way to stand your ground (damn security)

[leftcoastphotog]

kudos to the reporter and photog
http://www.abc6.com/engine.pl?station=wlne&id=19552&template=breakout_featurevideo.shtml&dateformat=%M+%e,%Y



lcp

[Grangeway]

Nice! I hate to insult all other invertebrates but are those three crustaceans angry because they didn't get to play "fingercuffs" with Lyndie England and Charles Graner at Abu Ghraib? I wonder if those guards would bow up their cow chests if Randy McIlwain (6' 4" and 280 lbs. for those who don't know the man) were the reporter. I suspect the intensity would be ratcheted way back. I wonder if there's an unemployed doughy security guard tonight. If not, he should be. On the other hand, if he's still employed we're all safer because we know his location at least eight hours a day. I'd like to think the station is pursuing criminal charges against the doughnut eater who threatened the crew. Let's see if the Providence cops and DA have any sack.

Any way, thanks for the entertainment. Sorry about the scattershooting approach.

[eb]

That is awesome. Not that it happened...because it happens all the time. Malls invite us in to promote their positive news, but when real news happens, they shut us out. Yet they let the public shoppers go their merry way...with cameras. It's awesome that this news station did a story and showed it....from our point of view. They stood their ground. You gotta know when to pick your battles. This news crew picked this one and should win it. Malls across America need to see this.

This website has good information about state to state laws - shooting in malls: http://www.rcfp.org/places/

[Brock Samson]

Sweet. Super sweet.

[pre-set]

Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ftbal02freak]

Way to go guys!!!!!

[focusthis]

I wonder what is being said over at www.rentacop.dik about this??

[Run 'n' Get 'em]

Way to go Providence guys!

[SLIMJIM]

good job holding your ground guys!

[cameragod]

Just as well the news show wasn’t sponsored by the mall.
They kept calm and kept rolling, good work

[Dan Haggerty]

Here's what happened....................

Mall guard fired after exchange with TV reporter

A spokesman for Allied Barton Security Services confirmed this afternoon that the company has fired a Providence Place mall security guard accused of threatening a television reporter yesterday.

Channel 6 reporter James Hummel and cameraman John Guice filed a complaint today against the guard and a parking attendant who tried to block the news team from filming a security vehicle dangling from the mall parking garage's fourth floor.

The security guard -- whose name has not been released -- allegedly threatened the television reporter, according to Hummel's statement to police. "Sometime when I don't have this uniform on and you don't have that camera and I run into you, you're dead. I will kill you,'' the security guard said, according to Hummel.

Providence police are investigating the incident.


...................apparently Prov. Police are also looking into what exactly is and is not public property around the mall since this is not the first time there have been problems.

[Dan Haggerty]

TV Reporter, Cameraman File Assault Complaint
A Providence Place mall guard is fired after ABC6 reporter Jim Hummel and videographer John Guice say they were threatened and pushed while covering a story.
BY GREGORY SMITH
Providence Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE -- Jim Hummel, chief reporter for ABC6 News, and a news videographer Wednesday complained to the police that they were assaulted and threatened by personnel at Providence Place mall.

The altercation, which was recorded on audiotape and videotape, occurred Tuesday as reporters covered an accident at the mall garage that left a security patrol vehicle protruding precariously from the fourth floor.

Mall personnel ordered the ABC6 News crew and a radio reporter to stop taking pictures and to leave the Riverwalk, a public promenade that runs between the mall and the Woonasquatucket River, insisting that they were on private property.

As other people passed by largely unchallenged -- some used cell phone cameras to shoot pictures of the dangling vehicle -- the journalists balked at the orders.

One of the journalists' antagonists, a security guard for AlliedBarton Security Services, a mall contractor, was fired Wednesday. AlliedBarton and General Growth Properties, the mall owner, apologized to Hummel and ABC6 News videographer John Guice for their treatment.

Hummel alleged in a joint written complaint with Guice that an unnamed guard threatened to kill him, Hummel, off camera.

On ABC6's video news report, the mustached guard, wearing eyeglasses, an orange vest and a Mountie-style campaign hat, is seen and heard to say, "I will teach you something. If that camera wasn't on, you'd be laying on your back right now."

WPRO-AM radio news reporter Steve Klamkin said the same guard tried to snatch his recorder.

"I managed to wrestle it back," Klamkin said.

That guard, according to AlliedBarton spokesman Larry Rubin, was fired because he violated company policy by being combative and using abusive language.

In the complaint to the police, Hummel and Guice alleged that another mall representative wearing a leather jacket grabbed the ABC6 camera and shoved it as Guice had his eye to the viewfinder, trying to videotape. Guice's head was pushed back.

Hummel told The Providence Journal that the man who grabbed the camera is an unidentified supervisory employee of Standard Parking, a company that has a contract to operate the mall garage. The tussle over the camera went on for several minutes, according to the complaint.

Police Sgt. David F. Edes said last night that the complaint would be forwarded to the Investigative Division for followup.

The complaint at several points refers the police to the videotape, which Hummel said investigators can see on the TV station's Web site, ABC6.com. Hummel said he expects that a copy of the videotape will be readily furnished to the police as soon as a formal request is made.

Craig Gorris, general manager of Providence Place mall and the local representative of General Growth Properties, said in a statement, "We apologize for the incident that took place Wednesday with the media. Plain and simple, it should not have happened.

"We are in the process of reviewing all of our policies and procedures with our contract services to be sure nothing like this happens in the future. . . ."

Rubin, of AlliedBarton, said he was not aware of the complaint to the police and would have no comment.

Where mall property ends and the public right of way begins was unclear Wednesday.

Providence City Engineer William Bombard said the mall structure does not fully occupy its lot and that portions of what might appear to be public sidewalk are actually private property.

Bombard said he would need specific information regarding where everyone was standing in order to tell whether they were in the public right of way.

The altercation occurred on the Riverwalk, near the intersection of Promenade and Park streets, west of the glassy Wintergarden that joins the mall's two parts over the river and railroad tracks.

As for the accident that brought reporters to the Riverwalk, Rubin said AlliedBarton remains unsure why the vehicle smashed through a fence and was left dangling over the edge of the building. The security guard who lost control of the vehicle is recovering from his injuries, he said.

"We're still looking into it," Rubin said. "Thank goodness it wasn't any worse than it was."

[Sentinel94]

THAT'S AWESOME!! Glad to see someone standup for what rights we have left...funny how a small story blew up into a bigger one just by the idiotic acts of a few rent-a-cops. Glad to see it didn't get any more physical than the hand over camera trick. Amazing to think that people with cameraphones can shoot all they want, but we can't and have to leave. MORONS! I know this is mean, but I'm glad that guy got fired, he went too far by threatening and needed to be taught a lesson.

[BluesDaddy]

The mall got itself a huge black eye by employing brainless thugs for its "security". If the news crew had been allowed to simply shoot the story and leave, it would have been a :30 vo/sot in a couple shows and then forgotten, and none of us would have ever heard about it.

[American lost in Canada]

The reporter should also get a restraining order against the guy who was fired, because he was mad before, no I can only imagine how mad he is. That kind of guy might follow up on his threat after losing his job.

Be careful, but stick it to those rent a jerks.

[Run&Gun]

Don't 'ya just love... to hate rent-a-cops?!

Perfect example of how a mountain was made out of a mole-hill. As stated above, it would have been a spot news story that would have been forgotten about shortly, but the brainless rent-a-cops blew up the situation and gave the mall and his former employer a black eye. Do you think the rent-a-cop would have made such a big deal if it hadn't of been one of his fellow, bungling brothers screw-ups that brought the news out there to begin with?

Way to go guys! Don't ever stop rolling...

[Electric Eye]

As a Managing Assignment Editor, I applaude those guys. Nice job holding their ground. I was a shooter for several years, and I see that its a rent-a-cop thing everywhere, not just our market. Were those guards armed?

[Frank McBride]

I imagine anyone who has been shooting for more than a little while can't help but say, "Yes! Take THAT!" when seeing this story. It left me with an uneasy feeling, though.

Was the struggle with the security guard really news in the sense that the public needed to know? I'm not certain either way, but I can see where the public might see this story as very self-serving, which it undeniably was.

You can argue that since the newpaper covered it as well, then that's validation, except the paper's reporters have to deal with the same hassles, too, and have the same interest in nailing these guys.

Is this too puritan of a view, or do others see an ethical dilemna here?

FMc

[Electric Eye]

We ran the story of the crash as a kicker near the end of our cast. No injuries, interesting visuals. The assault sidebar was self-serving, but I think that on a slow day, most stations would put it in their cast somewhere. We probably would have run it as a piece of the main story. "... mall security tried to pervent our cameras from showing you the result after..." etc.

[cameragod]

I know what you mean Frank. I too feel uncomfortable when “we” become the story but I think in this case the security guys took it a bit too far and the station handled the story well.
I once had my ass saved by a rent a cop who wouldn’t let his clients, the exclusive brethren, beat the crap out of me. All he had to do was look away, but he calmed them down and let me get out of there. I wish all security was more like him but unfortunately they are not.

[Corporate Management]

Frank makes some interesting points, but I have to disagree.

The "story" here was about the attempted quashing of rights; few things are more newsworthy in America, as far as I'm concerned. They had a right to be there, and the public has a right to see the station's video.

And although it may indeed be self-serving, it also serves to protect said rights in the future. It draws attention to the issue, and may help ensure that other malls, businesses, or forms of law enforcement know what rights the media has.

Freedom of the press is one of the most important rights around; in my opinion, someone trying to nullify that right is most certainly newsworthy.

[pre-set]

Simply amazing. Wow, it's nice to see that sometimes, idiots REALLY DO get punished in this world.

That's just incredible. These guys have just gotten "class-action" payback for all of us who have ever been fawked with by some hack with a security badge and walkie talkie.

[RichVid]

My God, that Chief Reporter was treated like a Stringer! As others have said, this stuff happens all the time...As a freelancer, I can think of 10 times in the last couple of years where I have been threatened, harrassed, and even assaulted in the name of spot news...The reporter and photog handled it great, with horsepower to spare...

As for the guard who was fired, he should or at least would be criminally prosecuted (In California anyway) under Penal Code Section 422...read below and see how he qualifies:

422. Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made,
is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by
imprisonment in the state prison.

Throw the book at 'em!

[Son-of-Spam]

I dont believe the security officers carry anything other than a radio and perhaps a whistle but i could be wrong...i havent been to that mall since maybe 2005...also there have been issues constantly w/ access to the mall lately (there have been alot of fights and trouble w/ teenagers in there that security has hasseled anyone trying to get near to cover it) so i believe it may have just been "enough is enough" to cause them to do this story.

[Son-of-Spam]

Just read RichVid's comment above...

California has its problems but its also got some great laws....wish they were everywhere.

[eb]

Frank,

Do you remember the part where the security guard said he would "kill" the reporter? That put it over the top...for the public's need and right to know.

Besides, even if he hadn't threatened to kill the reporter..... (no laughing matter) the public...at some point, needs to understand the constitutional "battles" going on in their community. Whether that involves Joe Blow and his consitutional rights being violated by a cop, or a neighbor....to our consitutional rights being violated by a rent a cop. Our rights as journalists...or the violation of such rights...is a public matter.

Throw in a threat to kill...and it seals the deal.

[NYC Street]

Not to rain on the parade, but California also has some laws that can seriously hurt you (though my bet is that if challenged, they'd be found unconstitutional). A prime example: Cal. Civil Code Section 1708.8, which states “A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used.”

In other words, if the governator breaks his wife's jaw with a punch while at a family barbecue across the street, and you pick up a camera and take a picture from your yard, you're guilty.

[Lenslinger]

Meet the TV news photog's natural enemy: the shopping mall security guard. Though usually found shooing Goth kids out of the food court, this breed of law enforcement flunkie becomes
...Getting hassled by a rental authority is a familiar occurence to anyone who chases scanner traffic for very long. The phenomenon us especially pronounced at shopping malls, where a passing flash of a logo'd lens can draw a half dozen thugs in matching polyester. For all their attempts at an authoritative vibe, these cats rarely know the law. To them, every walkway within five square miles of their employer's property is off limits to the Fourth Estate - unless of course there's an Easter Egg Hunt or other promotional event going on inside. Then, we lens-pushers are welcomed into Center Court with open arms and free flyers. Otherwise, it's all harsh words, puffed up chests and rude walkie-talkie gestures.

It's one of the reasons I grew so tired of spot news. I just have no desire to debate Freedom of the Press with someone sporting a mail-order badge and a few Skittles in their pockets. I'd just as soon argue Right of Way laws with volunteer firefighters in oversized turn-out gear. Both, make me late for lunch. But sometimes you just can't avoid an encounter with these cop-wannabes. All you can do is keep rolling, know your rights and understand that very often, the smaller the jurisdiction, the bigger the Napolean complex. Problem is many field crews know little of property laws. Worse yet, the stations that send them to the edge of calamity rarely back them up when things go stupid. And when you mix testosterone, television cameras and trumped-up hall-monitors, stupidity is virtually assured. So if you're a photog, educate yourself as to where you can and cannot be officially unwelcomed. And if you're the hiring guy at a fancy schmancy shopping mall, be sure to brief your security goobs on who not to harrass. You may also want to tell them those big shiny things the TV guys carry on their shoulders actually records things as they happen and can be replayed on-air and on-line over and over again. Seems they missed that memo as well...

[Run&Gun]

... You may also want to tell them those big shiny things the TV guys carry on their shoulders actually records things as they happen and can be replayed on-air and on-line over and over again. Seems they missed that memo as well...


...And that most of them cost more than the security guard makes in a year, so that they will know what some of the rest of the $h!t storm will be when it's broken while they try to wrestle it away with the grace and ease of a lion trying to rip the throat out of a gazzele. Anybody else remember one of the guys on tape saying he was going to break the camera in half, or something to that effect, if he didn't turn it off?

[Jax]

In other words, if the governator breaks his wife's jaw with a punch while at a family barbecue across the street, and you pick up a camera and take a picture from your yard, you're guilty.

I don't know about that.

in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy,

I think it could be argued that your reasonable expectation of privacy ends at your front (or in this case, back) door.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

Kudos to that brave man in uniform for standing his ground. Let that be a lesson to you camera monkeys. Respect the badge and all it stands for.

[Jonathan]

For once the security guards lose. They GOT Juicccceed. lol

I know their are laws that make us get permission to film on someones property. But if property is open to the public eyes how is a TV camera different?

We should be treated equally!

[Run 'n' Get 'em]

I thought general consensus was that if your feet have a right to be there, so does your camera?

[FTOJRLST]

This reminded me of the time that my reporter and I were held on the side of the road by a family who thought we were tresspassing on their land. ...... We thought we were knocking on their neighbors house. Good thing we were right. It still wasn't pleasent. (Long Version (http://tvphotogblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/raging-public.html) on the blog.)

[XLR3]

The rent-a-cops at my local mall follow me around even when I'm there to cover the lame fashion shows, santa in town, etc. b.s. One even proceeded to tell all the gawkers it was his job to keep an eye on me.

[eb]

Not to rain on the parade, but California also has some laws that can seriously hurt you (though my bet is that if challenged, they'd be found unconstitutional). A prime example: Cal. Civil Code Section 1708.8, which states “A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used.”

In other words, if the governator breaks his wife's jaw with a punch while at a family barbecue across the street, and you pick up a camera and take a picture from your yard, you're guilty.

-----------

No....I don't think so.

This law is designed...to prevent shooting pictures through someone's window into their private home...or climbing a tree to shoot the backyard pool activities with a zoom lens, or dish microphone....etc... Those things are ..."a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person..." and.... "...through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device...."

But if you can see something from a public street....of someone in their backyard comitting a crime, or of a plane crash, then that's different. THEN, if it is a public official, it also matters. Celebrities and public officials have less of a reasonable expectation of privacy. They live in the public eye. Not that you can take pictures of him in his pool from a tree...but certainly, if the Governor is beating his wife at a barbeque across the street...take all the pictures you can.

[The Daywood]

THEN, if it is a public official, it also matters. Celebrities and public officials have less of a reasonable expectation of privacy. They live in the public eye. Not that you can take pictures of him in his pool from a tree...but certainly, if the Governor is beating his wife at a barbeque across the street...take all the pictures you can.

I agree eb...

You guys need to know the history....New York Times v. Sullivan is in the media law classes for a reason.

[eb]

Yep... We had a Governor a few years ago who was having a "special relationship" or affair, with one of his staff. So while he was in Washington D.C. a print photog took a picture of them kissing in car - at the airport if my memory serves me. It was published. Now, that would not cut it if it was a private individual...but since he was a married governor, it was public interest.


http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=Governor+Romer+kissing&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&x=wrt&u=www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/06/romer/&w=governor+romer+kissing&d=ceNONRbfMcO_&icp=1&.intl=us

[QueenCityHillbilly]

I am a news photographer who loves being places I'm allowed to be when people don't want me there. It may be a sidewalk in front of a diddler's house, or it may just be the state parking lot that I use for tailgaiting prior to football games.

Why do so many of us think it's our right to be on private property? I've never been to that mall in Providence, so I could very well be out of line here, but if it's on the mall's property, why should we be allowed to be there? Sure, they love it when we go shoot our annual nat package of kids sitting on Santa's lap, but hate it when we want to be there when something bad happens, but I don't blame them at all. It's private property. I'd just as soon not have a bunch of media on my own property. I just don't get our fascination with being on private property when we aren't invited, and then not complying when asked to leave. Makes us look like asses.

[canuckcam]

Why do so many of us think it's our right to be on private property?

Maybe you're referring to something else, but if it's about the video, I think you missed the entire point of the confrontation.

Personally I think it's rediculous that owner/builders "extend" the sidewalk 30 feet onto their property, plant trees and shrubbery and put some "park benches" there; All without any clear demarcation and a guard arbitrarily declares that "private property." That issue has crept up a few times for me too.

[RichVid]

Reminds me of an incident in Century City maybe 9 years ago... Some drunken fool plowed thru a crowded parking lot as a late nite concert ended around 2AM, hitting a score of pedestrians... This was a wide-open, yet private lot surrounded by PUBLIC sidewalks and other thoroughfares...So I show up moments later for a slice of spot news and I get 4 huge EVENT STAFF goons blocking my shot - standing at the edge of the parking lot where it meets the sidewalk... I was incredulous... "Are you guys serious???" Anyway, they tried to follow me wherever I moved...effectively blocking my shot...briefly...

It was over a few minutes later when a Fire Engine with some folks I knew pulled right up and jumped out to assist in triage...The captain let me know I was free to climb aboard the rig and shoot from the vantage point of the hosebed... It was a great feeling shooting with one hand and flipping the bird at those a-holes with the other!

[Mighty Dyckerson]

It may be a sidewalk in front of a diddler's house, or it may just be the state parking lot that I use for tailgaiting prior to football games.
OK, what the hell is a diddler?

[Just Wondering]

You all may remember the video I captured two years ago. Mall security tackled me, cuffed me and then lied about what was said and done.... All that was caught on tape. they though the camera was off....it wasn't LMAO.... I just got a check for $45,000.

We went to the same mall 3 weeks ago to do a story, I asked "mall mgmt" if I could go into the mall and shoot video of the retailer in question. I was promptly denied (which was in direct violation of my settlement). I will be filing an injunction within 2 weeks.

Her's the story

Valley Plaza security officers tackled and temporarily seized the camera of a KBAK-Channel 29 photographer who declined to stop videotaping in the mall's public parking lot, Bakersfield police said Wednesday.
A Bakersfield police officer who saw the altercation intervened "to defuse the situation and resolve it," Detective Mary DeGeare said.
At one point in the Tuesday afternoon incident, police were confronted with the choice of arresting the cameraman on suspicion of trespassing, or the security officers on suspicion of assault, DeGeare said.
The situation was resolved with each side agreeing at the scene not to seek charges against the other, the detective said.
Any photographer has "every right" to take pictures in a public parking lot unless it can be demonstrated that he is substantially interfering with a proprietor's business, said lawyer Terry Francke.
"The general rule of thumb is that if your feet have a right to be in a place, your camera can capture everything it sees," said Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware, a non-profit organization that advocates open government and provides legal advice to citizens, journalists and others.
Both Channel 29 news director Rena Popp and Valley Plaza marketing director Marcella Anthony declined to comment, citing the need for further investigation.
The police, television station and Valley Plaza would not identify anyone involved in the case, but The Californian learned that the photographer was Chuck Dennis, a veteran newsman.
Dennis went to the parking lot shortly after hearing a report of a purse snatching near Macy's.
Officer Patrick Mara was investigating the crime when he noticed three security officers -- two in uniform and one in plain clothes -- taking Dennis to the ground and trying to take his camera, DeGeare said.
Mara went over and advised Dennis to let go of his camera, indicating he would get it back, DeGeare said.
As Dennis was getting up, the security officers attempted to handcuff him, but Dennis resisted, DeGeare said. Mara advised Dennis that he would handcuff him if he would not allow the security officers to do so.
The plainclothes officer said the photographer had declined to leave, according to police. Dennis took videotape of the plainclothes officer after declining his orders to leave.
That's when the struggle ensued.
Mara went back to the purse-snatching investigation, while Officer Anthony Hernandez came to deal with the photographer, DeGeare said.
It took about a half hour for the situation to be resolved.

[MOShooter]

Why do so many of us think it's our right to be on private property? I've never been to that mall in Providence, so I could very well be out of line here, but if it's on the mall's property, why should we be allowed to be there?...It's private property. I'd just as soon not have a bunch of media on my own property.

I wouldn't either, but I also don't invite the general public onto my property. I think more states should have a law regarding this issue. Maybe they would if we brought it up to our respective lawmakers. I do understand that it is their property, and if I'm shoplifting or causing a massive disturbance, I can see being asked to leave, but most of the time we aren't causing a disturbance at all. One may be happening, but we didn't cause it; we're just there to see it, like all the other mall visitors.

[The Daywood]

I think that is a good point MO....We are there to see what's going on for those who can't.

I also think they used a good line in the piece. Some thing like, "We're just like the public, no better no worse."

[Dink]

Why do so many of us think it's our right to be on private property?

The answer to your questions depends primarily on two factors: the state in which you're shooting and whether you're shooting on a public right of way.

For an example of how the state makes a difference, it is legal in California for news photogs to enter malls and shoot video without prior permission because, in that state, anywhere the public can go without prior permission is public access space that is considered open to news photographers as well. Malls are considered public space, even though they're private property. The California property owner can't tell you to leave while allowing other people to mill around.

However, if you go to Florida, where property laws are stronger, the property owner has every right to kick you out if he sees you. The idea there is that the owner has the right to tell you how you may use his property. If you're using it in a manner that is inconsistent with his wishes (i.e. shooting video), you can be considered a trespasser even though there are hundreds of other people milling around who are not being told to leave. The laws vary in other states, so you have to know the law where YOU live and shoot.

On the other issue, the public right of way is almost universal. In most states, a right of way exists along the road to allow the general public to pass whether the property owner likes it or not. The property owner may actually own everything up to the curb, but if there's a regular sidewalk on that property along the road it will be on the right of way, which the owner doesn't control. Often the right of way exists even when there's no sidewalk. So, for example, if you wanted video of the mall and set up on the sidewalk out by a public road to get it, mall security usually can't do anything about it, despite the fact that the mall owns the land itself, simply because you're on the right of way.

Sometimes a right of way can even exist that crosses an owner's property away from the road, such as when a major walking thoroughfare is established on private property. How much control a property owner has over something like that depends on the state.

Right of way and public access space aren't the same thing. Using Florida again as an example, there you can set up on the sidewalk and shoot the mall because you're on the right of way. You can't, however, set up in the mall's parking lot or go inside, because even though it's public access, it's only public access for the purposes the mall management deems appropriate; everybody else is trespassing.

There's another issue that sometimes gets overlooked. In many states, tenants have a right to invite whomever they choose into their establishments. A mall may have a standing rule that nobody with a television camera is allowed to be on mall property, but the individual stores may have a contradictory right to invite you into their stores. At one station we used to piss off the mall cops by calling Crate & Barrell directly and arranging to get video with them without involving the mall management at all. I'd show up and make a bee line for C & B, then see some high school dropout in a uniform that was a size too small hovering outside the store window, glaring at me. He would then follow very conspicously behind me when I left to make sure I didn't try to shoot where I wasn't invited.

So, when you ask why some of us think it's our right to be on private property, that's because some of us HAVE the right to be on private property. We might only have the right to be on the right of way, or we might have the right to go anywhere the public is allowed to go. From the sound of the story that started this thread, I'm guessing that the photog and reporter were actually on a right of way of some kind associated with the river walk that has been mentioned and had every right to be there.

[Dink]

Any photographer has "every right" to take pictures in a public parking lot unless it can be demonstrated that he is substantially interfering with a proprietor's business, said lawyer Terry Francke.
"The general rule of thumb is that if your feet have a right to be in a place, your camera can capture everything it sees," said Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware, a non-profit organization that advocates open government and provides legal advice to citizens, journalists and others.

Note that this lawyer is specifically talking about California. Other states may have similar laws, but most do not. As I wrote above, in Florida, for example, you do not have these same rights and can be instructed to leave public access private property.

[NYC Street]

EB, pal-

That may be what the law is INTENDED to do...but read what it actually says. There's a funny (if you can call a law review article funny) article in the Fordham Law School Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal from a few years back called, "Warning, Wearing Eyeglasses May Expose You to Additional Liability" - it's about Cal. Civil Code Sec. 1708.8.

Eyeglasses, you see, are "visual...enhancing device[s]". The law was an anti-paparazzi effort pushed by the zealots at the Screen Actors Guild, who didn't bother to think about (or didn't care about) the collateral damage.

And to the poster who suggested that public right of ways would always be safe havens - that's when you have to check carefully for the attitude of your local police...who may cite you for unsafe stopping on a highway, or worse.

[Sharp Shooter]

Love it! Love it! Love it!:D


So did they get the rent-a-dick for uttering a death threat??

S.S.

[ericnordquist]

we are the canary in the mine shaft, we would be derelict of duty if we did not inform the public that our ability to report the news is being hindered by despots and tyrants.

[BNVN]

I shoot footage at the Mall Of America (MOA) from time to time and even though it is a public mall, they have a very tight security for the media but yet it is somewhat relaxed. They ask the media to sign in with the main entrance if your going to be doing anything that would need a tripod or larger cameras that would be an attention grabber. When I shoot with a Pd170 without the sticks, I don't need a pass, I just look like another tourist.

But I can see the valid concern for security at MOA due to it's size but I have never been asked to leave, I just get asked to sign in, get a sticker then go back to shooting. Most of the guards know what I do so they know I'm out their shooting some P.R. event or people in the weather.

On the other hand, last year I had a rent a cop on the Nicollet Mall in downtown Minneapolis tell me I could not shoot video outside their building. The Nicollet Mall is a 2 lane with no parking, several block long strip of road that only buses and bikes can use. It has extra wide sidewalks where people just do their thing while taking breaks from work, walking between buildings, shopping and so on.

One day, this guard from the Medical Arts building decided to come out and try to take my camera and tape and tell me that it was against the law for me to film there. I was about 6" from the curb on a public sidewalk filming people in the rain as they walked by. You would have to be retarded not to know it was so public space that I was almost in the street.

Lucky for me, two cops were walking the beat at the same time this was going down and long story short, they told the guard that if he touched me, it is assult. If he tried to take the PD-170 and sticks, it is theft with assualt and I could defend myself with extreme force and told him to go back inside and do his job because the public space was their job and let me do my job.

What I really funny is that 2 blocks down from where we were at on the Nicollet Mall is WCCO 4 (CBS) and they shoot on the mall all the time. As Carlos Mencia would say, DA Doh Daaaa

That was the time the cops in Minneapolis and Hennepin County came through.

But from shooting public spaces vs private spaces, this crap will go on for as long as we shoot video and rent a cops have are the people who flunked out of Peace Officer courses in college and or were rejected by the armed forces. DA Doh Daaaa

[Jonathan]

What about Georgia's property laws? Can we go anywhere open to the public?

[Sooner]

We have faught this battle several times. We have even had mall security try to throw us off a public sidewalk outside the mall that is downtown. They tried to compromise by telling us not to shoot torwards the mall, please. After one news event in a mall parking lot we really got into it with them to the point of contacting our lawyers who quickly said stay and shoot, mall parking lots are considerd PUBLIC property. When the cops came to handle the actual story we were covering they never said a word to us. ANd by the way, LAWSUIT! Dude touches your camera, dude touches you, take them to court immediatley.