This Well Dressed Indian Lady was Fishing for Coins at the Fair Oaks Malls Thswishing Well. I took a picture but delete it because she was going to calls the cops on me. Why will a Well dressed Indian lady doing this? She was with her 6-8 year old daughter and son. This is common in India?

Why would you delete a pic based on her threats? What kind of a pussy are you? Afriad of a woman, and an Indian woman at that? Grow some balls. You should have taken a whole damn movie of her threatening you.

Yes. They poop and piss in holy Ganges.

Marshall. J Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This Well Dressed Indian Lady was Fishing for
> Coins at the Fair Oaks Malls Thswishing Well. I
> took a picture but delete it because she was going
> to calls the cops on me.

She was taking coins out? Isn't the idea that you make a wish and throw coins IN? And that they are donated to charity? If she was taking coins out she was stealing. You're the person who should have called the cops. And even if that's not what she was doing, in general you can legally photograph someone openly in a public place (not a dressing room etc.). It wouldn't be a police matter, but at worst mall security might have escorted you out for upsetting the customers.

Not being a smartass, but you called it a "Thswishing Well" both in the subject and the body of the note. Is that deliberate? The Google doesn't know it (though it did index this thread already!)

I kept a berry picture but I am not sure if they will file a arrest warrant on me If I posted it from my computer, so i will posted it from a McDonald's Free WIFI tomorrow

udNXK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Marshall. J Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> She was taking coins out? Isn't the idea that you
> make a wish and throw coins IN?

May be she didn't get her wish and want her money back. Vishnu says so.

Fair Oaks isnt too far from the government center. Direct Mrs Ghandi to it so she can get some welfare checks and food stamps. She shouldt have to work for small change.

You can take pictures of people at a wishing well or most places. I was taking pics of cool patterns in the ceiling of a Baja Fresh and the manager told me I couldnt. I ignored her and a very nice cop was standing next to me. When she left he said 'Im a photographer too and people sometimes do not understand its okay to take photos of public places...'

Had she called the police she might have been charged with theft - the coins are the property of the owner of the fountain and she was stealing that property. The culture of India is a very different and usually not really to my own taste. My experiences with the culture is that they can be aloof, irrational and unbearably cheap.

picturres Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can take pictures of people at a wishing well
> or most places. I was taking pics of cool
> patterns in the ceiling of a Baja Fresh and the
> manager told me I couldnt. I ignored her and a
> very nice cop was standing next to me. When she
> left he said 'Im a photographer too and people
> sometimes do not understand its okay to take
> photos of public places...'
>
> Had she called the police she might have been
> charged with theft - the coins are the property of
> the owner of the fountain and she was stealing
> that property. The culture of India is a very
> different and usually not really to my own taste.
> My experiences with the culture is that they can
> be aloof, irrational and unbearably cheap.


Your first paragraph is wrong. The mall and Baja Fresh are both PRIVATE PROPERTY. In order to take photos of other people or the property, you need consent and/or a release. Even the officer was wrong. The reason is because most malls are actually private property. They're owned by a company, not the city. Just because a place is open to the public, that doesn't mean it's public property.
Source (Read #8): http://www.shopfairoaksmall.com/about_us#476

Your second paragraph is correct. She couldn't been charged as she's stealing from the money deposited into the fountain. That fountain is really nothing more than a very large "salvation army bank".

Correction on my last

Couldn't was supposed to read as "Could've"

Your second paragraph is correct. She COULD HAVE been charged as she's stealing from the money deposited into the fountain. That fountain is really nothing more than a very large "salvation army bank".

If it wasnt for the Brits I doubt India would have electricity today.

While private property owners in a public place (like a mall fountain) may request you stop taking pictures you do not require consent prior to taking them unless posted. Taking pictures of someone at a mall fountain does not necessarily violate any law and is not necessarily illegal. Had the police been called the photographer could not have been charged with a crime related to taking a photo per se.

http://lifehacker.com/5912250/know-your-rights-photography-in-public

Since it didnt belong to her it would be stealing. Otherwise she would help herself to the benches and tables throughout the Mall and anything else not nailed down. If it doesnt belong to you then it isnt yours.

JustanFYI Wrote:

>
> Your first paragraph is wrong. The mall and Baja
> Fresh are both PRIVATE PROPERTY. In order to take
> photos of other people or the property, you need
> consent and/or a release. Even the officer was
> wrong. The reason is because most malls are
> actually private property. They're owned by a
> company, not the city. Just because a place is
> open to the public, that doesn't mean it's public
> property.
> Source (Read #8):
> http://www.shopfairoaksmall.com/about_us#476
>

It's true that the malls and stores are private property, and you visit as their guest, but all the mall can do is throw you out for violating their rules. They can't seize your camera or press any charges. The only way it would become a police matter is if you refused to leave when asked. Then you could be charged with trespassing, not picture-taking.

No expectionation of privacy whether it be a private store or shopping mall if you are in a "public" area of the facility. People get all nose out of joint when a camera is around. Almost EVERY cell phone has a camera these days, so again, nobody should think they can't be photographed in a plublic or on private property.

Every store or bank you walk in likely has you on camera as well. Walmart has over 20 cameras covering their parking lots. Traffic cameras likely catch you driving as well. Almost every police car has multiple cameras in them these days.

At the end of the day if you are not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about if a camera is out and recording.

It is actually the converstations that are recorded that be more of a problem then the actual video.

People will call your bluff all day long, forget them an move on.

JustanFYI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Your first paragraph is wrong. The mall and Baja
> Fresh are both PRIVATE PROPERTY. In order to take
> photos of other people or the property, you need
> consent and/or a release. Even the officer was
> wrong. The reason is because most malls are
> actually private property. They're owned by a
> company, not the city. Just because a place is
> open to the public, that doesn't mean it's public
> property.
> Source (Read #8):
> http://www.shopfairoaksmall.com/about_us#476
>
>


You are incorrect, photographing someone at the mall is not illegal.

It is all about a person's expectation of privacy, not about publicly owned land vs private property. There is absolutely no expectation of privacy in the common area of a shopping mall.

Some places you have a reasonable expectation of privacy: your home, a bathroom, a changing room, the trunk of your car...

While it may not be illegal, it may be against mall rules, and since it is private property, they can throw you out for breaking their rules. But, once again, it is not against the law.

The OP is still a colossal pussy. I dry one, but a pussy to be sure...
Attachments:

Cameras everywhere Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JustanFYI Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Your first paragraph is wrong. The mall and
> Baja
> > Fresh are both PRIVATE PROPERTY. In order to
> take
> > photos of other people or the property, you
> need
> > consent and/or a release. Even the officer was
> > wrong. The reason is because most malls are
> > actually private property. They're owned by a
> > company, not the city. Just because a place is
> > open to the public, that doesn't mean it's
> public
> > property.
> > Source (Read #8):
> > http://www.shopfairoaksmall.com/about_us#476
> >
> >
>
>
> You are incorrect, photographing someone at the
> mall is not illegal.
>
> It is all about a person's expectation of privacy,
> not about publicly owned land vs private property.
> There is absolutely no expectation of privacy in
> the common area of a shopping mall.
>
> Some places you have a reasonable expectation of
> privacy: your home, a bathroom, a changing room,
> the trunk of your car...
>
> While it may not be illegal, it may be against
> mall rules, and since it is private property, they
> can throw you out for breaking their rules. But,
> once again, it is not against the law.


Where did I say it was illegal dipshit?

JustanFYI - You claim that you "NEED consent or a release to take photos on PRIVATE property"

Says who?

That statement implies that if you do not have consent, you are violating something. What exactly would the photographer be violating? Since your statement was so broad and unspecific, I could only assume you were referring to some made up law.

Now to be fair, later on you did cite some Fair Oaks policy, but that has little to do with your general statement that "being on private property, you are required to obtain a consent to photograph."

Oh, and you're still wrong, you dont need anyone's consent to take pictures in public spaces, whether they be privately owned public areas (like the mall or baja fresh) or publicly owned public spaces (like a street corner).

> JustanFYI Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Your first paragraph is wrong. The mall and
> Baja
> > Fresh are both PRIVATE PROPERTY. In order to
> take
> > photos of other people or the property, you
> need
> > consent and/or a release.

No you are wrong - you do not need consent or a release. You are wrong. They can ask you to stop but you can snap away until that in private property open to the public. Nice try dippy the clown. Do you play a lawyer on teevvee

Terence Trent D'Arby - Wishing Well


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynIHsHYaig0


I love the music from the 80's!!!!!!!!

Geeessssss, just read the Malls info.

Not illegak, but against the malls rules.

But unless you get caught by mall security, it is a non issue.

Even if you get caught by mall security, they will just likely ask you to stop filming or taking pictures then request you leave the property. At worst case they may try to have your charged wit trespassing, but likely the mall rent a cops will just what you to go away.

Here is a quote from the malls FAQ section as someone else suggested that other posters here actually read!

"8. Distribution of literature or other items, offering any item for sale, solicitation, conducting surveys, videotaping or photography, with out, in each instance, the prior written consent of mall management under the mall’s Access Policy or other applicable policies."

Likely this is to stop everyone from News Organizations to Motion Picture Filming, but will also give the mall management some control over other people being a general nusiance.

There is no mention of written consent of the person or persons being filmed or photographed as this is more of a courtesy to the mall and their patrons than a legal issue in any way.

OP should have just bumped the lady into the water and kept moving, although that event would have likely been captured on mall security cameras!

Rememeber the lady that was texting and walking in a mall a few years back that did not see the foutain and fell in? The one of the mall security guys filmed the video with his phone in the security office and uploaded it to YouTube, the lady that fell in then went after the mall for releasing the video and making her look stupid and likely made some cash off the incident??

She did look pretty stupid, but I guess at the end of the day it was the malls fault for not securing or having some sort of railing to keep people from walking into the fountain while not paying full attention. You can bet that lady sued someone and was paid off to go away. It does seem to pay to be stupid these days!

Why yes dear

cameras everywhere Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JustanFYI - You claim that you "NEED consent or a
> release to take photos on PRIVATE property"
>
> Says who?
>
> That statement implies that if you do not have
> consent, you are violating something. What exactly
> would the photographer be violating? Since your
> statement was so broad and unspecific, I could
> only assume you were referring to some made up
> law.
>
> Now to be fair, later on you did cite some Fair
> Oaks policy, but that has little to do with your
> general statement that "being on private property,
> you are required to obtain a consent to
> photograph."

This is why you shouldn't assume. Believe it or not, I'm a professional event and wedding photographer of over 20 years. I deal with this VERY often when I have to go through the trouble of various releases for private events open to the public (press/media release), property releases for shooting construction of major buildings and projects (METRO), and even a standard wedding release, which actually has a clause in it that all of the guests of the wedding have provided consent to be photographed and possibly published and that the co-signers of the agreement (bride/groom) assume this responsibility.

In most cases, on private property - you would only be asked to leave and/or face trespassing.

As far as legal repercussions (which are rare, but can happen)

There is something in the law called a nuisance. In terms of photography and videotape, a nuisance is some activity that interferes with a property owner's reasonable use of his or her own property. It is difficult for a property owner to prevail in a nuisance action against a photographer or videographer because it is difficult to meet the legal burden needed to prove a claim. The annoyance to the property owner needs to be very real, and not just the result of the property owner's hypersensitivity or subjectivity. T

Whenever you are faced with a legal issue, talking with a lawyer is a good idea. In the area of photographs and videotapes taken on private property, there are several areas of law that could reveal liability of the photographer. Invasion of privacy is one instance, physical harm or harm to the reputation of the property owner is another.

Legal repercussions are only more likely if an image is posted on the internet and it has a negative fallout or invades someones privacy.

Now, the game is changed COMPLETELY when we're talking about public property. That is fair game, which is why you can take photos of anything standing on sidewalks, etc. All of those Hollywood Paparazzi photos.. are taken from public property and long zoom lenses.

JustanFYI Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cameras everywhere Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JustanFYI - You claim that you "NEED consent or
> a
> > release to take photos on PRIVATE property"
> >
> > Says who?
> >
> > That statement implies that if you do not have
> > consent, you are violating something. What
> exactly
> > would the photographer be violating? Since your
> > statement was so broad and unspecific, I could
> > only assume you were referring to some made up
> > law.
> >
> > Now to be fair, later on you did cite some Fair
> > Oaks policy, but that has little to do with
> your
> > general statement that "being on private
> property,
> > you are required to obtain a consent to
> > photograph."
>
> This is why you shouldn't assume. Believe it or
> not, I'm a professional event and wedding
> photographer of over 20 years. I deal with this
> VERY often when I have to go through the trouble
> of various releases for private events open to the
> public (press/media release), property releases
> for shooting construction of major buildings and
> projects (METRO), and even a standard wedding
> release, which actually has a clause in it that
> all of the guests of the wedding have provided
> consent to be photographed and possibly published
> and that the co-signers of the agreement
> (bride/groom) assume this responsibility.
>
> In most cases, on private property - you would
> only be asked to leave and/or face trespassing.
>
> As far as legal repercussions (which are rare, but
> can happen)
>
> There is something in the law called a nuisance.
> In terms of photography and videotape, a nuisance
> is some activity that interferes with a property
> owner's reasonable use of his or her own property.
> It is difficult for a property owner to prevail in
> a nuisance action against a photographer or
> videographer because it is difficult to meet the
> legal burden needed to prove a claim. The
> annoyance to the property owner needs to be very
> real, and not just the result of the property
> owner's hypersensitivity or subjectivity. T
>
> Whenever you are faced with a legal issue, talking
> with a lawyer is a good idea. In the area of
> photographs and videotapes taken on private
> property, there are several areas of law that
> could reveal liability of the photographer.
> Invasion of privacy is one instance, physical harm
> or harm to the reputation of the property owner is
> another.
>
> Legal repercussions are only more likely if an
> image is posted on the internet and it has a
> negative fallout or invades someones privacy.
>
> Now, the game is changed COMPLETELY when we're
> talking about public property. That is fair game,
> which is why you can take photos of anything
> standing on sidewalks, etc. All of those
> Hollywood Paparazzi photos.. are taken from public
> property and long zoom lenses.


I found this entertaining...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfzOuN7SLy4

Source:
http://communications-media.lawyers.com/privacy-law/Videotaping-and-Photography-on-Private-Property.html

Source (Scroll down to United States):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

1st Amendment Test Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JustanFYI Wrote:

> > Now, the game is changed COMPLETELY when we're
> > talking about public property. That is fair
> game,
> > which is why you can take photos of anything
> > standing on sidewalks, etc. All of those
> > Hollywood Paparazzi photos.. are taken from
> public
> > property and long zoom lenses.
>
>
> I found this entertaining...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfzOuN7SLy4


Prime example of where I just said that shooting from public property (sidewalks) is 100% ok. I've seen a lot of those videos, there are some really good ones...