What would be the rules in your own home? I guess I wonder about the definition of 'public/private' property here. If several months ago, a mall could kick two guys out for wearing anti-war t-shirts (ridiculous as that may have been), then why can't Starbucks have a policy like this?

One question is...would a "private property holder's "policy" stand up in a court?

Many years ago, I worked for a very successful independent bookstore. The owners had the same rule about cameras that Starbucks apparently has. The rationale then was that the physical layout, etc. amounted to marketing strategy, which they apparently believed was proprietary in some fashion. I never quite believed it, but it didn't bother me greatly. Of course, nobody at the bookstore ever acted like an irrational jack-booted thug about it, either. I'm not sure whether there's legal justification for it, but I don't think it's new, either.

Remember also that malls regularly restrict photography and videotaping. I know that in Minnesota, home of the MALL OF AMERICA, cameras and videocameras are strictly prohibited--odd in a mall that gets much of its business from tourists.

Yeah, but a lot of places have "no photography" rules because they don't want to drive potential customers who don't want to be photographed away, not because the photographer can't reproduce elements of the environment without the express permission of the corporation. That's the difference I'm seeing.

Good point. I would say that if you are in a private establishment, they would have the right to say no photographs. After all, it's standard in many casinos.