Harassed for photographing in 'public' spaces

GTG said:
Why did the police say they have then ?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't want to seem argumentative, but what you've posted is hearsay, the law is simple to check.

Like I posted earlier, the law is quite straightforward in this regard, we didn't hear what your sister told the 'police' or what they said in response, but without calling anyone a liar, your version of events doesn't hold water.

1, it certainly 'can' be illegal to take photos from public land of someone where they might expect privacy
2, There's been no change in that law due to Google
 
Only a court can (legally*) force you to delete an image. If it is deleted without court instruction, the action could be interprted as destroying police evidence.

*A gang of knuckle dragging p***heads aggressively demanding deletion may also be able to force you to delete an image!
 
GTG said:
Why should I. I believe them. Its you who says its false, not me mate
Click to expand...
Well, there's a number of us telling you th elaw hasn't been changed by Google, I don't think they yet have statute over UK law :D In fact many times they've pixilated people/numberplates etc

So what did this photographer do, take photo's outside your sisters house, wide angle landscape or stand right by the window deliberately targetiing your sister through the pane (cos obviously glass and reflections are a right pain)?
Which country/county was this?
 
Can I also point the right honourable gentleman at the following information

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q717.htm

It is not illegal to take photographs or video footage in public places unless it is for criminal or terrorist purposes.

There will be places where you have access as a member of the public, but will have to ask permission or may be prevented altogether. These could include stately homes, museums, churches, shopping malls, railway stations and council / government buildings. You need to check the situation out on a case by case basis.

The taking of photographs of an individual without their consent is a civil matter. Taking a photo of a person where they can expect privacy (inside their home or garden) is likely to be a breach of privacy laws. The other issue to consider is what you plan to do with the photograph afterwards. If the picture is of an individual, perhaps as a portrait or character study, and you intend to publish it in any way (on the internet, in a book or at a gallery), it would be appropriate and may avoid unnecessary complications if you ask that person for permission, many media organisations are international and will not accept an identifiable photograph of a person without a signed release. If the photo could be seen as defamatory in some way then you would leave yourself open to civil proceedings.
 
That's wrong in regard to the UK. No consent is required for commercial use as long as the image does not defame the subject or 'pass off' their endorsement of a product.

Edit: Unless the images have been commissioned for private and domestic purposes.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
That's wrong in regard to the UK. No consent is required for commercial use as long as the image does not defame the subject or 'pass off' their endorsement of a product.

Edit: Unless the images have been commissioned for private and domestic purposes.
Click to expand...
I thought it should be listed as "NO (with exceptions)"
The defamation consideration should apply to publishing the image in any manner(?).
 
Last edited:
It should but since 2013, and the change of the defamation laws in this country, the way that the law can be used as a vehicle to prevent publication has drastically altered.
 
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...

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.
Click to expand...

Define taking a photo illegally.
 
sk66 said:
:) purely intellectual...
Actually, the laws are the same here... I just made a mistake in what I wrote at one point.
Click to expand...
The law regarding trespass is very, very different between USA and England & Wales.
 
I was once sent by the local rag to stand across the road of a school entrance and take pix of pupils going into the school, but from the back so that they could not be recognised. I didn't like the idea, but i was covering a shift for them and did as i was told. After clicking a few pix, the headteacher came out and asked what i was doing. I explained that the telegraph had sent me there as they were running a story on the merger of the school in question and another local school. The headteacher recognised me from other photo jobs that i'd covered for the paper, but politely asked me to stop taking pix. I kindly obliged and left. Back at the office, i explained to the picture editor what had happened and he said i'd done the right thing to leave. Due to the paper being a local one, they didn't want to upset anyone. However, he added that if it had been a national paper, they would have told the teacher to f**k off as they were on the public road and could do what they wanted..... ..... .....
 
That's a EFF OFF big no-no.

Editors code 6.2.

If it had been a national paper, they wouldn't have f^cked up like that in the first place.
 
doublem1 said:
Define taking a photo illegally.
Click to expand...
Isn't civil law a legal system, and therefore not complying "illegal" (unless you have a different word for it)? So taking a picture on private, or government/military property where it is not permitted would be illegal (criminal offense or civil trespass)

sphexx said:
The law regarding trespass is very, very different between USA and England & Wales.
Click to expand...
The main difference I see is that in the US knowingly trespassing is a criminal offense, i.e. entering posted property (contrary to TOU) or refusing to leave after being given notice (unless a tenant/guest of tenant)... but that wasn't part of the discussion as such.

What I find to be problematic is the concept/assumption of "public property" when there really is no such thing... all property is owned and regulated by "someone" and we must comply with those requirements. It's just that some government owned property has no additional regulations/restriction in place (i.e. public property). It's the assumption that we automatically have "the right" without question, when that really isn't the case. And not knowing the regulations/restrictions is not an excuse (unless your laws are significantly different).
 
GTG said:
Why did the police say they have then ?
Click to expand...

Was it a Plolice officer or a police control room call handler that said it?

It is not uncommon for the Police to misquote the law as is often seen police camera action etc.
 
DemiLion said:
That's a EFF OFF big no-no.

Editors code 6.2.

If it had been a national paper, they wouldn't have f^cked up like that in the first place.
Click to expand...

A national paper such as the News of the World you mean? ;-)
 
sk66 said:
What I find to be problematic is the concept/assumption of "public property" when there really is no such thing... all property is owned and regulated by "someone" and we must comply with those requirements. It's just that some government owned property has no additional regulations/restriction in place (i.e. public property). It's the assumption that we automatically have "the right" without question, when that really isn't the case. And not knowing the regulations/restrictions is not an excuse (unless your laws are significantly different).
Click to expand...
Well that's the thing about (most of) us Brits, we consider property owned by a local authority or the state to be 'ours' and weirdly the owners do too. It fosters mutual respect and means we don't have the distrust of government that seems to be common in the US.
So in short we do consider public property to be 'ours' rather than owned by someone else. Because bizarrely it's owned by us
 
alfbranch said:
Was it a Plolice officer or a police control room call handler that said it?

It is not uncommon for the Police to misquote the law as is often seen police camera action etc.
Click to expand...

Dunno, the maker of that statement hasn't been back to explain further, such as where this happened. It may have been in a different country with different laws.
 
Phil V said:
Well that's the thing about (most of) us Brits, we consider property owned by a local authority or the state to be 'ours' and weirdly the owners do too. It fosters mutual respect and means we don't have the distrust of government that seems to be common in the US.
So in short we do consider public property to be 'ours' rather than owned by someone else. Because bizarrely it's owned by us
Click to expand...

On the original subject of photos in public/private places, it's a nice comfy idea but in practice it really isn't that simple, is it?
My local library (I think it's still open) is owned by my local authority but if I went in there randomly taking photos I would expect to be asked to desist and/or leave.
Coincidentally my local authority also owns the local swimming pool and I am sure that if I went in there randomly taking photos I would get the same response, or worse.
I could go on but I think you will get my drift, it isn't as clear cut as you make it sound.
 
gramps said:
On the original subject of photos in public/private places, it's a nice comfy idea but in practice it really isn't that simple, is it?
My local library (I think it's still open) is owned by my local authority but if I went in there randomly taking photos I would expect to be asked to desist and/or leave.
Coincidentally my local authority also owns the local swimming pool and I am sure that if I went in there randomly taking photos I would get the same response, or worse.
I could go on but I think you will get my drift, it isn't as clear cut as you make it sound.
Click to expand...
My local authority owns thousands of acres of space, the vast majority of which I'm free to take pictures in.
If I really want to take pictures in some parts, I'd have to make arrangements. Whilst I'm not free to rock up and take pictures in the swimming pool, I can do so by arrangement. ;)

Let's not overcomplicate the issue of 'public space' by bringing in personal expectations of privacy.

The actual article is about private corporations owning space which is confused with publicly owned space. Which is a very different issue entirely.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Let's not overcomplicate the issue of 'public space' by bringing in personal expectations of privacy.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's overcomplicating things, it's highlighting a popular but incorrect view that a place to which the public have access is a public place ... it isn't.
The very fact that you would need to "make arrangements" applies to all such sites, either by complying with restrictions or requesting permission. :)
 
DemiLion said:
That's wrong in regard to the UK. No consent is required for commercial use as long as the image does not defame the subject or 'pass off' their endorsement of a product.

Edit: Unless the images have been commissioned for private and domestic purposes.
Click to expand...
Consent may not be required by law, but would any respectable agency use a photo that identifies someone without it?
 
I think the reason the land owners are not publishing any rules is that they know they are on questionable ground. If they publish there will be a kick back which could result in the law being changed in favour of the public.
 
Last edited:
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...

Why delete it in the first place - pretending to is deception. Just stand your ground, know your rights and REFUSE POINT BLANK UNTIL THEY CAN SHOW YOU THE LAW THAT GIVES THEM THE AUTHORITY TO DEMAND SUCH ACTIOON. (Polite way of saying 'Go Forth and Make Babies...)

robp said:
Only a court can (legally*) force you to delete an image. If it is deleted without court instruction, the action could be interprted as destroying police evidence.

*A gang of knuckle dragging p***heads aggressively demanding deletion may also be able to force you to delete an image!
Click to expand...

Why does a pi55head have any more authority than someone else? They get the same response from me as anyone / everyone else - maybe that makes me 'one of the photographers than gives everyone else a bad name' ? I don't know. Personally I think the fat Aussie with his Celebrity Pictures in the late 80s and 90s was the biggest cause of 'photographers getting a bad name'.

jakeblu said:
Consent may not be required by law, but would any respectable agency use a photo that identifies someone without it?
Click to expand...

Name me ONE 'respectable agency'. There are none left, they were all swallowed up by Getty and the like. So my assertion they are no longer respectable stands! The PA or Reuters, but they are not general libraries.
 
Time and time again we get these threads about photographers rights and permission to take photos ect.

What happens is that people look at this in one of the two different ways(mainly due to their persona) that it can be looked at.

One way is people in daily life go around thinking they have to do what the law allows them to do. IE everything is unlawful unless there is a law allowing it.

The other way is that people go around thinking that they can do anything they want unless there is a law against it.

The latter is the law in this country you can do anything you want unless there is a law against it. It is for other people, police,Courts,ect to prove you cannot do it and they must do that within the law.

judge.jpg.png
 
Last edited:
shapeshifter said:
Time and time again we get these threads about photographers rights and permission to take photos ect.

What happens is that people look at this in one of the two different ways(mainly due to their persona) that it can be looked at.

One way is people in daily life go around thinking they have to do what the law allows them to do. IE everything is unlawful unless there is a law allowing it.

The other way is that people go around thinking that they can do anything they want unless there is a law against it.

The latter is the law in this country you can do anything you want unless there is a law against it. It is for other people, police,Courts,ect to prove you cannot do it and they must do that within the law.

View attachment 106958
Click to expand...
Neither of those is how I look at life. I expect to, and do, take photographs of what interests me. BUT, if my doing so upsets someone, I am not so selfish as to think what I want to do takes precedence over all else and I would not take that photograph. Other people matter even if what I am doing is lawful.

It is entirely down to how selfish the photographer is.
 
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...
There's no expectation of privacy in a public place in the UK. There are additional laws which restrict photography in certain locations. In Germany, where there is an expectation, you need to get a signed release from anyone identifiable in any image you shoot - even street scenes.
 
st599 said:
There's no expectation of privacy in a public place in the UK. There are additional laws which restrict photography in certain locations. In Germany, where there is an expectation, you need to get a signed release from anyone identifiable in any image you shoot - even street scenes.
Click to expand...
Strictly, there is no general expectation of privacy in a public place but there are situations where there can be a specific expectation. An example might be having a heart attack in the street and paramedics are trying to save your life.
 
st599 said:
There's no expectation of privacy in a public place in the UK. There are additional laws which restrict photography in certain locations. In Germany, where there is an expectation, you need to get a signed release from anyone identifiable in any image you shoot - even street scenes.
Click to expand...

Sorry I believe thats wrong. There are places where there is an expectation of privacy such as in public toilets and in the original post of shooting through someones windows. It covers CCTV etc, where exclusion areas (black squares usually) have to be mapped out if the system can see into houses.

See post 44: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...g-in-public-spaces.659306/page-2#post-7896538
 
Last edited:
john.margetts said:
Strictly, there is no general expectation of privacy in a public place but there are situations where there can be a specific expectation. An example might be having a heart attack in the street and paramedics are trying to save your life.
Click to expand...

If the paramedic was trying to save your life, you would be in no postion to take pictures, would you?
 
Byker28i said:
Sorry I believe thats wrong. There are places where there is an expectation of privacy such as in public toilets
Click to expand...

Actually CCTV can be and is used in public toilets, where there is an attempt to control vandalism, drug misue etc and where appropriate information signs are visible. :)

shapeshifter said:
I don't know what you mean?
Click to expand...

If it's left for the police/courts to decide whether you are in the wrong, you've left it too late you are already on the wrong side of the legal process, i.e. the defendant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top