From Lessig blog dear Starbucks, say it ain't true?
So I have this from an extremely reliable source, who vouches totally for the facts that follow.
Story one: Last month while visiting Charleston, three women went into a Starbucks. They were spending the weekend together and one of them had a disposable camera with her. To commemorate their time with one and other they decided to take round robin pictures while sitting around communing. The manager evidently careened out of control, screaming at them, “Didn't they know it was illegal to take photographs in a Starbucks. She insisted that she had to have the disposable camera because this was an absolute violation of Starbuck's copyright of their entire ‘environment'--that everything in the place is protected and cannot be used with Starbuck's express permission.
After reading 50 comments, it seemed to me it's due more to trade secret than copyright Starbuck cares, and I thought better ways of Starbucks' managers would increase the cusotmers' loyalty. And I added a comment to Lessig's blog:
It is Starbucks' decision whether they retain the right to keep customers from taking photos, since there are two types of customers and Starbucks can choose one of the two to serve: those who want to take photos and those who don't like to be bothered by practices of photographing.
I don't know if Starbucks really tries to create a place where people are not bothered by photographying (a comment from an ex-Starbucks barista shows it was not), like a restaurant that prohibits from smoking even though it is located in a state that doesn't ban smoking in public property. My opinion, however, is to let managers do their best to satisfy customers who want to take photos as long as photos are not for rival shops or taking photos doesn't make other customers feel bad.
Here in Japan, many of people have a cellphone with a cam (especially young people) and young people really take photos almost everywhere, but I haven't seen anyone who is told not to take photos in Starbucks (I should start watching this in Starbucks, though).
Well, but I started rethinking about it. I read Lessig's post again more carefully and it says stronger words like "illegal" and "violation of copyright". Is copyright started to work when it is claimed?