Pentax K-30: a pretty package of a camera
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Former WV Senator Ordered To Delete Photos In Pittsburgh Mall
Cindy Frich, a former member of the West Virginia House of Delegates, was in a joyful mood as she shopped for Christmas presents in a Pittsburgh shopping mall recently.
But that was before the former republican state senator was accosted by an angry mother who was upset that Frinch had snapped a photo of her child sitting on Santa’s lap.
Seconds later, a security guard confronted her, ordering her to delete the photos.
This is how she explained it in a column in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
Feeling in the Christmas mood, when I encountered Santa at South Hills Village my smart phone photo application came in handy to capture the scene. But the picture seemed incomplete because there were no children sitting on Santa's knee, confiding in him their sugar-plum visions.
Happily, a family approached unceremoniously through the exit of the elaborate display and soon their child was comfortably perched on Santa's knee. My vignette was complete as I quickly snapped three photos while other families lined up at the entrance.
Full of Christmas warmth, I continued visiting shops until a woman interrupted my transaction and verbally assaulted me for photographing her son. She wanted to know what kind of person would take a picture of someone else's child. After her public assault, it was difficult to remember the Christmas spirit the picture had engendered.
A South Hills Village security guard told me to delete the photos from my cell phone. After informing the guard that there were also photographs of Santa without the child, the guard told me that it was against mall policy to take photos in the mall.
As she walked away with her photos deleted, she remembered a man in the child’s group had also taken photos, so she walked back to ask the guard if he had been ordered to delete his images.
Returning to find the security guard still with the alleged mother and her group of four adults, I attempted to clarify the mall's camera rule. When I asked if the family would have to delete mall photos from their phones, too, the guard unprofessionally joined the family in laughing at my logical query.
The woman who had stalked me through the mall did not know that I am a former state legislator who initiated and succeeded in creating strict laws against pedophiles in the West Virginia legislature. To me, the random child in my picture was simply a representation of a special moment in a human life and an innocent attempt to capture the magic of Christmas.
But the mother obviously felt more comfortable with her child sitting on the lap of a male stranger than getting photographed by a female stranger.
It's unfortunate that a former legislator did not have enough sense to know that a private security guard - nor a cop for that matter - does not have the authority to force you to delete your images.
And neither does a paranoid mother.
If there is indeed a policy against photography in the mall, then all they could have done was ask her to leave, then have her arrested for trespassing if she refused.
Comments
Pathetic that a (former) lawmaker doesn't know her rights. I would say West Virginians should be happy this ignorant git no longer represents them, but then I realized that politicians aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, and now I have to wonder how much more ignorant her replacement is.
Cindy, what are u doing at the mall anyway? Wasting Daddy Frich's $$$$ on another high-ticket shopping spree? You should be filling out job applications at McDonald's, since you are never going to win another WV election no matter how much $$$ Mommy & Daddy Frich drop on your pathetic campaign. Why don't you try and get a real job and move out of Mommy & Daddy's house like a real "grown-up"? The fact that you can't even convince these mouth-breathing WV trailer trash rednecks to support your TeaBagger fantasies speaks volumes as to what a sorry, sad little troll you are. BTW congrats to your fat loser sister who lost her P'Burg School Board Election by about 40+ points.
You two losers better watch out, because soon Daddy Frich will be out of cash and then you retards will have to join the rest of us in the 'real world' Cindy. Something to think about.
not everybody - including legislators - know everything about everything. yes, she had the right to take the photo, and no, she didnt have to delete it. but the guard was right to tell her to stop and had the right to eject her from the mall - it *is* private property, and the owner has the right to decide what goes on in that space.
The guard isn't the owner and the no photo policy was clearly not being uniformly enforced, if it exists at all.
It is slightly more pathetic that a former legislator would not know her rights, than that the mall security people and the public would not know them. But this seems to be what the country has come to these days. It might be a good idea for those of us who are working pros, to carry copies of a couple of the legal explanations of our rights, such as the excellent one by Burt Krages.
Educating security weenies one at a time shouldn't be our job, but if no one else is going to do it, we may have to. We clearly can't depend on government officials, present or former.
I think the third paragraph from the end has a "not" missing from it to correctly communicate that a security officer "can force you to delete your images." At least not legally.
Thanks, David. Just clarified it.
I'm not surprised. 90% of the monkeys in office don't know what the hell they are doing, and are just going through the motions.
We shouldn't be surprised that a legislator doesn't know the laws regarding photography. After all, how many of us knew anything about the particular laws for each of our localities before we started reading? Give her some slack. With any luck she'll be on the steep part of that learning curve.
Face it - photography rights are a fairly obscure part of the law. By way of analogy, how many know that it's illegal to pass another vehicle within 100 feet of a railroad crossing? How many know that a bicycle is entitled to the full width of the lane? When is a pedestrian obligated to step off the roadway?
I ask because most of us drive somewhere everyday, yet we're largely ignorant of the more obscure traffic laws. Let's educate our legislator rather than vilify her.
Carlos, (long time listener, first time caller)
This is someone you should reach out to, either by call or letter. This is a ex-senator who has just had a little taste of what you talk about every day. Even ex-senators have influence and its a Republican to boot. She might require a little more of the educational Carlos than the confrontational Carlos, but politicians need to be made aware of the issue. The more of them in your corner the better.
Its bad enough how she was treated. Imagine if it had been a man taking the photo.
security guard + order = kiss my ass
And in most cases I extend that to cops. An order crossing your lips != lawful..
A security guard has two choices in this case, ask you to leave or call the cops. If he places hands on you it IS battery as long as he isn't trying to break up a physical fight.
If he calls the cops he STILL only has one recourse, to ask you to leave.
I will leave IF ASKED by someone in authority. And keep in mind the cop lacks the authority, he isn't a property owner. Once the duly authorized representative of the property says it, it is so, cops don't have any legal authority to enforce private property rules on their own in this case where everyone is welcome in the mall. No matter what THEY THINK. Violation of a rule != violation of a law..
But then again, I'm not very compliant when I'm not required to be.
The only exception is if the property owner explicitly delegated trespassing authority to the Police Department. But such a declaration needs to be conspicuously posted.
Depending on the state, private security officers MAY have some police powers. Check your state laws before pushing too hard.
Is this rule posted somewhere or are you making it up?
I'll be on my way now, Mr. Klingston.
I find it somewhat insulting that you feel that the mother should be less comfortable around strange men than strange women
Hey, Candice, it's pathetic you don't get the law.
THE PHOTO WAS CAPTURED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. An agent of the owner CAN require her to delete photos taken on the private property he represents.
Facts much?
Notliberal
Um... how 'bout "no"? Once she takes the picture, the photograph becomes her property. The mall owner/manager/security guards cannot make her destroy her own property. They can certainly kick her out (it is private property after all), but they cannot make her delete her photos.
It is possible that deletion of the photos was a loathesomely ridiculous condition set by the security Grinch for Ms. Frich to remain on mall property and that she momentarily deemed it expedient to do so.
"Photographing, videotaping, and filming the interior or exterior of the property for any purpose without prior written consent of mall management is prohibited...If you fail or refuse to follow this Code of Conduct, you will be asked to leave South Hills Village. If you fail or refuse to leave when requested to do so, you will be arrested and prosecuted for Criminal Trespass. You may be banned from South Hills Village if you fail or refuse to comply with this Conduct Policy."
Is it not still somewhat of an open legal question as to just how much leeway the owners have to regulate 1st amendment activities on quasi-public 'private' property?
This wasn't a private home, or an event requiring a ticket for admission; a mall is the 21st century equivalent of the main street in many senses.
Mike
Post new comment