here’s a quote from a great primer i found online (there are several, this one is from U.S.A. today):

“You can take photos any place that’s open to the public, whether or not it’s private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don’t need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot.”

so, if your apartment building faces the street, it is expected that people will be taking pictures below you. the exception to this is “reasonable expectation of privacy.” meaning, if i use a zoom lens from a street to take a picture in through someone’s window, that is not going to hold up in court.

“You can take any photo that does not intrude upon or invade the privacy of a person, if that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Someone walking in a mall or on the street? Fair game. Using a long lens to shoot someone in an apartment? No.”

I imagine it might be to protect the privacy of the people living in the housing above the shops.

Granted, if you live in a city center above the main shopping avenue (think Abbott Kinney in Venice, Colorado in Pasadena, Main in Northampton) I think most people living there would *expect* people below to potentially be taking pictures of their building/window. I don’t know what the law is surrounding this, but perhaps the intention here is to protect the privacy of the renters/owners instead of protecting something of the designer/corporation.

I’d be curious to hear the response from Caruso if you pursue an explanation from them.