You're likely right, John. And mall interiors aren't "public" space (being
privately owned), so your ability to take photos is dependent on the mall
owner's wishes.
Jan, (my girlfriend) says this is all a real "problem area". Commercial
establishments are "quasi-public" in that they have done things that are
deliberately aimed at bringing people inside. However, since they are still
privately owned, people aren't covered by constitutional protections, as
they are on government owned property in the US.
It's sorta like the internet. Many folks rant all the time about "free
speech" on the internet being the justification for them to do what they
please, yet there is NO basic expectation of free speech, at least as US law
applies, as the various ISPs are NOT government agencies. Constitutional
protections don't ever even kick in, for the most part. This is obviously
oversimplified, but the gist is pretty accurate.
Witness spamming as a good "test". It's the ISP's terms of service that
apply, not the US constitution. Two reasons apply: 1) Spam is usually sent
using the privately owned facilities of an ISP, and 2) "Commercial speech"
like spamming doesn't get the same constitutional protections as political
or "private" speech. Facts we're probably better off for, or we'd be buried
in email spam.
---
Scott Gomez
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hermanson [mailto:omtech@xxxxxxxxx]
Subject: Re: [OM] The Mall revisited!! (LONG RAMBLE)
I've read that mall interiors being custom designed are "copyrighted",
atleast in the eyes of the mall owners. So they get all touchy about it
sometimes. I walked around Roosevelt Field taking interior shots, expecting
to get hassled, but I didn't. I guess it was so crowded, nobody noticed or
cared.
_________________________________
John Hermanson www.zuiko.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|