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.