PDA

View Full Version : Photographer kicked off of Bellagio Premises



Esoterra
08-12-2007, 07:52 PM
A fellow wedding photographer friend of mine was hired to shoot a wedding for a wonderful couple. They were married in a local Catholic church in Las Vegas, and then wanted to do post ceremony shots at the water fountains at the Bellagio hotel and casino because they had stayed there many times previous and loved it there. The Bellagio has their own in house wedding photo service but its high price was restrictive to the couple- hence an outside photographer. With permission of my friend, I post the dialog between the Bellagio and my friend. I can understand the risks that the Bellagio assume, but this too me comes across as a simple ploy to keep competitors away. Bottom line, its their private property, so I don't think there is much that can be done? Forewarning, this is a length post, but worth the read.


HENRI Complaint letter

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Henri ; I’ve owned and operated a very successful photography business here in Las Vegas for the past 15 years.

Almost 9 of those years I’ve photographed my clients on the Bellagio property, some clients had their wedding services provided by the Bellagio many others have not. I’ve also been referred by the Bellagio staff to clients as well.

About 2 weeks ago I encountered a very strange experience on the property. About 2 minutes into my photo-shoot with a Bride and Groom and 4 of their family members a security guard had approached me and asked me in a very rude manor “what are you doing”, it would have seemed obvious and pretty clear what I was doing, a photographer, a bide and groom and a few of their well dressed guests. After this security guard had had rudely interrupted and embarrassed not only me but more importantly my clients, he had got on his radio and within a minute another security guard had approached us and again in a very rude and unprofessional manor told us :” pack it up and leave the property immediately”.

First of all, I’m a professional and run a reputable business, this was not only un-professional and rude, but can you truly imagine how my clients must have felt, especially the bride! This is a once in a lifetime event, the most important day of most people’s lives, the bride was almost in tears, she had told me that she loves the Bellagio, the groom had mentioned to the 2nd security guard that he and his friends had spent over $3000.00 in the casino the night before and the couple had stayed at the property 6 months prior to their wedding date while planning their nuptials excited about getting to capture their special day at their favorite hotel in Las Vegas.

In closing I can understand that your property is technically private, and if some guests that visit the property that aren’t registered guests nor guests that have paid the Bellagio for wedding services don’t have the same privileges that those guests might have otherwise sets a very dangerous precedence. Not only think about the unfavorable public relations, moreover this could and might even legally in some circumstances be considered discrimination. Please pass this letter along to the proper department heads that need to be made aware of what is going on at your property; this could turn out to be a much more severe situation if this happens to another couple who may take it far more seriously.




RESPONSE: MGM MIRAGE Public Relations Manager

Hello Henri,

Thank you for your note below. Can you please share with me what day and time this occurred? I will be happy to discuss with security so that I can fully understand all the issues at hand.

As a PR department, when asked to provide approval to do what you are discussing below, we have to say we can not officially grant permission. Mainly, as our job is to work with media specifically and you are a private contractor, your request would have to be granted by the property specifically. I do understand that your clients want very much to have their images taken at Bellagio. And, we readily acknowledge that guests take images throughout our property all the time, and it is allowed. So we explain, when asked by private photographers, that as long as they never interfere with any guest’s experience, they should be fine to take pictures. But also, please understand that the company’s first priority is the safety and experience of all our guests. If what you were doing caused a safety hazard in anyway or diminished the guest experience of others, by forcing them out of the way etc., then security was simply doing their job asking you to stop.

If you would be so kind as to give me the date and time, I will discuss with the head of security though, as no matter what the specific issues at hand, rudeness is never called for and he will want very much to address this with the employees concerned.



Response: Henri

Thank you very much for your prompt reply, I greatly appreciate it.

Unfortunately with the initial shock by me and my clients and with the respect we abided by the request of the security guards to vacate, we neglected to get the names of the officers. The bride and groom had their reception to what would have been our Bellagio shoot to follow at The Four Seasons Hotel, my clients being upset just wanted to get over there.

I can tell you exactly the time and date: Saturday July 14, 2007 approximate time 3:10pm at the main entrance main valet.

The first guard was maybe in his early twenties in a red coat, the second in a black coat and older, maybe early 50’s. My party which consisted of me, my assistant, the bride and groom and 3 of their guests, 7 people total, we were absolutely not in any way obstructing, hindering and certainly not in any harms way to ourselves or to any other guests on the property. We were pretty much just minding our own business in a relatively small space located by one of the planters in the front of the property.

I truly appreciate your efforts to rectify this unfortunate event and I feel from your response from this letter that any clients which I photograph in the future at The Bellagio that it will be a much more desirable and pleasant experience as it has always been for the past 9 years.

Please feel free to contact me anytime if any other information may be needed, I greatly appreciate your time and help with this matter.

Response Vice President and General Counsel Bellagio

Dear Henri:

I am writing in response to your letter dated July 31, 2007. I am sorry to hear that you felt that you and your clients were treated rudely by security personnel at the Bellagio. I will forward your letter to the director of security for review.

As you correctly pointed out in your letter, the Bellagio hotel and casino (including the sidewalk in front of the Bellagio fountains) is private property. Bellagio has spent and continues to spend and extraordinary amount of time, effort, and money to create an enjoyable atmosphere and environment for its guests. To maintain this environment, Bellagio cannot allow third parties to enter onto Bellagio's property and provide commercial services to Bellagio's guests without Bellagio's knowledge and consent. There are some businesses in the wedding industry, in particular, that falsely represent to clients that they are affiliated with or approved by the Bellagio, that charge clients to use the Bellagio's property, and that provide poor quality service. In addition to deceiving the clients, this reflects poorly on Bellagio's goodwill and reputation. Accordingly, Bellagio simply cannot allow such commercial activity on its property.

Moreover, allowing photographers to freely conduct photo shoots on Bellagio's property creates other issues. It may interfere with the utilization and enjoyment of the property by other guests. It may interfere with the flow of traffic through the property to the extent that areas are cordoned off or occupied for photo shoots. There presence of certain equipment may create a tripping hazard for the guests.

Finally, if guests of the Bellagio wish to have photographs taken by a professional photographer at the Bellagio, the Bellagio provides that service to guests. We appreciate the concerns that you expressed in your letter and thank you for taking the time to write. In the future, however, we ask that you will not use the Bellagio for your commercial photography business.

RESPONSE: Henri

August 9, 2007

Thank you for your August 7, 2007 reply. I respectfully ask that you reconsider. It is my client’s choice to contract me and my company solely for their photographic services; perhaps the Bellagio photo department does not meet their needs and expectations. Moreover, I do not nor have I ever endorsed and implied verbally and contractually to my clients that I am in any way affiliated with the Bellagio. It is solely by my client’s choice and their decision by them that they choose the Bellagio for their location with absolutely no influence by me and my company.

If my client desires a specific location for their photo-session, it is in my best interest to them to grant their request. I’ve built a successful business providing exceptional quality of work but more importantly exceeding my client’s expectations with the highest quality of service. If I can’t grant them their request for the location of their choice, I have then diminished my ability to give them the service they so rightfully deserve, If I explain to my clients why we cannot photograph at the Bellagio due to your policies, consequently the lack of goodwill and negative public relations is brought onto itself by the Bellagio.

I honestly feel with a strong conviction and I’m sure you will agree with me, that all guests that visit the Bellagio, whether a registered guest or not, when they encounter a photographer with a bride, groom and a small wedding party, they do not feel in any way a loss of enjoyment to their experience, that’s absurd if you really think about it.

With each and every photo-shoot I’ve had at the Bellagio, I’ve always respected and maintained the highest level of professionalism and responsibility, including all guidelines in respect to flows of traffic, positioning of my clients with no need to cordoned off any areas to displace any guests and keeping my photo equipment in a safe unobstructed location. Almost 9 years of shooting at the Bellagio and I’ve never caused any disruption had a complaint or created any negative situation.

In closing, I’d like to once again appeal to you to make a very important exception and necessary changes to your policies to permit me to photograph at the Bellagio. My clients reserve me worldwide based on my reputation and it is solely their choice where they prefer to be photographed.

It is paramount to understand that this is not for my benefit or for my business; it is for my clients who love the Bellagio. The Bellagio is one of Las Vegas’ most beautiful properties that millions come to visit, enjoy and photograph.

timmciglobal
08-12-2007, 08:47 PM
Welcome to today's world.

NYC is going to charge for photography, all private places soon will "Require" staff photographers/permits, almost all sporting venues ban it now.

Insurance + possible revenue = ban/permit.

I hear national parks "legally" you can't sell photos of now either without a permit from government.

Tim

Turn
08-12-2007, 09:19 PM
this is becoming ridiculous
yet paparazzi are allowed to pester stars all day while us wedding photographers or people who just want the scenery are getting charged for stupid crap.

TNB
08-12-2007, 09:57 PM
In closing, Iíd like to once again appeal to you to make a very important exception and necessary changes to your policies to permit me to photograph at the Bellagio. My clients reserve me worldwide based on my reputation and it is solely their choice where they prefer to be photographed.

It is paramount to understand that this is not for my benefit or for my business; it is for my clients who love the Bellagio. The Bellagio is one of Las Vegasí most beautiful properties that millions come to visit, enjoy and photograph.
Just imagine how many weddings take place on Valentine's Day in Las Vegas and imagine if all those same people all wanted their photographs taken at the Bellagio at the same time? Wouldn't most logical people come to the conclusion that a property owner should be able to control their own property? If someone tripped over a tripod and filed a lawsuit, you can probably bet that the property owner would get sued.

To me, it appears that your affiliate is requesting that he be treated differently from other photographers simply because he has already been taking commercial photos on the Bellagio property without proper permission for years. And the last paragraph about "not for my benefit" seems quite contradictory considering the messages in their entirety and that fact that Bellagio has already pointed out that they have staff photographers on the premises.

griptape
08-12-2007, 11:07 PM
They own the property, they have the right to choose what does or does not happen at it in the same way that if someone comes in your yard and takes pictures of your house you have every right to have them removed.

Granted the Bellagio is certainly more open to the public than your home is (I would hope), they still have every right to set limits to what the people on their property can do.

Esoterra
08-13-2007, 12:56 PM
You all make good points. This whole idea about having to get a government permit to take pictures at national parks is bull. That would be a huge turn off from me going to any national park, I know that, and would probably have a huge impact on the revenue for the NParks. Think about how many people take pictures when they go to the GC, YNP, YNP, ect. not a good thing at all

timmciglobal
08-13-2007, 01:36 PM
http://photoshopnews.com/2006/05/01/national-parks-to-start-charging-photographers-location-fees/

Tim

David Metsky
08-13-2007, 01:38 PM
Anyone can take pictures at a NP. You can't set up a commercial operation taking pictures at a NP without a permit. 99.9% of the people visiting national parks won't care. And most people selling their photos won't need one either.

http://home.nps.gov/applications/digest/permits.cfm?urlarea=permits

DTY
06-23-2009, 04:05 PM
My apologies for the thread necromancy, however I first stumbled across this page around a year ago, bookmmarked it and just yesterday found myself in the same situation as the original poster's friend, except worse.



Bellagio's security actually attempted to kidnap my partner/wife and I and potentially steal our Nikon D3 as we were leaving. The guard's exact words were "you can't leave -I got two guys wanna have a talk with you". My reply - "No thanks, I'm not a chatty kind of guy."



The below pasted letter purposely omits the fact that we made a mad dash for the parking lot carrying 60 pounds of gear and were literally chased to the car and as we were leaving, the security guard and a very large gentleman photographed our license plate. I make no exaggeration when I say that it was ridiculous to the point of a summer action flick. All this for taking pictures - I'm in disbelief. I even kept things friendly with the first security guard, apologized and smiled - it wasn't until we parted ways with our clients that security started to chase us.



What would have happened if they caught up to us?? I keep thinking about that - would they have tackled me, stolen our gear, beat us with night sticks?



I personally loathed slinking away like a coward, however Las Vegas is such a corrupt parody of itself that the only person that would lose in an altercation would have been me and there's no way I'm losing $20,000 worth of gear.



I recorded part of the conversation on the D3, but I'll need to figure out how to enhance the muffled audio - It was literally the first time I used the voice recording feature.



At any rate, when have Americans become so complacent that we allow a cheesy casino to infringe upon our rights like this? Las Vegas casinos should not be allowed to rewrite laws and constitutional rights on the fly like this.



Below is the letter that I have sent to Bellagio's wedding chapel, guest services and public relations departments. I kept it as high brow as possible, but frankly the attempted kidnapping should give me a permission to get a little nasty in return.



-------------------



Greetings,



I would like to bring to your attention an incident that occurred the afternoon of June 22, 2009.



My partner and I are photographers working for ---name removed--- and we were hired by ---name removed--- and her new husband ---name removed--- to photograph them after their wedding ceremony at the Bellagio. After the couple spoke with the wedding coordinator and relayed the terms to me, we were all under the understanding that outside photographers are not permitted within the chapel but are allowed to take photographs elsewhere after the ceremony.



As photographers that provide extended shooting sessions and an artistic, dynamic shooting style with full retouching, we offer a service that the Bellagio hotel does not provide and have never had an issue the hundreds of times we have photographed on hotel grounds.



As we made our way to the chapel, my partner and I were stopped by (my apologies for not grabbing a name) a darker skinned woman who was shorter in stature. She immediately had a foul attitude, but we located the chapel and began photographing our clients on the beautiful outdoor patio.



We had previously made plans to continue onto Red Rock Canyon and so we moved inside, stopping briefly to photograph our clients on a cream colored chaise lounge.

It was then that the woman from before approached us and angrily informed us that we were not allowed to take photographs. This was confusing, since there were roughly 2,000 people in the hotel taking photographs at the time.



I said in a friendly tone “oh, no problem. We were pretty much done anyways and I’ve already got a lot of great shots”. The woman persisted harping on us as we were walking away and my partner then informed the woman that we would take photos outside instead. Her reply was “oh you think so?” and immediately called security as we continued walking away.



We were met by a security guard who embarrassed our clients on their wedding day by escorting us to the door, effectively ejecting both us and their paying hotel guests, despite our clients’ plea that we were invited by them and that they had already cleared our presence with the wedding coordinator.



As we made our way to the parking garage, the security guard attempted to kidnap my partner and I by saying “there’s a couple of guys that want to talk to you.”

Let me begin this next section by stating that I am not a native Las Vegan and cannot comprehend how and why the local population deifies casinos to the point where it's acceptable that laws are rewritten on the fly.



Please refer to http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf for some information on laws pertaining to photography. Your ‘hotel policies’ in regard to photography are nowhere to be found on your website, in your hotel or in your advertising materials.



If your policy only extends to professional photographers or professional cameras, what do you define as a professional photographer? If a professional photographer has a point and shoot camera or a camera phone, is it allowed? What about an amateur with a high quality camera? Are certain people discriminated against because they paid more for their cameras? What about if a professional photographer takes a picture and receives no compensation for their services? I could probably take a professional quality photo with an iPhone - is that not permissable either? Are we discriminating based on profession or equipment?



A camera is a mirror with memory. Photography is protected as part of the first amendment, which I’m sure your lawyers are already aware of.

You either have to allow photography or disallow it – this non published ‘middle ground’ is neither legal or ethical.



Added to the confusion is this: http://www.dcresource.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-33537.html in which a Bellagio public relations manager, Henri, specifically states that photography is permitted provided it does not interfere with other guests. Seeing as there were no other guests present for the altercation, surely this falls into that category.



Quote - “And, we readily acknowledge that guests take images throughout our property all the time, and it is allowed. So we explain, when asked by private photographers, that as long as they never interfere with any guest’s experience, they should be fine to take pictures.”



Why not make the above your official policy and hand a copy of it to all of your employees? I find it incredulous that a company as large as that which owns the Bellagio can completely drop the ball on legality, policy, inter-business relations and customer service in one fell swoop, based upon the overreaction of a bitter hotel greeter. The lack of consistency with your policies is frustrating, but indicative of a policy not put into writing and placed in a *visible*, easy to find location – everybody puts their own spin on the policy with no legal precedent.



If you want to have a policy in regards to non chapel, post ceremony photography, it needs to first be clarified. After that it has to be posted….somewhere visible.



Is a casino hotel even a private location? Considering that the doors are open to both the paying and non paying public, that’s highly debatable.



Your security needs to look at situations from every angle; the woman that stopped us spun a fantastic tale of us refusing to leave, getting irate, screaming and probably fighting too – but I challenge you to view the security tapes for the true story. We did nothing special to upset her - I’m quite positive that anyone working with her has observed her nasty attitude and in a situation like this, the source of information must be taken into consideration; she is a bitter middle aged woman whose station in life amounts to a hotel greeter and she was looking to pick a fight, abusing the miniscule amount of authority she has in a life she feels is out of her control.



If I’m wrong on any of the above, I do apologize, but I would check with her coworkers and personnel file first – people like that usually have issues with behavior management and impulse control.



Two more points (and I thank you for reading thus far) – Instead of looking at this as an adversarial situation, I look at it as a missed business opportunity. We offer a service that the Bellagio, with its busy wedding schedule, simply cannot provide.

Instead of ruining your own customers’ wedding and burning a bridge with a known and reputable photographer that provides a service that would be complementary to Bellagio’s own in house photography, you should look at how we can build our relationship to help each other. What occurred is just bad business.



Finally, had your security forcibly detained me, we would be in an entirely different situation right now and I would *strongly* suggest educating them on kidnapping laws and we should all be relieved that they did not succeed in their grab attempt. Being kicked out of a location that we were already leaving is a bit superfluous, wouldn’t you say? All that gained was the ire of your newly wed guests.



As it is, I feel that my personal rights have been violated – on archived security cameras and documented via my own personal memo recorder no less, but would like to open the channels of communication with you first before pursuing other options.

I would like to continue this conversation with you via telephone or in a face to face meeting at your convenience.



In the meantime, the decent thing to do is to refund our mutual clients for ruining their wedding day. Wedding days are a sensitive affair and sadly, this is something that this wonderful couple will have to recall for the rest of their lives – no amount of monetary compensation can make up for what your employee put them through and I think you would do well to speak to them directly and see what kind, funny and interesting people they are. They deserved much better and frankly, so did we.

Esoterra
06-23-2009, 05:39 PM
This is just insane. I have had a few run ins with the glorified parking security guards at the Bellagio, but never to this degree. The Movie 21 comes to mind, where the card counters are taking into the casino basement only to have the tar beat out of them- its a good thing that you guys got away. Las Vegas is SO corrupt- there are so many lawyers and biased officials here that would side with the casino's just because it means money for the city.

As far as business is concerned, as a photographer, I actually tell all of my clients to stay away from the Bellagio, for photos or any type of hotel amenities because of the negative experience I as well as Henri have had. I have been transparent and open about my paid for photographic services on many of the major upper scale casino's and resorts properties here in Las Vegas- I have never had any issues from anyone except 1) Bellagio and 2) Fashion Show Mall. Good luck with your law suit : P

SpecialK
06-23-2009, 06:38 PM
Photo-nazis are everywhere. I was simple walking around - I wasn't even being obtrusive with a wedding party in tow :-(

I was hassled at USBank (tallest building in Los Angeles) on 4th of July for crying out loud - a national holiday. Also could not photograph their waterfall or historic Bunker Hill steps.
Bastard building.
47241

And this Irvine Company building at Fashion Island in Newport Beach.
Bastard building.
47242

Also recently shooed away from this Sony building.
Bastard building.
47243

Csae
06-23-2009, 10:36 PM
I've been shooed away once or twice myself.

I don't take it personally, its just like back in the day when people though a photograph would steal your soul.

No matter how you look at it, they own it, its their's, if they dont want you to take pictures, you can't say much.

kjmdrumz3
06-23-2009, 11:36 PM
Legally, if you aren't on private property they can't do shit about it. Unless of course they surmise that it's a national security issue, but security guards can't determine that.

DTY
06-24-2009, 11:45 AM
Thank you Esoterra!

An interesting update: I spoke with the manager of the hotel wedding chapel, Monica, who confirmed that none of the above should have occurred. Bellagio's policy regarding outside photographers is simply to coordinate with the hotel photographer as to when the outside photographer's service begins. And that's all. This woman was not acting on behalf of the Bellagio's wishes at all and should not have had the power or inclination to do what she did.

It boils down to one nasty wedding chapel greeter and an uninformed and overzealous security staff who chose to take things at face value.

A lawsuit probably wouldn't be in my best interest and in the unlikely event that I won punitive damages, wouldn't even put a nick in their wallet. Knowing Las Vegas and taking into consideration that I was almost kidnapped, it's just as likely that I would disappear.

Two days later I'm still in shock over thinking what would have happened had they caught up to us - if the elevator had been just a little slower, or if it was on a different floor when we got to it....And to think, we weren't yelling, weren't refusing to leave and immediately stopped shooting when we were approached. I really wish I was making up or exaggerating any part of the story - if anything, I've underplayed the situation for fear of sounding incredulous.

Instead, I think my best course of action is to share this experience with anyone and everyone who will bear reading my long winded story and use this experience as a platform to advocate VERY strongly for photographer's rights and casino accountability.

Casinos need to be reclassified as public locations - you're not walking into somebody's bathroom and taking photographs of someone on the pot, you're walking into a location where the public is welcomed with open arms.

Sadly, Vegas residents really do believe that the casinos are gods and can do whatever they wish, constitution be damned, and what this town has needed for some time is shine some light on the issues that photographers and Las Vegas guests face and if there's one silver lining to this, it's that this experience will be the catalyst I need to begin such a crusade.

Of course, the worst part about this situation is that I really REALLY liked our clients and wanted to finish our shoot :( They both had great personalities, good looking, knew how to pose and show emotion - the photos we took in the 80 minutes or so we had with them are just gorgeous and I did everything I could to get them to let us continue shooting at our planned secondary location, but the experience was just too traumatic and they never called us back >_<

Thank you all for allowing me to post on your message boards and I hope to post again sometime soon in a more positive light.

Warmest regards,

D

Rhys
06-24-2009, 12:58 PM
I read these posts and ask one question - how would you feel if somebody wanted to shoot a porn video in your bedroom?

Land held privately is owned for the income and enjoyment of the owner. While some may permit anybody and everybody to take photos, they have a perfect right to refuse access and a perfect right to charge a fee. If they wish to charge a higher fee then that's simply because they either want to reduce the number of photographers or because they want the most expensive or the most prolific, high-profile photographers there. Many times I'm sure Lord Litchfield gained access to places because of his high profile that had he been Joe Soap, he would never have gained.

As I see it, the hotel the OP posted about has a perfect right under the law to do what they did. The only exception would be if they gave a poor reason - for example "the photographer was black". This brings me to another point - they don't have to give a reason why they say "no" and often will not give one as a policy in case they get sued over a misinterpretation of the answer.

Edit:
While I can see both sides, I have to side with the hotel. I do note that they took the time to write pleasant letters that explained their situation clearly.

David Metsky
06-24-2009, 01:34 PM
Casinos need to be reclassified as public locations - you're not walking into somebody's bathroom and taking photographs of someone on the pot, you're walking into a location where the public is welcomed with open arms.
IMO, this doesn't follow from anything you've said or experienced. The casino still has the right to prevent commercial activity on their grounds, or to ask anyone they want to leave. I don't see why a particular set of employees at a particular casino behaving badly would change private property rights. Either they own the property or they don't. Just because it is a popular attraction doesn't make their rights any less important.

cdifoto
06-24-2009, 01:39 PM
A casino would have to be government owned to be classified as public property.

Rooz
06-24-2009, 03:28 PM
I read these posts and ask one question - how would you feel if somebody wanted to shoot a porn video in your bedroom?

thats the first question that coems to your mind when you read about this issue ? please. :rolleyes:

Mark_48
06-24-2009, 03:41 PM
My son had gotten married in a LV casino chapel several years ago. They had a resident chapel photographer for the ceremony shots and formals. I pretty much covered all else. Although I wasn't there as official paid photographer and I likely could have given the impression that I may have been, no one questioned what I was doing what so ever throughout most of the casino facilities. What was strictly enforced understandably was their policy of not taking shots that may have included any of the gambling tables. I did see once a security person get excited once when a girl was snapping a shot of her boyfriend at one of the tables. Granted my situation may have been a little different, but it's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

jekostas
06-24-2009, 03:44 PM
You were using private property for commercial and/or material gain without the express permission or consent of the owners or controlling interests.

They have every right to throw you out, and you have no rights to do what you were doing. The fact that the hotel management "generally tolerates" outside wedding photographers doesn't somehow miraculously grant you any rights to do so.

D Thompson
06-24-2009, 03:57 PM
Casinos need to be reclassified as public locations - you're not walking into somebody's bathroom and taking photographs of someone on the pot, you're walking into a location where the public is welcomed with open arms.
Sorry, have to disagree with that statement. They are a business just like any other business. Use of their facilities should be by their paying guests. Gee, I'd like to lounge around one of their swimming pools and as long as I wasn't in the way of their paying guests then why shouldn't I be allowed. Like it or not, it is private property and the management/owners can allow or disallow whatever they like.

K1W1
06-25-2009, 06:01 PM
A camera is a mirror with memory. Photography is protected as part of the first amendment, which Iím sure your lawyers are already aware of.


Gee people were clever in the old days. I see that the founding fathers of the USA took photography into account in the 1770's when they formulated the Constitution. They were equally as clever as the New Zealand Maoris who have claimed ownership of the Internet in NZ under the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi which was signed in 1840. :D :D

At the end of the day the Casino on question in this thread is private property and whatever their policy is regarding photography is what stands. Period.
The problem here seems to simply be that the policy is enforced in a hap hazard way.

DTY
06-26-2009, 10:21 PM
Gee people were clever in the old days. I see that the founding fathers of the USA took photography into account in the 1770's when they formulated the Constitution. They were equally as clever as the New Zealand Maoris who have claimed ownership of the Internet in NZ under the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi which was signed in 1840. :D :D

At the end of the day the Casino on question in this thread is private property and whatever their policy is regarding photography is what stands. Period.
The problem here seems to simply be that the policy is enforced in a hap hazard way.

Please actually read my second post :)

The problem was that they *weren't* following policy, as indicated by the wedding chapel manager....The wedding chapel manager said it was allowed.

The only person who had a problem was a nasty little wedding chapel greeter who actually lied to security to make them overreact. Surely, my posts are long winded, but how was that not clear?

I mean, someone actually equated taking a couple of shots on the way *out* of a casino to shooting a porno in someone's bathroom. Can we just imply that the person is an idiot and save ourselves a /facepalm?

Not a single person stopped to consider that nobody at the Bellagio actually asked if I was a professional photographer - In a place like Vegas, having the wealth to buy a Nikon D3 is not uncommon - we could just have easily been friends of the family. Of course, the whole point is moot because the Bellagio actually does allow outside photographers both professional and amateur - as marked by the 15,000 cameras in their establishment at any time.

Even if they didn't, the last I checked, kidnapping was still illegal. If I was being thrown out, why are gentlemen chasing me, attempting to prevent me from leaving (as noted by the 'don't leave, I have two guys that wanna[sic] talk to you' comment?).

I suppose that because it is private property, they can also detain you against your will. If so, please let Megan Fox visit my house.

After reading a couple of replies here, I did a literal facepalm - not the cutesy Internet meme, but a true Captain Picard quality literal facepalm - please tell me you're not this uneducated.

Regarding the constitution - Oh Lordy, this was a rich one. The U.S. constitution was designed to grow along with the country and new technology, you idiot. Hence the right to bear arms - if we someday developed portable sonic weaponry and magic wands, it does not mean that the constitution needs an upgrade just because these were not in use when the constitution was drafted.

If new information or circumstances arose that the constitution couldn't protect against, there would be an....anybody? anybody? An AMENDMENT. Like the first amendment - freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press.

There were no televisions, radio or Internet when the constitution was drafted either, yet somehow first amendment rights still apply there too.

But if cameras were so far out there in the realms of possibility that they weren't protected by the first amendment, there would be....another amendment or a revisement of the first amendment to include cameras specifically.

Of course it wasn't necessary, as before cameras there were drawings and the first amendment protected drawings as well. Photography, taken from latin, means "drawing with light".

Lastly, while the first permanent photograph was not made until the mid 1800s, cameras themselves have been around in one form for another for hundreds of years before that.

Didn't we all learn this stuff in third grade? Granted, I think I'm a few years older than most of you, but this is a situation where you're acting too stupid to realize that you're acting stupid.

If you're going to argue anything photography related with a working professional photographer on a photography message board, it might do you well to actually know something about photography aside from how to push a shutter button.

If there's one thing I've learned is that Internet forums are famous for their selective memories and fingers that type faster than their neurons can fire.

Bringing logic to the table only invites semi literate flames from armchair photographers with camera brochures and no cameras, no knowledge of the laws protecting photography and with little to no sense, common or otherwise. But I digress, is my (mostly) proper English not indicitive of high intelligence and did you really think I would post all of this without first knowing what I was talking about? Crack a book, kids.

Apologies all around for my brusque words, but if you're going to let your fingers do the walking, talking and thinking for you, you won't make it very far in life....porno in a bathroom? Really? I would have been too embarrassed to type that.

I don't think I'll bother reading any further replies, as I expect that, despite the fact that I am defending myself, the majority of the replies here will be the equivalent of "you're a boogerhead and a troll". Instead, I'll return to more high browed discussions elsewhere.

-D

jekostas
06-27-2009, 01:19 AM
*insane ramblings of a psychotic*

This was a joke thread, right?

K1W1
06-27-2009, 01:26 AM
Please actually read my second post :)

The problem was that they *weren't* following policy, as indicated by the wedding chapel manager....The wedding chapel manager said it was allowed.

The only person who had a problem was a nasty little wedding chapel greeter who actually lied to security to make them overreact. Surely, my posts are long winded, but how was that not clear?


So what part did I not understand when I wrote the following?


The problem here seems to simply be that the policy is enforced in a hap hazard way.

When we use the term hap hazard we mean something that is done "on the fly" so to speak with little or no reference to established rules or procedures. By it's nature something that is done in a hap hazard way tends to be done differently each time depending on who is doing it and what their mood is.

David Metsky
06-27-2009, 09:08 AM
If new information or circumstances arose that the constitution couldn't protect against, there would be an....anybody? anybody? An AMENDMENT. Like the first amendment - freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press.
The First Amendment has absolutely no bearing on this situation. You'd be well advised to stop ranting about stuff without basic knowledge of the law.