Miami Heat SS's??

[Maujer]

Personally, it sounds like the typical thuggery that has invaded professional sports as almost a mark of honour. No contract between the Heat and any sponsor would have an effect on third parties who are not participants in that contract. If they don't want their pictures taken, there are certain fashion statements (veils and such) that they could use when out in public, rather than relying on assaulting their fans.

As much as I dislike them, I don't know if it's fair to blame the athletes. Security may have been over-zealous. I've been on private property (which a hotel lobby would be) before where security has done the exact same thing if they caught you taking pictures of the property or people inside the property. Once the delete the pictures, the camera is returned to you. I don't think it has anything to do with the althetes being "thugs". I don't even know how that connection was made.

If they were out in a public park, I think it would be another story.

[melicious]

I agree about the "thug" remark. Besides it was the bodyguard who took action, not the athletes, so I also think that's an unfair assessment.

[gollymolly2]

As much as I dislike them, I don't know if it's fair to blame the athletes. Security may have been over-zealous. I've been on private property (which a hotel lobby would be) before where security has done the exact same thing if they caught you taking pictures of the property or people inside the property. Once the delete the pictures, the camera is returned to you. I don't think it has anything to do with the althetes being "thugs". I don't even know how that connection was made.

If they were out in a public park, I think it would be another story.

I agree with the bolded, that's been bugging me.

[Sabbyfrog2]

A hotel lobby doesn't count as a public enough space for me to make taking thier picture okay.

Out of curiosity, why not? I mean, it's a space that is open to the public, so I don't understand why it would be considered more private than the street outside.

A hotel lobby doesn't count as a public enough space for me to make taking thier picture okay.

Out of curiosity, why not? I mean, it's a space that is open to the public, so I don't understand why it would be considered more private than the street outside.

Because you really have no reason to be there unless you are an employee, guest, or attending a returuant or other function taking place there. It's not a public street where anyone can be there for any reason or no reason. It's part of a private building that is paid for the the people who use it, and not open the general public for public use. Sure anyone can just walk in but they can also be asked to leave by anyone working there as it is private property and can be arrested if they refuse. You can't be asked to leave a public street. That makes a difference to me.

Personally, it sounds like the typical thuggery that has invaded professional sports as almost a mark of honour. No contract between the Heat and any sponsor would have an effect on third parties who are not participants in that contract. If they don't want their pictures taken, there are certain fashion statements (veils and such) that they could use when out in public, rather than relying on assaulting their fans.

Why should they have to resort to wearing veils? That seems a bit extreme to me. Again, celebs are people too. And yes, they make gazillions to do what they do but they are still entitled to and expected to behave in the the same polite behaviour that everyone else is. A hotel lobby doesn't count as a public enough space for me to make taking thier picture okay.

Have you ever been in a hotel lobby, and inadvertently had your picture taken by a fellow tourist? If so, were you entitled to seize their camera until all offending photos were deleted? THAT is "extreme" to me.
<snip>
I agree that squealing and running after celebrities with your pocket camera is undignified, and rude. But that rudeness should not be met with abuse back.

Of course not and I would agree that's extreme. I would however be well within my rights to ask them to delete it if I didn't want it taken as I am not outside on a public sidewalk as per my previous statement in this post. But I also don't have any reason too because people aren't clamboring to sell my image. 

I don't condone the bodyguards way of handling it but I also don't see this woman as a victim of abuse. The woman wasn't "assulted" and no one was abused. I don't like how those words is being thrown around this thread. Her private property was taken against her will, the rudely taken picture was erased, and then the camera was given back. It's rude all around and I personally wouldn't like it myself, but it's not assault or abuse. She isn't model of good manners herself so I have a hard time sympathizing. And to someone elses point, as she was there for an interview, she would not be the person I'd hire as she clearly has no sense of discretion.

They cannot claim the benefits of fame, and expect none of the drawbacks. And if their sponsors think that the public will, for the sponsor's sake, refuse to take any photos except those specifically authorized by the sponsor, they have a very poor understanding of the fans to whom they are trying to sell product.

She's not some innocent fan taking a picture of her favorite player. She didn't even know who they were until someone told her they were famous then just took a picture without their consent. Most fans ASK if they can have a picture WITH them. And The Heat players will usually oblige that within reason.

[TeamBhakta]

I think that the Heat were not being SS to ask (or have their employees ask) that photos not be taken, although I do think it was SS to go so far as to delete already taken photos (not to mention the legal issues with that).


The part of this story that really jumped out at me is that the friend of the OP was there for a job interview at a hotel. If I were interviewing her, and happened to see her go for her camera when high-profile clients came through, she wouldn’t be getting the job. (Granted, we don’t know what she was interviewing for, but) I think most any hotel position that might deal with high-profile clients would be looking for someone who can show some sort of respect for the privacy of the guests—meaning the employee would not go for their camera after realizing the clients’ well-known status.

Very true. My old hotel jobs in Miami had specifically written out rules about that. I know one of my handbooks said (and I'm paraphrasing) "You are not allowed to ask guests for autographs, photos or memorabilia. You may not bother them about being a fan or recognizing who they are. You won't violate their privacy by letting other people know that guest is staying with us." I know the incident didn't happen in Miami, but yeah, that doesn't make someone look like great possible employee

[Sabbyfrog2]

I think that the Heat were not being SS to ask (or have their employees ask) that photos not be taken, although I do think it was SS to go so far as to delete already taken photos (not to mention the legal issues with that).


The part of this story that really jumped out at me is that the friend of the OP was there for a job interview at a hotel. If I were interviewing her, and happened to see her go for her camera when high-profile clients came through, she wouldn’t be getting the job. (Granted, we don’t know what she was interviewing for, but) I think most any hotel position that might deal with high-profile clients would be looking for someone who can show some sort of respect for the privacy of the guests—meaning the employee would not go for their camera after realizing the clients’ well-known status.

Very true. My old hotel jobs in Miami had specifically written out rules about that. I know one of my handbooks said (and I'm paraphrasing) "You are not allowed to ask guests for autographs, photos or memorabilia. You may not bother them about being a fan or recognizing who they are. You won't violate their privacy by letting other people know that guest is staying with us." I know the incident didn't happen in Miami, but yeah, that doesn't make someone look like great possible employee

I have a friend who works as an events coordinator in one of the high end hotels that a lot of visiting celebs stay in Miami. Privacy of the guests is their number one priority. She isn't even allowed to carry her phone while on duty unless she gets special permission and it must be turned off if she does. She is also not allowed to be there for ANY reason unless it is to work. She cant even hang out at the bar inside the lobby off the clock. It's specifically in her contract that if she so much as infers anything regarding the guest to an outside party, she can be fired and even prosecuted if it's a serious breach. Other people in the hotel are often asked to erase any pictures taken in the hotel although none of the security guards have ever taken it that far. I dont know if anyone has ever refused though.

[Twik]

I'd say I have every right to retain personal pictures, taken in a public place. And yes, a hotel lobby is a public place.

If other people have issues regarding wanting to control photos, that is their problem. There is no inherent obligation on the public to comply, even if it is something a considerate person would do. So, if Friend asks, "Would you please delete those photos?" and Bystander says "No, thank you," Friend cannot do much about it.

I agree that running to photograph strangers minding their own business is quite rude. But rudeness does not entitle the entourage to use force (even very mild) to destroy the photographs.

And what if, theoretically, I was taking a picture of something else (the lovely fountain in the lobby, perhaps) for my own enjoyment, and Big Celebrity happened to blunder into the background? Would s/he be polite to demand that I destroy a photo that I took for my own pleasure, not because of his/her status as celebrity?

[Wittyone]

I don't think there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel lobby.  In individual hotel rooms, absolutely, but not in the lobby, or even in the hallways. 

This discussion reminds of the controversy a few month ago over photos taken of a sports reporter naked in her hotel room.  They were apparently taken through her peephole. 


An individual who had a legitimate right to be in the hotel has a right to retain photos taken the lobby.
The hotel can of course have stricter requirements of its employees, as they represent and are an extension of the hotel itself.  The person interviewing for a job probably shot herself in the foot for taking the photos and demonstrating her inability to exercise discretion around VIP guests.

[kherbert05]

If they are in public they have no expectations of privacy they need to suck it up and deal.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[immadz]

I would think the hotel lobby belonged to the person/board of people who owned the hotel. If they gave the security personnel/body guard permission to ensure no pictures were taken then that would be within their rights to do so. If the person who was taking the picture was on the street it would be a different issue. However, this person was in an area controlled by a person/body of people.

[ShadesOfGrey]

YES! They're horribly rude SS's! Send them to ehell!

Says the diehard Celtics fan who should probanly not be trusted in these matters. 

POD!

~the other diehard Celtics fan on the forum. 

[Wonderflonium]

I would think the hotel lobby belonged to the person/board of people who owned the hotel. If they gave the security personnel/body guard permission to ensure no pictures were taken then that would be within their rights to do so. If the person who was taking the picture was on the street it would be a different issue. However, this person was in an area controlled by a person/body of people.

Er, no. The hotel can't say that bouncers are allowed to bodily remove someone's property from their person. Also, if there are no "rules" posted, how is a hotel guest to know?

[Wittyone]

I would think the hotel lobby belonged to the person/board of people who owned the hotel. If they gave the security personnel/body guard permission to ensure no pictures were taken then that would be within their rights to do so. If the person who was taking the picture was on the street it would be a different issue. However, this person was in an area controlled by a person/body of people.

If it was the hotel's rule that no pictures were allowed in the lobby then it would be the responsibility of the hotel and it's employees (not an outsider's security force) to enforce said rules.  The body guard didn't have the right to take the phone and delete the pictures.  If it was against hotel rules the hotel employees should have asked that no pictures be taken or that the pictures be deleted, but it wouldn't be a very enforceable rule, especially with the size and proliferation of cameras these days.

[Carnation]

Please read Caroline Kennedy's book The Right To Privacy.   Basically she says "When you're in public, anything goes."

If someone took my phone out of my hand, I'd be screaming for the police.

[Twik]

I would think the hotel lobby belonged to the person/board of people who owned the hotel. If they gave the security personnel/body guard permission to ensure no pictures were taken then that would be within their rights to do so. If the person who was taking the picture was on the street it would be a different issue. However, this person was in an area controlled by a person/body of people.

I don't think so. The hotel cannot authorize the celebrity's security to do things they are not legally entitled to do. The most the management could do is tell people not following the rules to leave.

Let's say no celebrities were involved. You take a picture of the hotel lobby, because you think it's pretty, and catch another guest walking through it. Does that person have the right to grab your camera out of your hand, and start deleting things? If the general public would be rude to do so, so are celebrities and their staff.