My pal Winter travels the country and world visiting Starbuck's'es...

http://www.starbuckseverywhere.net/

He has an archive of digital pix of Starbuck'ses that he's taken.

He's been interviewed on Fox News (The Cavuto Report), CBS This Morning, The Wayne Brady Show, and various local newscasts.

Hey, better idea:

DON'T GO TO STARBUCKS!

If you don't like their rules, DON'T GO THERE!

I love how these self-proclaimed "Freedom Fighters" think that every rule they don't like needs to be changed. Hey, the rule in my house is NO SMOKING, so why don't you organize a national march to my house and you all can light up on my couch! That'll teach me...

Ok, I'm sorry for making light of a serious situation. By infringing on my right to take pictures inside of Starbucks my career as a "Latte Photojournalist" is going to be seriously hampered, so FIGHT THE POWER! Down with the Man! Frappe Photogues unite!!

Yeah...they can make the rules. Never mind that this is a place of public accomadation and that freedom is more important than corporate profits.

We should have a 'starbuckscriminal.com' site. We can mob blog people who go into Starbucks and post them on a web site.

Sort of like the abortion protesters do.

I've taken pictures at a few starbucks with my phonecam without incident. I don't make a big production out of it. I could see the folks at the store object if I was taking pictures of the staff or customers without their permission. That would happen in most places, not just starbucks.

On the whole, I avoid all national chains in favor of locally-owned businesses, but for this issue I will go purchase a latte in Starbucks.

But then what do we do with the photos? Do we post 'em some place? Send 'em to Larry?

I have three local Starbuck's--one's in a old-timey mall (it used to be my favorite clothing store), the other's just some storefront. It's quite warm this weekend, does the exterior count as "proprietary space"?

LoveGravy has a certain point, but it's the aggressiveness of enforcement that bugs me.

Take a picture of one and say it's all of them.

There is already a sort-of holiday for this. It's called World Sousveillance Day and is celebrated on December 24th. More information can be found at the Wearcam site:

http://wearcam.org/wsd.htm

Funny, I just took pictures of cameras the other day and posted them to my blog. Try to take pictures that include their surveillance cameras, and post them to your blog. See if we can kill Starbucks by making all their lawyers send out cease and desists :).

Edited by author 05-23-2003 08:34 PM
"Yeah...they can make the rules. Never mind that this is a place of public accomadation and that freedom is more important than corporate profits."

It's a "Place of public accomadation"?!?! WTF is that? If it means "A private establishment" then yeah, you're right...

Starbucks is NOT a government facility, and as long as their rules don't break any laws or infringe on your constitutional rights, they can make whatever rule you want. Just go to a 5-star restauraunt wearing shorts and a tank top and you'll discover even more rules.

I bet you can go to 100 Starbucks and take all the pics you want and noone will say anything. This story likely has a new manager that just went through "Starbucks School" and the rules are fresh and he's gung-ho, so hey, let's all knowingly and blatently break the rules of an establishment just to...uh...prove a point? Um....


"See if we can kill Starbucks by making all their lawyers send out cease and desists "

Where do you work? I bet I can bankrupt your company too! WHOOPEDOO!

Pathetic. You don't like a company, don't go there. So why TRY and put hard working people who don't have any beef with you out of work?!? It's thinking like yours that makes me sick. So, lemme know where you work, OK? I'm sure I can do tons to break their rules, like steal corporate secrets and sell them to their competition.

"But that's different!!" you scream, not knowing I'm leading you on.

Most "No Photo" policies are put in place to make corporate espionage more difficult, making it more difficult for people to copy floor plans, concession layouts, etc that Starbucks may have spent lots of money studying. So hey, let's take lots of pics of Starbucks and post them on the web, even though it's against their rules!!

Get over it people. It's a company and they can make whatever rules they want, from No Photos, to the dresscode, to the behaviour code, etc. Don't like it? Don't go.

"freedom is more important than corporate profits" Man, this line CRACKS ME UP!! Hey, go wear a swimsuit to a 5 star restauraunt and see how far you get. So why not protest that?!? Go take flash photos during the ballet, those facists! Talk loudly during a movie, don't let those greedy theatre owners tell YOU what to do!!

Hey, Doesn't Drew have a book out on the web? I bet if you pay money for it, he wouldn't want me to copy and distribute it freely... Drew, what do you say, can I reproduce it and toss it on Kazaa? When you pay good money for something, like researching the most efficient store layout, merchandising, etc, why is it so wrong to say "This is mine, do not take pictures of it without my permission"?!? Once you are in their store, you have to play by their rules, and a "No Photos" policy doesn't violate your human rights.

LoveGravy:

Your points are fine and good, but when my local Starbucks has a surveillance camera that points towards a window (which consequently has a street and a public park outside) people have a right to know. That is, unless you think putting unlabelled cameras in public places is a good idea.

That is more or less what sousveillance day is about.

Read this:

"In regards to shooting photo's in retail stores. It is private property - so yes they can make the rules for no photo's inside the stores. Whether or not they enforce the rules varies.


Here in Asia many restaurants have this rule as do many fashion and consumer electronics shops. The reason being for bars, clubs and restaraunts... is that it's a very very competitive business (at least in Asia) and has a lot to do with how hip a place looks, how trendy it is - the more hip, the more flash... the bigger chance someone will knock it off.. hook, line and sinker.


Example - Here in HK we have a very popular bar that get's packed just about every night of the week... wall to wall packed, they must make millions on the bar alone. Not too long after it opened... the exact same thing down to the name opened up in the Philipines. A complete copy. Name and all, layout, drink menu etc. - of course this was accomplished by people who went in and took pictures of the original place. It's been somewhat of a legal problem for original mgmt. group to shut the knock off. I think the copy place is still open and doing a good business. Of course the original's mgmt./owner feel like they've been robbed - which they have. It's not the first time it's happened - so for bars and clubs this is a large reason why they make a baseline rule no pictures. Again whether or not they enforce it is another matter. Most times they won't enforce this... but if they get any suspicion that it's more than a mere snapshot... Again, being private property... they have the right to make the rules.


As for retail stores... (clothing, toys, electronic items etc.) They do it because product developers and designers go in and take photo's of the competitions work and more importantly they in and do wide angle shots to be able to assess and record who has what space on the plan-o-gram/shelf space/sales floor. Again this is a very competitive business. So this is important information for sales reps and people dealing with buyers. Package designers want to know what kind of backdrop their package designs have to compete against. etc. etc. Toy companies are especially good at this kind of photography. While I don't think it's a quite the same issue as stealing someones theme for say a bar or a club... It does have some of the same elements. For development it's done to be able to see a good look at what items the competition has on the shelf and what importance they're being given by the buyers... The God's of the retail world. I know first hand as I used to do these kind of snapshots all the time when developing toy products. When developing packaging it was always important to know what you were up against... and a picture was worth a thousand words. We used to do it primarily in the big 'hyper' or 'mass' market retailers in the US... Walmart, K-Mart, Target, Toys 'R Us etc. etc. If the sales people saw you doin' it.. they'd ask you to leave. And they have the right. Again it's private property. But generally no one much cared. There would be the occasional floor guy/girl that played by the letter of the law and would ask you to leave if he caught you doin' it."


Go ahead, let's push to eliminate private property. Don't like someone's rule for their private property? Organize a rally where the rule is broken en-masse.

Oh, and make sure to let me know where you work, so the Starbucks folks can return the favor. I'm sure you won't mind, after all if what you are doing is a "Good Deed" you are doing, how could you mind them doing a "Good Deed" for your company?

"Your points are fine and good, but when my local Starbucks has a surveillance camera that points towards a window (which consequently has a street and a public park outside) people have a right to know. That is, unless you think putting unlabelled cameras in public places is a good idea."

Um, I can slap a camera in the window of my house and film my street all day long. Why can't a company? I don't see why you have a problem with it. It's public, and how can a surveillance camera watch the front door of an establishment without also catching the exterior through the glass? Furthermore, watching the reaction of pedestrians to window displays and ads is valid marketing research.

Take a pic of the camera from OUTSIDE the store. If you are on a public street, not a darn thing Starbucks can do about it. Walk in a take a picture, and you can get thrown out.

Just curious, what malicious things do you think Starbucks is doing with this footage? I've been racking my brain and haven't figured it out yet.

Also, my city has cameras on the freeway about every 5 miles, what's your feeling about that? They are used to track traffic patterns and make announcements about traffic conjestion. Are these bad too?

Edited by author 05-23-2003 08:53 PM
Here, this is what I'm talking about at the end of my last post, check this out:

http://wcpo.com/traffic/cameras/

Look at that list of cameras filming the public, viewable live from anywhere in the world.

Edited by author 05-23-2003 09:09 PM
LoveGravy, I'm glad to know that by your own definition you're a low-level corporate criminal, and therefore have some standing on what constitutes such criminality, but you're making what I would consider my point for me:

Because these corporations are (if your reasoning is any example) so paranoid, or so busy projecting their own intentions on other people, they can't tell the difference between a customer's normal everyday action and a competitor's exploration, so they decide to harrass even innocent actions.

Also, I'm having trouble figuring out why you don't have any moral qualms about committing idea theft yourself, but still feel the right to complain on behalf of a Hong Kong bar whose format was copied in another nation 700 miles away.

Again you are correct. I am trying to effect change, not follow the laws (which don't exist yet).

I believe that you should not have the right to videotape public property (such as the street in front of your house) without my knowledge. You think secret public recording is okay, and Starbucks apparently agrees with you. May the best man/company win. In the meantime, I and people like me will try to let the public know where and when they are being recorded, in hopes that they will join us in our opinion.

As we are quite off-topic by now, email might be best to continue our discussion. Try s1505315@inf.tu-dresden.de .

Edited by author 05-23-2003 09:32 PM
"Because these corporations are (if your reasoning is any example) so paranoid, or so busy projecting their own intentions on other people, they can't tell the difference between a customer's normal everyday action and a competitor's exploration"

OK then, YOU tell me the difference, since you seem to know what it is. Show me the "Tells" that differentiate innocent photos from corporate espionage. Is it that corporate spies come in wearing black trenchcoats?

Second, you missed my point altogether, so let me restate it:

It's private property, they don't NEED a reason for their rules.

I gave a reason anyway, sorry to be confusing, but they don't need one. They could make a rule "You must be wearing a green hat or you will be asked to leave" and you can do nothing about it. They don't need a reason, I simply gave one to show this wasn't some monsterous act designed to oppress people.

I'm sure if I made a rule "No hopping on one foot while reciting irish limericks", someone would be all up in arms about how unfair that is. There are LOTS of places that ask you not to take pictures, but the choice of Starbucks as the target of ire is obvious: They are big and successful. Underdogs might be equally ruthless, but once you become successful in America, paint a target on your butt. That's just how it goes.

Reid, again I ask you, if you are in public, why should taking photos of you be illegal? How about when I'm filming my family and you walk behind them, should I asked to hand over the film? Where do YOU think we should draw the line? Your proposed "Changes" will be devastating to the photography community. Take a picture of a busy street and you could be sued by 1000's of people.

-EDIT-

For the record, do I LIKE being filmed everywhere I go? Nope. I'm sure I have HOURS of me picking my nose, scratching my butt, ogling other women when I'm with my girlfriend, etc, on all sorts of cameras all over the world. Do I think that could be stopped without completely screwing up all sorts of other "rights"? No. Reid wants to prevent people from being filmed without their knowledge, Mothra wants restrictions on filming lifted. Sounds like diametric opposition to me. If a security camera catches people walking by, I'll live. If I cannot photograph inside a Starbucks, I'll live. However if I have to get a signed release from every stranger that appears in a vacation photo I take, then I have a problem. If companies cannot make rules for their stores concerning dress code, photos, etc, then I have a problem.

I recently took some digipics in the starbucks at the Grand Bohemian hotel in Orlando, FL without incident. Even had the 'baristas' in the background.

Coud it be that these were cases of overzealous managers sticking too close to the company line?

That was my take on it, kingtd. The rule exists, and the stores have a right to enforce it if they decide to, but my guess is that 99 out of 100 times it's not enforced.

I bet that after this staged act of defiance that number will go to 70% ENFORCED... I love it when a bad plan backfires.

Odd points about...(rubbing my chin)... yes, that would be about your own examples and methods of corporate spying as you've described them here. If you're a corporate spy, gee, that's just how business is done. But if someone else is a corporate spy, sue the bastards! Hey, if you don't want to own up to your own actions, fine by me. That's as reliable a sign of acknowledging that you've lost a debate as any.

As far as telling the difference between innocent photos and corporate espionage, you described some of the ways yourself in an earlier post. If Hong Kong bar workers can tell the difference, so can you.

Finally, aren't you the one missing the point? The point is that people are complaining about the rules at Starbucks and trying to get them changed so they can do something as simple as take a snapshot of a friend in a coffeeshop. They're customers at Starbucks -- they don't NEED to agree with the company when they're complaining.

I'm right there with you. Somebody got their feelings hurt because they were told not they couldn't do something. So what? Is that a reason to 'protest'?

The machines at SBUX headquarters are probably already churning out the new corporate-mandated 'No Photography Please' signs, which will be mailed out and affixed to the front door. The whole thing will cost them the equivalent of a barista's salary. Who wins in this stupid game?

Edited by author 05-23-2003 10:01 PM
"They're customers at Starbucks -- they don't NEED to agree with the company when they're complaining."

They do, however, NEED to comply.

I agree with you kingtd, it's kind of pointless. Noone is making these people go to Starbucks, so don't go. It's not the government making these rules, it's a company, and you vote with your money. How much does the "No Photography" policy hurt anyone? Not much. It's kinda like protesting Burger King because they don't make Big Macs: If you don't like what one store does, go to the other. Problem solved. Starting a campaign of disobedience will only cause more Starbucks employees to become aware of the policy and enforce it more vigorously.

Uh, no, they don't need to comply. They can bring in as many people as they like and complain, while taking pictures, as part of their complaint about being asked to not take pictures.

Starbucks can call the cops if it wants -- and boy, would that make them look stupid -- but they don't have the right to demand that a customer hand over a camera. For that matter, I'm not sure that the cops would either, though the cops would be within their rights to ask the complainers to leave.

Are you originally from Singapore? This is a US company we're talking about.

Edited by author 05-23-2003 10:14 PM
"Are you originally from Singapore? This is a US company we're talking about."

Scraping the bottom of the logic barrell, aren't we? Hey, it's a few thousand miles away so it cannot happen here... No, that quote came from a photographer that used to perform corporate espionage, hence the whole thing being in quotes...

The issue boils down to this:

Are PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS allowed to make any rule they want, as long as it doesn't violate any laws?

Answer: YES.

When you organize a group with the intention of breaking a store's rules, you are crossing a line between innocent mistake and trespassing. Yes, trespassing is a law, and if Starbucks decides to put a sign on the door stating "IF you are coming in here with the intention of taking photos as part of this organized protest, you will be trespassing and will be prosecuted". That will serve as the warning, and violation of that warning will be a pretty clear violation. Admit you did it as part of a protest and you lose the case, slam dunk. Don't admit it and it won't make the news and your 'protest' fails.

Of all the causes to take a stand on, this is the dumbest I can think of.

It's interesting to see your editorial changes. From what did you lift the photographer's quote? (Oops, did you get permission to use that quote? Damn, a copyright violation!)

Regarding your edited comment to Kingtd: Okay, this is the really big point. Customers get to vote with more than just their money. Even if it doesn't work. They get to talk to the manager, bring their friends and talk to the manager, bring their friends and digital cameras and TV reporters and talk to the manager, forget the manager and call a press conference in front of a Starbucks while bringing a flotilla of camera-toting buddies, or whatever.

Just because Starbucks makes an in-house rule, or posts a sign, doesn't mean that customers can't complain and try to get things changed. The sign you mention would probably deter a lot of people from entering, but not all. And then... the lovely press coverage, when Starbucks has to explain why they wouldn't let someone take a picture of a friend at a cafe table. I can hear the jokes on Jay Leno now.

Wouldn't Starbucks be better off to change its corporate rule so that it merely deters corporate espionage, rather than stops all picture-taking whatsoever?

When I made the comment about Singapore I meant that you may not be used to the US system. A grumpy and condescending comment to be sure, but also meant to point out that the system you're used to may not be the system in operation in the US, where Starbucks is based. We get to peaceably assemble (for now) and complain about dumb corporate rules. Even with cameras.

The whole thing seems kinda stupid if you've ever been to the first Starbucks at the Pike Place Market in Seattle. I worked at the market for a few summers (including last summer) and just about every dumb tourist decides to take there picture there. I even heard the baristas joke about how many countries thier pics had ended up in.

"Wouldn't Starbucks be better off to change its corporate rule so that it merely deters corporate espionage, rather than stops all picture-taking whatsoever?"

Well heck! Why didn't anyone think of that!! Or howabout only stopping people from taking videocameras into movie theaters who plan on uploading the film to Kazaa! Hey, then we can stop people who download MP3's of songs that they don't own on CD! Man, you just revolutionized the legal system! :)

Again, how do you know they are not taking photos for espionage? Ask them, "Excuse me mam, are you a spy?"? Come on, get real.

Second, you say: "Customers get to vote with more than just their money."

So you are saying that if you don't agree with a store's rules, it's OK to break it? Awesome idea!!!

I'm following you to the next movie theater and I'm gonna yell and talk on my cellphone the whole time. Then I'll follow you to dinner where I'll smoke in the non-smoking section while wearing a thong bikini. Aren't those rules OK to break? Who gets to decide which we can ignore and which we cannot?

You break the rule you are asked to leave, and can be asked not to ever return. If you return, you are trespassing and CAN be arrested. If you don't like a rule, use the ADULT method of lobbying management, or boycotting, by why use rule breaking as a FIRST resort? I think it comes down to self-importance more than anything. "I don't like this rule so I'm above it and free to break it all I want". An intelligent letter takes too much effort and doesn't make you feel important enough, so let's go break some rules! It's going to hurt their cause more than it hurts Starbucks, and since the cause is silly to begin with I don't mind at all.

"call a press conference in front of a Starbucks while bringing a flotilla of camera-toting buddies, or whatever. "

Man, how self-important can you get! It's going to have to be an epically slow news day for anyone to attend this press conference...

I think it's Munchousen by proxy. There isn't a real problem, so you create one then dash to the rescue of the little guy with your civil disobedience and press conferences. To stop a handfull of people being harassed each year for breaking a rule, you're going to harass hundreds instead. Sweet. And the irony is that the store managers are simply following the rules, earning their pay. They didn't make the rules, the corporate guys did, so you're attacking the lizard by the tail here. Next time you see a garbage man, harass him for the Patriot Act, since he's about as close to the lawmakers in his company (the Government) as these store managers are to the rule makers at corporate.

Edited by author 05-24-2003 12:40 AM
This photo fiasco happened to me recently! At the Shadyside Starbucks in Pittsburgh. My wife, baby daughter, and I had met up with another couple and their baby kids. It was a special moment because this included my wife's best friend visiting from Palo Alto very briefly, and we had never met their kids - we see them once every, like, seven years.

So I pull out my Sony DigiCam to take a group snap of the babies (no flash), and quicker than you could open another Starbucks, the cashier came RUNNING out, DEMANDING that I stop using the camera THIS SECOND. I managed to brush her off for a couple of seconds while I finished getting the photos but she got extremely agitated.

I didn't want our friends' visit to be ruined any further by this silliness so I finished taking a couple of pix and we all left.

Being from Seattle, I shouldn't have been surprised, given the other lame stunts the company has pulled as it left its Market roots far, far behind in the race toward global megacorpdom. (e.g. At one point a couple years ago, the chain enacted the removal of all 'alternative' local papers from its stores inside and out, but there were so many complaints that they soon reversed the decision.)

I agree that Starbucks is free to make whatever silly policies it wants and have their employees enforce them as idiotically as possible. Mounting a general protest does seem kind of pointless - as if we really care that much about the company's welfare or the customers who aren't being forced to go there. However, complaining individually if you've been rudely treated is a whole different matter.

Keev

Let me ask you another question:

If Starbucks policy is so restrictive, why would you want to go there even after they change their policy? Do you REALLY want to fix the perceived problem, or is the real motive to "Stick it to the man"? I think that's where all too many protests get lost. They don't care about the cause, they only want to damage a company, hence the attack as the first attempt instead of a less disruptive method.

I personally think AOL's customized IP stack and other networking componants that, like a virus, really mess up a system that has ever had AOL loaded on it. I don't like it one bit, so I avoid AOL like the plague. If, instead, I decided to send AOL a message by breaking their rules and they DID cave in and release their service using default networking components, would I switch to AOL? Nope, I'd stick with an ISP that never made that boneheaded move, not one that did and then fixed it under threats and coersion.

Personally, I don't use Starbucks--I think I might have made a purchase from Starbucks once in my lifetime (though it could've been a New World Coffee or other lookalike). But the readtions of Starbucks employees do seem extreme, no matter what their intentions. With regards to copyright, individuals have a right under Fair Use to make limited copies of a work for their own use, and I assume that applies to interior design as well (can interior design even *be* copyrighted?). If you were to circulate those images, they'd have a case, but until that moment, there's no copyright infringement.

It *is*, however, Starbucks' prerogative to "reserve the right not to serve" someone who is taking pictures, or anyone for that matter (so long as they do not violate the laws regulating public accomodations) and your refusal to leave the premises when asked may constitute trespassing--although free speech rights and the right to protest the establishment may trump their property rights, I'm not sure. So if a bunch of people feel that they wish to patronise Starbucks (for what reason I can't possibly imagine) and that they want to be able to take pictures of themselves there, I see no reason why they shouldn't go in a group and start taking pictures. When the manager comes out, they can take the opportunity to explain, calmly I hope, that Starbucks has promoted itself as a comfortable, communal sort of place, and taking snapshots of our friends is one of the ways that we Americans act out our sociability. If Starbucks is not willing to accomodate such social behaviour, there's a New World or any of a dozen other lookalikes across the street.

The corporate espionage thing is a bit of a red herring. Every Starbucks I've ever seen (and I've lived for several years in NYC, where there are dozens of them, sometimes three or more within a block of each other, e.g. Astor Place) has large, plate-glass windows opening onto the street that afford a clear view of the inside of the store (with the occasional exception of those inside bookstores and other retail spaces). I can't imagine there's much "design" to see in Starbucks that isn't viewable from the street, and Starbucks cannot prevent you taking pictures from a public space, copyright infringing or no. Anyone can stand on the street and photograph, videotape, sketch, or model in SIlly Putty to their heart's content--and if they fo after business hours, usually the inside is lit up and there's no people to block the view.

Oh, one more thing: For Bob's sake, people, chances are there's an independant coffee store within a block of that Starbucks (otherwise how would Starbuck's have thought to put their shop there) that's much friendlier, probably cheaper, and lots cooler. Got there instead, and take all the pictures you want.

Oneman, if you don't go for the espionage thing, then why do you think Starbucks wants to stop photos of their interior? I really doubt they do it just to be jerks. I know if I were to open a coffeehouse it would be nice to take my design from the most popular chain in the world, and save myself the $Millions in traffic pattern analasys, efficiency studies and other expensive research that they likely conducted.

Second, refusal to leave IS trespassing, and if you wish to protest you must do it outside on non-store owned property. Free speech does NOT supercede private property.

Edited by author 05-24-2003 12:49 AM
Ok, this might be obvious to everyone, but Starbucks has become one of the symbols of American cultural imperialism and thus a potential target. It wouldn't surprise me if security paranoia was involved in the no-video rule. (Rise up, revolutionaries of Shadyside!!)

What Oneman said, pretty much.

LoveGravy, you are clearly in some serious dudgeon way out in space. Did I say I was organizing any Starbucks protest? I don't go there myself -- I like my local cafe much better. I'm talking with *you*, about your idea that private property rights trump every single other matter. Read more closely, for crying out loud.

I'm talking about what people in the US have the right to do -- and maybe they do in Hong Kong too, for all I know -- which is peaceably assemble and complain. Even about something stupid. I'm not organizing the protest, man, get a hold of yourself. I'm saying that customers and companies are on a more equal footing than you care to believe, if the customers choose that path.

Yes, no matter how stupid you think it is, people have the right to start complaining to the management IN ANY WAY UP TO AND INCLUDING STARTING A PROTEST. Yes, they take the consquences, but they still have the right. You act as though saying "and then you'll get arrested for trespassing" stops the conversation. Maybe some people would, for whatever quixotic reason, choose to get arrested over this. So what? What's your point? Is doing so stupid? Probably, in this case. Is it their right to do so? Unquestionably!

In your anger you seem to have stopped drawing any distinction between rule-breaking as protest -- up to and including civil disobedience, though I have trouble imagining a die-in at a Starbucks over this -- and rule-breaking because someone's a thoughtless or evil moron. But that distinction still exists.

I decline your attempt to muddy the waters by positing yourself as a rude fellow doing bad things to me personally and saying, "How 'bout *those* rules, huh, buddy, how about *those* rules?" You're setting up a straw man, and I'm not going to light that straw man on fire.

As far as how you tell when someone's practicing industrial espionage, you use your head, just as was described in your original quoted material. (I pointed this out when you asked me the first time.) And, as Oneman also said, if anyone wants to take pictures of a Starbucks innards, all they have to do is stand up against the plate-glass windows. If they want to be surreptitious about it, all they have to do is cut a hole in a briefcase and push the camera hole up against the window.

Crikey.

Lovegravy:

I see the point you're making about protecting things like the Store Layout etc. etc.

BUT: There are so many Starbucks, so many people going there every day, if someone wants to "rip off" the Starbucks idea they already have.

You don't need photos to get the layouts, just sit at a table, sip the beverage of your choice and draw the layout on a legal pad.

As such the idea that it's about their IP protection is sort of bogus, there are TONS of knockoff places there, and what differenciates Starbucks from others is not the store layout but their name and the quality (or lack thereof depending on your taste) of their products.

They have way more to loose if someone buys their new fancy drink and then get's it analyzed in a food lab and sells that to a competing company than from someone taking taking pictures inside a Starbucks.

Just my 2 cents (and Canadian at that).

Just a point of clarification: I don't think Starbuck's policy isn't *intended* to address corporate espionage, I think that it's not *effective* at doing so, and to address it as such is a waste of patron/protestor's time. AS far as the issue of public space vs. trespassing law is concerned, there are conflicting precedents: I would say that the Utah case that found that free speech rules held precedence in shared spaces in the Mall speaks to this issue (but I'm not a lawyer, and cheerfully admit I could be wrong). THe point is that there's no natural reason why property takes precedent over protest, and there's no reason why people shouldn't take back some of that precedence. If Starbucks policy is the point they want to make that stand, so be it.

It kind of breaks my brain to think of how copyright applies inside a Starbucks. They can't copyright things like store layout--which is somewhat different in every store, anyway-- or their colors. Of course, the Starbucks logo is a trademark (out of which all the useful lessons have already been drawn by New World) and individual artworks inside are likely copyrighted, but what else I can't even think of. Which may make their desire to precent puicture taking a little more understandable, actually, because a person can put together a pretty good simulacra of a Starbucks using only uncopyrightable elements (as some chains have). In any case, the fact that most of the coffee chains are fairly indistinguishable supports my assertion that preventing interior photography isn't really doing anything but antagonizing customers. And if a large enough number of people make that point, and back it up with money spent at New Order, Peet's, or (please) their locally-owned independent, I think Starbucks will prove pretty malleable on this point. And if not, I hope we can find creative ways to use their newly vacated spaces in our urban centers and suburban strips.

I have never been to a Starbucks, however, I am wondering that if they are so veremently opposed to customers taking pictures, is there any notification by the entrances of these places (or EULA to agree to when making a purchase)

Edited by author 05-24-2003 06:09 PM
If Starbucks isn't committing any crimes, what do they have to hide? I'm writing to Ashcroft to ask for an investigation.

Our locally owned coffeehouses have no anti-photo rules, and make better coffee than Starbucks anyway.

Don't try to make the corporate machine kiss your ass, patronise local businesses.

"It kind of breaks my brain to think of how copyright applies inside a Starbucks."

It's quite simple: Can I build a car that looks exactly like a VW beetle and sell it? Floorplans are as copywritable as any other designs. Houses, office buildings, etc can all be protected.

Starbucks is a company. Their stores are private property. They have every right in the world to make any policy they want, as long as it doesn't violate any laws, which this one doesn't. If you don't like it, then feel free to protest, but it is my opinion that breaking the policy as a form of protest is quite simply a bad idea on all fronts. First it says "It's OK to break rules you don't agree with", which is NOT OK. Second it will cause more Starbucks to enforce the rule than ever before. Instead of taking the civil method of lobbying the people who actually make the rules, this form of protest is simply an excuse to break the rule, not a serious effort to effect change. One message board member said it best, this is an effort to hurt Starbucks, not change the policy. As the vocal minority living in a democracy, you have the right to protest but to strongarm the majority through subversive tactics is to set a bad example.

Again, I challenge you protesters to tell me where you work. If you think this form of protest is "valid" and "a good idea", then let me do it to YOUR company and see if your opinions change. But hey, I'm sure your company isn't "Greedy" and "Evil" like Starbucks. For a list of companies that aren't greedy and don't defend their intellectual properties, just search the Chapter 11 filings, there are a lot of them listed there.

Why use rule breaking as a FIRST resort?

Ask Rosa Parks.

LoveGravy, you're making a number of assumptions that you oughtn't to assume are universally shared, and clinging to metaphors that aren't particularly useful.

For instance, the "vocal minority strongarming the majority" concept. That would be what, the vocal minority of people who want to take a snapshot of their buddies, strongarming the majority of... Starbuckses? At best this metaphor is deeply confused.

I daresay you're not a big fan of civil disobedience; that's just my guess. But that dislike is very far from being everybody's axiom. Sometimes breaking rules you don't agree with IS OK.

And it's not a Black vs. White, Øn vs. Off, Yes vs. No situation either. Gray areas, think of gray areas, continuums, situations where the rules might *vary* with the circumstances. Frankly, at a couple of places I've worked I'd've welcomed someone coming in and protesting their policies. Because, wait for it... IT DEPENDS. On a number of factors.

It's not a given that more Starbuckses will enforce the rule than before, ESPECIALLY in light of a lot of negative publicity. No company likes its less savory rules to be made public. Starbucks might, under pressure of public ridicule, change its policy.

If you want to assume that anyone who disagrees with Starbucks in a manner you disapprove of could have no motive other than to hurt the company... (shrug) I can't stop you, really, but I gotta tell you, you're missing the point. My bet is that Starbucks patrons want to sit in Starbucks, drink their lattes quietly, and occasionally take a picture of a friend without being pointlessly hassled by the management. No injury to Starbucks there.

This conversation is reminding me of a friend of mine back in college, who'd apparently been trained at home to respond reflexively to anyone using profanity under any circumstances with the cold words, "My, how unoriginal." This made it hard for her, as a student journalist, to interview and deal with many of her peers.

You've apparently trained yourself to respond reflexively to the idea of a protest with the words, "How uncivil." Maybe this reflex isn't as much of a strength as you believe.

Well I think Starbucks better get its lawyers on the stick before Jeff Bezos gets a patent for Burnt Coffee Sold In A Bland and Inoffensive Institutional Setting That Includes Tables, Chairs, And A Counter.

I mean, Starbuck's "intellectual property" is at least as innovative as anything Microsoft has ever done, and at least as creative as a short paragraph from any randomly chosen novel. But as long as we have true believers like Lovegravy around, aggressive and mindless mediocrity is assured of eternal triumph in America.

Edited by author 05-25-2003 06:40 PM
It strikes me that the type of people excited about this protest action would have a large political overlap with anti-globalisation activists...so what is the POINT of strongarming Starbucks into changing, so you can go enjoy a less-guilty mochaccino?

"Oh yes, they're Evil, and have put countless small business persons out of business, and destroy local culture, but we can take pictures here so it's all OK!"

I just can't get worked up about the evil policies of Starbucks. They can change this rule, and they will STILL BE EVIL!!!!

I may be a capitalist running dog, but those fuckers played dirty pool to put my favorite coffee cart under, so it's personal here.

I have the feeling that y'all taking this a little too serious.
How about just teasing someone a little because he or she or it is too tight?
Who cares if can take pictures in Starbucks or not?
Let's have some fun and spook those corporate f***ers a little.
I want to see a Starbucks manager demanding to hand over my camera to him or her. I don't know about you but I certainly won't. And if they want to have me arrested at least I'll have a good story to write about.

Taking Photographs has always been disallowed at the Mediteranium here in Berkeley CA. The only time the management allowed this was for the filming of The Graduate.

Honestly if a news personal came into our store and attempted to take a picture I know that our manager would flip a bit but just anyone walking in with a camera?? we have cameras in our purses most of the time when we walk in for work it's not like they demand to have our cameras. (we even have a picture of another Starbucks up on our bar for the customers to see). I guess the point I'm trying to make is news kinda scarry. (people are ragging on Starbucks enough without getting the news involved) regular people with a camera? who really cares (I know that I certinally don't)

by the way this persons manager obviously doesn't care if they take pictures either. So do it you can come to my store!!

www.flickr.com/photos/tags/starbucks/