Stopped from taking pics on southbank because camera looks too professional.

big soft moose said:
Everyone needs a licence -but only proffesionals have to pay for it - see clause 4.2 that wiild posted above
Click to expand...

This shows how contradictory and ambiguous their policy is. So EVERYONE taking pictures, iPhone, point and shoot, DSLR, film etc etc all need a licence??

There are literally thousands of photographs of this place on the internet, they would be better off spending their time looking for people using the images commercially without having been granted a licence and going after them.

David
 
boliston said:
that 15 day advance permission seems a bit daft for tourist with a dslr - how many tourists plan their shooting 15 days in advance?
Click to expand...

to be honest probably none - but I suspect the policy is there so they can enforce it if they want (ie if they think someone is taking the Michael) hence why the security guards don't take action on camera phones , compacts etc
 
This topic has been quite enlightening, since, although I have taken dozens, if not hundreds, of shots around More London without incident, I have in mind a few "unconventional" shots that I am planning to take, which might arouse the interest of a zealous security man.
These will be strictly for personal/camera club use, not commercial shots.
I will investigate obtaining a permit, and see what the reaction is if I present it to any security persons who might be interested in my activities.
 
Brian G said:
This topic has been quite enlightening, since, although I have taken dozens, if not hundreds, of shots around More London without incident, I have in mind a few "unconventional" shots that I am planning to take, which might arouse the interest of a zealous security man.......
Click to expand...

I remember taking a picture of an air-conditioning unit at the side of a building and a security guard asked me what I was doing. I was trying to explain that I was trying to capture the abstract nature of the fan blades but he seemed mighty suspicious as to why someone would take that type of shot!
 
big soft moose said:
to be honest probably none - but I suspect the policy is there so they can enforce it if they want (ie if they think someone is taking the Michael) hence why the security guards don't take action on camera phones , compacts etc
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I see it as they are making a statement that is their property and they reserve the right to say stop taking pics or to ask someone to leave if they feel like it. Which, whilst very annoying, is their right to do so. This is probably why, as others have mentioned, you can almost do what you like if you come across as a charming and pleasant individual. It gets you a very long way. That's always been my tactic - step 1, fly under the radar; step 2, be extremely pleasant if confronted.

Unfortunately, a great many photographers opt for the other tactic and get argumentative, bang on about 'photographers rights' (even though no such thing applies - or arguably exists), and video the encounter and claim harassment where there isn't any. It just leaves a very damaging impression in the mind of the security guard and they just end up labelling all those photographers with 'big cameras' as trouble makers to be moved on. A lot of the photographers banging on about 'photographers rights' usually aren't proper professionals and aren't reliant on maintaining a good relationship with local security and Police - yet they're the ones often causing the trouble.

I found this online earlier:
. The Police are simply doing their job, and this bus load of muppets just want to get argumentative and cry about how their NUJ card somehow enables them to bypass Police checks! They behave like toddlers. They could've just respected the Police, cooperated with the search, and they could've probably had a good chat/laugh with the coppers too - they're human after all! It's a small world who knows when you might meet them again. Again, a Police Officer doesn't need many encounters like this before they just think it's a lot easier to label all photographers as trouble and to give them all short shrift.
 
richardm said:
Absolutely. I see it as they are making a statement that is their property and they reserve the right to say stop taking pics or to ask someone to leave if they feel like it. Which, whilst very annoying, is their right to do so. This is probably why, as others have mentioned, you can almost do what you like if you come across as a charming and pleasant individual. It gets you a very long way. That's always been my tactic - step 1, fly under the radar; step 2, be extremely pleasant if confronted.

Unfortunately, a great many photographers opt for the other tactic and get argumentative, bang on about 'photographers rights' (even though no such thing applies - or arguably exists), and video the encounter and claim harassment where there isn't any. It just leaves a very damaging impression in the mind of the security guard and they just end up labelling all those photographers with 'big cameras' as trouble makers to be moved on. A lot of the photographers banging on about 'photographers rights' usually aren't proper professionals and aren't reliant on maintaining a good relationship with local security and Police - yet they're the ones often causing the trouble.

I found this online earlier:
. The Police are simply doing their job, and this bus load of muppets just want to get argumentative and cry about how their NUJ card somehow enables them to bypass Police checks! They behave like toddlers. They could've just respected the Police, cooperated with the search, and they could've probably had a good chat/laugh with the coppers too - they're human after all! It's a small world who knows when you might meet them again. Again, a Police Officer doesn't need many encounters like this before they just think it's a lot easier to label all photographers as trouble and to give them all short shrift.
Click to expand...


Perhaps i missed something, but that video shows a group being stopped by the police and asked to be searched. the group then inform the police they are media and go along with the search?
 
Rapscallion said:
Perhaps i missed something, but that video shows a group being stopped by the police and asked to be searched. the group then inform the police they are media and go along with the search?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the several mentions of "being media" and the explanation that EVERYONE being stopped and searched?

I watched this and saw the police personnel doing their job, whilst the "media" whinged about it and made a point of taking photos and filming the non-event in a provocative manner. They were dealt with in a professional manner IMO.
 
Rapscallion said:
Perhaps i missed something, but that video shows a group being stopped by the police and asked to be searched. the group then inform the police they are media and go along with the search?
Click to expand...

I deliberately picked a video where there wasn't some big mad kicking off or one of those weirdo deliberate trouble makers that like to provoke the Police. Rather, it's a vid which I think illustrates my point - that a big factor in Police and Security taking a firm line with photographers is because of a small minority that somehow view security personnel as verbal punchbags. In the vid the Police are randomly searching people on the way to a Far Right march for weapons etc. Perfectly reasonable to search a van of photographers. They were very polite about it all too.

My main gripe is that these security personnel, like those in London, end up tarring us all with the same brush. It just needlessly damages the image of photographers as a whole - a bit like how the paparazzi damage our public image.

That's why my opinion of the best way to tackle security guards in London isn't to pester them with applications for permits or to argue details with them in the street like the video on page 1. The best way to tackle them is 1) not be noticed and 2) if you are, be super nice to them. If I get stopped photographing like the guys in the London vid my first approach is usually to apologise loads, introduce myself, and tell him the last thing I want to do is get his boss breathing down his neck. Then I usually cheekily say "tell you what, I'm thirsty as hell, any chance I can pop in, have a brew with your supervisor and let him know what pictures I'd like to take? BTW, I'm also available for weddings and bar mitzvahs!". Some people say 'oh, but your missing the shots you want to take it you give in!'. Actually, what most often happens is I get a free coffee and you can guarantee at least one wanna-be photographer work in each work place - that's when you get the "Did you know you can get a cracking panorama from the roof of this building? 'Ere, let me take you up to the roof and I can ask you about this new lens I read about in AP magazine!"

You get further in life, and photography, by making people like you.
 
Last edited:
Tigger.ufo said:
Did you miss the several mentions of "being media" and the explanation that EVERYONE being stopped and searched?

I watched this and saw the police personnel doing their job, whilst the "media" whinged about it and made a point of taking photos and filming the non-event in a provocative manner. They were dealt with in a professional manner IMO.
Click to expand...

Yep, i heard them mention they were media, but i didnt hear them complain about being searched (i may have missed that).

But i want to know how do you film in a provocative manner - is there a mode for that?!
 
Rapscallion said:
Yep, i heard them mention they were media, but i didnt hear them complain about being searched (i may have missed that).

But i want to know how do you film in a provocative manner - is there a mode for that?!
Click to expand...

I just thought that is wasn't necessary to be clicking away as soon as the door was opened and to video the whole thing.
 
richardm said:
Unfortunately, a great many photographers opt for the other tactic and get argumentative, bang on about 'photographers rights' (even though no such thing applies - or arguably exists).
Click to expand...
"Photographers Rights" are pretty much the same as every citizens rights.
However, I do know that there are certain things that even the police cannot force a photographer to do, namely:
  • Provided you are on public property:
  • They can ask to see any images that you have taken.
  • You can legitimately decline such a request, but you can show them voluntarily.
  • To force you to show them any images they need a court order, which is not normally worth the effort
  • They cannot make you delete any images you have taken.

I believe similar constraints apply on private property, and that any "security" jobsworth cannot make you delete any images, and if they so request, you are within your rights to ask him/her to summon a policeman.
I suspect that, for a quiet life, most people would choose to show their images voluntarily.
Plus of course, we all know that a deleted image can be retrieved quite easily.
 
What about the police attempting to obtain your camera/card as evidence? That seems to be the threat ie if you don't delete we'll take your camera off you right now! Which law is it that would either a) allow them to do that b) not allow them at all, which you can quote?
 
A recent very rural experience. Me and the girlfriend thought we'd take some photos (no, fully clothed) in a beautiful barley field near to our house.

Sure enough, as is the way here in the unfiendly fens, a 4 x 4 rolls up the track, as soon as we stepped (carefully) into a corner of the field, with no damage to crops. I knew I was in the wrong - this is Tony Martin's neighbourhood, where farms still have signs that they intend to shoot trespasses (see image):

5026570168_3f51f154ec.jpg


I knew I was in the wrong - we had strayed from the public rights of way by at least ten feet (a Fennish hanging offence), so I tried to placate the "farmer" (he eventually confessed tht he was actually the farm manager) with lots of apologies, and calm politeness. It had no effect. He wanted blood - or at least in his words, our address, names, and threats of police involvement. He also informed us that the area was under CCTV (it wasn't).

Then he demanded that any images taken so far be deleted. This triggered me to raised my own voice for the first time, and to tell him to call the police, because now he was going further than even they could. Funny thing is, my change in stance started to calm him down. Eventually he connected the girlfriend to a local family, and the aggression dropped. Apparently someone had been winding him up that the spot was being used by doggers. Calming down further, he offered to take me out ploughing later in the year to photo the birds following the furrow.

Strange old world. Be careful in those barley fields though.
 
Perhaps it is just me but I am with the photographers on the search incident. As a free born English man I have the right to travel unmolested on the public highways.
During the Miners Strike 1984 many vehicles wee stopped and turned round because they contained a number of men and the police THOUGHT that hey may be going to a demonstration (another right we have). It was later admitted that these tactics were both extreme and illegal.

Furthermore the police now carry body cameras in order to film arrests etc - as a protection for both sides so why is filming from the 'victims' side considered as provocative.

My views are as a member of the public and I would not have had people ferreting around my person or my goods at a whim.
 
Tigger.ufo said:
I just thought that is wasn't necessary to be clicking away as soon as the door was opened and to video the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Its called freedom of the press,believe me i have been to a few countries where actions taken by the group,would have resulted in a rifle pointed at you,and a lot of screaming by the police/soldiers,why because their is no freedom of any kind :(
 
ChasG said:
Perhaps it is just me but I am with the photographers on the search incident. As a free born English man I have the right to travel unmolested on the public highways.
During the Miners Strike 1984 many vehicles wee stopped and turned round because they contained a number of men and the police THOUGHT that hey may be going to a demonstration (another right we have). It was later admitted that these tactics were both extreme and illegal.

Furthermore the police now carry body cameras in order to film arrests etc - as a protection for both sides so why is filming from the 'victims' side considered as provocative.

My views are as a member of the public and I would not have had people ferreting around my person or my goods at a whim.
Click to expand...

It depends on the context - the police probably werent searching them for a laugh
 
big soft moose said:
It depends on the context - the police probably werent searching them for a laugh
Click to expand...

The police didn't know what they were searching for - straight forward fishing trip.
Hoping to turn up anything they could make a case of.
 
The police roadblock must be there for a reason, they arent randomly stopping bus loads of journalists for s***s and giggles (also this isnt america, and NUJ card doesnt give them any more rights in this situation than anyone else)
 
big soft moose said:
The police roadblock must be there for a reason, they arent randomly stopping bus loads of journalists for s***s and giggles (also this isnt america, and NUJ card doesnt give them any more rights in this situation than anyone else)
Click to expand...

I don't give a toss about the NUJ card bit or the fact that they are media - this could have happened to me or you. At the start they do say they are looking for offensive weapons and some of them were wearing hoodies!
 
Steve Smith said:
That's not freedom of the press, it's just freedom. Journalists have no more rights than the general public. In fact they are just members of the public who work in journalism. The law is the same for everyone.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Alright i will put it another way ,a free press :)
 
srichards said:
What about the police attempting to obtain your camera/card as evidence? That seems to be the threat ie if you don't delete we'll take your camera off you right now! Which law is it that would either a) allow them to do that b) not allow them at all, which you can quote?
Click to expand...
As evidence for what?
If a crime or major incident has taken place the police often appeal for witness photos.
Even if they arrest you on some notional charge (Obstruction is always the favourite) they can only view your images with a court order, and they don't legally have the right to "confiscate" anything without the same, and certainly don't have the right to make you delete anything.
Of course, we all know that deleted images are easily recovered, even if they don't.
If you are in that position, and have nothing to hide, most people would show their images voluntarily, just to defuse the situation.
 
srichards said:
What about the police attempting to obtain your camera/card as evidence? That seems to be the threat ie if you don't delete we'll take your camera off you right now! Which law is it that would either a) allow them to do that b) not allow them at all, which you can quote?
Click to expand...

I can't quote any actual act of parliament which details this but in order to get your camera from you they would either need to get a court order or arrest you. And the arrest would have to be a real one for a real crime which the police have good reason to think you have either committed or are likely to commit.

They cannot force you to delete things for two reasons. First, it is a destruction of someone elses property which is a crime in itself and second, if you have done something wrong, the pictures could be evidence and destruction of evidence is a crime also.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
using the whole private property argument is a pretty poor one though as you may as well just throw away pretty much every single beach shot youve ever taken in the UK then.. why? because around 80% off the UK coastline and offshore is owned by the Crown estate.

They also own 50% of St James, almost all of regent street, and 1000's of other properties and locations in and around the UK.
in effect pretty much everywhere is privately owned by someone somewhere. Maybe this is where guidelines need to change in what is prvately owned but public right of way. If it breaks no trespass then photography should be allowed. otherwise we may as well just pack up our cameras and all go home.
and in regard to my comments above regarding section 44/43. it is relevant to the situation when you have been stopped by an overzealous security guard who has then proceeded to call the police.
having lived just outside London most of my life and spent many days photographing up there im fully aware that huge areas like the South bank are privately owned, but if you walk across westminster Bridge then onto the south bank i have as yet never seen a sign that says no commercial photography permitted ( there is a very small one by the south bank building but that is in relation to the building ).

as for casuing an obstruction...well thats always going to be debatable when you see some of the parents with kids along the southbank running around and getting in the way of everything not to mention all the street entertainers and hawkers along there.
 
dean messenger said:
using the whole private property argument is a pretty poor one though as you may as well just throw away pretty much every single beach shot youve ever taken in the UK then.. why? because around 80% off the UK coastline and offshore is owned by the Crown estate.
Click to expand...

ON private land it's up to the land owner whether or not they want to stop photographers or not. Sure, no one is going to lock you up for taking a picture at the beach - but why don't you try a little photography excursion to Faslane and let me know how you get on! ;)

dean messenger said:
having lived just outside London most of my life and spent many days photographing up there im fully aware that huge areas like the South bank are privately owned, but if you walk across westminster Bridge then onto the south bank i have as yet never seen a sign that says no commercial photography permitted ( there is a very small one by the south bank building but that is in relation to the building )
Click to expand...

There doesn't need to be a sign. Do you have a sign on your garden gate letting people know it's private property with a lengthy legal statement listing you rights and expectations etc...?
 
richardm said:
ON private land it's up to the land owner whether or not they want to stop photographers or not. Sure, no one is going to lock you up for taking a picture at the beach - but why don't you try a little photography excursion to Faslane and let me know how you get on! ;)



There doesn't need to be a sign. Do you have a sign on your garden gate letting people know it's private property with a lengthy legal statement listing you rights and expectations etc...?
Click to expand...

no but clearly as my garden has a fence around it , its quite obviously private property.. a public highway where every day thousnads of people walk freely along is hardly the same thing and a rather stupid comparision.

if ya want to be pedantic about.. may as well delete any photographs people have that have been taken in the new forest .. because without a licence due to an ancient bylaw photography is forbidden entirely.

laws are one thing common sense is entirely another.
 
Last edited:
richardm said:
ON private land it's up to the land owner whether or not they want to stop photographers or not. Sure, no one is going to lock you up for taking a picture at the beach - but why don't you try a little photography excursion to Faslane and let me know how you get on! ;)



There doesn't need to be a sign. Do you have a sign on your garden gate letting people know it's private property with a lengthy legal statement listing you rights and expectations etc...?
Click to expand...

richardm said:
ON private land it's up to the land owner whether or not they want to stop photographers or not. Sure, no one is going to lock you up for taking a picture at the beach - but why don't you try a little photography excursion to Faslane and let me know how you get on! ;)



There doesn't need to be a sign. Do you have a sign on your garden gate letting people know it's private property with a lengthy legal statement listing you rights and expectations etc...?
Click to expand...

Faslane - That's a part of the 80% owned by the crown. There are also numerous signs along the perimeter saying MOD property keep out. Not sure what your point is ?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Faslane - That's a part of the 80% owned by the crown. There are also numerous signs along the perimeter saying MOD property keep out. Not sure what your point is ?
Click to expand...

That both are own by the same 'person' and they exercise their right to restrict certain freedoms, such as photography, as they see fit.
 
dean messenger said:
using the whole private property argument is a pretty poor one though as you may as well just throw away pretty much every single beach shot youve ever taken in the UK then.. why? because around 80% off the UK coastline and offshore is owned by the Crown estate.
Click to expand...

mean high water to mean low water is deemed to be the property of the crown (but they usually defer to the owner above MHW in most cases ) - however crown estates have never put a restriction on photography between MHW and MLW so that example is seriously flawed (if the landowner above MHW has a restriction on photography chances are good it will be enforceable below MHW as well)

.
dean messenger said:
If it breaks no trespass then photography should be allowed. otherwise we may as well just pack up our cameras and all go home.
Click to expand...

fundamental misunderstanding of the trespass laws there - any action on a PRoW other than to pass and freely repass (with various usual accompaniments) is an act of trespass against the landowner , so your argument makes no sense

dean messenger said:
and in regard to my comments above regarding section 44/43. it is relevant to the situation when you have been stopped by an overzealous security guard who has then proceeded to call the police.
Click to expand...

no its irrelevant unless the security guard tells the police that he suspects you of terrorism - in most cases he will just suspect you of being a knob and refusing to stop when told and want their help in removing you

dean messenger said:
i have as yet never seen a sign that says no commercial photography permitted ( there is a very small one by the south bank building but that is in relation to the building ).
Click to expand...

no signage is required - the onus is on the person entering private land not to commit any acts of trespass and to ensure thy have the relative permissions, I bet you don't have a sign at the bottom of your drive saying "private parking only" - but this doesn't mean I can park my car there

dean messenger said:
as for casuing an obstruction...well thats always going to be debatable when you see some of the parents with kids along the southbank running around and getting in the way of everything not to mention all the street entertainers and hawkers along there.
Click to expand...

They may well be causing an obstruction as well - but its not a defence to say "but he was doing it too" - otherwise no one would ever be prosecuted/sued for anything

bottom line is that photography on private land is at the discretion of the landowner , which is why its not great idea for photographers to start ranting about rights whih on private land they don't have.
 
big soft moose said:
...

fundamental misunderstanding of the trespass laws there - any action on a PRoW other than to pass and freely repass (with various usual accompaniments) is an act of trespass against the landowner , so your argument makes no sense....
Click to expand...

If there were no signs saying "no photography" then surely you only commit trespass if are asked to not take photos and refuse to comply. A landowner could have a ban on wearing red trousers on his land and could post a sign saying "no red trousers" but if someone wearing red trousers were to enter his land and there was no sign then surely there would not then be an act of trespass.
 
boliston said:
If there were no signs saying "no photography" then surely you only commit trespass if are asked to not take photos and refuse to comply. A landowner could have a ban on wearing red trousers on his land and could post a sign saying "no red trousers" but if someone wearing red trousers were to enter his land and there was no sign then surely there would not then be an act of trespass.
Click to expand...

technically if it was just private land then you'd be committing an act of trespass anyway unless he invited you in. If you were on a footpath, its likely that a no red trousers rule wouldn't stand up as trousers would fall under the usual accompaniment clause - just as he probably can't stop you carrying a camera , but actually taking photos doesn't come under the permitted activities (in England and Wales - in Scotland it probably does)

Thing to remember about trespass is its a civil offence - so he'd have to take you to court (unless you aggravate it by committing another offence while trespassing) in court it might be a reasonable defence to say that you didn't know he didn't permit photography, so if you weren't approached by a security guard or other agent of the landowner then they probably won't win a case - however if an agent of the land owners tells you to stop and you don't saying "well there's no sign" isn't going to be a defence because you were aware once they'd told you - and they can ask you to leave (even if you are on a right of way) if you are committing an act of trespass at the time.

Its not a good idea to refuse to leave/stop when asked because they can call the police to ask for assistance in removing you - and if you then get bolshy with the police as well it is likely to become trespass aggravated by obstruction/refusing to obey a lawful order/ generally being a major league d******d.
 
big soft moose said:
technically if it was just private land then you'd be committing an act of trespass anyway unless he invited you in. If you were on a footpath, its likely that a no red trousers rule wouldn't stand up as trousers would fall under the usual accompaniment clause - just as he probably can't stop you carrying a camera , but actually taking photos doesn't come under the permitted activities (in England and Wales - in Scotland it probably does).....
Click to expand...

What you are saying is that anyone who uses a public footpath needs to acquaint themselves with the list of permitted activities? Would I (for example) be allowed to make a mobile phone call whilst on a public right of way? - I chose this example as it would spoil the tranquillity more for other path users than taking a photo of the fine view would.
 
Big Soft Moose said in an earlier post "we are not in the US" however he then goes on to say 'trespass aggravated by obstruction/refusing to obey a lawful order'. Do we in the UK really have a law that says we must obey a police officer? As in we cannot refuse a lawful order? Would have been handy in 1946.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top