Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
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?Have It Your Way At Burger King; Just Don't Take Photos
It’s been so long since I’ve eaten at Burger King that I didn’t realize how adamant they were about not allowing photography or videography inside their restaurants.
But now that I know, I just might swing by my local Burger King with my camera.
I know some of my readers will defend them because of property rights, but I don’t think they can enforce that policy if I decide to shoot video from my car into the drive-thru window.
There is even a Flickr group dedicated to posting pictures of these signs.
The signs posted in the group are not that interesting because none include a screaming employee telling the photographer to stop.
Another thread on Flickr that was brought to my attention, even though it’s a few years old, contains some funny responses about readers’ experiences with this policy.
On a road trip with family on Saturday (July 12), we stopped at a Burger King in Georgia. Naturally, I took both my point-and-shoot Kodak and my Sony Handicam inside, both in my pockets.
Since I'm the official family photographer and videographer, documenting stops like this on vacation are my job. So I snapped a few photos (no flash, of course, and I made sure no other people were visible in the photos except my family members) and even recorded a short video.
When all was said and one, my family members stopped by the restrooms on the way out. I stepped outside to wait, where this guy (I'm assuming the store manager), opens the door and asks "Can I help you?"
So I told him I was waiting for some people. Then, he quickly points to this small sticker attached to the door. Never before has anything like this happened to me, and quite frankly it was embarrassing and the guy was very rude about it all.
When he pointed, he gave this angry look -- and having no idea that photography would even be banned in a public place like a fast-food restaurant, I said "ohhh, ok" Then the guy got loud and forceful saying, "NEVER again, got that?" Of course, I said "yeh" as he swung around and let the door slam behind him.
Nonetheless, Burger King will no longer be on my list of places to stop. The guy was extremely rude - would it have hurt him to smile or even carry more conversation than just pointing and yelling NEVER AGAIN??
Another commenter, who said he was a Burger King manager, said it had to do with teens buying food through the drive-thru, then tossing it back at the employees in order to post a video on Youtube.
the reason bk put up those signs is because teens where going through the drive thrus, ordering food then throwing it at the employees and posting videos of it on you tube. (i am a burger king manager)
Apparently it is still allowed to throw your food back at the employees. Just don't videotape it.
Comments
Truly we are spiraling out of control in this country.No pictures,no feeding the homeless,no giving money to panhandlers, no catching rainwater,no growing food and giving it away to your neighbors.What's next a sunlight tax.
I think that what's going on here is that we've lost the capacity to apply a little thought to the whole process, or to allow anyone else to do so. Case in point: Burger King has a problem, to wit, teenagers throwing food and videotaping it for U-Tube; so rather than reacting to the reasonable part by ordering bans on teens throwing food, they throw up a ban on photos or videos, then apply that stupidly to all instances anywhere.
I'd like to suggest another such ban: banks should ban the wearing of shoes because all bank robbers I've ever heard of were wearing them when they pulled the heist. Come to think of it, they were all wearing clothes, too, so let's make sure by mandating all persons in the bank lobby or at the drive thru MUST be starkers. Stupid? You bet. But same logic (or rather lack of logic) as the video ban at BK, and many other such I've heard about the last few decades.
Here's an idea that will stop the problem, shut down the drive-through windows. On the other hand, revenue's waaaayyy more important.
Seems like someone should go in a BK and ask the manager what law would be violated if they videotaped from their car. I'm guessing you would get a lot of mumbling, incoherent nonsense.
What law would I be violating if I stood on your property and photographed through your windows?
that would be invasion of property and tresspassing. there is no expectation of privacy at BK you dolt
jn, while you made a good point, the insult at the end was unnecessary.
Setting rules on private property requires no "expectation of privacy." It is an irrelevancy.
Odds are, if you did that, you'd end up being required by the court to register as a sex offender.
But unless you're going to claim that BK employees live in the crawlspace under the restaurant rather than having real homes, perhaps worshiping the manager as their pagan god, then it would be hard to argue a BK restaurant is anything but a publicly accessible space, just like a shopping mall or sidewalk.
The only real difference between publicly accessible private property and public property when it comes to photography or other lawful behavior, is that the property owner (or their representative) can order you to leave private property and have you arrested if you refuse.
The key issue is expectation of privacy. Outside of a few specific places (such as the inside of a military base), if you can see it with your eyes, without violating a valid privacy expectation, you can almost certainly legally photograph it with your camera. Being looked at in public with eyes is just as intrusive on privacy as being photographed; Some people are so neurotic they freak out when someone looks in their direction, but their irrationality is not my (or anyone's) invasion of privacy.
Boy, people need to spend time with the constitution and court decisions. Malls are private property, and the courts have affirmed the right of mall owners, and other business owners, to control their properties as they see fit. You have no "right to photograph" on private property, nor a right to speech, nor a right to vent your religion.
As the "father of the constitution," James Madison put it, "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."
Reading many posts to this site over the months it becomes clear that that many of the people who whine about their so-called rights are as dangerous to the genuine rights of Americans as the cops are. I have yet to read the comments of a single person, the blogger included, who demonstrate having spent any meaningful time learning the history of property rights or the creation of the constitution.
It's this simple in America. If you are not on private property you are entitled to take pictures of pretty much whatever you want from afar (as, for example, does Google), but you have NO RIGHT to even be on private property without express permission, much less to take pictures. And you have to live by the rules of the property owner unless they abuse or enslave you. You have the right to leave.
There's usually nothing in the law that says you have to obey the property owner's rules. If the premises are held open to the general public you can legally take as many pics as you want--but you need to leave when they tell you to.
Mall rules are certainly useful as a guideline to what will get you kicked out, but most places (this is all state law) breaking the rules is not in itself an offense.
Also, your statement about speech on private property at the end of your first paragraph is NOT true in California--the Pruneyard decision protects speech on certain types of private premises open to the public. Although I think it is 49-state true.
Hm, my claim would be stellar if I was standing on the sidewalk, in that case no crime would have been committed, blinds open, no expectation of privacy = NO PRIVACY and by YOUR choice even.. The closer I get to the house and conversely away from public property the less legal my claim is.
Do keep in mind that people have been cited for traipsing around in their own homes nude and been cited for it because they did it in front of a window that allowed ready viewing and the shades weren't pulled.
While I find it a little distasteful, I do also see the logic, it isn't really all that different from doing it in the yard.
Think of this, as the Google streets car is driving around if you are walking by the window starkers as it drives by and you have your blinds open you might just get a surprise. Now was any law broken? Nope! You didn't take minimum due care. Another example, I was at a festival and a lady in a 2nd story appartment overlooking the street was dancing around in her undies at the window. The cops went up and talked to her but she didn't get arrested and she didn't get ticketed.
I do think BK has the right to make the statement and the right to ask you to leave, and you have broken the law IF you refuse to leave. Beyond that they don't enjoy any additional rights. As it is that sign is more contractual than anything, the worst they could ATTEMPT is to sue you for violating their rules. The only problem is that to win they have to show they lost $$$ and that the video wasn't something like a whistleblower kind of thing. In other words, not going to happen, they might have lost your business but so what.
I won't provide them any identification under ANY circumstances, they'll have to do their banning by memory because I don't have any obligation to help them. And anyway, the onus is on them to prove I was banned.
As a side note I have to agree that the reasoning for this is kind of silly and not exactly a reasonable response. but hey they do have the right. And like most humans, we will push the envelope..
no, of course it would be an AIR tax, then a sunlight tax..then a moonlight tax, then a tax to have sex..LMFAO the world is going to hell in a hand basket! and IDGAF
Yeah you right.It is what it is and if you make to much noise about it the bluecoats will come and take you away.
1) If the problem were because of the punks at the drive through, well, those kids arent going to be passing by the sign at the main entrance.
2) If theyre taking videos from within thier cars, the rule couldn't apply to them anyway.
I'm going to guess it's more of a working conditions / sanitary conditions issue.
I'd have to agree with you on that. After all, even if there was a sign posted, say in the drive-thru, do you really think the kids are going to obey it?
Bottom line, for what ever reason this policy was created, it is posted. The business's wishes must be complied with as it is on their property.
If you don't like it, just choose not to be a patron! That's one way to get you message across, MONEY!!!
It is so much more fun and profitable than to just call BK and ask them.
I'm not going to defend or support the sign.
I will tell you that the policy was set after a video of an employee taking a bath in the sink was posted on youtube. There was a series copycats shortly after.
Just do a youtube search for "burger king bath".
In the case the signs should be facing the employees! The employees were shooting themselves, not customers shooting from outside the drive thru window.
Yeah, aren't most crimes in business committed by your own staff?
"Never again?" If the store manager had spoken to me that way, I'd say "I'll give you never again: my family's never eating at a BK again, thanks to you."
i have a comeback for these situations. keep barking puppy bout gives po-po an anureysm
i have a comeback for these situations. keep barking puppy bout gives po-po an anureysm
i have a comeback for these situations. keep barking puppy bout gives po-po an anureysm
I'm all for the right to photograph on public land but their driveway and drive through are still private property. While they do not have the right to force you to turn off your camera, they can refuse you service and ask you to leave. If you do not comply, that is trespassing. You may not like this policy, but we should not trample on rights of property owners in the pursuit of our own rights either.
Public land -- Do as you please.
Private land -- Leave if they ask you to, no matter their "rules" on photography.
Never delete your pictures! That is YOUR right to keep them.
Good advice.
Well put!
I´d like to add that where I live (Germany) any photographer would be glad to enjoy the freedom you guys have. So don´t blow it by exploiting it.
"I´d like to add that where I live (Germany) any photographer would be glad to enjoy the freedom you guys have. So don´t blow it by exploiting it."
So, we have the freedom but just don't try to use it?
I didn´t say "don´t use it". I said "don´t exploit it".
nobody gives us shit. its ours. we dont wait for der leader to let us be free
nobody gives us shit. its ours. we dont wait for der leader to let us be free
nobody gives us shit. its ours. we dont wait for der leader to let us be free
This is all about liability.
Someone might catch a rat crawling around on the grill.
Or notice that real life Whoppers don't quite look
like the advertisement photos.
They want all photos to be approved by BK Bigwigs.
Well, I will probably get blasted for this but I will say it anyway.
"But now that I know, I just might swing by my local Burger King with my camera.
I know some of my readers will defend them because of property rights, but I don’t think they can enforce that policy if I decide to shoot video from my car into the drive-thru window."
WRONG CARLOS !!!!! The sight is PINAC, however you know the law, and it is their property, if BK does not wish photography or video on their property that is THEIR right. Even if you do not agree with it. To go through just to get a reaction, would in my opinion, lessen your credibility for the fight of PINAC on PUBLIC places. Just my 2 cents
It's called humor, Vinny. If you read my lede, you would know I don't even eat at BK. I have much better options down here.
One last note - ALL supermarkets (that I've been to) have a "no filming" policy. Read the signs posted on the windows before you enter. Carlos, are you going to stop buying groceries too?
Bullshit. Cite please or name the Chain(s).
Stater Bros, Fresh and Easy, Albertsons, Ralphs... As you can guess, I live on the West coast. They all have like a hundred signs at their entry ways. One of them states "No filming is permitted on these premises." or something along those lines. I'm sure it might vary from store to store, but I've seen them everywhere. Even if there is no sign, go ask the manager for permission to film and see what they say.
My point is that this not all that uncommon of a store policy. They can ban you from wearing pants in their store if they really wanted to. It's their store, and they can choose what is allowed as long as they don't violate state and federal discrimination laws. Unfortunately, chubby photographer is not a protected class....yet. In the end, they can't actually stop you from filming. They can only you ask you to leave and press charges for trespassing.
Well, after Food Lion grocery stores are especially wary.
My local BK refused to serve me one day because she noticed my dash cam. LOL
trust me, if you take pics on private property and they tell you not to AND THEN YOU DO, you can be arrested! at least here in the banana republic...(ref DUNKIN DONUTS story) and when sef the burger beast and i went to BK to do a story on their new store on the beach, i was harassed and told not to take pics inside the store!
Legally they can only ask you to leave, the fact that someone got arrested illegally is the basis for this blog. If you fail to LEAVE when told they have a valid claim, but if you have a video that shows that you left when asked they got nothin.
Also, no store manager of any chain I've ever been to has the authority to ban you from ALL locations of the store. The owner, yeah, how often do you run into those guys.
Perfect example, friend of mine used to work mall security, they had an onsite policy of no photos/video, it was posted. However, if you were told to stop and you refused they would ask you to leave. They could not demand you delete anything or take your camera. Only if you refused to leave could you be arrested.
Just because many cops are stupid doesn't mean that the arrest was good. Look at Carlos' arrest, total BS..
understood, but it was either leave and be banned or let some disgusting haitian and cuban cops bully me and take my 10k worth of camera gear...actually what happened is that they wanted my white ass so bad that when they called their sgt, which is what you have to do when you want to arrest someone, their black american sgt told them they couldnt arrest me...they were so sad...a white american is such the trophy in south fla
Regardless of the reasons for the policy, at least they are up front about notifying the public, unlike MANY other private property owners.
True about being upfront about it. I was shopping at a local grocery store named Haggen (In Washington state) and decided to film a little video clip of my son while he was picking out fruit in their store. A 'produce employee' walked up to me and said that I was not allowed to film in the store! I said really? He said that I need to get permission from a district manager or something along those lines. I talked to service counter and they confirmed that I needed permission. Please note that there was not a sign or anything on the building, in the store etc telling us not to film/photograph.
I sent an email to the corporate office and this was the email that I got back:
Jeff,
Thank you for your e-mail. We appreciate you taking the time to locate us on the web with your inquiry.
All filming/photos must be approved by our Corporate Office through Becky Skaggs, Director of Strategy/Consumer Insights. In the future, she can be reached at 360-650-8374.
Sincerely,
Customer Service
I have NOT been back to any Haggen location. With a wife, three growing kids (& dog), that's a significant monthly grocery budge that I refuse to take to that business. (This applies to Top Foods also as they are owned by the same company/family.)
I recently sent another email to Haggen to see if this policy is still in effect. Could I "get permission" if I wanted? Maybe. I don't feel this is good public relations so I have decided to vote with my money. I now shop at Safeway. Get this, the next day I stopped at a local Safeway and -point blank- asked the front counter folks if I could take photos or video of my son shopping in their store and after chuckling, she smiled and said "Please, be my guest."
I'd imagine Safeway, like their sibling Vons, has rules against filming in their store too. They just have the sense not to enforce them without a compelling reason.
Most malls have no photo policies too, but if you stay within the "family moments" genre they leave you alone
Screwing with a someone recording their kid is stupid bad PR for zero benefit.
What a shame that this valuable movement is constantly being redirected to puerile and meaningless efforts.
Unless some crime or police misbehavior is happening inside, there is no good reason to photograph a Burger King. Yes, it is probably legal to shoot into one of the restaurants from a distance, but it is neither morally or legally permissible to violate property rights, which include the the pavement under the cars in drive-through.
Does photographing a Burger King advance the cause of liberty one inch? Of course not. It is an act of silly petulance.
Yes, I am going to defend private property rights here. Obviously nobody should be charged with a crime for photographing in a BK, but they're free to ban you from the premises, and yes, that includes the drive-through, Carlos. I think the normal process is for police to come out, take your information and give you a trespass warning, which prohibits you from come back to the premises, on penalty of a trespassing charge. It would only apply to that one premise, though, as far as I can tell.
We may find it silly that BK bans photography, but it is their restaurant chain. I can imagine that photography of employees behaving badly could make them civilly liable sometimes. Some video emerged a while back from a McDonald's of employees standing idly by while customers beat a transgender woman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdUU74aCzJk
I'll join others in defending BK's right to ban photography inside their premises. On the other hand, had I experienced the incredibly rude and obnoxious manager described, you can be sure that BK would hear from me.
That's the supreme difference between private businesses and the government: the government doesn't give a flying F*** whether their employees give good service or not. Try getting through to a Social Security office, for example (good luck!). Private companies may ignore complaints, but they'll ultimately pay a price in lost sales. In my experience, they usually bend over backward in response to a complaint if politely and articulately expressed.
So in a public place, people can't prevent you from filming them. On private property, the owner can prevent you from filming.
What I want to know is: if you are on private property and an individual who is NOT the owner doesn't want you to film them, do you have to comply?
Example: photographing/filming people against their will in a mall that has no policy against it.
As far as I know, if the property owner does not forbid it, you can do it, regardless of the wishes of a third party. That's assuming there's not some other reason for an expectation of privacy (as in a restroom).
Somebody with more legal knowledge, please correct me if this is wrong.
Post new comment