Giving up photography ?

just jon

just jon

Messages
75
Name
Jonathon
Edit My Images
No
I have just reading up on laws of photography . They are enough to make any photographer who is just starting up , to think why bother just give up ! , but I have been back photographing after a long gap , boy laws have changed , but I wont give up just yet but sticking to flowers etc. for now . Any idea were to get the current laws on were you can or cant take photographs .
 
It's become more difficult if you are referring to taking pictures of urban buildings with over zealous security staff etc, but it's still legal to take pictures in a public place AND from a public place, dont let the barstewards grind you down !
 
in the uk its pretty simple - you can take photos on your own land, on any public land, and any private land where the landowner gives permission.

the tricky bit is knowing whether you are on public land or not because it isnt always obvious (and there are also some provisos arround some govt owned land like military bases , and other instalations relating to national security).

However its not exactly rocket science nor has it changed appreciably in recent years.
 
Graham00 said:
It's become more difficult if you are referring to taking pictures of urban buildings with over zealous security staff etc, but it's still legal to take pictures in a public place AND from a public place, dont let the barstewards grind you down !
Click to expand...

well put

Les :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
 
Lez325 said:
your rights a a photographer are no different to your rights as an everyday person here in the UK
Click to expand...

+1

And don't forget your responsibilities. It would be better for photography as a whole if as many photographers were as conscious of their responsibilities as there are shouting about rights.
 
just jon said:
Ok what about your rights then?
Click to expand...

Same as anyone else.

I'm not sure what the issue is??
 
odd jim said:
Same as anyone else.

I'm not sure what the issue is??
Click to expand...

Everyone else that do not have a camera do not get stopped and asked what they are doing for no reason.
 
Rico said:
Everyone else that do not have a camera do not get stopped and asked what they are doing for no reason.
Click to expand...

That's human nature I'm afraid, nothing to do with law.

I'd love to see a copy of the Photographers Act 2012 but it's not been written yet! Maybe TP could draft one for the House of Commons??

The only laws that could interfere are;

Terrorism Act (just don't be silly what you photograph)
Official Secrets Act (as above)
Sexual Offences Act (don't be a voyeur!)

...and none are specific to photography.

Just use common sense and you won't have a problem. I've not been stopped in 20 years.
 
Last edited:
I read a lot of posts on here about not being able to take photos and all kinds of stories about being collered by security staff. I take hundreds of photographs all over the place and no one has ever stopped me.

Do you think may be I don't look professional enough to bother them?
 
just jon said:
I have just reading up on laws of photography . They are enough to make any photographer who is just starting up , to think why bother just give up !.
Click to expand...


I don't think you need to worry about giving up. I think you'll find find that you haven't started yet! So at least it won't be too much of a problem for you to give up. :-)
 
odd jim said:
The only laws that could interfere are;

Terrorism Act (just don't be silly what you photograph)
Official Secrets Act (as above)
Sexual Offences Act (don't be a voyeur!)

...and none are specific to photography.
.
Click to expand...

Countryside and rights of way act (being on a footpath or other public right of way does not give you the right to take photos , or to do anything else other than freely pass and repass over private land - a camera is considered a usual accompanyment under the act (as is a dog and a vareity of other things) so you can freely carry camera equipment with you , but the Act does not confer the right to use it. )

Its never happened to me but it must come up a fair bit because I was a rights of way officer for 5 years and this was a third most often answered question
 
big soft moose said:
Countryside and rights of way act (being on a footpath or other public right of way does not give you the right to take photos , or to do anything else other than freely pass and repass over private land - a camera is considered a usual accompanyment under the act (as is a dog and a vareity of other things) so you can freely carry camera equipment with you , but the Act does not confer the right to use it. )

Its never happened to me but it must come up a fair bit because I was a rights of way officer for 5 years and this was a third most often answered question
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I thought - though I'm happy to be corrected - that a public footpath was treated in the same way as a public road or any other public space and did allow you to take shots. Back along, when the A30 was being built between Honiton & Exeter, the police didn't try to stop us shooting Swampy and his mates at Trollheim being evicted by the security mob as long as we were on one of the footpaths. Perhaps things have changed since 1997?
 
jon ryan said:
That's interesting. I thought - though I'm happy to be corrected - that a public footpath was treated in the same way as a public road or any other public space and did allow you to take shots. Back along, when the A30 was being built between Honiton & Exeter, the police didn't try to stop us shooting Swampy and his mates at Trollheim being evicted by the security mob as long as we were on one of the footpaths. Perhaps things have changed since 1997?
Click to expand...

Its a common misconception - but the difference is that a public road is public land , a public right of way is a public right to cross private land and litteraly only confers the right to 'freely pass and repass' by allowed means.

With regard to your latter point The law hasnt changed substantially in this regard since the 1949 access to the countryside act , although the issue arround 'usual accompaniement' was tightened up in the 2000 act.

The reason the police didnt give a stuff about it is that misuse of a public right of way (ie doing anything on it other than freely passing and repassing by allowed means) commits an act of tresspass against the landowner - and that is a civil matter not a criminal one.

99.9% of the time the landowner doesnt care about various minor "misuses" - but people can come to greif with the 0.1% if they try to insist on rights they don't have

(incidentally, the most cited defence that the landowner hadnt clearly signed or said that photography/cycling/fishing/ or whatever isnt allowed has been knocked down by case law in '09 which established that if one is on a public footpath (for example) and the route is clearly signed as a public footpath, then the permisible activities on that route are established in the act and further prohibitive signing is not necessary - that particular case was about cycling on a footpath , but the principle could be applied to any non covered activity )
 
Last edited:
Think there is a fair amount of paranoia involved. I walk around taking photos of whatever I fancy without even thinking about any laws. That includes shots of buildings and people and even on private land. I am new to photography but not once in the last six months have I ever been stopped and asked what I was doing.
I have overheard a couple of people say "that man just took a photo of us" but they didn't talk to me about it. If they did I would happily delete the photo if they had a problem with it (whether I have to or not as that is just polite)
 
Ah! Right, the civil vs criminal bit is probably why they didn't try to stop us. (Actually, most of them were pretty friendly). The landowner was, if I remember, quite sympathetic to the protesters, even though he accepted the need for the bypass. And presumably some compensation as well. The only time I saw any snappers getting grief was when they tried to shoot cops who seemed to have accidentally forgotten to put on their collar numbers.
 
I say just get out with your camera and enjoy it,every now and then your going to rub someone up the wrong way i this life,no matter what you are doing.

Just try to keep :)
 
just jon said:
I have just reading up on laws of photography . They are enough to make any photographer who is just starting up , to think why bother just give up ! .
Click to expand...

I think someones winding you up... what laws?
 
jonneymendoza said:
its frouned apon taking pictures in most private places and definetly a no no taking pictures of children in a public place even if it your own child
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that the above isn't quite true.... still not law is it?
 
All this "hysteria" about so called "photographers rights" is getting ridiculous.

As long as we use common sense and, if stopped, remain calm and stay polite, there should be little or no problem.

Just go out and enjoy your hobby.

Andy
 
jonneymendoza said:
its frouned apon taking pictures in most private places and definetly a no no taking pictures of children in a public place even if it your own child
Click to expand...

What a load of rubbish.

If you have permission you can photograph in private places, as for photographing children that is the biggest load of rubbish I have heard. I have hundreds if photos of my kids in public places and they even have other peoples kids in the shot.
 
Last edited:
The only place I've ever had issues was on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar when I was there with work. I was taking photos of our aircraft and the American security forces came and told me I couldn't. But that's obviously (in their eyes and the governments) a security issue even tho shots were for personal memories.

Can't ever imagine having issues in the uk.
 
jonneymendoza said:
its frouned apon taking pictures in most private places and definetly a no no taking pictures of children in a public place even if it your own child
Click to expand...
I was in Jessops today, playing with an X100.

I took a photo in a private place, AND there were children in the shot.

Lock me up now.
 
Davec223 said:
What a load of rubbish.

If you have permission you can photograph in private places, as for photographing children that is the biggest load of rubbish I have heard. I have hundreds if photos of my kids in public places and they even have other peoples kids in the shot.
Click to expand...

Blame the society. Its fround apon but not illegal
 
jonneymendoza said:
Blame the society. Its fround apon but not illegal
Click to expand...

Its not frowned upon by anyone with half a brain - its only the paranoid moron tendency who think every photographer is a potential paedophile

I do tend to agree that setting out to photograph other peoples kids without their consent is asking for trouble , but theres no problem with photographing your own kids in public, or on private land with permission - nor with photographing other peoples kids incidental to the main target.

For example a mate of mine asked me to get some shots of his kids playing junior 7s - lots of other kids in the shots and the only comments I recieved from other parents were along the lines of could they get prints/web ready files etc.
 
HMansfield said:
I was in Jessops today, playing with an X100.

I took a photo in a private place, AND there were children in the shot.

Lock me up now.
Click to expand...

Do that. Next to a school and watch parents and security guard call you a p*** and call the police. U won't go to jail but will get hassled and embarrassed in public
 
jonneymendoza said:
its frouned apon taking pictures in most private places and definetly a no no taking pictures of children in a public place even if it your own child
Click to expand...

What laws are these exactly???!?!?
 
hes not talking about laws jim, hes talking about pandering to parental paranoia ;)

personally i've never had a problem shooting where there are kids about - even if kids are in shot, probably because i'm confident rather than furtive and if anyone asks what i'm doing I pleasantly tell them and show them

of course down here it also helps that most of the kids and parents in the village know me as we reguarly do stuff with the school - but even when I worked in the much more anonymous milton keynes I never had a problem.

IMo if you wander about slightly furtive worried about being stopped then you probably will do because the body language will scream 'up to no good' whereas if you walk about with confident , open body language which says "i'm a freindly guy with nothing to hide" you are far less likely to have problems (asumming of course you arent asking for trouble by doing something stupid like taking candids of kids in a school playground - not illegal but hardly sensible)
 
jonneymendoza said:
its frouned apon taking pictures in most private places and definetly a no no taking pictures of children in a public place even if it your own child
Click to expand...

Taking photos of people's most private places probably is frowned upon, certainly in public.. ..
 
There is a 'free' lens cloth with photographers rights with this weeks A.P one regarding Police and one for Rent-a-Cops if that helps you.
Have you ever been stopped taking a photograph on a public footpath on private land?

I do know what you mean about taking photos around kids though, often get some funny looks when taking wildlife pictures in the local park with my long lens. It helps to have a child in tow, even if you have to borrow one for the afternoon....
 
Bambi72 said:
Have you ever been stopped taking a photograph on a public footpath on private land?
Click to expand...

I havent - but as i said higher up I used to be a rights of way officer and we used to get asked that a lot (the answer being that being on a public ROW doesnt give you the right to take photos as you are still on private land)

That said I've never encountered a landowner who was bothered about hobby photographers taking pics on footpaths , it was always in the context of either the hunt sab/animal rights people documenting hunts, anti gm protesters photographing crops , or people doing comercial work without paying - ie people who had already done something to p the landowner off.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Do that. Next to a school and watch parents and security guard call you a p*** and call the police. U won't go to jail but will get hassled and embarrassed in public
Click to expand...

I also have lots of photos of my kids at school, as big soft moose said, I think it depends how confident you are, I have never, not once had a confrontation over photography on a public our private place or when photographing my kids, even withaddle in the kids play area in the park.
So just to summarise I have taken photos on private land and of my kids in public with other children in the shot, I even have got photographs of them at sports days and in nativity plays, again with other kids in the shot. I have not be hassled by other parents our the police and Never been embarrassed for taking photographs.
 
It is sadly a typical Daily Mail reaction from ignorant parents. If they are really concerned about pedophilia then maybe they need to actually increase their knowledge of it and discover the real risks and activities around it.

It is not a casual photographer taking pictures of kids at play...
 
I havent - but as i said higher up I used to be a rights of way officer and we used to get asked that a lot (the answer being that being on a public ROW doesnt give you the right to take photos as you are still on private land)
Click to expand...

This answer is a paranoia inciting answer imo, Its written from the premise of what rights you don't have rather than what rights you do have. Hence these types of reply actually add to the paranoia problem. Long term this inevitably will and has, confused the general public into even more false paranoid questioning of us photographers.

Surely a clearer, less big brother, answer would be, being on a public ROW doesn't remove your rights to take photographs, although the land owner can demand you stop if they wish.

My son a few years ago, 14 ish, said to me during a debate about photography as he was studying for his GCSE ... That he had actually been taught in class that taking photographs of people in the street needed their permission, on returning home he then showed me the referred course work ...Yep their photography teacher had taken it upon himself to wrongly teach a whole generation of a very large school about some rights they didn't have any-more. ..most of it wrong, all of it very damaging and limiting to their lives and our history being captured by photographs...let alone feeding the paranoia and in return the private security companies etc who actually come to believe all the hype talking. :gag:
 
Last edited:
You're more likely to be confronted taking pics of your kids at play in a play ground if you are an adult male
sexism or female mother paranoia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top