Harassed for photographing in 'public' spaces

DemiLion said:
In the post-Leveson world? Yes.
Click to expand...

Fair point, though my experience was 2005/2006, prior to Leveson. Having said that, I read up on the code after your initial post and it seems there was still a clause that existed back then, though after Leveson, this may have been adjusted furthur? Not sure myself, it was very late when I was trying to take the info in. :)
 
doublem1 said:
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
Click to expand...
When entering on to "Privet land" there should be a notice giving T&C for entry if not then there are NO T&C ...
 
Chaz Photos said:
When entering on to "Privet land" there should be a notice giving T&C for entry if not then there are NO T&C ...
Click to expand...
If you come to my home, which is very much private land, there are no notices of any sort but I would still expect you to comply with any requests I make.
 
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...
the point about deleting images is that if you were e.g. arrested and you had deleted the images they would have no evidence (although we all know they can be recovered)
 
gramps said:
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. :)



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.
Click to expand...
You are assuming the person is in the wrong. Nothing wrong with being a defendant if your in the right. Another preconcived view that if you are a defendant you are guilty? naughty,naughty. I don't want you on my jury Gramps.

This approach is why people will not stand up for their rights they get frightened and take the first option I presented in my earlier post- "that it is against the law unless the law allows it and I must prove it's allowed" when the reality is the otherway round.Everything is allowed unless there is a law against it and they must prove it.

These private companies are not posting any restrictions publicly regarding access beacuse they know there would be a collective backlash which could well result in an alteration to statutory law regarding what a public place is. It could also affect future purchase of land.

By keeping it on a one to one bases when they need to move people on there is only the evidence of single incidents which can then be delt with individually. Where as if the put notices up and publicly announced that they were restricting access to so called public land even people who have no intention of entering the private land could take issue at freedoms being lost. Not just the Guardian.
 
shapeshifter said:
You are assuming the person is in the wrong. Nothing wrong with being a defendant if your in the right. Another preconcived view that if you are a defendant you are guilty? naughty,naughty. I don't want you on my jury Gramps.

This approach is why people will not stand up for their rights they get frightened and take the first option I presented in my earlier post- "that it is against the law unless the law allows it and I must prove it's allowed" when the reality is the otherway round.Everything is allowed unless there is a law against it and they must prove it.

These private companies are not posting any restrictions publicly regarding access beacuse they know there would be a collective backlash which could well result in an alteration to statutory law regarding what a public place is. It could also affect future purchase of land.

By keeping it on a one to one bases when they need to move people on there is only the evidence of single incidents which can then be delt with individually. Where as if the put notices up and publicly announced that they were restricting access to so called public land even people who have no intention of entering the private land could take issue at freedoms being lost. Not just the Guardian.
Click to expand...

No, no, no ... nobody mentioned anything about perceived guilt!
For me the right way is find out beforehand then do the thing the right way ... sorry but only an idiot is going to go through police/court procedures to find out if he/she can take pictures some place, unless of course there is some major public issue involved.
However in most cases it is Private land that is the issue and that involves civil not criminal procedures (and civil procedures can be expensive) ... a landowner can decide what he/she will permit on their land.
 
One of the problems that can and do occur is say at a county fair or dog show or similar. The venue is hired out to the organisers who may or may not appoint their own official photographer.. Here then is the question of is it private or public property when visitors are allowed in paying entrance fee to watch, can they demand you take no photos?

My opinion is if when advertising an event it should be clearly stated that no photos allowed. No good saying on the day posting a notice at the entrance no photography. Individuals taking part in the event can request directly to the photographer no photos which hopefully a photographer will respect, but they can't stop it either.

One answer is to write to the show secretary asking their policy/permission and go from there, but how many would do that
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
One of the problems that can and do occur is say at a county fair or dog show or similar. The venue is hired out to the organisers who may or may not appoint their own official photographer.. Here then is the question of is it private or public property when visitors are allowed in paying entrance fee to watch, can they demand you take no photos?

My opinion is if when advertising an event it should be clearly stated that no photos allowed. No good saying on the day posting a notice at the entrance no photography. Individuals taking part in the event can request directly to the photographer no photos which hopefully a photographer will respect, but they can't stop it either.

One answer is to write to the show secretary asking their policy/permission and go from there, but how many would do that
Click to expand...
There will be terms and conditions associated with the purchase of the ticket and you would be expected to follow anything stipulated there as you enter a contract with the organisers upon purchase.
 
I generally call venues beforehand if I have purchased a ticket for entry, including at gigs. With respect to gigs, the venues rarely prohibit photography apart from the use of flash and actually let the performers decide if photography is allowed.
 
Orangecroc said:
There will be terms and conditions associated with the purchase of the ticket and you would be expected to follow anything stipulated there as you enter a contract with the organisers upon purchase.
Click to expand...
That is fine but places like dog /cat shows etc don't issue tickets they just take money at the door, neither do county agricultural shows

Link
http://www.seas.org.uk/south-of-england-show/

Even just looked at crufts web site no mention about can or can't take photos
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
That is fine but places like dog /cat shows etc don't issue tickets they just take money at the door, neither do county agricultural shows
Click to expand...
Paying for entry is still entering into a contract with the show organisers, checking/not checking the terms of that contract with them is down to you. I'm sure they will be published somewhere or available upon request.
 
gramps said:
Call them what you like, if somebody owns them they are not 'Public'.
Click to expand...

The point of the guardians report is that these places are accessed by the public and yet inforcement is taking place as private land.

So John Marggets post that he does not need notices at his house is irrelevent because his house does not have the public wandering around it on a daily bases unless it has a red light outside of course.
 
realspeed said:
One answer is to write to the show secretary asking their policy/permission and go from there, but how many would do that
Click to expand...

This is what I do if it's an event I'm keen to get good pictures at. Usually such an approach has had a positive response including good tips on when and where the best action is likely to be. On occasion they have made restrictions e.g. no posting on social media.
 
shapeshifter said:
The point of the guardians report is that these places are accessed by the public and yet inforcement is taking place as private land.

So John Marggets post that he does not need notices at his house is irrelevent because his house does not have the public wandering around it on a daily bases unless it has a red light outside of course.
Click to expand...
Not so much irrelevant (it certainly is not) but specific to the post I was replying to.
 
john.margetts said:
Not so much irrelevant (it certainly is not) but specific to the post I was replying to.
Click to expand...

No it's not relevenat to the post you replied to because Chaz photos is refering to the Guardian article not private residences that don't have the public marching around them.He makes a good point saying there should be notices.

This is where these threads go wayward introducing other issues.we need a Chairman "point of order". :eek:
 
john.margetts said:
If you come to my home, which is very much private land, there are no notices of any sort but I would still expect you to comply with any requests I make.
Click to expand...

Different scenario though.
 
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...
You paid for it, but you don't own it... that's the government acting "for the good of the people." The problem is it leads to the perception that you can do "X" anywhere you are allowed to be, and that anywhere you are allowed to be is "public space," when that is clearly not the case. It also leads to the belief that as long as it isn't posted otherwise, you can be there.
It should be easier to know what the rules are in a given location, and it's generally safe to make a reasonable assumption if there is no notice given... as long as you comply with the rules if you are informed otherwise.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
You paid for it, but you don't own it... that's the government acting "for the good of the people." The problem is it leads to the perception that you can do "X" anywhere you are allowed to be, and that anywhere you are allowed to be is "public space," when that is clearly not the case. It also leads to the belief that as long as it isn't posted otherwise, you can be there.
It should be easier to know what the rules are in a given location, and it's generally safe to make a reasonable assumption if there is no notice given... as long as you comply with the rules if you are informed otherwise.
Click to expand...
You're very much mistaken.
For most of us, most of the time we're in public space where we're free to do what we like within the law.

Which is the whole point of the article in the OP, because lots of things that look and feel like public space are now owned by private companies, who have very different rules about what they allow.
 
Anyone ever see the Mark Thomas show "Trespass"?

Much of central London that we would think if as public is now apparently privately owned even down to the footpaths.....interesting stuff....
 
Phil V said:
You're very much mistaken.
For most of us, most of the time we're in public space where we're free to do what we like within the law.
Click to expand...
When did I ever say you couldn't do what was allowed within the law? The problem IMO, is knowing what is allowable w/in the law at any given point... and it's not getting any easier (as the article points out).

Let me give a relatively common scenario... You are a serious enthusiast photographer and you would like to make some money from your photography, so you have a website where you offer your images for sale (zenfolio/smugmug/personal/etc). Are there any public spaces in the UK where this would be restricted?
 
sk66 said:
When did I ever say you couldn't do what was allowed within the law? The problem IMO, is knowing what is allowable w/in the law at any given point... and it's not getting any easier (as the article points out).

Let me give a relatively common scenario... You are a serious enthusiast photographer and you would like to make some money from your photography, so you have a website where you offer your images for sale (zenfolio/smugmug/personal/etc). Are there any public spaces in the UK where this would be restricted?
Click to expand...
The article is about land that's privately owned, which people might 'assume' is publicly owned

It's odd you're twisting the agenda :thinking: because you can't grasp the concept of public ownership.
 
sk66 said:
Let me give a relatively common scenario... You are a serious enthusiast photographer and you would like to make some money from your photography, so you have a website where you offer your images for sale (zenfolio/smugmug/personal/etc). Are there any public spaces in the UK where this would be restricted?
Click to expand...
Apart from the obvious (anywhere around military bases), with English law it is more about what than where.
 
sk66 said:
...You are a serious enthusiast photographer and you would like to make some money from your photography, so you have a website where you offer your images for sale (zenfolio/smugmug/personal/etc). Are there any public spaces in the UK where this would be restricted?
Click to expand...

The answer depends on three things (all of which have been mentioned earlier)

1) What you define as 'public space'
There are a significant number of areas which the public can freely enter, and which are not obviously different to a publicly owned open space, but are actually privately owned.
If it is genuinely a publicly owned space, then in general you are free to take photographs and sell them if you choose (subject to 2 & 3 below).
If it is privately owned land with general public access, then it's up to the owners of the land to decide what is, and is not, permitted. Which is the main point of this thread - often an area which appears public is in fact private, and restrictions on photography can apply (and may well only be obvious when someone shouts at you to stop!)

2) When are you taking the photographs?
Sometimes publicly owned land is used as the site for an event - when this occurs, there are often restrictions on photography, but these are usually fairly obvious (though sometimes badly defined, EG 'No Professional Cameras').

3) What / How are you taking photographs?
Most photography is fine, but there are exceptions - being on public land does not mean you can use a long lens to see into a space where someone might expect degree of privacy, there are also some military / security areas where you are not permitted to photograph them.
There are also cases where photography is OK, but the way you are doing it means you will be asked to stop - setting up a complex lighting rig that blocks a busy street, for example, will probably end up with you getting told to move!
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
The article is about land that's privately owned, which people might 'assume' is publicly owned

It's odd you're twisting the agenda :thinking: because you can't grasp the concept of public ownership.
Click to expand...
I don't see how I'm "twisting" the agenda... The issue is the difficulty in knowing what is/isn't allowed in a given location. In the article it's due to it being unmarked private property, but the issue is really much larger than that.
 
Faldrax said:
The answer depends on three things (all of which have been mentioned earlier)...
Click to expand...
You can generalize all you want, and you can usually safely make assumptions based upon those generalizations, but that is prone to being wrong at times. I chose that scenario because it was easy for me to find regulations applicable to public places in the UK where the "general rules" don't apply. And I am rather certain there are many other locations/scenarios where the general rules would be questionable/wrong.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
You can generalize all you want, and you can usually safely make assumptions based upon those generalizations, but that is prone to being wrong at times. I chose that scenario because it was easy for me to find regulations applicable to public places in the UK where the "general rules" don't apply. And I am rather certain there are many other locations/scenarios where the general rules would be questionable/wrong.
Click to expand...

Which is what my post said!

To quote from The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy "We Demand Rigidly defined areas of Doubt and Uncertainty!" :)

The 'rules' on photography in the UK are based on a general principle of "It's OK" (IE There is no specific law allowing or forbidding photography in general), with a range of exceptions where photography is either restricted or prohibited, some of which are direct laws (EG No nude photography of under 18's - which includes criminalising nude self portraits), but the majority of those that will affect people are indirect (IE Conditions of Entry restricting photography).
 
sk66 said:
I don't see how I'm "twisting" the agenda... The issue is the difficulty in knowing what is/isn't allowed in a given location. In the article it's due to it being unmarked private property, but the issue is really much larger than that.
Click to expand...
On marked or unmarked (whatever that means) private property the law is that you can go there and the owners have the right to ask you to leave. If you damage their property they can sue you. You also have to understand that there are extensive rights of way over private land in England which are inviolate and landowners must keep them unobstructed. I think you do have this in your country?
 
sphexx said:
On marked or unmarked (whatever that means) private property the law is that you can go there and the owners have the right to ask you to leave. If you damage their property they can sue you. You also have to understand that there are extensive rights of way over private land in England which are inviolate and landowners must keep them unobstructed. I think you do have this in your country?
Click to expand...
Kind of, "marked private property" means some form of notice posted as to the restrictions applicable with which you have to comply. The only real difference (I believe) is that in the US entering onto property posted with some form of "no trespassing" signs posted, or refusing to leave after being notified, is a criminal offense rather than a civil offense. We do have right of way rules across private property applicable in some instances, generally limited to public roads.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top