« Four Frappuccinos and Sterilize Those Nipples Dammit! | Main | Review - Anchor-ham. »
July 08, 2004

Far be it from me to challenge the authority of an important member of our commerce infrastructure, but I felt it was my civic duty to question a questionable policy of my local Gap.
I recently visited the moderate priced clothier to bask in the rays of their summer sale. Joined by my friend Darren and wife Susana, we were seen entering the establishment Thursday evening. Deciding to capture the wacky moment for posterity, I proceeded to take a "snap-shot" of Darren among a particularly leggy section of the women's department. We were busted. So, so busted.
An employee informed me, "You can't take pictures here."
"Why?" - Bad move.
"Store policy. You aren't allowed to take pictures in the store"
"What's the policy?"
"Not that you care, but we'll get fired, so pictures aren't allowed. Why were you taking pictures anyway?"
He had a point. Was he keen to my nefarious plan to bootleg outgoing Gap styles in a variety of colors in order to make a profit? Could my camera, and the shooting therewith truly have been the end of his employment? Was it worth the risk?
I understand that stores in the past might have been concerned about people stealing their designs. Heck, I ripped off this table design. But when you place the designs on the web, available to anyone with a 14.4 modem, I hardly see how stopping me in my general merriment from shooting a important memory would prevent widespread black market capris.
I encountered the same problem as a West Elm in DUMBO, Where again, I asked "why?" To tell you the truth, they don't expect to be challenged. It was interesting to see him come back after taking a step away. The policy is the gospel, The Gospel According to Retail.
Posted by davidissimo :: Permalink :: Comments [2] ::

You can photograph on private property without prior consent, but unfortunately if they say you can't, you can't (Photography Rights). Next time, make sure you wear ear plugs or act more stealthy.
Regarding the Gap's policy on no photography, I'm guessing it's primarily an issue of brand control.
Posted by: Stephen McKenna at July 8, 2004 01:42 PM
hee hee. that photo reminds me of a photo I took of my friend in a German department store. Upon coming across a slew of well-endowed male mannequins wearing purple shirts, ties, and some tight underwear, my friend and I knew we had to take a photo of her standing next to the mannequins. We didn't get busted there, but we did get busted at the next department store (German department stores are full of these opportunities for hilarious moments).
Anyway, bearing in mind the importance of preserving moments like those, I suggest the phone/camera combo.
Posted by: Anar at July 12, 2004 11:32 AM
Wanna See The Rest? Go Way Back

November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004

Cover Him...for the love of...
5 minutes late, but I feel great!
Hey There Mr. Food Monstah


All your Jean Picard are belong to us.
Cover Him...for the love of...
She got monk in the trunk, trunk, trunk.
Chronic Rasterbation
Tend to the widow Pac.

Review - The Face Race.
Analyze Crap
Firebird, meet Firefox
Single Serving Lifestyle

Super Susy
90% Crud
The RoboRanch
Detroit Is For Lovers
Depric Manession
Happy Hour Clowns

The Listening Room
Navigation Bits
Music Player, Maybe?
More banner pics
