No pictures at AD?

[Juan Luis]

I have been in malls in different parts of the USA and have been politely asked no photos please. None of those have ever been in AD's. They have allowed me to take wrist shots. But, I have been noticeably very interested in purchasing. But after my experience through the years, I don't even try or really want to take photos inside any store(s). Another exception as the wrist shot allowance, is my wife trying dresses to see how they look on her. The stores encourage photos in these instances as well.

[jimcameron]

Did you tell your Mom how harshly you were treated?

[Fleetlord]

This is truly a new low.

Starting a thread because the AD told you not to take pictures and construing that as poor customer service?

I can't wait for the next one of these post. How far down can we go?

[TimeToWatch]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

This is truly a new low.

Starting a thread because the AD told you not to take pictures and construing that as poor customer service?

I can't wait for the next one of these post. How far down can we go?

Well...it is. If you were trying to sell someone a product is that how you’d introduce yourself?

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

In fact; if you attempt to force the photographer to show you his photographs and force him to delete them it would be you that is liable to be arrested.

If I laid hands on him, then maybe.

At the time the photo is taken, how do you know to what use it may eventually be put? Particularly when someone with a camera thinks they can do what they like with it.

So far as the Press goes, that is a different code of conduct. Dragging those scenarios in, just clouds and seeks to excuse the perceived entitlement described by the OP.

I've seen photos and footage on US TV where faces and sometimes whole people are pixelated out. Including fly on the wall stuff. The assertion that the US Constitution disallows people to protect their privacy doesn't seem to mesh with that. So who is right? The broadcaster or the Constitution? It can't be a legal grey area if the Constitution blanket allows it?

The woman who I narrowly avoided ruining over, got up and walked off. I was trying very hard not to throw up and praying I didn't get tail ended, but it all seemed to be pretty routine for her. Maybe she chipped a nail, or scratched her iPhone, in addition to wearing her ice cream. But on reflection, I apologise. if I mischaracterised her or caused anyone to believe that I wanted her to come to any harm. I should not have posted my last sentence. She was probably too stupid to learn anything.

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

If I laid hands on him, then maybe. Harassment, public order offences and intimidation don’t require you to touch them

At the time the photo is taken, how do you know to what use it may eventually be put? Particularly when someone with a camera thinks they can do what they like with it. That isn’t for you to judge or police. We are innocent until proven guilty

So far as the Press goes, that is a different code of conduct. Dragging those scenarios in, just clouds and seeks to excuse the perceived entitlement described by the OP. Press do have a code of conduct, but they have no more or less rights than any other member of the public

I've seen photos and footage on US TV where faces and sometimes whole people are pixelated out. Including fly on the wall stuff. The assertion that the US Constitution disallows people to protect their privacy doesn't seem to mesh with that. So who is right? The broadcaster or the Constitution? It can't be a legal grey area if the Constitution blanket allows it? Broadcasting photos or video is commercial use, so requires permission (unless there is a public interest justification)

(Answers to your points in the quote)

Laws concerning photography in the UK are overwhelmingly favourable to the photographer. Like it or not, that is how it is. As an example of just how biased towards the photographer the law is, it was only last year that “upskirt photography” became a criminal offence in England. Until that law was introduced the only offence an upskirting pervert was guilty of was ‘outraging public decency’ if someone witnesses the act and became offended by it. (Please be absolutely clear I fully support the creation of the law that made it a specific offence!)

As I said, if you are in public you have no right to privacy.

[3ther]

Originally Posted by jimcameron

Did you tell your Mom how harshly you were treated?

You win, sir. This is great!

[pepsiretail]

Was it the same AD you praised in your thread about the Oysterflex strap?

"Swung by my AD this afternoon and the gentleman who sold me my 519 was working, fortunately. He took one look at the watch and almost immediately informed me that he'll replace the bracelet for free.

He told me this is certainly the first instance he's seen of this and that he's going to send my bracelet back to Rolex as he's sure they'd like to see it.

Truly first-class service from my AD - I must commend them.

With that said, it does sound like this was a discretionary replacement, so I'm not sure if other ADs would handle a similar situation the same."

While I agree no one should be barked at it is common courtesy to ask permission to photograph in a private place, even if you found it overwhelming to do so for reasons you stated earlier. I always ask if I can take a pic, even wrist shots. Even in places that I am very well known.

Let's just say both parties could have done better

[bezler]

Originally Posted by TimeToWatch

Picture yourself in a store with 30 customers and maybe 5 SAs. Are you going to hunt one down to obsequiously ask their permission to take a photo of a watch you like? I almost always do ask before taking a photo, but given the circumstances I just went for it.

With 30 customers in the store, could there have been something about your behavior that attracted this negative attention? Your posts in this thread show that you felt entitled to do as you pleased, and also suggest that you're a fairly aggressive person. Perhaps you're unaware of the impression that you were making?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

[The Libertine]

Originally Posted by jimcameron

Did you tell your Mom how harshly you were treated?

[Steerpike999]

I always ask permission before taking a photo in ANY store. Its their property and its just common courtesy to ask. I have never been refused.

[bezler]

Originally Posted by jimcameron

Did you tell your Mom how harshly you were treated?

Best post of the thread! So insightful!

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

[justintime1986]

their store, their policy... i have never experienced such.

[Nairn1980]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

I’m sorry to say I think you are mistaken regarding the law and photography in the UK. Like it or not, if you are in a public place a photographer does not need your permission to photograph you (some exclusions apply such as if you are under 18 or a vulnerable person and some areas can have a complete ban on photography for security reasons - this will be sign posted).

Only once it is clear you are being hounded and having multiple photos taken you can argue that you are being harassed (even this is rarely successful - that’s why paparazzi are not arrested regularly). To put it shortly, you have no legal right to an expectation of privacy in public.

Even in a private place your expectation of privacy can be overruled if the photograph meets the ‘public interest’ standard. I recall a quote from the judge of the Max Mosley case where he said “not everything that is interesting to the public is in the public interest”. This is the balance that must be weighed when your privacy is violated in private.

In fact; if you attempt to force the photographer to show you his photographs and force him to delete them it would be you that is liable to be arrested.

Your permission is only required if the photographs are going to be used commercially or displayed publicly. And even then, in many public areas that have controlled access (such as a concert in a park or a gala at an art gallery) a condition of entry is your implied permission to be photographed.

Absolutely spot on

So many people in the UK are ignorant to these facts. Thanks for clarifying to those who do not know

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

...some exclusions apply such as if you are under 18 or a vulnerable person...

I wish to amend this section of my previous statement as I have made an incorrect assertion.

In the UK it is not prohibited to take photographs of children or vulnerable persons in a public place without their or their guardian’s permission so long as the images are not ‘indecent’.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

This is truly a new low.

Starting a thread because the AD told you not to take pictures and construing that as poor customer service?

I can't wait for the next one of these post. How far down can we go?

[Becweb]

Good thread OP, thank you for opening it.

Agreed, the SA could have approached you in a more respectful way.

[GONZO2LR]

I would of said okay, sorry...hey! please show me the watch over there. Then try on the most expensive, then say i want this one for me and lets look for one for my wife, find one and then tell him im ready to buy them. Let him ring it up and just before your about to hanf him your credit card, Tell him...naw man...you were an aZZhole to me and a rude aZZ...F off...and walk out!

[TimeToWatch]

Originally Posted by GONZO2LR

I would of said okay, sorry...hey! please show me the watch over there. Then try on the most expensive, then say i want this one for me and lets look for one for my wife, find one and then tell him im ready to buy them. Let him ring it up and just before your about to hanf him your credit card, Tell him...naw man...you were an aZZhole to me and a rude aZZ...F off...and walk out!

lmao

Originally Posted by Becweb

Good thread OP, thank you for opening it.

Agreed, the SA could have approached you in a more respectful way.

Thanks

My point to those who are quick to criticize is this:

1) I've done business with this AD before and my rep has always allowed me to take pictures.

2) No where in the store are no pictures signs posted, so if this is indeed the rule, it's not clearly defined.

3) They are in the luxury retail business and should treat their customers courteously. Even if one does break this unwritten "rule", the way in which it should be handled is with respect.

4) Sure, this is petty and stupid, but at the end of the day I think it reflects poorly on the Rolex brand.

[jvb.nc]

i’ve been in some dealers (i’m thinking of westime in LA) that prefer you don’t take photographs. i always ask, and usually i get a positive response. it is the occasional request for no photographs, but always one i honor.

that said... i’ve never heard that request in a rolex AD. every one i’ve visited
- from hawaii to new zealand and all across the continent, let alone in the states - has been fine with photographs.

so many comsipirscy theories can now be spun....