or less a public place it is very much a PRIVATE place.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamseeker
Footage I found of someone else who filmed the mall who did not state he was asked to leave:
www.youtube.com...
I wonder why this guy was allowed to film and not me?


Probably because you were caught and he wasn't. Less likely answer is that he obtained permission.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Gixxer
 


I am not missing the point I actually disagree with the rule.Nothing will change my mind. I actually prefer real people's footage over the media anyday. I want to know the real story not something the media has manipulated. That is the whole point of you tube; it is about real people's stories. The mall was very much a part of my life at one time I shopped and worked there. What if they tear it down someday is it really not ok to have memories?
edit on 6-1-2011 by dreamseeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Here is a PDF file discussing the rights of a photographer.

www.krages.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Thank You for that file. I will read it more and depth and save it. It looks like the indivual can be filmed or photographed without their permission. I was focusing more on trying to not film other people and filming more the business. Why would a business have more rights over indivuals?



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I read the full thing so if they would have detianed me like they threatened I could have called the police on them! I am going to print this out and take it with me when I do more photography or filming. I am still going to do it but now I have a document that gives me some ammo if pulled over or questioned!



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gixxer

Originally posted by dreamseeker
They do not live in the mall; it is more or less a public space.


OP you seem like a very nice person but your missing something and this statement is where it is at. doesn't matter what it seems like or if they allow the public to visit.

it is NOT more or less a public place it is very much a PRIVATE place.


Not true! There are levels of "private." A home, then an office, then an office with some public visits, then a sole proprietership, then a retail center, then a multiple entity retail center, and at the very tip top of "not private" is something like a mall or a stadium.

There are specification for a place like a mall. You can't restrict access without some cause, and your cause better be lawful, and it better be in writing, and it better be applied uniformly.

In addition, there are many businesses within that mall that each have separate legal contracts with the mall, and any action the mall takes has to agree with those multiple contracts. Suppose a business wants to let people take pictures with Santa?

A mall is not a "private" place like a home or a private office. Just because it is privately owned, does not make it a private place. Most public buildings are privately owned, and leased out for certain purposes. The security guard at the mall does not know the difference, and unless their is a clearly posted policy, or a direct order from his employers, he should not have done this.
edit on 6-1-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



Of course, owners of a shopping center may prohibit protests on their property that
interfere with the normal business operations of its tenants—right?

Wrong.

Last holiday season, for many shopping center owners in California, it wasn't the Grinch
who stole Christmas—but instead the California Supreme Court. On Christmas Eve, 2007, by a
narrow 4-to-3 decision, the Court handed down Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor
Relations Board, 42 Cal. 4th 850 (Cal. 2007). The Court held that the right to free speech under
the California Constitution includes the right of protestors to encourage patrons inside a private
shopping center to boycott specific businesses located within the shopping center


Source
edit on 6-1-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)




Even a private residence has been found to not have any protection from photographers!!!


In court the officials testified that their invitation was standard practice. The property owner, the victim's mother, was out of town at the time of the fire and therefore could not be asked to consent. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the media that they had implied consent to enter the house based on the common practice of reporters entering private property without the owner's explicit consent in the course of covering crimes or disasters. However, the court added that if the owner had been present and objected to the reporter's presence then the reporter might have been held liable for invasion of privacy. (Florida Publishing Co. v. Fletcher)


Source
edit on 6-1-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



There you go then, cut and dry. You have now given perverts the right to film your underage daughter at the mall and you will no longer have any recourse, way to go.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
A mall really is a public space regardless of it being private property. If all businesses say they are a private space then that would imply it is acessible only to those who rent, live at or are a member of. For example a private club house is private because it is not open to the public.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by habfan1968
 


They have the "right" but do they have the intestinal fortitude with the knowing that I also have the "right" to be armed!

Besides, I didn't give them the rights, the courts did, I just pointed out that a mall is not so private. There has to be a "reasonable expectation of privacy" such as a bathroom or a home. A mall does not give anyone a reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore it is not "private."

Would it be any different if a young girl was walking down a street or a sidewalk compared to a mall corridor? I don't think so, and neither does the court.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by habfan1968
 


no I don't agree with that. It should be at the owner's discretion. The bottom line is does it hurt anyone and what is their intended purpose? We can't have blanket general rules. If you saw my footage you heard the comments so it was clear what I was saying and doing. If I was acting sneaky or saying perverted comments that would be a whole different story. Did I ever film any childern at all? No. I tried very hard to give people their space and privacy.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamseeker
 


Dreamseeker,

You can't have it both ways! Do you want the right or not? If you can film, so can everyone else. We can't decide who is a pervert and who is not. What if I go to the mall and I do a fashion film, and I film only 15 year old girls in skirts, but I have a perfectly good reason?

No, you can't play both sides of this card, do you want the right or do you want the owner to have the right? Pick a side!



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...
By the way I was going to ask only people on you tube or ask someone if they comment or approach me.
By the way the ticket I got was for taking pictures of nature which no one owns!
edit on 6-1-2011 by dreamseeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


It is not always cut and dry. I believe in rules that are fair and just. The only rule I belive is Do no harm to others. So if someone is filming but does not cause any harm than it is ok. I never believe it is ok to film or take pictures of children because they can be exploited. I was not filming childern.
People should be allowed to film within reason. If it breaks some other law than no it is not ok. For example if a person is filming someone who has a restraining order against them than that would not be ok because they are breaking the law by being that close. It is not up for me to decide but as a society we need to agree what is acceptable and what is not. We also need to recognize the indivual within the group. We can't disregard the indivual for the group and vice versa.
I think it is time for our society to start thinking about that. I believe in balance. Without balance there is choas.
edit on 6-1-2011 by dreamseeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I suppose you are too young to remember if even you were with us back then, but remember about twenty years ago when road rage was discovered and drive-by shootings were in fad?

People, women mostly, got too scared to even honk their horns at some idiot that thought he owned the road.

What you have experienced is a heightened state of that insane fear. Everybody went home from the mall that night knowing that they may have been protected from a terrorist. And school shootings like yesterday don't help.

Get used to the police state. After all, it is for your own protection (unless you become a suspect).



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreamseeker
I have a hobby of videotaping. I had an idea for a story on my you tube channel about a local mall of mine. How can I show the mall if I don't film it? I am not a news person or trying to make money off of it. I was not inside the businesses just in the halls of the mall.
I was not bothering anyone just commenting on some ideas for the mall and what businesses used to be there. It was almost like an alex jones moment where they tell you to leave and you can't film. They had 2 secruity men telling me I could not film so I left. I was trying to show the effects of the recession on my area.


I have the same hobby. I like to just get video of stuff at random and sometimes carry my camcorder around with me 'just in case.' I had a scary moment OUTDOORS at farmer's market when the security guards came up to me and told I wasn't allowed to take pictures which included the store fronts with 'pro camera'. Whaaa...? But,it's perfectly 'okay' to use a mobile device with an 8 MP camera boasting a Carl Zeiss auto-focus lens with a 6x zoom? Doesn't...make...sense.Period.

(Just a minor point:you were taking video,not 'video taping'. We don't use tape anymore. I wish the media would quit using this phrase.)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamseeker
 


Maybe had you went to the administration office at the mall and asked permission to film, you wouldn't have been kicked out.

It is private property, they make their own rules. As long as they aren't illegal, not much you can do about it.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
this is a popular subject seen on many websites. most articles i've read have been about civilians recording law enforcement in action.
i think i have to agree with an earlier poster who mentioned being stealthy. perhaps using a less obvious camera would make this hobby more enjoyable.
yesterday while in a department store i saw a new toy helicopter that has a recording motion camera built into it. imagine what wonderful angle shots that would yield, i'd love to have that toy.



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Privately owned public places... they make the rules, if you don't like it just don't go.

I understand your frustration but it's no different than a bar, a restaurant or anywhere else. With prosumuer products such as affordable SLRs it's become a hot topic. I started shooting years before digital SLRs were available to the public and the vibe was much different back then. I was covering a story about food shortage in the local supermarket when I got kicked out, I put my camera away but they still insisted on kicking me out even if it was packed away in my camera bag but that didn't stop me from shooting the inside of the store with my telephoto lens while standing on the side-walk, which is completely legal.

I understand that such Laws = Lawls and I agree with most of what was said in this thread, mostly about us being filmed without our consent but I have tons of parties here, you could almost say that it's a public private residence, so I kind of understand the concept of respecting someone's property, they pay taxes for the place, the rent the space, so yes, they own the rights to decide.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join