Anti-photographer attitudes

I wish I shared your optimism, if the police's handling of the pandemic guidelines are anything to go by. Then you could be in for a surprise at best or arrest at worst
I agree.
In the video I posted the police didn't put the security guard in his place, quite the opposite, they sided with him and went after the photographer....
 
That sucks. I forced myself out twice over the weekend to shoot street photography in Swindon. It's a place I'm not keen on shooting because I stick out, I prefer to go to other places such as London so I can blend in as a tourist. If I'm honest, it went really well and I might do some more.
 
I am not a street photogrpaher.. But I ahve always been aware that photographing in a shopping center is a no no

It amazes me how many so called street photogrpahers don't know this then come on here crying about it... The ones that carry on and take pictures then post them are the ones giving every photogrpaher a bad name and making street photogrpahy hard work for everyone else..

Seriously how can you not know about shopping centers ?
 
I wouldn’t take photos in an indoor shopping centre. When the security guard came out I was outside but just within ‘private land’

The two photos posted are from the public street.

I figured being on public land it was fine, but after seeing the videos and what a police state we live in, how happy the police are to suspect you of terrorism, I’ll revise that opinion.

In my post I said it was fair enough (fine) he asked me to leave the private land, but annoying that he persisted after I left their property.

The second dude appeared and followed me I didn’t even go near his shopping arcade.
 
Last edited:
As hard as it sounds, it' best to dust yourself down and get back out there.

I've found using my X100V has been a great help when shooting locally. It's small and I'm not being sneaky or anything like that, it just looks non-professional and people dont see it as a threat.
 
Reminder regarding the Met Police policy on 'photography' ... principles would apply elsewhere:


Obviously owners of 'Private Land' are free to decide who or what happens on their land/building/estate/mall etc, however security personel employed by them do not have authority to control what happens in public areas.
 
Thats a common occurrence Dan I got moved on for Photographic what I considered an Iconic bulding

The Bull Birmingham- security guard ( about18 years old) told me I was committing a Terrorist offence of all things by using my camera in the Bullring - which was completely incorrect as the shot was taken across the road from the entrance to the NCP car park for goodness sake

When I pointed out the 20 or so tourists with mobile phones doing just what I was doing - he said yes but they are tourists - you're not you're a pro and that's illegal :)
to which I responded- best you call the Police then- He did and the Police duly arrived within 20 minutes -pointed out the many many tourists, doing exactly what he was complaining about- he wandered off and so did the Police -

It seems common place now in this society to upset, bully and dis-respect us toggers - nothing personal or so I am led to believe

anyhow here's the photo he objected to me taking

QoINy3g.jpg
 
Reminder regarding the Met Police policy on 'photography' ... principles would apply elsewhere:


Obviously owners of 'Private Land' are free to decide who or what happens on their land/building/estate/mall etc, however security personel employed by them do not have authority to control what happens in public areas.

Thanks, that's interesting.

So the police saw that guy in the video with a tripod near a shopping centre, and decided that it was reasonable to suspect he was a terrorist because of that or how he behaved? They searched him, so it could only be that they had suspicion.

I'm not a police officer, I haven't had their 'training' but I somehow doubt a terrorist who was taking photos of security camera placements would haul around a tripod then stop and argue about it.. maybe I've been watching too much prodigal son and my 'profiling' is off the charts :D
 
Thats a common occurrence Dan I got moved on for Photographic what I considered an Iconic bulding

The Bull Birmingham- security guard ( about18 years old) told me I was committing a Terrorist offence of all things by using my camera in the Bullring - which was completely incorrect as the shot was taken across the road from the entrance to the NCP car park for goodness sake

When I pointed out the 20 or so tourists with mobile phones doing just what I was doing - he said yes but they are tourists - you're not you're a pro and that's illegal :)
to which I responded- best you call the Police then- He did and the Police duly arrived within 20 minutes -pointed out the many many tourists, doing exactly what he was complaining about- he wandered off and so did the Police -

It seems common place now in this society to upset, bully and dis-respect us toggers - nothing personal or so I am led to believe

anyhow here's the photo he objected to me taking

Maybe, like guns, we should have regulation on the sales of cameras - as only professionals and terrorists use them apparently..
 
As in life, street photography is best enjoyed under the following philosophy: Do no harm, but take no s**t :LOL:
 
So the police saw that guy in the video with a tripod near a shopping centre, and decided that it was reasonable to suspect he was a terrorist because of that or how he behaved? They searched him, so it could only be that they had suspicion.

Of course they could be required to justify their suspicions, if the photographer wishes to take it further formally, rather than just 'youtube' it.

FWIW I have only ever been seriously challenged on one occasion and that was in Bristol, on the canal path running between the office complex at Temple Quay (which apparently is 'Private', though I didn't realise it at the time).
I was using a camera on a tripod to get a photo of a newish bridge and shaped metal building behind it, I became aware of a security officer standing behind me, he didn't say anything until I greeted him and then he said that the tenants didn't like having their buildings photographed. I remarked how interesting that was as the area was well documented on the internet, Google streetview etc and he just stood back.
A short while later a chap in a suit came and we had the same conversation, both were polite and not in any way objectionable and I clearly stated what I was doing and why, after a short while they both left and I continued taking tripod photos undisturbed. throughout the estate I have since taken photos there on many occasions, as I have inside of Cabot Circus and The Mall, often in sight of security personnel and without issue.
I have watched a couple of 'youtube' videos of so-called street photographers visiting Bristol and it is evident that those in the videos I watched had a complete disregard for security personnel in general and clearly viewed taunting them as fair game ... not something that helps any street photographer.
 
The thing is define reasonably suspect, it basically gives them the power to do what they like at that moment in time. You can argue like mad but they could arrest you, yes it will get sorted out but it's a pain.

Also great advice saying stand your ground but not everyone is 100% on the law how do you know what they are saying is true or not, which bits you can and can't refuse to do.
 
Last edited:
Speaking to someone in the Police a while back and they said that big shopping centres are considered to be at risk of terrorist attacks - think about it, huge numbers of people moving around (normally anyway), it would only take a couple of suicide bombers to cause massive casualties. Witness to that would be the Manchester Arena attack and the subsequent enquiry. That’s why security are nervous and will jump on people they perceive as acting suspiciously. Whether a middle aged man (or whatever) with a camera is actually likely to be planning an extremist attack is irrelevant, they have to act irrespective of demographic, or at least be seen to be.

I’m not justifying the over zealous actions of some security folk, but I can understand the rationale for moving people on.
Hmm, not sure that is a good example. In the Manchester Arena attack the bomber was there for some time before he let his bomb off. He had a backpack on and was lurking around in less obvious areas of the foyer. If a terrorist wanted photos of a shopping centre a phone would be the least obtrusive way of doing that.

Regarding taking photos of security cameras, most modern shopping centres have excellent coverage of public areas, with few blind spots. A photo of a camera is not going to help show the coverage of that camera, so not a lot of use for a terrorist.

Apart from the private property aspect of taking photos, other issues that might be of concern are obstruction - a tripod in a walkway for example, and making shoppers uncomfortable.

You are perfectly entitled to take photographs of a private building from a public location. As long as you aren't invading the privacy of people inside the building.

Be wary of a random police officer knowing the law too, hopefully you get one that does know the law, but some do not know specific sections of the law like this.

As has been stated, it is probably best to get permission from the shopping centre, explaining what you are aiming to do.
 
Last edited:
The thing is define reasonably suspect, it basically gives them the power to do what they like at that moment in time. You can argue like mad but they could arrest you, yes it will get sorted out but it's a pain.

Also great advice saying stand your ground but not everyone is 100% on the law how do you know what they are saying is true or not, which bits you can and can't refuse to do.

I am on the non-confrontation side of things. I try very hard not to confront people even if I know the law 100% because as you said its a pain.
Last time I got stopped (as posted on the previous page), I was with my pregnant wife. I am not sure what the security guard thought a man with his pregnant women would get up to?
but in any case I didn't want the pain in that case and discomfort my wife.
 
I sometimes think Britain breeds specially agressive "security" people. They should take lessons from some of the European countries about dealing with the public.

This lady was a member of Worgle's Gemeindesicherheitswache which (so far as I understand it) is a form of semi-private municipal security company. She was quite happy to be photographed while checking parking in the main street.

Parking officer in Worgle Austria 1200056.JPG
 
I don't do street photos but I do wear a hi-vis with Event Photographer on it when out shooting. You can often just go where you want and no-one questions you. I do however always get permission from the organisers, but most other officials just let me carry on however I need to without question.
 
To be honest now probably isn't the best time to be out and about taking photos in city centres.
Who really wants to be confronted by security thickos, don't want them in my face at the best of times and certainly not now.
 
I've not seen the videos posted in here, but have seen others on YoutTube. They're not street photographers and they're only out to cause trouble - but the videos are educational in the sense that they show what your rights are and how to respond to questions.

I've found it helps to be nice and if I do need to move, I'll move and return another day.

This video is quite old now, but is one of the better ones. btw. I wouldn't say these guys are street photographers - e.g. not many street photographers I know use tripods!

 
Last edited:
I dont do street photography at all, but as in all walks of life being open and freely offering info about who you are and what you are doing will get you a lot further with the police than being obstructive.

The guy in the video was within the law to do what he was doing, but he created a whole situation there that was completely unnecessary.

They could have been off dealing with other crimes, was it them wasting police time or him wasting police time?
 
It seems to me we have some aggressive photographers as I have done street photography in Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester. London and Edinburgh and never found these aggressive security guards. I was able to photograph a policeman on duty. I explained the type of shot I wanted and he walked up and down two or three times for me. Earlier that day I has started taking general photos in Grand Central with a friend when a security guard spoke to us politely and explained that we needed permission and should have applied in advance. We had travelled 50 miles so how could we apply at this late stage. He realised that we would not be able to enter the management suite so suggested that we went to the centre reception desk. This we did and explained to the lady who then had to phone a manager to ask for us to be permitted. I was able to produce my FIAP card which identifies me as an amateur photographer. We adopted a laid back friendly approach and it was clear from the tone of her conversation with the manager that she was supporting our request. We had to fill out a form and agree to no commercial exploitation of the photographs so we were issued with a badge to allow us access to take photos for the rest of the day. Later we bumped into the same security guard and thanked him for his advice and he wished us well. What was particularly interesting is that we spoke to everyone before taking a shot and were intentionally taking a low speed and panning to get this effect which did mean most people would not be easily recognisable. In the 3 hours were were photographing only one person refused to have his photo taken so we respected that and did not press him.

Dave

On Duty GC.jpg
 
Probably, they make these videos to wind up the police and security etc, but he hasn't committed any offences....

That's the feeling I got as well.

Re. offences, I'm sure the police have that Public Order Act which they can use as a blanket excuse/threat for almost anything?
 
There's also the current covid legislation. Pretty sure that going to town centres to take snaps isn't a priority or necessary journey.
 
There's also the current covid legislation. Pretty sure that going to town centres to take snaps isn't a priority or necessary journey.
Exactly! Not only could you be faced with a stroppy security guard, you could also end up with a £200+ fine if the police are called and they decide your journey was neither essential or primarily just for exercise.

So follow the rules and do your part to protect the NHS and those who need urgent medical help, who won't be able to get that if the hospitals are clogged up with perfectly avoidable Covid cases. (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
There's also the current covid legislation. Pretty sure that going to town centres to take snaps isn't a priority or necessary journey.
Exactly! Not only could you be faced with a stroppy security guard, you could also end up with a £200+ fine if the police are called and they decide your journey was neither essential or primarily just for exercise.

So follow the rules and do your part to protect the NHS and those who need urgent medical help, who won't be able to get that if the hospitals are clogged up with perfectly avoidable Covid cases. (y)
I think you'll likely find we weren't in lockdown when the video was made so he wasn't breaking any rules.
Obviously not a necessary trip though and certainly not a necessary video....
 
I think you'll likely find we weren't in lockdown when the video was made so he wasn't breaking any rules.
Obviously not a necessary trip though and certainly not a necessary video....

I think it's just me they're judging for going into town with my camera.

I also went to a nearby MOD land (loads of people about) with my camera and walked for 8 miles, all the while keeping an eye out for interesting photographic opportunities. I want and need the exercise, but I wouldn't have gone without my camera.

I'm going to combine photography and exercise, it's healthy for body and mind - unless you get confronted of course :D
 
Last edited:
I am not a street photogrpaher.. But I ahve always been aware that photographing in a shopping center is a no no

It amazes me how many so called street photogrpahers don't know this then come on here crying about it... The ones that carry on and take pictures then post them are the ones giving every photogrpaher a bad name and making street photogrpahy hard work for everyone else..

Seriously how can you not know about shopping centers ?

Just to let you know Kipax.

Photography in shopping centers is legal, no law is broken by a member of the public taking photos in a shopping center.

Shopping centers can be/are private property that has been opened up to the public. Because they have been opened up they become legally 'pseudo' public places.

Because the property has been opened up to the public the law then requires that any restrictions on activity within that pseudo public place such as the requirment to desist photography is comunicated to the public entering the area.

The member of public entering the area and taking photos is under no legal obligation to assertain as to if the owner/authority in control of the land allows photos to be taken. In the absence of a communication by the owner/authority by way of signs no offence either statutory or civil tort is committed.

In pseudo public areas the obligation lies with the owner/authority in control of the area to make it known photography is not allowed. If the owner does not make clear photography is not allowed then the are is then classed as a public area for the purpose of photography.

The underlying principal in law is, that if private land is opened up to the public the area is then a public place and all the laws that apply to a public area apply, unless the owner makes clear that there are restriction. The owner 'is' under an obligation to communicate that information.
 
Just to let you know Kipax.

Photography in shopping centers is legal, no law is broken by a member of the public taking photos in a shopping center.

Shopping centers can be/are private property that has been opened up to the public. Because they have been opened up they become legally 'pseudo' public places.

Because the property has been opened up to the public the law then requires that any restrictions on activity within that pseudo public place such as the requirment to desist photography is comunicated to the public entering the area.

The member of public entering the area and taking photos is under no legal obligation to assertain as to if the owner/authority in control of the land allows photos to be taken. In the absence of a communication by the owner/authority by way of signs no offence either statutory or civil tort is committed.

In pseudo public areas the obligation lies with the owner/authority in control of the area to make it known photography is not allowed. If the owner does not make clear photography is not allowed then the are is then classed as a public area for the purpose of photography.

The underlying principal in law is, that if private land is opened up to the public the area is then a public place and all the laws that apply to a public area apply, unless the owner makes clear that there are restriction. The owner 'is' under an obligation to communicate that information.

To which the security guard will probably reply "Yeah, and I'm communicating that to you now!". ;)
 
Just to let you know Kipax.


I already know thanks.. I still know that photogrpahing in shopping centers is a nono ... I never said it was illegal... please can we stick to what I post and not what you make up.. ta :)
 
So the police saw that guy in the video with a tripod near a shopping centre, and decided that it was reasonable to suspect he was a terrorist because of that or how he behaved? They searched him, so it could only be that they had suspicion.

In the video the photographer is a soft target to a police officer who I suspect was unwilling to let it go in front of her junior colleague.

There is a problem with some police officers in that they have to assert some sort of control on a situation - if you challenge that control even mildly then you end up in a gradual escalation where the officer will not relent until it is taken past the point of reason. The problem with section 44 is that it is a blunt tool that enables lack of reason this sort of situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
There is a big misunderstanding about the law and how it works.

The law in this Counrty is " everything is legal unless there is a law against it"

Some people for what ever reason live ther lives thinking that the following applies " I cannot do anything unless the law allows it"

Instead of asking oneself 'am I allowed to do that', ask oneself 'is there a law against it'. Two very different states of mind.
To which the security guard will probably reply "Yeah, and I'm communicating that to you now!". ;)
Yes that's correct. But when a security guard approaches a photographer and says "you cannot take photos here", only from that point forward are the restrictions in place. The point I am making is that people should take photos where they want to unless it shown to be against a law of some sort. Most of the time people think photos are not allowed unless permission is given. That is wrong. Photography is always allowed unless there is a law against it.(y)
 
I already know thanks.. I still know that photogrpahing in shopping centers is a nono ... I never said it was illegal... please can we stick to what I post and not what you make up.. ta :)
You ment morally, I see. Just to let you know tomorrow you need to be behind the goal at the Ipswich end for all the celebration shots.:exit:
 
I posted a drone photo I took of an old disused quarry to my local Facebook page as many people were interested to see what it looked like now.
within 20 minutes, I had a message from the “quarry security” demanding I take the image down as its private property. He reported me to the head office of the quarry company too apparently.

I ignored it, as it wasn’t taken from private property and the quarry doesn’t own the airspace around it.

Just goes to show through, security guards now think they can kick you off property and demand removal of photos, even after the event has happened.
 
Just to let you know Kipax.

Photography in shopping centers is legal, no law is broken by a member of the public taking photos in a shopping center.

Shopping centers can be/are private property that has been opened up to the public. Because they have been opened up they become legally 'pseudo' public places.

Because the property has been opened up to the public the law then requires that any restrictions on activity within that pseudo public place such as the requirment to desist photography is comunicated to the public entering the area.

The member of public entering the area and taking photos is under no legal obligation to assertain as to if the owner/authority in control of the land allows photos to be taken. In the absence of a communication by the owner/authority by way of signs no offence either statutory or civil tort is committed.

In pseudo public areas the obligation lies with the owner/authority in control of the area to make it known photography is not allowed. If the owner does not make clear photography is not allowed then the are is then classed as a public area for the purpose of photography.

The underlying principal in law is, that if private land is opened up to the public the area is then a public place and all the laws that apply to a public area apply, unless the owner makes clear that there are restriction. The owner 'is' under an obligation to communicate that information.

Interesting.

Has that changed since this Guardian Investigation?


"Under existing laws, public access to pseudo-public spaces remains at the discretion of landowners who are allowed to draw up their own rules for “acceptable behaviour” on their sites and alter them at will. They are not obliged to make these rules public."
 
Last edited:
But when a security guard approaches a photographer and says "you cannot take photos here", only from that point forward are the restrictions in place.
It may be the point where the photographer is first made aware of the restriction but it definitely is not the point where the restriction is in place.
When on 'Private' land it is the responsibility of the photographer (or anyone else) to familiarise themselves with the conditions for access, similarly to establish whether or not they are on 'Private' or 'Public' land.
 
Back
Top