Something from another forum has caught my attention. Somebody there runs a club. Due to intrusiveness from the press no photographs are permitted in the club. This extends to mobile phones being used to take photos.
The club organisers have stated that if anyone is caught using their mobile phone to take photos within the club then **all ** photos on the phone will be deleted.
I am puzzled as to the legality of this. Is it permissible for a club owner to take punitive action by deleting legally taken and legally held images? While I agree with their right to have photos of the club deleted I would have thought they would be on very shaky legal ground in destroying any other images. Do any dopers have any thoughts with regard to this matter?
I don’t see that they have any legal right to touch anyone’s camera. If they don’t like someone’s behavior, they can kick them out. The photographer might have grounds for making a criminal complaint if someone seized their camera.
One might say if the customer is aware of the clubs policy then they are agreeing to have their pictures erased. If the club has a membership contract signed by the member they could be open to a breach of contract situation, stating a fine/penalty of $500 or the destruction of pictures on the camera.
It’s not theft. The phone will be held only briefly by the club owners before being returned. There is no intent to keep the phone. And without intent to keep an item then there is no theft under English law.
ETA to the other edit. That seems more of a possibility but still I don’t think would apply here. What I’m actually interested in is the issue with the photos and not the actual hardware.
Exactly. The customers agree to this policy and the consequences for violating it in order to enter the club. It’s a contract between the would be photographer and the club management/owners. Why would it be illegal?
The club policy is made abundently clear to all club-goers if it helps. But I’m still not clear on whether it is permissible to delete photos which are not in breach of the club’s policy.
For example, say I go to the club in full knowledge of the rules and take photos. These are then deleted by the organisers and I am ejected. Fair enough. But could they also legitimately delete my other photos? Let’s say for argument’s sake that I have the last photo of my dear-departed grandmother on there. Can these be deleted?
I don’t think the duration of possession is grounds for innocence of theft.
However, a membership agreement might well be a contract conveying the right to seize any camera, even a phone camera, but that depends on the exact wording of the membership agreement. It could specify a very stiff penalty, including seizure and even destruction of the phone. Immediate enforcement of the agreement might still be considered unlawful, though.
Sure. They told you they’d delete all pictures on it if you brought it in, didn’t they? And you went in anyway, right?
With technology the way it is now, one could easily mask a photo taken within the club inside of a photo previously taken, so it wouldn’t be noticeable on routine inspection.
A contract does not exempt the management from the law. They may have a civil case of action against the photographer, but that does not give them the right (IMHO) to seize, even temporarily, the property of the photographer.
Something similar shows up in shoplifting cases. A member of a shopping club may have consented to being searched as a condition of membership, but if the customer refuses to be searched, the shopping club is in a difficult situation. They can call the police and/or cancel the membership, but forcibly searching the customer is asking for trouble.
If they had told me in advance that they would not only destroy all photos but would rip the sleeves off my coat and go outside to slash my car tyres would that also be legal? I see what you mean about the digital imaging but it seems to me that the ‘punishment’ goes well beyond what is reasonable legally.
**Triskademus ** I’m not sure what you mean by your first sentence. Could you explain please?
A photograph taken by a person which contains original creative content or expression is a copyrighted work (as opposed to a slavish, non-creative copy of another work).
Unless the club had a specific agreement which said by entering you give them permission to destroy ANY of your copyrighted works which are independent and separate from anything related to the club, I fail to see how the club would not be liable for civil penalties. Meaning, you could sue them for the value of the copyrighted works which they destroyed without your authorization. It seems to me that the club would have to be very clear on that - there has to be some informed consent involved here after all - the club can’t just say “we can do anything we want to at any time to you”, nor can they make ex post facto rules, and expect not to be liable for damages.
IIRC there was a case (I saw it linked from a photography board) where a person had a memory card seized and all pictures deleted on it, including some which were for another project which were not easily replaceable. IIRC the photographer won a judgment of $3000 (the maximum) in small claims court, but the defendant refused to pay and it had gone to collections at that point.
Whether or not a club would be liable for criminal penalties is something I will not speak of.
I thought one could not enter into a contract when the terms are illegal, even with consent.
I can’t give consent for someone to murder my husband, for instance, or invest my money in illegal gambling. The contract itself is illegal, even if it’s written in lawyerese and signed - surely mere entry after reading a sign is even less binding?
I’m not a lawyer so I am on shaky ground here. As Whynot said, a contract where the terms are illegal isn’t valid so you clearly couldn’t agree to have your finger amputated if you violate their policy. I’m not sure that confiscation of the camera is illegal though. Couldn’t they confiscate a knife or a can of pepper spray that someone brought into the club? What if it was a film camera? Could they take the roll of film even if some of the earlier pictures were of his kid’s birthday party?
That’s a different matter entirely, since we’re no longer talking about the disposal of property.
A contract is not legally enforceable if it stipulates terms which are themselves illegal. For example, you cannot sign a contract selling yourself into slavery, since you cannot alienate your basic human right to freedom. Depending on the jurisdiction, a similar argument might be made for a contract allowing you to be beaten.
However, there’s nothing inherently illegal about a contract which provides for the exchange, use, or destruction of private property, such as a camera phone or a car tire. I routinely enter into contracts allowing car mechanics to destroy my car tires. In this case, Party A agrees to allow Party B to use its club (except for the purposes photography) in exchange for a membership fee. Furthermore Party A agrees to allow Party B to use its club for photography in exchange for the right to use Party B’s camera phone afterwards to delete all photos contained thereon, and for the right to destroy Party B’s car tires. (I’m sure there are many other ways of phrasing the agreement.) Party B need not consent to these agreements, in which case Party B does not get to use Party A’s club.