Bouncer’s do that on a regular basis. Bar owners routinely get taken to court on this and usually end up winning because they have sober witnesses. 
For fighting that is, not picture taking.
Hmmm. Suppose I own a strip of prime beachfront property, which people would love to use for swimming.
It’s within my rights to ban them from using the property at all. And it’s within my rights to permit them to use the property as they like.
It’s within my rights to charge them a reasonable fee to use my property.
It’s within my rights to set conditions on what they may and may not do on my property, if I permit them to use it, with or without fee.
Now, here’s the kicker: Suppose I (legally) allow skinny dipping. Naturally, a beach full of nude people becomes irresistible to anyone who wants nude pictures.
So I prohibit cameras, so my clientele can swim nude in piece, without fear their bodies will be all over the Internet the next day.
And I post a public notice to my patrons: if anyone comes on my property with camera equipment, it will be impounded. It will be returned to them when they leave – without any film that was in it, and with any memory card erased on a digital camera. I don’t have time to develop their film or go through their images and see what are of my nude patrons and what are not. Same policy applies to camera phones – if it will do a digital image, it’s not allowed on the beach.
Add a kicker here: if you are a photographer/patron who chooses to go for a swim on a hot day after shooting some pictures in connection with your job, you may check your camera for holding at my admissions desk (if you choose not to lock it in your car instead) and it will be held intact, no pictures erased, until you leave. Likewise if your personal cell phone is a camera phone.
I’ve given them public notice of my policy. You’re under no obligation to use my beach, with or without clothes. If you choose to do so, you may not bring photographic equipment on the beach with you.
Somebody breaks that policy, and brings down a camera and starts shooting pictures.
I enforce my policy, and impound their camera, returning it to them when they leave with no film in it or with an erased memory card.
Where am I in the wrong? It’s my beach, held open to the public under the terms and conditions I set for it. I’ve given notice of those terms and conditions.
In what way(s) does this differ from Zelie’s club, if any? Am I acting legally? Am I acting ethically (assuming you don’t find permitting nude swimming unethical)?
I’m assuming “club” means “nightclub, soiree, privately-owned public place to go out and mingle with others at,” rather than “membership organization, with meeting space, such as the Elks Club or the Wampsville Ferret Breeders Club.”
I can see grounds for arguing that the erasure of all pictures by the club might be beyond what is legally permissible. But I can also see legal reasons for arguing the other way. Hence my hypothetical. You have the right to use a privately-owned place held open to the public subject to the terms and conditions under which it is held open to the public. If the admission fee is too high, don’t go there. If it permits or prohibits smoking, and that’s offensive to you (either way), don’t go there. If the conditions for admission require that you get your hand stamped, and you don’t care to do so, don’t go there. And if the conditions require that you do not bring picture-taking equipment, on penalty of losing all pictures imaged on it, then either don’t bring that equipment, or don’t go there.
If the terms and conditions require something illegal in and of itself (admission: 1 oz. pot), or were illegally discriminatory (no blacks allowed), this would be a different story. But I fail to see where this triggers any of the above. If you went to a restaurant and willfully and intentionally broke your dinnerware, charging you the cost to replace it over and above the cost of the meal would be legitimate. Presuming notice of the intent to delete all pictures has been given, as I inferred from the OP it was, this is that sort of “penalty charge,” paid in kind, for violating the terms and conditions of service.
Don’t like it? Take your patronage elsewhere.
Really?
So, say i come out of a pub in Brixton at 2 in the morning, and can’t find a taxi. I decide to hotwire that car over there, and drive it home to North London. When i get home, i park the car a few blocks from my house to divert suspicion, and walk home. I never intended to keep the car, just to borrow it for a ride home.
Would i be charged with theft, do you think?
Taking without consent wrt vehicles is a separate issue. Consider walking out of the supermarket a la Richard Madeley because you’ve got something in your hand and forgotten about it. That’s not theft.
I haven’t the foggiest. Hence my OP.
Again, hence my OP.
The varied opinions here are interesting but with one exception they have only been opinion. I would be really interested in finding out what the real situation is.
Does anyone have any legal cites for their thoughts? Or perhaps even know of linkable cases where civil prosecutions were undertaken for destruction of photos?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Because, once out of the store, your possession of the item, without having paid for it, constitutes pretty damn good evidence of a crime. The burden, presumably, will then be on you to convince the store owner and/or police that your taking of the item was really due to absent-mindedness rather than malice.
You’ve pretty much summed up my original point. If the camera-phone is briefly taken and photos deleted in front of the owner before being immediately returned then the burden will be on the photographer to prove that the camera a) was stolen (given it’s immediate return) and b) was taken due to malice rather than in order to enforce the rules.
Any thoughts on the images btw?
Wow, Polycarp. You certainly seem to have that well planned out for a “hypothetical”. Is there something you’re not telling us? 
While attending a concert at an outdoor venue last summer, I witnessed 2 gentlemen with bright orange shirts with security on them take a video camera from a young gentleman, remove the DV cartridge, destroy said cartridge and return the camera. There were signs at all the entrances that specifically banned video and audio recording devices and that such devices would be seized. The guy complained loudly to a couple of uniformed police officers that watched the scene. Instead of taking pity on the guy, the officers escorted him to the nearest exit. When a couple of his buddies complained, they too were escorted to the exit. I later talked to one of the officers about the incident and he said the security guys were nice, they did not have to return the camera, the signs at the entrences were a legally binding warning. Whether a warning at the entrance to a facility constitutes a legally binding agreement will of course depend on local and state ordinances. When I left the venue later, the sign specifically listed the local city ordinance that allowed siezure of the banned items. In the case of the club owner, having the sign wording done by a lawyer familiar with the local laws would be wise decision.
English law.
I am not sure how this will proceed. It might be legal under the contract for them to do that, but how do they legally come into possession of your camera? If you give it to them, well, ok. If you don’t give it to them, they can ask you to leave. What else can they do? I’ve been in a situation like this, albeit a patron of a high end bar wanted to erase my pictures not the establishment.
Dude: HEY!
Me: turning around What?
Dude: You can’t take pictures of me like that!
Me: I wasn’t!
Dude: Yeah, right, give me your camera?
Me: … I’m not giving you my camera.
Dude: Give me your camera so I can erase pictures of me.
Me: … No
Dude: GIVE ME YOUR CAMERA
Me: FUCK. OFF.
…
So the dude gave up, but say it was the bouncer. Does he physically assault me after I tell him to FUCK OFF? Or just ask me to leave? If anybody wants my camera they are going to have to fight me for it, and I can’t think of a contract that could be enforceable if it allows them to beat me up to erase my camera. So yes, I guess it might be a legal act if you hand over your camera, but I can’t think of an enforceable contract that would allow them to do this by force – US or UK.
I’ve seen bouncers take cameras and recording devices at rock concerts on several occasions. This doesn’t mean that it’s legal but it is prevalent enough that I think it might be. Of course, maybe there is a law specifically addressing live music that wouldn’t apply in a club that plays recorded music or doesn’t have music at all.
Also, bouncers can certainly use force to kick someone out of a club or to take a weapon from them even if the weapon is legal in and of itself and not being used at the moment. Why not a camera?
Again weapons complicate things. As well as refusing to leave. However, if I put my cell phone in my pocket, and he attempts to reach into my pocket to retrieve it, that’s assault, no?
From a technical point of view, the point is moot. Even if the photos on the camera (or phone) are deleted, unless the club has some very specific technical capabilities and time, the photos WILL be recoverable - just like the recent texts you delete and the call list you clear on your phone are generally recoverable.
Deleted does not mean gone, particularly with flash memory. Plenty of suitable tools will allow recovery. Physical destruction of the memory or full memory overwriting would be required. And I suspect actual property damage would be illegal.
Si
It might be if you’re a “suspicious person”, like, say, a minority or teenager.
Forgive me for saying this, but IMHO it seems there’s a lot of posts in this thread tnat would benefit from the liberal addition of “IMHO”, and not a lot of case law being cited.
Sailboat
It is in Virginia. I personally witnessed someone trying to take a cell phone from another party who resisted, and the person who tried to take the phone was charged with assault as a result of wrestling for the phone.
Sailboat
Yes, but consent makes a lot of things legal.
For instance, in most cases if someone punched me in the nose, I could sue them for assault.
But not if I’m playing Hockey in an NHL sanctioned hockey rink. Or boxing in an amateur boxing match.
I don’t know the legal status of the OP’s situation, but the fact that you were warned changes the rules in a lot of situations. Of course, it also DOESN’T change the rules in a lot of situations, so I suspect only a true legal expert could answer this question, and it oculd probably be argued from many different angles. Unless someone has a cite to english case law where this has been established, it would probably rely on one of multiple common-law interpretations, and could probably be successfully argued either way by a sharp lawyer.
I wonder how legally protecting (for the club) signs are, though. What about people who don’t read English (or don’t read at all)? Not only is not everyone capable of reading signs - many, many more people DON’T read signs. I don’t understand it myself, but work in retail for a week and see how many dumbasses ask “Where’s the return desk?” while straight at the RETURN DESK sign.
As irritating as it is, I do understand places that make you sign waivers and contracts for stupid things. At least then they have a piece of paper to wave in front of the judge and prove consent was obtained.
Consent can also be withdrawn.
Illegality of contracts is a bit more complicated than that.
First there is a distinction between kinds of illegality. Contracts that violate regulatory provisions that don’t implicate broader public policy are usually enforceable. Courts say they are malum prohibitum. Contracts that violate criminal law are usually unenforceable. Courts call them malum in se. *E.g., * LLOYD CAPITAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENT, v. PAT HENCHAR, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Here, the issue is whether the club policy is a consent or waiver. If it is, then the conduct isn’t illegal in the first place. Such a contract isn’t usually subject to an illegality defense.