Did you think I wasn't gonna see that?

[ravevolution]

The vast majority of retailers don't allow photography on their property. Corporate espionage is often a reason, but thieves have been known to take pictures of merchandise to help plan their "shopping" sprees.
...

When I worked for an art gallery we didn't allow photography mainly of the art work on display. The reason being was to protect the copyright of the artists. Only time someone would be allowed to take photographs of the art work is if they had written permission from the artist or the artist was present.

[Yarnil]

Oh, that's easy. The reason for that is that the company controls what is in the picture on the postcard. They also control what is NOT on the postcard picture, such as various security measures.

It makes sense, but remeber: for the postcards, they have to pay, the picture made is for free

[Fly]

In Aus we have similar rules, or at least in my stores! (which were franchises). Aside from the corporate copyright, in Aus you are not supposed to intentionally take a photo of a person without their permission. So customers aren't allowed to take a picture of us behind the counter, if we allow them to take a picture of the store. Safety of the employees and all that.

On a more personal note, I hate the damn flash on the cameras while I'm working so I'm happy to enforce it.

[fireheart]

AS far as I know, the ONLY people who are allowed to take photos in the store are:

-Employees themselves (and it has to be of other employees or the occasional display, but these are done with an in-store camera for the company newsletters)
-Union folks (they send out a somewhat useful newsletter every couple of months which has an "Around the stores" section, where they go to different companies in different regions i.e. one week they go to Stirling and Aldgate, the next they go to Salisbury and Gawler)
-News crew (they're identified as such)
-Police (forensics)

That's roughly about it.

[AccountingDrone]

It makes sense, but remeber: for the postcards, they have to pay, the picture made is for free

I generally prefer a postcaard, the picture tends to be better because it was taken using optimal conditions.

Although I did once get to have my own personal photosession at a museum of a garment they had, I needed to document some sewing techniques used. I was duplicating it for a customer. The curator was phenomenal, holding it in different positions, helping me get detailed closeups. I am probably going to recreate the tunica again for myself one day - but in slightly different materials, I don't have the money to do a full on recreation, the bullion alone for that one cost my customer over $500, the fabrics came to about $3000.

[SuperRTL]

I got permission at our art museum to take pictures of details in some portraits because I was trying to replicate the dresses. They made sure I wasn't taking a picture of the whole thing and I had a guard with me the whole time. Honestly, I'm sure they considered me a pain but I really appreciated being able to do it.

When I built displays for a candy company, the company would have contests where you had to send in pictures of the displays (my mom won a trip for 4 to Disneyland one year for a similar company/contest). The vendors can take pictures if they follow the store's guidelines but if they say no, they say no and you move on.

[EricKei]

I can think of a slightly more insidious reason to snap pics -- finding out where someone works for Stalking purposes and similar things >_< I can see a jealous BF/GF (especially an Ex) paying someone to do footwork like that for them...

[Imogene]

I worked for the Mouse Father in a local mall one year near Xmas... no pictures in the store AT ALL! People routinely TRIED to take pics of the costumes we had for sale so they could plan out how to make them on their own. Ah, yes, I distinctly remember one customer who claimed she had permission from the store owner. My response? "Ah... no, no you don't. He doesn't even allow US to take pics here."

[NateTheChops]

Considering last year a local museum had a $5,000 gold bar stolen.

Auric is at it again it would seem.

[Caractacus_Potts]

When I worked for Walgreen's about once a month I would be sent down the road to the local CVS with a clipboard full of items. My job was to find the items and mark down what CVS was selling them for.

I got to know some of the CVS employees and got them to help me find the stuff so I could do it quicker. They knew what I was doing but they were willing to help because I let them know my schedule and when CVS sent someone out about once a month to case our prices they would come on my shift and I would help them locate everything in our store.

I guess that's what you call transparent corporate espionage?

[NateTheChops]

And if either company caught you or the others doing that and someone got sued, I wonder who would be thrown under the bus quickest.

[Caractacus_Potts]

And if either company caught you or the others doing that and someone got sued, I wonder who would be thrown under the bus quickest.

I'm guessing this is in reply to my Walgreen's/CVS comment?

I'm sure corporate wouldn't be happy that I wasn't trying to be sneaky about it even if my way was much more efficient (come on, how sneaky can you be with a clipboard writing down prices?).

I took that job coming from a mangers position. I didn't need the work (and my SM knew that) but it was peaceful and I did wind up working there for several years. My SM loved the fact that she could give me a list of projects to do over the weekend and when she came in on Monday they would all be done. The assistant managers loved the fact that they could sit in the office and read or listen to music while I ran the store for them.

Hell, I worked in over twenty locations in the district; closing old stores, opening new stores, getting stores ready for scanners when they were first introduced, etc. The District Manager and I were on a first name basis. I really wasn't in the least concerned about my "job"!

I am curious though. I could see you saying "who would get disciplined first" or "who would get fired first" but "who would get sued first???" Really? Just who do you think would sue whom and exactly what would they be suing for? Seriously, enquiring minds want to know.

[SuperDan]

Price checking clip-board style is actually a pretty common thing, and is actually not supposed to be secret.

At the store I used to work for, most price checkers (by most, I mean everybody but WalMart) were allowed to do their thing, as long as they signed in and out on the outside price checker sign-in sheet at Customer Service. Most price checkers came in wearing their store's uniform even. As long as they weren't WalMart, we didn't care.

Taking pictures of product or shelf tags was not allowed, but it wasn't exactly something we kept an eye out for. I admit I often use Google Goggles from my phone if I want to find out more about a product or find where I can get a product the store I'm in is out of. No store has said anything, but they might not be specifically looking either.

At the casino, no photography is allowed in gaming areas without the written consent of our general manager.

[Geek King]

Auric is at it again it would seem.

Perhaps Garret. There's a (wonderful) rumour that there may be a new Thief game in the works. Research, and all, you know...