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 .