An example of this in Toronto is Yonge-Dundas Square. It looks public. It is actually managed and secured by Cadillac-Fairview properties. But if a user of the facility is pulled aside for doing something the PPP does not approve of (in Y-D Square's case, there was once the controversy of the nine-year-old kid banned because he was making chalk drawings on the ground), then the private ownership/management has that right.
Agreed in principle. The management of the property has the right to tell you what you are allowed to do but, up to the point where they tell you, they should not be able to prosecute you for something you did not know was an offense. Once you are informed, that is a different matter.
If somebody is taking photos and a security guard comes up to him and says that photography is not allowed, they can tell him that he must stop taking pictures and/or leave the property. If the person complies with the request then there should be no problem. If the person keeps taking photos or if he gets testy about it, then management can (and probably should) take action.
Maybe this is what happened. I get the feeling something went wrong.
I took a lot of pictures at the Christian Science Center in downtown Boston. They do have a photography policy. If you are a student of a photography class and promise that the photos are for personal use only they will allow it but they generally do not allow formal photography on their property.
("Formal Photography" where tripods or other equipment are set up as opposed to informal, tourist photos or snapshots where cameras are hand held and the photographer does not linger.)
I have been accosted by security guards on that property. I told them I was shooting for a class and promised the photos were for personal use and the guard left me alone. I do know some students in my class who were escorted off the property because they were rude.
A private space need not feature a gate or physical barrier to denote its function as a non-public space. Typically, unless a space is designated outright as a public park run by the municipality or other level of jurisdiction, then it is safe to assume that most sidewalks on public streets — and the public streets, too — are considered public space rights-of-way.
The Christian Science Center has brass plates embedded in the sidewalk at intervals around the property. They are marked with something like, "Property line of..." Many buildings and storefronts in Boston are marked with similar plates.
If one is standing on the street side of those markers, he is on public property. I have seen people stand with their toes one inch from the line and shout things at the people on the other side. (I worked at a store where people protested management's policies.) If the people are not making a public nuisance, shouting obscenities or committing other offenses, there isn't much the property owner can do. But, if they do break a law then the cops can grab them. (That's how the above mentioned protesters were handled.)
To display an exhaustive list would probably be unproductive and lead to complaints saying, "The list was too big for me to memorize or browse through."
In a state park near where I live there are signs which simply give a brief listing of the rules such as "No alcohol. No disturbing wildlife. etc." then there is a clause at the bottom of the sign which says, "Complete rules available at park office." That is enough to constitute "notice."
Hrm. I live in Canada. I'll have to take your word on that [firearms], I guess
Do you know what became of the suit? Was it settled out of court, or did it go to a test case?
A discussion of gun laws will have to wait for another day. I only gave it as an example.
I do not know the exact outcome of the case because it was in a shopping mall which housed one of the movie theaters I used to service. The mall had signs which displayed the "No Firearms" signage but the movie theater did not. There was a way for customers to enter the movie theater then exit to the mall, thus bypassing the mall's signage. The movie theater was required to put up signs by the mall management. I was only told that "some guy" came through the theater and got stopped by mall security.
With regard to this photographer, there are clearly details we all lack which would inform what happened. If he brings his case to suit and it goes to discovery, then a general idea of details should emerge.
I think you are right. There must be some details that are not known. Unless this case goes through "the system" we will probably never know very much.
