Deep Thoughts: ARCO pisses me off

Sunday, December 13, 2009

ARCO pisses me off

You cannot take pictures here

I made an early trip to knock off a few errands this morning. Nothing big, I just dropped of the holiday cards at the post office and filled up the tank on my truck. I took my camera with me as I always do.

While pumping gas at the ARCO on Valley View and Alondra in La Mirada, I took a few pictures of the vista shown in the picture to the left. I say a few pictures because I was having trouble with my camera. Nothing was working. All the pictures were out of focus. While I worked on the problem a female employee walked toward me from the store. She yelled, “You can’t take pictures here”.

I thought that odd since there were no signs telling me I could not take pictures, which is usually the case. I replied with, “I thought I could take pictures here.” I raised the camera and took my last picture, which is the only one of the batch in focus. She reacted by yelling something I could not hear and ran back into the store. As I pulled out, I could see her inside on the phone giving me the stink eye. I think she called the cops.

My questions are always the same. What does it matter what I shoot with my camera? Why do people care? I would understand if the gas station was manufacturing some proprietary product, but it sells gas, which is about as ubiquitous as it gets. Photography is not a crime, especially my photography. It’s not even any good.

ARCO, I feed you $50 or $60 bucks a week. If you don’t want my money, just keep sending angry store clerks out to yell at me for trivial reasons. Oh, and then call the cops on me. That works too.

Here is a Google Street View of the gas station. It’s pretty unremarkable. I was at the pumps on the right shooting the construction high lifts on the adjacent property. I’m such a criminal.

View Larger Map

Technorati Tags: Photography,Crime,Stupidity

Comments (21)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

+1 Vote up Vote down

Humanistdad · 800 weeks ago

I doubt ARCO has a policy about picture-taking; just a paranoid store clerk.

But your experience did make me wonder, what control do companies have on what a person does on their property? Can you pull up to a pump, get out and have a picnic lunch?

On the other hand, can I prevent someone from photographing me? Or my children? By being 'in public' there is little I can do to stop someone.

Just wondering.

10 replies · active 798 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Mojoey 107p · 800 weeks ago

I usually ask before or sometimes after I shoot people, and I never shoot kids without permission. It's too creepy.

+1 Vote up Vote down

HumanistDad · 800 weeks ago

Fair enough, but is that a moral requirement? I agree with asking permission but I have a hard time convincing myself that taking someone's picture, even a child's, is immoral. After all, what have we 'taken' from the person.

It's just an interesting conundrum.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Mojoey 107p · 800 weeks ago

heck, I do it to avoid having an irate father punch me in the nose. The moral component is avoiding unnecessary conflict.

+1 Vote up Vote down

TexasHeather · 800 weeks ago

"what have we taken from the person" - the right or at least ability to have some control over where his/her image -- and especially that of his/her child-- winds up.

You shot the photo, you can use it/post it/photoshop it wherever and however you want. And if you didn't ask me or photographed me or mine while we were unaware, we have no idea.

I agree with Mojoey on this one, particularly re: children. Ask permission if shooting a pic with a person as a recognizable subject (ie, not a blur in the foreground). It's just good manners, all morals aside.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Roger Krueger · 800 weeks ago

I disagree. Huge swaths of street photography become impossible under your strictures. Or perhaps put another way: I'm glad Winogrand, Cartier-Bresson, Gilden, etc. were a bit on the inconsiderate side.

+1 Vote up Vote down

TexasHeather · 799 weeks ago

I will grant you that in the case of photos showing large groups, where a single person or small family group is not the primary subject, then gaining permission is not a reasonable or necessary thing to do. I've done this myself, in fact (photog'ed a street party/"bloco" in Brasil)

I'd say photos of the back of a person are okay as well. And a photo where the subject sees him/herself being photog'ed and doesn't seem adverse to the idea (I've done that too; photog'ed a gent on horseback who smiled and winked as I held up my camera, eyebrows raised in question, and then took his picture after his reaction in the affirmative).

But "stealth photography" or snapping my photo, or particularly my child's photo, while we are unaware, *and when we are the primary subject of the photo*, not a good idea imo. And most commercial uses would request a release form in that case these days as well.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Mojoey 107p · 799 weeks ago

Shooting children has too much of a creep factor in it for me. I don't really care if it is legal or not, I just don't like to do it.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Baconsbud 96p · 800 weeks ago

I sometimes take photos in public areas but when I do I make sure the camera is easily seen by anyone that might end up in the picture. It isn't always feasible to ask permission from every one that might be in the picture. Of course the places I take these pictures are generally adult only locations. I am with Mojoey on taking pictures where kids can be in them.

0 Vote up Vote down

Rain · 798 weeks ago

personal viewpoint: My mother took a pornographic photo of my granddaughter at age 3 (genitals fully exposed) without getting permission from my son or his wife, and sent the photo to all her friends and relatives. I was sickened when I saw it, and took it to our local police dept. They agreed it was "kiddy porn" but refused to take the situation further when they found out the photographer was 82 and female. My mother is a "fondler" and just l-o-v-e-s little girls. I warned all family members about her. I understand no laws can keep this evil creature from doing whatever she likes, but I'm submitting it as the other side of the "photo as art" argument.

0 Vote up Vote down

Roger Krueger · 800 weeks ago

The only control a company has over areas of private premises that are held open to the general public is the power to demand you leave. If you are not otherwise breaking the law you haven't done anything illegal until you refuse a demand to leave.

(um, at least in almost all of California. I think a few states feel your invitation is revoked the moment you break a posted rule. and thus you can be trespassing before being warned. And the city of Fairfield, CA has it in their municipal code that breaking posted mall rules is disorderly conduct. ALWAYS research local law thoroughly before doing something questionable!)

0 Vote up Vote down

TexasHeather · 800 weeks ago

Mojoey, good for you for snapping one more photo after she said to stop. I think that's my favorite part of this post.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Baconsbud 96p · 800 weeks ago

I would say the only reason they might protest about photos is the fear that it is for a lawsuit or will be used as a means of evidence against their perceived public image.

0 Vote up Vote down

Hmmm · 800 weeks ago

In the UK, you can be stopped and searched by police in the street for taking photographs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/police-d...

And many more (search for them on google). For some bizarre, utterly uncomprehensible reason the police seem to be harsher on non-white photographers.

Anyway in the UK it's down to anti-terrorism laws (how photographs would help terrorism is beyond me, unless they were of the inside of a military base and/or a top secret area), so maybe some places in America have started doing the same. I guess a gas station is on the "very explody" list so maybe they've been told to be alert.

Or more probably, I guess, the woman knows about those warnings not to use a mobile phone near a pump and extrapolated it to assume that cameras are also dangerous.

+1 Vote up Vote down

kevinbbg 62p · 799 weeks ago

Your story annoys me enough to stop buying anything at Arco any more. Of course, I haven't in years so it really doesn't matter.

Seems to me they were illegally putting pollution into the air and didn't want any evidence. Guess they didn't know about Google, heh heh.

0 Vote up Vote down

TexasHeather · 799 weeks ago

Hi Mojoey, just checking on you. I know you mentioned a few posts back that you've been sick off & on, and hadn't seen a post in a few days/nearly a week. Just hoping you're feeling okay, and wanted to say if you are sick, you are in my thoughts. Looking forward to when you are back at the keyboard.

+1 Vote up Vote down

Jack 119p · 799 weeks ago

I have a feeling you are already familiar with this, but I thought it might be helpful to readers: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

1 reply · active 799 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Mojoey 107p · 799 weeks ago

Yep. I know my rights. But thanks for the link, I am sure others will find it helpful.

+1 Vote up Vote down

breakerslion 40p · 799 weeks ago

I think HIPAA has contributed greatly to the general paranoia. Suddenly, we have a "right" to privacy, so privacy must be necessary in all it's extremes or one of our "rights" is being violated.

There's a comedian whose name escapes me who came up with a great rejoinder for situations like this. Goes something like this:

"Hey! You can't take pictures here!"

"THEN GIVE ME BACK MY SHIRT!"

+1 Vote up Vote down

JamesWestfall 20p · 799 weeks ago

Like you, Mojoey, I continue to take pictures when I'm told I can't. However, no one's ever called the cops on me and cower when I actually tell them that I know they're full of shit and there's no law (or store policy) against taking pictures wherever they are.

Knowing your rights, guaranteed by law, will let you ignore idiots like the ARCO clerk and do what you please. If you were inside, it's private property and is a grey area. If you were outside at a pump, which would be considered public area, you can take to your heart's content.

0 Vote up Vote down

KMeadows · 799 weeks ago

My guess would be that this particular station, not necessarily the company, is doing something wrong. And it's probably not anything you can see without looking very closely--some kind of code violation, etc. And the clerk knows and that's why she freaked out. If that's the case, way to draw attention to your wrong-doing, idiot. =)

Post a new comment

Comment as a Guest, or login:

Tweet this comment

Connected as (Logout)

Email (optional)

Not displayed publicly.

Submit Comment

Subscribe to

Comments by IntenseDebate