No Pictures For You

[Holly Moore]

Some Chicago hot dog places seem a tad surley about having their premises photographed. Twice I've been curtly told, "No Photos." One, Superdawg, even slammed close the covering to their pickup window as I was in the process of taking a picture.

My question is this - Does a restaurant or any business have a legal right to prohibit the taking of photographs within their establishment? If I continue to shoot pictures, but am otherwise my lovable self, do they have the right to eject me? And though it has never happened can a business sieze my camera. Finally, does freedom of the press work in my favor, as I use these pictures for a website that reviews restaurants?

[nervousnelli]

Don't know about the legalities involved but I'd love to see the photos you managed to get.

[awbrig]

keep taking pictures!

Edited May 19, 2003 by awbrig (log)

[Holly Moore]

Petrillo's and Superdawg here in Chicago. Berduci's (?sp) in NYC.

[Basildog]

I think if a restaurant has a displayed policy for no photos , then you should abide by it.It may be there to protect other customers privacy, or flash photography may disturb other guests.But a hot dog joint? Sounds a bit odd to me

[awbrig]

Unless you were taking pictures of that hot dog between your breasts that is indeed strange they were adamant of no photography... Where else have you eaten or taken food pics?

[WHT]

Not only can they forbid it, you could get sued if you use the photos for anything other than a scrapbook. In the last 5 years it has gone from bad to worse on intellectual property. If there is a remote chance that what you are taking a photo of, making a sketch or detailed notes of is trademarked or copy written. Make sure you have written permission and a model release. It may be argued that they are in the public eye but unless you are a journalist from a recognized media outlet it gets tricky.

Conceder the Jewel chain and the warnings now on the doors. You are forbidden to take photos; video or make audiotape of the store or it’s interior. This gives them a big axe to use should someone decide to do an expose. Criminal trespassing being the least of the charges. The reverse of this is the fine print on the back of most tickets to public events. You agree that they can use pictures, yada, yada, yada of you without any compensation and for as long as they want.

It sucks but unless you have the time and $$$ to back you up you are on the loosing end of things. They also being a PRIVATE place refuse you service and ask you to leave for any reason not covered by normal laws involving discrimination. The kicker on this is businesses by definition of law are open to the public and not public places. IE a park or on the road. Here in Illinois you can actually be restrained and detained pending arrest by police. Also if the photos show any people you have to have their consent to be photographed, again a model release is a good idea. You might want to check out a few of the newer books on photojournalism. I was quite surprised by what has changed in regard to “fair use” and other related issues.

Edited May 19, 2003 by WHT (log)

[tommy]

if you get in a squat, and fart loudly in my restaurant, i have the right to bounce you out on your ass. i think the same goes for pictures, as surely it's annoying to some customers.

[WHT]

if you get in a squat, and fart loudly in my restaurant, i have the right to bounce you out on your ass.  i think the same goes for pictures, as surely it's annoying to some customers.

You don't even need that much of a reason.

[Chef/Writer Spencer]

Some Chicago hot dog places seem a tad surley about having their premises photographed.  Twice I've been curtly told, "No Photos."  One, Superdawg, even slammed close the covering to their pickup window as I was in the process of taking a picture. 

you might have stumbled upon some mafioso shit. if that's the case, change your name and move.

[caribemj]

Twice I've been curtly told, "No Photos."  One, Superdawg, even slammed close the covering to their pickup window as I was in the process of taking a picture. 

Maybe they are worried you are from the Board of Health? Or their licenses aren't squeaky clean?? That's often the case around here and I'd sure miss my $1.75 conch pastillas if they got shut down...

[Really Nice!]

Conceder the Jewel chain and the warnings now on the doors. You are forbidden to take photos; video or make audiotape of the store or it’s interior. This gives them a big axe to use should someone decide to do an expose.

Isn't that warning sign next to the video camera that records your face as you enter the store?

Taking pictures at grocery stores, restaurants etc. isn't an everyday event, so it's natural to be suspicious as to the purpose of the recording. Remember, Chicago-area Jewel Foods stores had that salmonella outbreak in its milk, sending over 20,000 people to hospitals in the winter of 1985. You couldn't watch TV for weeks without seeing some Jewel dairy department on the news. The same results occured with Jack n' the Box and the E. coli bacteria they had in their hamburger meat in February 1993.

If you're driving up to a place like Superdawg and taking photos, they're probably thinking one of two things: you're looking to copy the look and feel of their establishment, or you're trying to catch them doing something (stealing, bad HACCP practices...).

[WHT]

Isn't that warning sign next to the video camera that records your face as you enter the store? 

Yes, the sweet irony of it.

[Holly Moore]

Last night Trio came up with the ideal solution when I asked how they felt about pictures. "We'd prefer not to have you take pictures in the dining room, but if you'll give me the camera I'll take it back to the kitchen and they will take pictures of the dishes there."

Alas, the kitchen hasn't totally comprehended photo composition and depth of field, but they took some great shots, including some of the dishes coming together.

Also this pic:

[docsconz]

I like to take pictures of the courses serveed to me in a restaurant. It helps preserve the memory for me. I try to not be too intrusive, so I don't use a flash. Unfortunately, the photos don't always come out so well that way, but generally well enough for my purposes. I won't post a photo from a restaurant without at least their verbal permission out of courtesy if nothing else.

[Rail Paul]

I believe there was a thread on eGullet in which several pastry chefs expressed displeasure about unauthorized photography of their work.

Pastry is probably the most visible expression of a chef's artistry, so photography could be considered a form of theft...

[Holly Moore]

I understand and respect the reason that a pastry or any chef may not want his work photographed. And at that level of cuisine I would do as I did at Trio and ask first.

But when I buy a dessert am I doing so with a limited license? If I own that one dessert why can I not take a photograph of it?

Is the end use a consideration - whether that photo is purely for fond memories or whether I intended to publish the photograph in a newspaper? What if I merely intend to post it on a web site such as eGullet?

[WHT]

But when I buy a dessert am I doing so with a limited license?  If I own that one dessert why can I not take a photograph of it? 

Is the end use a consideration - whether that photo is purely for fond memories or whether I intended to publish the photograph in a newspaper?  What if I merely intend to post it on a web site such as eGullet?

Maybe I could give you a better answer than what I have posted before if I understood why would you think it ok to post the picture here versus use in a newspaper? To an extent this is where fair use gets to be sticky.

In a way you had it right. You are granted a limited license when you buy food at a restaurant. Or any pre-made food for that matter. The producer owns the rights. To make it trickier, unless the Chef is the owner of the restaurant it’s considered a work for hire situation. The business owner retains all rights. The Chef in that case is hired to accomplish a task. IE the pope and church own the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel not Michelangelo.

Let me know a little more about how you perceive the situation and I will be happy to help with what I know about law and photojournalism.

[Holly Moore]

I made the distinction between posting the photo on eGullet and in a newspaper because the post on eGullet results in no compensation while the publishing of the picture in the newspaper would result in payment.

Beyond that, I have trouble understanding how the producer owns rights within a food service situation. What rights are these. It is my understanding recipes are not protected. Simple example - a teenager at a greasy spoon throws a burger on the grill, toasts the bun and present me with a hamburger. How is that protected? There is a recipe and a process, but it is repeated in thousands of restaurants.

On the other extreme, Georges Perrier at Le Bec-Fin in Philadelphia prepares aspargus with a version of hollandaise that he has created - lets say with asparagus butter as a base. Even though he thought it up, in all likelihood someone, somewhere has done something very similar. There is no patenting or registration process commonly used for restaurant dishes. Is this protected?

I'm curious on an intellectual level, but also for pragmatic reasons. I have a website with pics of about 400 restaurants. It is not a business in that we don't sell advertising or anything else. More an avocation or hobby. If some restaurant does not want their restaurant covered on my site can they sue to have it removed? I wrote a newspaper column for 14 years. Gives me some credentials as a journalist. Can the site be considered an extension of that and there for be protected on constitutional grounds.

[WHT]

I made the distinction between posting the photo on eGullet and in a newspaper because the post on eGullet results in no compensation while the publishing of the picture in the newspaper would result in payment.

Beyond that, I have trouble understanding how the producer owns rights within a food service situation.  What rights are these.  It is my understanding recipes are not protected.  Simple example - a teenager at a greasy spoon throws a burger on the grill, toasts the bun and present me with a hamburger.  How is that protected?  There is a recipe and a process, but it is repeated in thousands of restaurants.

On the other extreme, Georges Perrier at Le Bec-Fin in Philadelphia prepares aspargus with a version of hollandaise that he has created - lets say with asparagus butter as a base.  Even though he thought it up, in all likelihood someone, somewhere has done something very similar.  There is no patenting or registration process commonly used for restaurant dishes.  Is this protected?

I'm curious on an intellectual level, but also for pragmatic reasons.  I have a website with pics of about 400 restaurants.  It is not a business in that we don't sell advertising or anything else.  More an avocation or hobby.  If some restaurant does not want their restaurant covered on my site can they sue to have it removed?  I wrote a newspaper column for 14 years.  Gives me some credentials as a journalist.  Can the site be considered an extension of that and there for be protected on constitutional grounds.

You address some great points and some well-known fallacies about intellectual property. As I mentioned before over the past few years there have been some advances and some failures in this area. As an example; I create a chessesteake sandwich while working at Joe’s boardwalk café. It contains several ingredients cooked in a particular way and I call it the Xtreamsteak. Since it was part of my normal duties to come up with new menu items (baring other nuances of law.) Joe’s owns the sandwich. If I go to work for Sam’s and make the same sandwich I might be able to call it UltiSteak and get away with it if it is not challenged by Joe’s as being in violation of a trade agreement. Several types are applicable including non-compete and secrecy. This seldom happens, as you might know. Though it could under several laws.

If we take the simple route, food as art the artist only maintains rights if they are the unassisted original producer. If done as part of a job or hired to do such the person owning the restaurant owns all rights. An example that relates would be you own Joes and want a picture of the sandwich and hire me to take it. You would still maintain copywrite on the image. If I cook a sandwich with the same ingredients and photograph it I own all rights. I had a situation a few months ago where I did a layout for a menu. Under the agreement they owned the layout and style but not the copy. They had the menu reprinted as flyers with different photos but the same wording. Because of the contract they either had to pay me for the use of the verbiage or discontinue use of the flyers. If I had not retained rights on the copy they would have been in the clear.

Because a web site is in an international area with little method of enforcement many business would not give clearance for use. Why? If you have a picture on your site and another person steals it you or they have little recourse if any. If that picture is used in say a work showing that hotdogs kill. Not only could the owner of the restaurant sue you but the plagiarist. A hard case at best but a possibility. Since you are dealing with “Mom & Pop” type places I would not worry too much about this. Brand names and corporate image get to be funny things. Do you have pockets deep enough to go the first 2 rounds?

You in some ways have to look to the extreme of the situation. Some places are very protective of there brands and will go to great lengths to defend them. To take a photo and distribute it may seem innocent but at some later point may become actionable. You can be sued for reasons that don’t even make sense, it is then up to a judge to rule on it at your expense. In your asparagus scenario the recipe is not protected but the name and image is! Sure it might just be a hotdog to you but to them it is a brand. Brands are protected by some strange and hard to interpret laws.

You are a private person and the 1St. amendment in reality only protects you as far as you can afford. Yes you can be sued but a threatening letter and a C & D is more likely. Unless you have clearance for a photo it is hard to defend. If Sabrett does not want its logo used they may send you a C & D with a time limit or they may haul you into court under several laws on the books. As to your involvement in the past in media it might work against you to make that claim.

Cover your ass, all it takes is some shyster to put a crimp in your life. Take it from one who has been there.

[tommy]

I made the distinction between posting the photo on eGullet and in a newspaper because the post on eGullet results in no compensation while the publishing of the picture in the newspaper would result in payment.

what a minute. am i to understand you're not getting paid for your services?

[Holly Moore]

What are you, the IRS or something.

All manner of pay, none of which, even with my 15 cents, will get me a subway token.

Rather just the sheer joy of occasionally bringing eGullet down to my grimy level of cuisine.

Plus the occasional Candygram from FG.