Anti-photographer attitudes

gramps said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's arguments like that which kept our one time neighbour the barrister in expensive cars... :naughty:
 
A few years ago I was doing some work for an Estate Agent. Part of this was to capture the local shopping centre, and my plan was to shoot a slowish exposure to capture the movement as people walked in and out. I was standing in the public High Street.

Along comes Mr Security to tell me the Shopping Centre is private property. I acknowledged this, and pointed out that I knew, and that's why I was standing in the High Street.

"You can't take photo's of the building"
"Yes you can"
"I'll call the Police"
"Please do"

Police turn up, the station is less than 100m away.

Police Sergeant asks me what I'm up to, I explain, and offer to show her some images on the back of the screen.. She tells security (there's now 4 of them) that I'm completely within my rights and they should leave me alone. Original security twerp stands 6 inches from my lens and says "OK I'll stand here". She then tells him to go away or he'll be nicked.

Me, I wave him goodbye with a smug grin, and tell the officers "Thank you".

I was polite and resisted being cocky (until they were sent packing). You just need to stand your ground against these so called "professional" security people. Getting them on video often helps.
 
gramps said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is NO law at all against taking photographs on private land either statutory or civil.(There are moves to make trespass on land a criminal offence)

The only law that can be invoked on a photographer ON private land is that civil tort of trespass by way of physically being on the land. Nothing to do with the fact he maybe taking photos.

The land owner does NOT have to communicate it is private land for a claim of trespass on the land. The land owner can seek damages or/and he can use reasonable force to move a person from the land. "per se" (by right)

If signs are put up on private land or it is communicated, stating NO photography, a civil case may be possible against the photographer providing damages can be quantified by the plaintiff(land owner) for the taking of those photos.

If the land owner has not communicated that he does not want photos taking on his land there can be be no claim against the photographer, as there has been no instruction from the land owner preventing photography.

A person who owns land does NOT have any legal right preventing photography on his land 'per se"(by right). That means there is no law made by anyone, anywhere saying " if you own land a person who is on your land needs your permission to take photos and if they do not seek out and obtain your permission you can sue for damages". No law at all.


There has to be some form of contract established between the land owner and the photographer for the photographer to be in breach of the conditions of entry.

Silence by the land owner is not an option.


If the land owner allows the person on to their land, the land owner needs to say in some way "no photographs can be taken" otherwis photos can be taken. The onus is always on the land owner to make the restrictions known.

The land owner cannot sue for taking photos as per se(by right) like he can for trespass onto the land. IE he needs to make the photographer aware of what the rules are.

Laws are made by Parliament or the courts. Not land owners. Land owners have to make a contract. IE if you enter onto this property you cannot take photos.
 
shapeshifter said:
There is NO law at all against taking photographs on private land either statutory or civil.
Click to expand...

There you go again!

gramps said:
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.
Click to expand...

The landowner can ask you to leave the land if you are contravening his terms of entrance (whether or not you have taken the time to review them) and he can request the assistance of the police if he wishes.
If I come and sit in your garden you can ask me to leave and if I don't you can request police assistance, however in neither situation is police assistance guaranteed.
 
shapeshifter said:
There is NO law at all against taking photographs on private land either statutory or civil.(There are moves to make trespass on land a criminal offence)

The only law that can be invoked on a photographer ON private land is that civil tort of trespass by way of physically being on the land. Nothing to do with the fact he maybe taking photos.

The land owner does NOT have to communicate it is private land for a claim of trespass on the land. The land owner can seek damages or/and he can use reasonable force to move a person from the land. "per se" (by right)

If signs are put up on private land or it is communicated, stating NO photography, a civil case may be possible against the photographer providing damages can be quantified by the plaintiff(land owner) for the taking of those photos.

If the land owner has not communicated that he does not want photos taking on his land there can be be no claim against the photographer, as there has been no instruction from the land owner preventing photography.

A person who owns land does NOT have any legal right preventing photography on his land 'per se"(by right). That means there is no law made by anyone, anywhere saying " if you own land a person who is on your land needs your permission to take photos and if they do not seek out and obtain your permission you can sue for damages". No law at all.


There has to be some form of contract established between the land owner and the photographer for the photographer to be in breach of the conditions of entry.

Silence by the land owner is not an option.


If the land owner allows the person on to their land, the land owner needs to say in some way "no photographs can be taken" otherwis photos can be taken. The onus is always on the land owner to make the restrictions known.

The land owner cannot sue for taking photos as per se(by right) like he can for trespass onto the land. IE he needs to make the photographer aware of what the rules are.

Laws are made by Parliament or the courts. Not land owners. Land owners have to make a contract. IE if you enter onto this property you cannot take photos.
Click to expand...


So much of that is internet law and wrong, that it would take half a day to type out all the corrections.
 
I suppose the answer to this is to accept that these days people are suspicious of people taking photographs unless it's on a phone. If I wanted to take pictures in an area where people were likely to moan then I'd use my phone. People take pictures on phones all the time and no one takes any notice of them. Take your phone picture and follow it by using the thousand yard stare as people can't tell what you were taking a picture of, unlike a proper camera where it is usually quite obvious. When I had my covid vaccine I took my camera with me and asked all concerned if I could take their picture, no one refused. The doctor administering the injection even waited until I had my camera in the right place to see the needle before he injected me...and I took his picture too. Not everyone is concerned about photographers so don't let the occasional jobsworth put you off. Just move on and get pictures somewhere else, you'll never get the sticks out of some people's rectums and it's pointless to try.
 
This really grinds my gears, I call bollucks to the concept of not being able to photograph something because it's "private property", it's your camera, your intellectual property - you don't need permission.
 
WeShootYou said:
This really grinds my gears, I call bollucks to the concept of not being able to photograph something because it's "private property", it's your camera, your intellectual property - you don't need permission.
Click to expand...

:thinking: a very sweeping statement to keep the discussion going........ ;)

PS try taking a picture of Michelangelo's David in the Academia in Florence or other similar private property held within private property with a "no photos" condition as entry term :LOL: ..........as in 'context is all'.
 
Last edited:
WeShootYou said:
This really grinds my gears, I call bollucks to the concept of not being able to photograph something because it's "private property", it's your camera, your intellectual property - you don't need permission.
Click to expand...
But you can take photos of something that is private property.
 
gerry s said:
From public property
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's common sense really, otherwise press photographers (or anyone else for that matter) could wander up your garden path and start taking photos of the interior of your house through your windows. So be careful what you wish for!
 
j crossley said:
I think that you are talking out of your aperture there mate.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see him walk up to any MOD site and start taking pictures. Then he could report back on the consequences. :naughty:
 
There's a channel on youtube called Law Abiding Citizen UK that does just that, obviously his whole M.O is to provoke a reaction but the fact he has to educate the Police / security guards on the law time and time again is why you have problems when you're out and about with your camera.

this one starts getting tasty about 5min in

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piMBS_RMm4k
 
Darren said:
There's a channel on youtube called Law Abiding Citizen UK that does just that, obviously his whole M.O is to provoke a reaction but the fact he has to educate the Police / security guards on the law time and time again is why you have problems when you're out and about with your camera.

this one starts getting tasty about 5min in

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piMBS_RMm4k
Click to expand...

What a complete idiot!
 
I wonder would the same attitude 'work' on the grounds of a county Crown Court and the implications of filming the comings & goings there???
 
This is something I haven't encountered much but I'd don't do "street." I have been called a paedophile, a bloke once approached me and asked if I was from the council (he thought I was photographing trees with a view to having them cut down) and a teenager on a bike once accused me of taking his picture (I was stood under a tree pointing the camera upwards taking pictures as they passed behind me at ground level, not at a height of 50 feet so I don't really see how I could have taken his picture.) I'm more upset by the behaviour of women who often seem to give the death stare although not when I'm with Mrs WW, paedos mustn't have wives or GF's I guess. I have been approached many times mostly by men and children who wanted to know what I'm up to and/or chat and that's ok although I do try and move the kids on as quickly as possible :D
 
Darren said:
There's a channel on youtube called Law Abiding Citizen UK that does just that, obviously his whole M.O is to provoke a reaction but the fact he has to educate the Police / security guards on the law time and time again is why you have problems when you're out and about with your camera.

this one starts getting tasty about 5min in

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piMBS_RMm4k
Click to expand...

What an absolute bell-end!
 
Someone called my D800 and 24-70 2.8 a P**** camera....

I was taking pictures of this...I did have the big hood on my 24-70 2.8 which looks immense but really is useful to stop flare.

_DSC3129 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

Try explaing that to a weegie junkie dumb ass s*** kicker though...
 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree that those making such videos winding up police or security guards and annoying the public can make it difficult for the reasonable, polite and genuine photographers. A guy I know turned professional and had to take what work came. On one occasion he was paid by the local council to take some photos in the local parks. He then noticed a couple ladies arrive nearby with small children so moved away for a while to avoid photographing them. After a few minutes the ladies came over to him and called him a pervert. They were not interested in his explanation and called the police anyway. When the police arrived, they checked his story which the Council confirmed but no one apologised to him. The public are far to jumpy now without winding them up more.

Dave
 
Dave Canon said:
Yes, I agree that those making such videos winding up police or security guards and annoying the public can make it difficult for the reasonable, polite and genuine photographers. A guy I know turned professional and had to take what work came. On one occasion he was paid by the local council to take some photos in the local parks. He then noticed a couple ladies arrive nearby with small children so moved away for a while to avoid photographing them. After a few minutes the ladies came over to him and called him a pervert. They were not interested in his explanation and called the police anyway. When the police arrived, they checked his story which the Council confirmed but no one apologised to him. The public are far to jumpy now without winding them up more.

Dave
Click to expand...

I've had similar in a park where I used to live. I walked through once and noticed that there was a Jay regularly appearing in search of Acorns. I returned with my gear, picked up a few acorns and set them down in one area and then sat on a bench in wait. There were kids nearby, but they were behind me. Two women came over and complained and then called the police. 20 minutes later the old bill still hadn't turned up so they walked off. I hung around for another 10 minutes or so but the Jay never came back, so I went home.

Never did see a Copper turn up...
 
gramps said:
There you go again!



The landowner can ask you to leave the land if you are contravening his terms of entrance (whether or not you have taken the time to review them) and he can request the assistance of the police if he wishes.
If I come and sit in your garden you can ask me to leave and if I don't you can request police assistance, however in neither situation is police assistance guaranteed.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "There you go again"

I am just pointing the law out.

As regards you scenario and the private land issue.
A land owner can 'request' (ask and the police can refuse) the assistance of the police, but the police have no power to lay a hand on or arrest the person trespassing on the land.

The person who owns the land can use reasonable force to remove the person from the land , the police cannot use force as there is no statutory offence of trespass.

If during the course of removal/request by the land owner the police believe there maybe a breach of peace they can arrest the person suspected of a breach of peace.
 
gerry s said:
From public property
Click to expand...
That's wrong as I have pointed out.

There is NO law against taking photos whilst on private property. Unless the owner has created a civil contract by preventing photography when on his private property.

Will people stop think there are imagininary laws just floating around in the air!
 
Mr Badger said:
Exactly. It's common sense really, otherwise press photographers (or anyone else for that matter) could wander up your garden path and start taking photos of the interior of your house through your windows. So be careful what you wish for!
Click to expand...
You don't understand the law.
A press photographer could quite legally walk into your garden and take photos through your window.

The only offence is that of civil trespass on the land. There is no offence statutory or civil for 'Taking Photos'

The issue of trespass and taking photos are two completely different things.
 
I don't know who has this letter but it has been around 10yrs or so now. I carry this around with me just in case it is needed.img035.jpg
 
I've watched a few of those videos over the last day - the guys producing the videos are provoking the police and others - but these are all scenarios / questions that we all could be challenged about, so I think the videos are useful to watch it the educational sense.
 
shapeshifter said:
You don't understand the law.
A press photographer could quite legally walk into your garden and take photos through your window.

The only offence is that of civil trespass on the land. There is no offence statutory or civil for 'Taking Photos'

The issue of trespass and taking photos are two completely different things.
Click to expand...


He has me on ignore, so he won't read this.

But for everyone else, please avoid the above advice. It is totally wrong.
 
Pound Coin said:
Interesting.

Has that changed since this Guardian Investigation?

www.theguardian.com

Revealed: the insidious creep of pseudo-public space in London

Jack Shenker reports on a new culture of secrecy and control in public spaces, where private security guards can remove you for protesting, taking photos ... or just looking scruffy
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

"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."
Click to expand...
This post was in reply to shapeshifter.

Would be good to have a response from him to it.
 
Taking photo's and publishing them are two different things.
However no one takes any notice. Paparazzi do it as a living and rarely are photos subject to censorship.
 
Guilty ... LOL. I remember many years ago going to see the remains of the Mary rose in a big warehouse place ,with signs up no photography allowed , so I just stuck it inside my jacket poked the lenses (TLR) out as we walked around looked down at the screen to focus and fired away .always a way
 
Senojbor said:
Taking photo's and publishing them are two different things.
However no one takes any notice. Paparazzi do it as a living and rarely are photos subject to censorship.
Click to expand...


Press images are 'censored' in two ways.

Firstly by IPSO advanced notices (such as that issued for Sir Tom Moore's funeral)
and secondly by the picture desks following the Editors Code published by the IPSO.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top