Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Cambridge - Ban on Photography in new shopping centre


JJGEE
9 6.4k 18 England
6 Aug 2010 5:29PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Jestertheclown
6 6.6k 242 England
6 Aug 2010 5:32PM

Quote:Wishing Fish Clock

I see what you mean!

In fact that centre looks a whole lot more interesting than my local Arndale, even without the clock.

Jester.
User_Removed 4 238
6 Aug 2010 5:37PM
Seen it many times.

So do they have a ban on photography in there as well?

Dave
Sus e2
10 3.2k 9 England
7 Aug 2010 9:04AM

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


I do agree with you, and about the fact that its private property. I don't have any great desire to take pictures there myself. Its just that it seems fundamentally unreasonable. The other irritating thing is that they then complain with shops close and are left empty for ages, and talk about encouraging people back to shop in town. But if I get the sense that the shopping centre is a place where there are all sorts of rules and regulations that seem to be enforced without full rhyme and reason, then I won't be encouraged to go. I'm not keen on the artificiality of the places anyway, its just that they've plonked the public library in the middle of it.

I think also that a total ban is either unenforceable and therefore meaningless, or they have got to make a point of enforcing every single instance of photography (which will then lead to adverse publicity such as this). I just typed Grand Arcade Cambridge into a large online image storage site and got over 800 results, majority of which are amateur shots inside the building.
User_Removed 8 2.1k 7 England
7 Aug 2010 9:32AM
Are there any camera shops there? I am not in favor of banning photography anywhere.
User_Removed 4 238
7 Aug 2010 9:38AM
Shopping centres, or malls, as the Americans call them, all seem the same. Go to any town, walk into a mall, and you will get little or no indication of where you are. All the shops look the same, the sweet shops all look the same, they're all located in the same places relative to each other and they are all expensive.

The last thing I would want to carry around a place like that is a camera.

Rules? Regulations? Fine. As i said, they own the place and they can have whatever rules and regulations they like, and enforce them how they like. None of it is important to me, certainly not important enough to complain about.

Give me a decent market in a market town, selling locally grown produce and goods at reasonable prices any day. And I can walk around with a camera and look for people who are interesting enough to take photographs of, without being acosted by a security guard telling me I can't take pictures.

Dave
meercat e2
5 278 United Kingdom
7 Aug 2010 10:21AM
To be honest I can understand why shopping centres might be a bit funny about photography, as they are often targets of robberies and raids, and reccying with a camera might be part of one such.
User_Removed 4 238
7 Aug 2010 10:36AM

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


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!



What do people who look like they are going to cause trouble look like? would they necessarily have dogs, cameras or hoodies?

I don't have a dog, but i often carry a camera and i often wear a hoodie.......... I'm 58. I may not look like a trouble maker and might be dismissed by security, but just suppose........................................... what then? Who's fault is it?

Bin Ladens representative in Cambridge is unlikely to have a sign on his back saying "terrorist at work, sorry for the inconvenience-but i need to know where i can place a bomb to cause maximum damage"
collywobles e2
10 3.4k 9 United Kingdom
7 Aug 2010 11:00AM

Quote: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.


Firstly, I am not a Rambler but I dont see any evidence of this. I do a lot of walking as thousands of others do and I know of no one who does not stick tp public footpaths. Errors obviously do occur in navigation but they are errors and exceptions to the rule in 99.999% of missing the footpath.


Quote: what is it exactly that makes people want to take photographs in shopping centres?


last quote and paragraph removed by epz as unnecessary
answersonapostcard e2
10 12.7k 15 United Kingdom
7 Aug 2010 12:35PM
Lets keep it civil please.
User_Removed 4 238
7 Aug 2010 12:49PM
so the answer is to just delete the offeding post is it?

Frankly I found that extremely offensive. And so did at least one other contributer. And I have no doubt I can find other cats and swans on the forum photo's.

Photography is banned in most shopping centres. I find it interesting that people should want to photograph inside shopping malls, not weird so much as bemusing that "togs" here should want to do it........................... not a dumb comment................. because its banned.

Dave
answersonapostcard e2
10 12.7k 15 United Kingdom
7 Aug 2010 12:56PM
Dave I'm the only mod on line at the moment, and I only managed to nip in and check the site for a few minutes - I was answering your report and another at the same time, I took out the what was reported but I've now had time to check further.
ketch e2
7 770 50 Turks And Caicos Islands
7 Aug 2010 1:12PM
I suspect that it is the principle that people find difficult and largely fires the argument.

Shopping malls are great places for people watching and can produce some brilliant candid 'street' shots (as you note the value of a good traditional town market can be the same) - but that then gives rise to another problem - what happens if people don't want their photographs taken. Result could be agro in the shopping center - so much easier to just keep it simple and ban photography, which they can do because its is private property.

The arguments about terrorism are completely spurious - if you really need to take shots of a shopping center (terrorist or determined photographer) then surely you carry a remote trigger and your camera in a shopping bag with a hole? Not much different to trying to shoot Kingfishers from a hide TBH.

But it is the principle and it does feel like an errosion of rights of access and to conduct ourselves in peaceful legal activity - even though its not that simple.

The analogy with walking is a little lost on me I have to say - but I have never paid much attention to Private Property signs which I know is bad!!
JamesGarfield 5 915 4 United Kingdom
7 Aug 2010 5:44PM
I was in that very shopping centre a couple of months ago and watched a tog quite freely walk around with his DSLR taking pics, in fact he pointed his camera towards us from some distance whilst we were having a coffee and i put my hand up to stop him taking the pic as i'm not particularly photogenic. Perhaps he had permission?
cambirder e2
11 7.2k England
7 Aug 2010 5:46PM
I have also got away with it in the past and I made no attempt to hide what I was doing.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.