Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Cambridge - Ban on Photography in new shopping centre

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Sus
Sus  93183 forum posts England9 Constructive Critique Points
6 Aug 2010 - 8:51 AM

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Stopped-from-taking-a-photo-at-the-shops.htm


Quote: “We had no problems until reaching the Grand Arcade. Within seconds of him taking out his mobile phone to take a picture we were approached by two shopping centre security guards.

“They were polite but said they did not allow any type of filming or photography in the Grand Arcade. He put the phone away.

No dogs, no photography, no hoods (yes all these are banned in the Grand Arcade). And they want this place to be the vibrant new centre of Cambridge?

I'm not in favour of total bans. Stop the people - with or without dogs, cameras or hoods - that LOOK LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO CAUSE TROUBLE. Yes, there will be some erroneous identifications, but security guards can be trained well to spot trouble makers, and I wonder if people would cut them some slack for misidentifications, if security cut the general public some slack, and didn't assume that the possession of certain things made us troublemakers or criminals!

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
6 Aug 2010 - 8:51 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

collywobles
6 Aug 2010 - 8:58 AM

Does anyone understand the reason WHY these properties have bans on people taking photo's?

To say its private property is a rather ludicrous and incomplete explanation when these places are generally full of people anyway.


Yours
Puzzled of London

User_Removed
6 Aug 2010 - 9:10 AM


Quote: no photography policy in place to ensure the interests of public safety are upheld at all times

I'm not sure how photography is a problem to public safety - surely there are much less safe activities that are allowed in shopping centres - such as texting while walking and not looking where you are going, or carrying infectious diseases.

Sus
Sus  93183 forum posts England9 Constructive Critique Points
6 Aug 2010 - 12:01 PM

The Grand Arcade also has numerous CCTV cameras recording the public in the shopping centre.

Sus
Sus  93183 forum posts England9 Constructive Critique Points
6 Aug 2010 - 12:04 PM

If there are any Cambridge Camera Club members on here, can you let me know if there will be a response released from the club to this? I am certainly going to write to the management.

Martin54
Martin54 e2 Member 8497 forum postsMartin54 vcard United Kingdom
6 Aug 2010 - 1:09 PM

Does sound very extreme to ban photograhy outright. In contrast when I recently took some photos in the Highcross centre in Leicester I was soon approached by a security person who very politely explained that photography was not allowed, but added that I could obtain a permit from the information desk so I could take photos. Which seemed a reasonable compromise.

Sus
Sus  93183 forum posts England9 Constructive Critique Points
6 Aug 2010 - 1:12 PM

Tripods, kneeling down with bags and what not to get a best shot, yes I can understand that someone might get in the way on a busy day. But I think this guy was using his camera phone.

kaybee
kaybee  103793 forum posts Scotland24 Constructive Critique Points
6 Aug 2010 - 2:24 PM

I can think of no shopping centre that allows photography without restrictions.
Daft I know (and I don't agree with it) but it is private property and they set the rules.
The shopping centre in Livingston is very strange - in 2 of the 3 sections the security jump
on you.....in the 3rd they just walk past. I have no idea why because it is all owned by the same company

User_Removed
6 Aug 2010 - 3:58 PM


Quote: I can think of no shopping centre that allows photography without restrictions.
Daft I know (and I don't agree with it) but it is private property and they set the rules.
The shopping centre in Livingston is very strange - in 2 of the 3 sections the security jump
on you.....in the 3rd they just walk past. I have no idea why because it is all owned by the same company

Is that the one that used to be called MacArthur Glen?

discreetphoton
discreetphoton Site Moderator 93451 forum postsdiscreetphoton vcard United Kingdom20 Constructive Critique Points
6 Aug 2010 - 4:08 PM

Yes. Same owners as Cheshire Oaks and the York retail outlet mall. They get to set their own rules, which security then have to enforce, whether they agree with it or not. I actually know a couple of the guys, who transferred over the road because they thought it was all a bit OTT.

Sus
Sus  93183 forum posts England9 Constructive Critique Points
6 Aug 2010 - 4:21 PM

If reasonable rules are enforced, people would be more inclined to comply with them.

At the risk of stretching the analogy too far, a common one is the 'Dogs on Leads' sign on footpaths, when everyone is aware that what they really mean is 'Dogs under close control' (if your dog is within reasonable distance of you, not bothering wildlife, lifestock or other people, you are alert for any potential situations arising ahead, and can call your dog back instantly you need to, then your dog is under sufficient control. The real issue is that people don't train their dogs sufficiently to be able to do this. But enough of this tangent...)

So what is reasonable with regards photography in shopping centres? If its very busy, be considerate to other pedestrians, don't keep stopping and starting unpredictably without being aware of who is around you, don't take up space in a busy through-way, don't intimidate the public or shop assistants by blatently focussing your photography on individuals or shops to the extent where - if you didn't have a camera in front of your eyes, the way you were staring at them would make them feel uncomfortable.

It's called manners, being considerate to other people, and common sense.

With the ease of buying things online now, and the generally nightmarish experience of these shopping centres, they should be thinking of ways to win people in, rather than driving them away. If the chap in the original story was obstructing or upsetting shoppers, he should have been asked to stop for that reason. If he wasn't, then it rests on his risk as a terrorist I guess.

User_Removed
6 Aug 2010 - 4:51 PM

Forgive me , please, for asking the question. what is it exactly that makes people want to take photographs in shopping centres? As said, they are private property and if they wish to make a rule that says "no photographs" why should they not enforce it? It's no good asking why, they own the place and its their decision. If you break the rules in a perfectly reasonable way, you are still breaking the rules.

To me, its the same as "ramblers" who trespass on property where there is no public right of way and insist that they should be allowed to walk wherever they please. It's still private property and they have no legal right to be walking on it.

Sorry, I just don't understand

Dave

Jestertheclown

A ban does seem a bit daft but as Mouse says, why would you want photographs of a shopping centre anyway?

Reading the article in the link, the Centre manager does seem to come over as being quite reasonable in his explanation and says that whilst photography is banned, they're prepared to look at individual cases, so all hope is not completely lost.

Sounds like the security guys knew how to approach the situation as well.

Jester

JJGEE
JJGEE  96275 forum posts England18 Constructive Critique Points
6 Aug 2010 - 5:12 PM


Quote: why would you want photographs of a shopping centre anyway?

The Wishing Fish Clock - Regent Arcade - Cheltenham. Smile

Many years ago circa 1996 I asked if it was OK and being given the "nod" I got quite a few good shots with my MF camera and Velvia 50 slide film Smile

Jestertheclown


Quote: The Wishing Fish Clock - Regent Arcade - Cheltenham.

I don't know what that is but assuming it's something a little out of the ordinary and worth photographing, then obviously, you've got a point.

I was thinking more along the lines of the bland, faceless "Arndale Centres" etc. with their stupor inducing uninterestingness. (Is that a word . . . ?)

Jester.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.