"I'm sorry, sir...videotaping is not allowed here."

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Went to Cupertino Square, formerly known as Vallco, to shoot some video of the post-Black Friday crowds (if any).

Had pretty much worked my way around the mall when a security guard walked up to me and said "I'm sorry, sir...videotaping is not allowed here."

I apologized and told him I wasn't aware of that.

He said "May I ask why you're filming?"

I said that I planned to put it on YouTube to show people the mall.

He repeated the "sorry, no videotaping allowed" and I apologized again and said I'd leave and he said "thank you."

I know someone ratted me out. There's no way this guy just spotted me. There were a couple of people who seemed to be taking mental notes as I walked around.

It's clear that someone...probably the new Vietnamese owners who laid down $64 million for the place in October...don;t want the public (or potential investors) seeing the difference between THIS (the "official website"):

http://www.cupertinosquare.com/home.html

and THIS (cell phone photos I took four days ago):









The experience renewed my respect for journalists who "get the story."

:patriot:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

1. What does being Vietnamese have to do with it? n/t

[Amerigo Vespucci]

5. Nothing at all. It's just a statement of fact.

Under new management. Purchased for $64 million by a Vietnamese food processing company.

But if you want to read something into that...and it appears you already have...that's your issue, not mine.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

9. A couple of other people have wondered as well

it's not just me. It appears to be your issue.

[noamnety]

6. I was wondering the same thing. (nt)

[pnwmom]

10. If it's people from any foreign country, that puts a slightly different light on it.

An ironic light. People used to think investing in the U.S. was a good idea.

[patrice]

13. No, no . . . Every mention of an other ethnic group is Racism.

:sarcasm:

[Amerigo Vespucci]

29. That was my basic reaction to the "outrage"...

...from the Silicon Valley Business Journal...I expect the people in this thread who were upset or questioned the "need" to mention the fact that the new owners are Vietnamese to write to the Business Journal and express their OUTRAGE over what I see now to CLEARLY be a BLATANT example or UNREPENTANT RACISM at its VERY WORST:

:sarcasm:

Friday, October 16, 2009 | Modified: Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Cupertino Square deal brings new owners, returns to old name

http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/10/19/story8.html



In a deal that closed in September, Son Son Co., a Vietnamese food processing entity, paid $64 million for the 50-acre Cupertino Square in an all-cash sale, according to San Jose businessman Lap Tang.

“The property itself is valuable, but because there is so much empty space they were able to make a deal,” said Tang, who arranged the transaction. “This is a good buy. At one time it was appraised at $200 million.”

Tang, who is also developing Vietnam Town in San Jose, said he began shopping the former Cupertino Square in early summer, telling Vietnamese investors that for anyone with money, this was a good opportunity.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

15. I think there's a real irony for

a Vietnamese corporation to own a failing American Mall.

On another note, according to the front page of my paper, Black Friday was a huge success across the country! Recessions over folks, shop on.



:sarcasm:

[Ian David]

2. Wasn't that the mall they always used in movies about Valley Girls and such? n/t

[left coaster]

31. Don't know about this mall..

..but, The Sherman Oaks Galleria was the mall used in the flicks, Valley Girl and in Fast Times At Ridgemont High..

[Ian David]

40. Ahh, okay. Thanks. n/t

[Orrex]

3. I managed a fast food restaurant about 15 years ago that forbade videotaping

This was before the days of digital camcorders, of course, so it was easier to enforce.

At the time, the logic was that would-be thieves could videotape the store's routine to determine where the safe is, who has access to it, what times might be best for a robbery, what the security procedures are, etc.


You were polite and smart to stop taping on private property when asked to do so. It's annoying that someone had to rat you out, though.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

7. The security guard was extremely polite, and so was I

Young guy, didn't appear to be 100% comfortable with having to have that conversation with me, but I was honest with him...I didn;t know, and I was going to put it on YouTube, that's why I was there...so all's well that ends well.

And you're right, because I knew what my intentions were, I didn't even consider the fact that someone might do that to "scope the place out..." I can see it NOW, after the fact, once you've pointed it out, but I was there because when I moved to California, I was a mallrat, and one of my hangouts was Vallco. That's it.

I have a pretty good idea about who it was that turned me in, too...there was one guy who seemed to be everywhere I went, and the last time I ran into him was about ten seconds before the guard walked up.

[Roon]

16. I have a buddy that was asked by mall security not to videotape

because he was filming his kids with Santa.

[Orrex]

20. That's a tough call.

If the particular venue was photographing the event and generating revenue from those photographs, then it could be argued that it was in their interest to restrict photography.

Sadly, that would be both contrary to the holiday spirit and entirely consistent with the corporate mindset...

[onethatcares]

4. was that a DeBartolo mall or a Seimens?

did they get out while the getting was good? I think the vacancy level is getting to a point that feel good stories about sales is getting harder to manage daily,.

[crazyjoe]

8. what's wrong with Vietnamese people owning the mall?

I don't get why that is relevant.

[greennina]

11. Why do you think it's wrong for one to own a mall?

What's your agenda? Why are you making an issue of it?

[spanone]

27. blah blah blah.....it's a statement of fact..nothing more....cripes

[patrice]

12. Where did he say it was "wrong"? I think it's relevant, because foreign investors are going to get

hurt in our commercial real-estate bubble-breaking AND it's not just generic foreign owners/investors, it's a particular nation we have had mis-lead dealings with in the past.

AV may just have intended it as a detail, a very specific particular detail, but I think it is more interesting than that.

Why are some people so eager to find racism everywhere?

[Tunkamerica]

19. If it had been Canadian no one would have said anything.

If somone, or in this case...a company, is from a country that is not mostly white, then it is wrong to mention where they are from. I thought that was obvious.

[patrice]

36. true

[Amerigo Vespucci]

24. A-fucking-MEN, THANK YOU. And to everyone who felt the need to create an "issue" here...

...Jesus H Christ, I do not understand why some people feel it necessary to put words in other people's mouths.

Here, let me make it perfectly clear, with a sock puppet for those who can't understand what I am about to write.

THERE IS NOT A SINGLE THING "WRONG" WITH VIETNAMESE PEOPLE...OR ANY PEOPLE...OWNING A MALL.

HAPPY?

[patrice]

34. This board is almost as bad as it was during primaries.

All of the different factions smell blood.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

25. Goodnight.

[patrice]

43. BTW are you aware of how much you reveal about yourself when you project a word like "wrong"

into something where it did not previously exist until you added it?

[nashville_brook]

14. you're prolly right about the real estate angle, but there's another reason why photography

isn't allowed, which has to do with protecting kids from predators (something that was explained to me by mall management when i was arranging a shoot for a brochure).

[Roon]

17. yep! That is exactly the reason my buddy was stopped

I guess there is a really sick fetish where adults get off seeing a kid sit on Santa's lap. I am glad you brought that up because I was too chicken to do so.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

30. I can understand that now, but...

...because that kind of thing is 100% off my radar, I never would have thought about that going in.

But like I said, the guard was courteous, I was honest, and I left. That's how something like this plays out when honest people fail to factor in what evil people might do before attempting something they see as "innocent." I know now, in the eyes of security, it's seen as "suspicious."

Wonderful world we live in, where we have to avoid doing things because of what some other sick bastard "might" do.

[nashville_brook]

44. i totally agree -- felt kinda yucky even bringing that up, but ever since then, when i'm at a mall

a take notice of all the people sitting in the middle of the promenades watching the teens/tweens hanging out. the one good thing about a mall is that there's "eyes" everywhere.

[rhett o rick]

18. I rarely go to malls, but the last time I went, there were prominant signs stating no photography.

I assume that includes video. Just sayin

[Amerigo Vespucci]

28. None here, and I would have obeyed them.

That was my first thought. The answer to "why didn't I just assume it was wrong without a sign" is that I just wanted to film the mall for people who remember it.

But that opens up a whole other can of worms.

Short version is that it was an ill-conceived idea on my part.

[rhett o rick]

39. Please dont think I was being critical of your decision. I was just pointing out that

how interesting it is that malls or stores dont want photos. Not entirely sure why. I was in Seattle trying to take some pictures of an anti-war rally and wanted to use a balcony to get my pictures. But the balcony was part of the mall and I was told no pictures. I think your idea was good.

[SoCalDem]

42. In the times we inhabit, public filming is now only an option for the CCTV from Mall security

and of course "law enforcement".

People used to know that when you are out in public... at a park..in a mall..at a soccer game..at a school function.. you might just run the risk of being "anonymous person #32, on a stranger's video of their kid, as he scores a goal..or you could be anonymous person # 23 looking into a store window where their daughter has her first job, as they video it to send the tape to grannie... or you could be anonymous person #12 pushing a shopping cart in a store parking lot, as a stranger takes a pic of whatever happened to that abandoned racetrack he used to ride go-carts at as a kid..

No one is "background" these days..all must be informed, consent-giving, compensated bit-players...extras in someone else's life remembrance..

well..except for the anonymous fat-ass below the waist, rear shots that media has a never-ending supply of,. and of course those shots are used freely, since no one wants to be identified with "that kind" of anonymous shot.

[Dreamer Tatum]

21. For crying out loud

Would you like a list of reasons why private malls don't like videotapers?


1. Child predators scope out malls for prey. Videotaping helps them find places to hide and exit.
2. People congregate at malls. The next Klebold/Type production would benefit from knowing where entries and exits are, where the food court is, and so on.
3. It costs money to design, build, and populate a mall. Competitors can learn a lot about how to put it all together by getting it on tape.
4. Malls may be held liable for invasion of privacy of patrons. Conversely, if you're there shooting something you're going to market, they will want a piece or will want to clear it. Imagine video of Mall X being used in the commission of a crime, or in something that would essentially libel it.

And as for the fear that investors might see an empty mall...ummmmmm...anyone with money to invest does a shitload better due diligence than trawling the Net for videos of empty malls.

[Arctic Dave]

23. And yet, all that info can be viewed on Google Earth and doing a simple walk through.

[Skip Intro]

32. good answers nt

[progressoid]

22. Ummm...you know it's private property right?

Journalists generally get approval in writing before filming on private property.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

26. One more detail I thought about "after the fact"

There is an interesting review on "Jason & Terry's Bay Area Review" ("jatbar") in which the owner went ballistic over still photos and threatened to call the cops:

http://www.jatbar.com/reviews/Santa_Clara/Hungry_Hound.asp

...but it's not like I videotaped the owners of the mall attmpting to conceive a child, you know?

It's a damned shopping center.

[anigbrowl]

37. Well, it's a pro thing which you wouldn't know...

but like I said below, you have no rights once you're on private property. You can be asked to leave at any time for any reason, same as when in you're in someone's house you're a guest. For a mall owner it opens up all kinds of legal complications - some as outlined by others above, but the #1 issue is that if company X's store appears in a publication (whether a magazine or on YouTube) without their permission, the first person they will sue is not you, the penniless photo/videographer, but the mall operator who allowed the picture to be taken.

Have you ever been watching TV and noticed how many products or t-shirt logos or whatever are blurred out? It's basically to avoid having to answer charges that a company's copyright was infringed upon. It really makes no difference how busy (or not) the mall is, you would have been told to stop filming even if they were full of free-spending customers in packed stores.

[Skip Intro]

33. Were you the only customer in the Mall? No people in your pics.

Was it just you and some security guard in a big, abandoned mall? Do you have pics of that mall that day where other people were present?

Flashbacks, you know?

[anigbrowl]

35. Nobody ratted you out...

...you need permission to film on private property. The minute you step onto any private property, what you film is at the oner's pleasure (or not). You would get the same reaction in pretty much any mall - people want to be paid a fee if you're using their property as a backdrop or a subject. If you want to film in a location like this, either do it covertly (hold the camcorder with a jacket over your arm) or enlist a friends and pretend you're just shooting/photographing them for sentimental reasons or suchlike. Fact is that while the mall may be open to the public you don't have the same rights you would have if you were standing on the (public) sidewalk.

[OhioChick]

38. Christ.....I'll bet you wished you never posted this....

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

41. But enough about Bill Belichick.