I don't know if anyone else has seen this but I've been following it on FB and the media.
It's a terrible thing that's happened to this guy.
http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/c...-1226163996620
There is also a youtube vid of an interview he's done.
 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 17
I don't know if anyone else has seen this but I've been following it on FB and the media.
It's a terrible thing that's happened to this guy.
http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/c...-1226163996620
There is also a youtube vid of an interview he's done.
Currently using;
Nikon D850
Lotsa other bits.
Why is this different to any case of security people acting stupidly?
The real question is how do we educate these security people who appear to be IQ challenged?
regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff
Why ? Because the bigger part of this story is about the misuse of the Anti Terrorism Laws in the UK being, which even the House of Lords recently also described " as a misuse of the Act". In this situation its not about security people acting stupidly, its about the Centre Management having quite ridiculous photography policies which the security people are instructed to implement. Because of the resulting social media campaign and a large wave of news media, (who covered the entire story in depth explaining the entire issues), the centre management have now been changed their Terms and Conditions of entry, including photographic restrictions, to something more sensible.Originally Posted by Kym
In this situation dont blame the security people with offensive comments about their IQ - given that they are simply doing what their managers have instructed them to do.
A similar response is valid in relation to security people doing their jobs in Australia. Many shopping centre managements have quite absurd terms and conditions, so its again not fair to blame security people doing what they've been instructed to do by their employers.
Additionally I believe its both unhelpful and misleading to endorse or encourage the thought that the security people were "IQ challenged". A more productive approach would be to highlight who is making these decisions and then support a campaign to lobby the decision makers in Council, State, Federal, and other public and private organisations to not bring in draconian, restrictive and unfair rules and regulations that restrict the private individual by way of photographic restrictions.
The moral of this, is to read and understand the entire story.
Last edited by Longshots; 13-10-2011 at 11:00am.
I think you hit the nail on the head Longshots. Freedom comes at a price and unfortunately we the citizens have to suffer for safety. I would not like any of my family killed in a terrorisim act, so we have to abide by the laws. If you don't like them stop moaning and get them changed with letters to management and politicians. I hear there is a shocking shootup in America today with something like 6 dead. At least our anti gun laws restrict to some extent this type of behaviour. We have freedom and choices here despite rules like restrictions on photography. By jingoes I would rather live here then any other country in the world. Thanks for your comments William; there are other people who think like me. cheers Brian
I think the issue is the poor and threatening attitude of the security and the police and the lack of common sense, which seems to not be all that common these days.
Having read the story and looked at the interview, I believe that the whole thing was handled very poorly and was just another case of security overstepping their intended duty and trying to justify their job. The fact that just about everyone agrees with the father here justifies the belief that it was handled very poorly and that it was a case of the seciurity and police overstepping their authority and what the shopping centre intended by it's no photo policy. Also, the fact that the so-called "signs clearly displayed" stance by the guards and police stating that photo are not permitted also adds credence to the fact that the whole thing should never have happened.
As for the belief that the IQ's of the security needs to be questioned, I do believe this is actually a factor as anyone with reasonable intelligence would have handled the matter with a lot more aplomb and diplomacy. If it were I, and due to the so-called "no photo policy" of the centre, I would have advised the father of this desire by the centre and then asked for a look at the photos to make sure that they were not of anything suspicious. If he refused, then it may have been a case of asking for the police to attend.
The idea that we can educate the powers to be about allowing these silly restrictions is good a good idea, as these privately run areas of public access simply implement these silly draconian rules as it is easy to do, covers all bases and no real thought goes into how it actually affects people and therefore it is left up to the IQ challenged, diplomacy bereft security to implement the results. The fact is they are security and as such feel the need to act as such, they are not generally diplomacy and experts. Surely a recipe for disaster.
The fact that these are public access areas means that more freedoms should be allowed and this needs to be something that can be forced upon them by governments. Public access means public access and therefore freedoms need to be allowed up to a point.
Banning photography in public access places really will do little if nothing to curb terrorist acts as if they want to get photos of something they will get it regardless of any security desire to stop them. When the London bombing happened, the powers to be asked the public who were at the bomb sites at the time if they had photos or video of the event prior, during and just after the bombs going off in order to see if they could ascertain any activity that would lead to the capturing of those involved! So, on the one hand photography is supposed to assist in the terrorist act and we have cries from people top ban photography to "protect us all" (a pie in the sky belief at that) but on the other it is beneficial in capturing those that may have perpetrated the act, just like security cameras.
The belief that having security cameras is going to stop the acts is also quite a silly idea as mostly, they are there for after that fact indentification not there for prevention and also, who watches the watchers?
Unfortunately, I think the banning of photography in many of these public access places, both private and publicly owned, is just knee jerk and over protective. Yes, we should be vigilant, but not ridiculously draconian.
My PBase site: http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
My Flickr site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/
I've been asked to not take photos multiple times, in multiple public areas.
2 shopping centres, 1 street in the city near the harbour bridge (###? photographing my own parked car), 1 business park (okay I can understand that) and 1 carpark (after showing a couple of photos, I was allowed to continue for another 20 minutes only because they were closing up).
I will politely abide by their request, because if they're asking me then I feel they must have reason to. However, I'll battle till the death if they try to get me to delete photos. If they try to touch me or anything I own, I won't stand for that AT ALL under ANY circumstance. Police though, that's another thing. But security I won't let do anything.
Last edited by Tommo224; 13-10-2011 at 2:09pm.
Decided to "shave" my signature ;]
Now mostly shoots with: Canon 5D MK3 & Canon 24-70 f/2.8/50mm f/1.8 (also have a 550D with a variety of lenses/goodies and a Sony Nex-5N)
PP with: Lightroom only, Photoshop is merely a 9-5 work tool for me.
Yes, the security people handled this poorly, but as pointed out above, they're doing their job. They often work in officious environments and that then extends to how they do their job (this is almost universally equal for alot of shopping centre management staff).
The photography restrictions in shopping centres don't actually have alot to do with 'terrorism' on the most part, they're there to 'protect' their 'intellectual property' of the mall. (Whether you or I think it's worth protecting is another issue).
And lastly, shopping centres are not public spaces/places, they're privately owned, that's why Mr Lowy, et al, charge enormous rents and why they get locked up outside business hours.
After listening to that for 8 minutes, I am inclined to go against this man. He did admit he did not know his rights inside a privately owned shopping mall - which all of them are etc.
The first and last time I was accosted by security to stop taking photos inside a shopping centre was in Osaka in 1998, before the terrorism act and craze swept the world again.
I understand that shopping malls - which usually house hundreds of brands and stores - need to protect their intellectual copyrights and commercial copyrights as many of the time the actual label themselves are not present to watch over their products. What this man fails to acknowledge is that in the past, and still happening - is a lot of Chinese entrepreneurs tend to take photos of clothing lines - to emulate later on and released again, not just in the textiles and retail industry but in automotive and other things too.
Ok so security probably did the right thing by doing their job and asking the man to stop taking photos on the premise of protecting intellectual copyrights and other things, they are probably wrong to ask him to delete the images too without further official jurisdiction.
Really, this man needs to get out more in the world and see the other side of the fence, had he owned a shop of any size, how would he have felt if someone walked in and started snapping photos of his stuff? Not to say that he was taking photos of products but of his own daughter. Stuff like this, I'd like to see both sides of the story before jumping on the sympathy wagon.
FWIW, I've been shooting and selling my work for 35 years plus. Most of it in the public domain. So my opinion is based on long term experience of direct involvement in this field.
Yes plenty of time people ask me to stop shooting, and on average, its only when there has been poor communication from management, and prearranged permission to shoot in an other wise restricted area (of which many of you would be horrified to realise that large quantity of areas), has not been passed down the chain. In most circumstances, educating the security guards is the least of my regular problems, but over zealous and nosey individuals who generally have little if any connection with what I'm approved to photograph.
Lets just remember that this particular story is from the UK, and it is in particular related to the use (misuse) of the Anti Terrorism Act. Its that creeping concern that many individuals now feel empowered to incorrectly challenge a photographer - which is mainly been influenced by ill considered anti terrorism campaigns, that alert the general public to a welll equipped photographer, who is portrayed as the possible spy, as opposed to someone tacfully taking a spying shot discretely on a small phone. Which just so happens what this case is all about - hence my frustration that the original topic was merged into one general topic - which its not.
So before anyone states what they as an individual will or will not accept, you're missing the point, and I find this frustrating - the point is that you, by entering places like shopping centres or other privately run, but seemingly public areas, accept the terms and conditions of entry. So there is little point in stipulating that you will allow a policeman to tell you what to do, but not a security guard - the horse has bolted buddy, because you are inside their area of management and they are applying the terms and conditions of entry from the moment you entered. So forget the time spent on future stand offs with security guards, as thats the best way to inflame a situation, and worry more about the creeping tide of restrictions placed on us by private companies and government bodies. They should be your targets of wrath, not the humble or sometimes over zealous security guards.
Last edited by Longshots; 13-10-2011 at 5:13pm.
I suggest you read more about the UK, and the various police forces using the Anti Terrorism Act of 2008
This isnt just about security guards - and I find it amazing how many people fail to consider that they are following Centre Management's instructions.
Anyway, the issue on the misuse of this Act in the UK has been going on for years, and working professionals have been on the wrong end of the heavy handed and deliberate use of this act almost since it was passed in 2008. Here's an article from one of the UK's most respected newspapers:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1228149.html
While we agree on what we should be able to do, I believe that most people "shoot the messenger" and dont address the issue of who is producing and implementing draconian and restrictive powers, which is much higher up the food chain.
What is happening in the UK (former home) should be a lesson on how not to allow these restrictive practices to creep into our society, so as a board member of Arts Freedom Australia, I urge you to protest - not with a face to face with security guards - but with the bureaucrats in Australia who are producing more restrictions on photography then ever before.
Last edited by Longshots; 13-10-2011 at 5:29pm.
Happily not all shopping centres are photography shy, most of the staff and even the customers are happy to be photographed in Bali but don't mess with the security guys there, they carry big guns.
AndrewNikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.
Most centres have at their entrances a precis (or full list) of their Terms and Conditions of entry close to the main door. Very similar to Car Parks who also have Terms and Conditions of entry, that just by passing through the barrier, door or gate, you're immediately legally accepting. Most are the equivalent of 2-4 A4Pages in a font size of 20 or less. My guess is that you will find at least one ridiculous term contained that you have underestimated, and yet previously never been concerned about, until now.
Last edited by Longshots; 13-10-2011 at 5:42pm.
It's amazing what people agree to without realising...
There is a large shopping centre just a few km from Sydney (one of the big ones) that has signs informing people entering a parking area that they may enter your vehicle and move or remove it without notice to you...
But I guess most of the customers are oblivious and/or apathetic..
I do recall seeing them at entrances sometimes at shopping malls, and even carpark lots and other privately owned premises.Most centres have at their entrances a precis (or full list) of their Terms and Conditions of entry close to the main door. Very similar to Car Parks who also have Terms and Conditions of entry, that just by passing through the barrier, door or gate, you're immediately legally accepting. Most are the equivalent of 2-4 A4Pages in a font size of 20 or less. My guess is that you will find at least one ridiculous term contained that you have underestimated, and yet previously never been concerned about, until now.
It's not a case of "shooting the messenger" so much as the security guards really do need to get their diplomacy into order and not act like they have God given rights to treat people like criminals, especially in this case where it was blatantly clear that it was just an innocent case of a man photographing his daughter. I think these guys were knuckle draggers that were itching for confrontation as they were having a slow week and this is what fuels these situations into escalating into something that it need not be due to the overly testosterone driven security guards flexing their muscles in the mistaken belief in the power they think they have. As the father said, if he were alone, he would have handled himself differently due to the attitude of the security guards and his inference was that he would have pushed buttons which may have had him arrested. If I were there, I think I would have backed the father up.
Yes, it is a privately owned building but they allow public access and as such should treat the public with due respect and decency and just stating your terms of entry does not give them the right to apply any terms they wish as it still has to be legal and fair. Taking this to the extreme, they could say in their terms of entry that they reserve the right confiscate any camera or mobile phone that anyone uses, which is clearly not legal. I seem to remember there was one such case where a shopping mall had some sort of entry requirement with regards to taking responsibility for people cars, but when it was actually challenged in court the mall lost as what they had in the conditions was either unlawful or lacked a duty of care or some such thing. I can't remember the exact details.
Ah well it is, and you're continuing to do it I'm afraid. So I wont bore anyone else with a continued retort of your statements, but I'm sorry Lance, you still dont get it, the Security guards were doing their jobs. If you've really read the story, then you know that the management have accepted full responsibility for their over zealous terms and conditions and due to the public backlash
(And this is the important point Lance - aim for the people making the rules, not the ones who's job it is to implement them !)
and have now changed them to what is deemed more acceptable and fair.
I've dealt with many a security guard doing their job, and in most cases I take the standpoint that I understand the absurd terms and conditions that management produce and insist on being implemented.
And I'm afraid your second paragraph is nice in what you would like life to be, but in reality doesnt happen. Yes it has to be legal. Except that generally is continually defined and redefined. But it doesnt have to be fair - what is fair anyway? Its different to different people. And yes you can certainly challenge any contract, term of entry in a court of law, and depending on the arguments produced you could win or lose. If people dont break the law of discrimination, they can produce (and DO ) any term of entry to their business that they feel like. If it loses them customers, thats both their choice and their decision.
FWIW I read and review in my position as PhotoWatchDog approximately 300 - 400 competitions a year, and the terms some organisers produce in their T&C is staggering. And a large majority accept them without reading them, let alone understanding the full ramification of what they've agreed to. So while I have plenty of examples of expensive court cases where an individual has challenged an unfair term (which is what I do on behalf of the Australian Photographic Community on a constant basis), there are probably millions who dont and give in.
So that supports my point that its best to stand up and take on those who are creating the restrictions not those who are paid a small amount to implement them. Like I said no point in shooting the messenger.
Last edited by Longshots; 13-10-2011 at 8:37pm.
I think these guys were knuckle draggers that were itching for confrontation as they were having a slow week and this is what fuels these situations into escalating into something that it need not be due to the overly testosterone driven security guards flexing their muscles in the mistaken belief in the power they think they have.
Yes, way to overly assume something there Lance, I'd pay to see the security guard's side of the story before making any accusations based upon this man's own story.
And when you download a free or paid program or sign up to websites who reads all the terms and conditions. And of course due to our varying education who understands it all. Fact is if you want to join these sites you have to abide by their conditions. And as stated we have only heard one side of the story. Oh and we do need knuckle draggers now and again to keep the riff raff in check. There are not many people who can stand up to aggressive situations and take control.
No, you are continuing to do it and that is missing the point about how the security guards went about their business. It is one thing to do your job, but it is another entirely about how you go about doing it, they should have been more diplomatic about what they did. In other words, it is irrelevent whether they had the right to do what they did or not or whether they were just doing their job or were directed to do their job, it is the way they went about it that is the issue and exactly why everyone is up in arms and angry.
Now, this supports my point. If I were a security guard this situation would never have seen the light of day and I am sure would have ended up with all parties happy with the outcome, whereas the way you seem to think it should be handled is exactly why the father was upset and rightly so and why it ended up the way it did. I rest may case.
Last edited by Lance B; 13-10-2011 at 10:08pm.
So this father was riff raff? Hmmm.
Again, I stress it was the way they went about it that is the issue, not the issue itself.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Add To Bookmarks
