Most malls are not public places. They are private property.

Additionally retail stores are extremely protective of their marketing strategies, including product placement and signage, and usually include in their rental agreements some kind of prohibition on photography by the property owner.

I know it sounds retarded but that's how it is.

Contrary to popular belief, a mall is no public place. It is a private building on private property.

"The Ten Legal Commandments of Photography

I. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space.

II. If you are on public property, you can take pictures of private property. If a building, for example, is visible from the sidewalk, it’s fair game."

>>1618366

It's still private property. There's no way around that without permission from the owner. Those rules you posted sound like complete shit

>>1618366
That is bullshit. Just because the doors are opened to the public doesn't make it public space. By that logic, every shop in the world would be public space because everyone can go there...

Malls are private property,they use the appearance of public space to draw in people

So guys I was in a strip club taking pics when some big huge black guy came and physically kicked me out. But strip clubs are public space, why was he so mean to me? whaaaaaaaaaa

it's either private property or it's a public place. Whether the door opens when you walk up to it is not part of the equation. The owner of the property is entitled to make rules about what you do while on his property. Photography isn't some magical right to overrule that.

My front door is unlocked right now. If you walked in and started taking photos and I asked you to leave, you wouldn't get far telling the police that you were exercising your rights as a photographer.

Taking photos OF the mall is not the same thing as taking photos INSIDE the mall.

Here we go again. Courts have ruled that malls are indeed, "public space."

Owners can limit photography only with clearly posted rules. No post, the place is yours. Results differ in fascist Britain, however.

Not entirely logical, but that's the way America rolls..

If there are no signs saying otherwise, you're usually good to go, but they can still ask you to stop. They have no right to take your stuff though.

Canadafag in Ontario here. Malls are private space.

IE, you can photograph a decorative statue located in front of a commercial building from the sidewalk - but if you cross that sidewalk into commercial grounds, they can tell you off.

And once you enter those mall doors, you are well and truly inside their property.
However it is usually at the discretion of the security to enforce that.

I have seen people with DSLRs roaming malls of course, and they haven't been kicked... but if you are being a disruptive faggot for whatever reason, they are within their right to kick you out.

Also it is prohibited to photograph other people in Quebec, so that adds another dimension to this mess, specially for street photographers. Seriously though... why shoot street inside malls?

That's like as easy as shooting animals in a zoo, or as low as shooting homeless people...

>>1618515
Interesting. Shouldn't the wikipedia article on public spaces say so, if that was true?

In Russia shop owners accept the legal fact that their shop is public when they get a license. Can't say anything about other countries.

>>1618535
because it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

>>1618535
Because it's Wikipedia, the 4chan of encyclopedias

For real life information, ASMP says that once you go into a "closed space," it's "probably" private, but local rules and restrictions may or may not apply. If stopped by security, follow directions. Generally, you will only be stopped if you are being a "public nuisance." Use your brains, here /p/.

Personally, I've never been accosted by security in a mall, and I used to do it all the time. I have been stopped in actual real public spaces by building owners who think they can restrict what is in the public view.

The law is very clear on some things, vague on others, but the Supreme Court has stated that "if it is in public view, it's fair game."

As always, proceed at your own risk. (and Canadian law is not US law and neither is Britain's law anybody's but their own)

>>1618567
Could you then provide us with sources for your supreme court ruling? That would settle this argument.

Silly US laws. Here (Fi) all places where people can enter freely are public property. Taking photos is legal in malls etc. even if they post no photography signs.

>>1618626
The court has ruled on the expectation of privacy in public places. The implications for photography are pretty obvious.

>>1618558

>Even if no such signs are posted, the property owner or agent can ask a person to stop photographing

Which is what happened to the OP, and the mall was within it's rights to ask him to stop.

>>1618640
Source?

>>1618647
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_States

If you have a problem Wiki, you could always just google it yourself, or check the sources cited at the bottom

>>1618650
I don't see anything mall related in there. Care to enlighten us?

>>1618658
Are malls public places? Just scroll up a few posts.

>>1618663
No, malls are private places open to public.

>>1618665
Well there you go.

>>1618667
Let me sum this up: OP said malls are public space. I called bs and said it is private. Someone (OP?) said "NO HURR THEY ARE PUBLIC DURR" and then you came along with your supreme court ruling.
Well there I go again that malls are private places. I don't see the intention of your "argument". I said that all the time and have no idea what message you try to convey.

>>1618670
When >>1618567 referred the supreme court ruling on public privacy, I provided a source of sorts. I didn't say that malls are public places, I was simply referring to the court decision on the expectation of privacy in public locations. Obviously that would not be relevant to malls, which are private places, despite being open to the public. I'm not really arguing anything, I was just providing the source you requested.

>>1618675
My apologies. I've mistaken you for the "public space" argumenter.

>>1618676
Don't worry about it, I can understand why it'd be easy to mistake me for him, and I admit I can be very vague at times.

It's safe to assume that any place that can be closed off to the public with doors and gates is not a public place but private, so pretty much any building, train stations, certain parks, etc.

That said if you lived in Britain you would be free to take photos as long as there are no signs telling you not to, up until the point that you are asked to stop by someone such as a security guard or property owner. After that they have no legal right to ask to see the photos or make you delete them, they could eject you from the property but as long as you're polite and well behaved about it you'll likely be allowed to stay.

>>1618678
>>1618676
Now that you two have reconsiled, you should get a room and have make up sex.

> Courts have ruled that malls are indeed, "public space."

Courts...where?

I'm an actual lawfag in the US, and that certainly ain't true here. Malls may be under some circumstances public *fora*, but that's a completely different set of legal principles.

>>1618729
We will. Meanwhile, you stay in your parents basement and tell other people to get together.
foreveralone.jpg much?