Harassed for photographing in 'public' spaces

doublem1

doublem1

Messages
472
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
Yes
Interesting guardian article here. I think this has been bought up before. But it's a interesting topic. I consider these privately owned but publicly accessible spaces as 'public' spaces. Taking photographs is not a crime and should not lead to harassment. I for one have been approached, albeit in Bristol, for taking photos near a very popular and well photographed bridge. My response was fairly sour I must say.

How do people usually respond in these situations?


https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...do-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map
 
So easy to appease a complainant if using Sandisk memory cards, may be the same for other makes. Just delete it, show it has been deleted, and when home use a photo recovery program.
 
Interesting article. So they can set what ever rules they like, but don't have to tell anyone what they are?
I guess then it comes under Trespass laws, in that they can ask you to leave their premises, but nothing else. No need to delete images.
 
Last edited:
But then a man points a camera into my sisters house and she phones the police.

Police response, he has broken no law. Google earth has had some laws changed in the courts and nothing we can do about it.
 
The concept of "public space" is a bit flawed IMO... all land is owned by someone, even if it is the government and "for the people." And as such there may be restrictions to behavior/actions that are not readily apparent...
 
But taking the same sort of photos people may take on their phones but with a camera should not invoke a response from anyone in hi vis. Just because it's private property it's still a public space accessible to all as obviously stipulated in their planning permission.
 
sk66 said:
The concept of "public space" is a bit flawed IMO... all land is owned by someone, even if it is the government and "for the people." And as such there may be restrictions to behavior/actions that are not readily apparent...
Click to expand...

But they are still publicly accessible. Having stupid regulations does not mean their security staff can enforce them.
 
GTG said:
But then a man points a camera into my sisters house and she phones the police.

Police response, he has broken no law. Google earth has had some laws changed in the courts and nothing we can do about it.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's not right in the UK, where there is an expectation of privacy, such as in public conveniences. Through peoples windows would also fall under this. I know in the US, Svenson had his work ruled as art, but thats not the same as here.

Which bit of UK law has google had changed?
 
doublem1 said:
But they are still publicly accessible. Having stupid regulations does not mean their security staff can enforce them.
Click to expand...
They absolutely can enforce them. And moreover, it is your responsibility to know what the restrictions are and to comply with them. If they are not published anywhere, then you should ask directly.
 
If there's a barrister specialising in photographic law then s/he may be able to explain the position. The rest of us are just voicing our prejudices.
 
GTG said:
But then a man points a camera into my sisters house and she phones the police.

Police response, he has broken no law. Google earth has had some laws changed in the courts and nothing we can do about it.
Click to expand...
If it was my sister I'd call back and ask for it to be escalated.
Because he may have broken the law, pointing a camera at a house is one thing, but using a long lens to see into the house is different, as is persistent behaviour that would become harassment.
The law is rarely black and white, people who complain about it usually haven't taken time to understand what they can and can't complain about.
 
realspeed said:
So easy to appease a complainant if using Sandisk memory cards, may be the same for other makes. Just delete it, show it has been deleted, and when home use a photo recovery program.
Click to expand...
Any make, provided you stop writing to the card after you delete. But nobody actually has the right to demand you delete an image.
 
I just read this article too with great interest.
I photograph lots of places in London and frequently see signs that say that the area is privately owned. But many areas do not have signs so you've no idea.
The area next to City Hall is ideal for a sunrise photo of Tower Bridge for example, but apparently that is privately owned, so they could be within their rights to shoo you away.
I've not encountered aggressive security guards thankfully though. I have been told that I couldn't use a tripod though, late one night trying to catch Covent Garden with no one in it. On the same late night walk I took a shot of a privately owned shopping area, but I used a tripod on the pavement outside the private street.
To have an area that is private and to have restrictions that are policed, but to not allow members of the public to see the restrictions is rather unfair.
If the government could put a law in place that forced landowners to have their restrictions available to the public, that would at least make things fair.

It's not a new situation though. Even Hampstead Heath is privately owned and you'll get stopped if you try to put a tripod up. I've seen the Royal Parks Police move on a photoshoot taking place in Regents Park, but they were being rather stupid about it, with light stands, softboxes and modifiers, it was rather obvious what they were up to.

I think in the cases of some land owners, they use the excuse of wanting to stop terrorists photographing potential targets, but for a lot, it's the fact they don't want someone else making money from a photograph of their building or taken on their land, so they charge a fee for photography.

The map, linked to the Guardian article, is worth a look if you ever take photos in London. Here
 
Phil V said:
If it was my sister I'd call back and ask for it to be escalated.
Because he may have broken the law, pointing a camera at a house is one thing, but using a long lens to see into the house is different, as is persistent behaviour that would become harassment.
The law is rarely black and white, people who complain about it usually haven't taken time to understand what they can and can't complain about.
Click to expand...
I think it would come down to whether there was some action taken to circumvent a protection to privacy... i.e. if a long lens was used to see through a small gap between curtains. If your sister was standing naked in front of an open window which is readily visible from a public (or separate private) space, then there isn't really a reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
Last edited:
Retune said:
But nobody actually has the right to demand you delete an image.
Click to expand...
Really? If you take a picture illegally you somehow have the right to keep that image? That doesn't make sense to me...

Edit: I think this is confusing a situation where the owner "changes the rules." I.e. they generally allow photography, but they determine you are harassing others and tell you to desist... you have to comply, but the photos were allowed at the time they were taken.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Really? If you take a picture illegally you somehow have the right to keep that image? That doesn't make sense to me...
.
Click to expand...
If you take a photo illegally, the photo is 'evidence' the authorities have a right to seize your gear but a judge would frown upon the destruction of evidence.
 
sk66 said:
I think it would come down to whether the was some action taken to circumvent a protection to privacy... i.e. if a long lens was used to see through a small gap between curtains. If your sister was standing naked in front of an open window which is readily visible from a public (or separate private) space, then there isn't really a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...
As I said it's not black and white. :)
 
Phil V said:
If you take a photo illegally, the photo is 'evidence' the authorities have a right to seize your gear but a judge would frown upon the destruction of evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes. If it's evidence in a criminal investigation, deleting it would be a serious crime in itself. If no crime was committed in the taking, it's destruction of property - also a criminal act.

Phil V said:
As I said it's not black and white.
Click to expand...
It would be if I was taking it. I only use black and white film!

Steve.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I think it would come down to whether there was some action taken to circumvent a protection to privacy... i.e. if a long lens was used to see through a small gap between curtains. If your sister was standing naked in front of an open window which is readily visible from a public (or separate private) space, then there isn't really a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...
Phil V said:
As I said it's not black and white. :)
Click to expand...

'Expectation of privacy'

See the case of the Police helicopter filming nudist beaches etc...
 
Steve Smith said:
Yes. If it's evidence in a criminal investigation, deleting it would be a serious crime in itself. If no crime was committed in the taking, it's destruction of property - also a criminal act.
Click to expand...
Ok, so let's say you take a photo on private property when it was clearly stated that you could not... and agreeing to that was a condition of entry agreed to by you (that doesn't really matter IMO, but just to make it "easier"). You are caught taking the photos and told to desist and either delete the images or turn over the cards.

IMO, you don't have grounds to stand on... you can comply and in exchange they won't prosecute. Or you can refuse, in which case they can detain you and call the authorities, who can then confiscate the evidence for use in the prosecution that is going to occur.
 
Byker28i said:
Sorry but that's not right in the UK, where there is an expectation of privacy, such as in public conveniences. Through peoples windows would also fall under this. I know in the US, Svenson had his work ruled as art, but thats not the same as here.

Which bit of UK law has google had changed?
Click to expand...

That is what she was told. Google go around the whole country with 360 degree cameras and photograph the bejesus out of everything in their path. I assume the law they had changed was to do with taking a photo of a house with a window with open curtains. I cant be bothered to look it up though, if the man comes back he will not be standing there for long next time.
 
Byker28i said:
'Expectation of privacy'

See the case of the Police helicopter filming nudist beaches etc...
Click to expand...
That case hasn't been decided. But I think that if the locations were otherwise suitably "private" other than from the air, then they may be found at fault because the helicopter was used expressly to circumvent those protections of privacy. However, if the filming were incidental to required/normal operations then I don't think they would be found at fault.
 
sk66 said:
Ok, so let's say you take a photo on private property when it was clearly stated that you could not... and agreeing to that was a condition of entry agreed to by you (that doesn't really matter IMO, but just to make it "easier"). You are caught taking the photos and told to desist and either delete the images or turn over the cards.

IMO, you don't have grounds to stand on... you can comply and in exchange they won't prosecute. Or you can refuse, in which case they can detain you and call the authorities, who can then confiscate the evidence for use in the prosecution that is going to occur.
Click to expand...
I think it's a civil matter and they can sue you.
 
sk66 said:
Really? If you take a picture illegally you somehow have the right to keep that image?
Click to expand...

There are only a handful of circumstances (think three or four) where it is illegal to take photographs in the UK (Eng & Wales); ie specifically proscribed by law.

In any other circumstances, you are taking a photograph without a licence; ie trespass to land. That's a civil tort, not a criminal offence.
If a security guard forces you to delete an image, that would be trespass to (your) goods (property)
.
 
sk66 said:
Ok, so let's say you take a photo on private property when it was clearly stated that you could not... and agreeing to that was a condition of entry agreed to by you (that doesn't really matter IMO, but just to make it "easier"). You are caught taking the photos and told to desist and either delete the images or turn over the cards.

IMO, you don't have grounds to stand on... you can comply and in exchange they won't prosecute. Or you can refuse, in which case they can detain you and call the authorities, who can then confiscate the evidence for use in the prosecution that is going to occur.
Click to expand...

That's for you to decide. They can take you to court I guess and that's for you to decide if you want to take the chance. The chances are they won't.

Remember though, that the property we are talking about here is not property that you enter or pay to enter. This is privately owned land that is open to the public. There is no entry point, no tickets, no terms and conditions and if you read the article you will see that in most cases the land owners will not publish their rules and there are no signs indicating that photography is not allowed. In fact, In many cases people don't even realise they are on private land.
 
GTG said:
That is what she was told. Google go around the whole country with 360 degree cameras and photograph the bejesus out of everything in their path. I assume the law they had changed was to do with taking a photo of a house with a window with open curtains. I cant be bothered to look it up though, if the man comes back he will not be standing there for long next time.
Click to expand...


Google Street View hasn't changed or caused to be changed any law in the UK (Eng/Wales).
 
sk66 said:
Ok, so let's say you take a photo on private property when it was clearly stated that you could not... and agreeing to that was a condition of entry agreed to by you (that doesn't really matter IMO, but just to make it "easier"). You are caught taking the photos and told to desist and either delete the images or turn over the cards.

IMO, you don't have grounds to stand on... you can comply and in exchange they won't prosecute. Or you can refuse, in which case they can detain you and call the authorities, who can then confiscate the evidence for use in the prosecution that is going to occur.
Click to expand...


Huge amounts wrong with that post.

The taking of the photograph contrary to T&Cs of entry would be Trespass Ab Initio. The sole remedy for which is civial court action.

The landlord (and/or his agents) may request that you stop and may also request that you leave the premises. If you refuse they may use 'reasonable force' to evict you.

They may not however retain your property or require you to delete images. Nor may they 'detain you' which would be trespass against/to the person.
 
sphexx said:
I think it's a civil matter and they can sue you.
Click to expand...
I *think* that if you break one of the conditions of entry your actions then constitute trespass.
DemiLion said:
Huge amounts wrong with that post.

The taking of the photograph contrary to T&Cs of entry would be Trespass Ab Initio. The sole remedy for which is civial court action.

The landlord (and/or his agents) may request that you stop and may also request that you leave the premises. If you refuse they may use 'reasonable force' to evict you.

They may not however retain your property or require you to delete images. Nor may they 'detain you' which would be trespass against/to the person.
Click to expand...
Ok, so it's strictly civil law and "the authorities" have no legal role unless a criminal violation has occurred. So you can refuse and they can't do anything about it *at the time*... but you're not "right" nor "in the clear." You are open to civil prosecution and the use of those images is highly questionable.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Ok, so let's say you take a photo on private property when it was clearly stated that you could not... and agreeing to that was a condition of entry agreed to by you (that doesn't really matter IMO, but just to make it "easier"). You are caught taking the photos and told to desist and either delete the images or turn over the cards.

IMO, you don't have grounds to stand on... you can comply and in exchange they won't prosecute. Or you can refuse, in which case they can detain you and call the authorities, who can then confiscate the evidence for use in the prosecution that is going to occur.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, in UK law, a court order is needed to demand deletion of an image.
 
Because you said:


GTG said:
Google earth has had some laws changed in the courts and nothing we can do about it.
Click to expand...

and have produced no proof. Privacy laws in the UK haven't altered because of Google's Street View project. That part is pretty easy to ascertain. If anything the Information Commissioner has curtailed their actions in some cases.

The privacy laws surrounding photography in this country haven't really altered since 1998; ie if your actions can be viewed from a public space without any undue effort, then they are not private.

Ironically the Editor's Code/IPSO regulations are actually stricter than the law regarding this.
 
ecoleman said:
That's for you to decide. They can take you to court I guess and that's for you to decide if you want to take the chance. The chances are they won't.

Remember though, that the property we are talking about here is not property that you enter or pay to enter. This is privately owned land that is open to the public. There is no entry point, no tickets, no terms and conditions and if you read the article you will see that in most cases the land owners will not publish their rules and there are no signs indicating that photography is not allowed. In fact, In many cases people don't even realise they are on private land.
Click to expand...
Legally, I don't think the rules have to be published. I don't think they have a requirement to inform you, rather you have a requirement to find out. However, the fact that the areas are seemingly public is quite problematic.
I think that unknowingly breaking a conditional requirement, particularly if they are not published anywhere, would put you in the position of having committed an "innocent infringement."
 
sk66 said:
And that order could be handed down by a civil court...
Click to expand...

Probably, I don't know the exact details.

Just wanted to provide the information that if anyone demands you delete something, you don't need to - they need to take proper action through the appropriate channels before you have to yield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top