No Togging in Edinburgh

[contrastingLight]

I have just been told to put my camera away by security in a section of princess street gardens which is hosting a carnival with a big wheel & merry go round .
I had spotted a fellow togger getting grief from security, so to show support I set up my tripod to capture some shots.
Before I could even get my camera out my bag security approached and I asked me what I was doing.

Taking photos was my reply......

His reply was because this area had been hired from the council by the contractor they are requesting no photos are taken within the grounds.
I can apply for a permit, however he was unable tell me where from.

You can take some shots from princes street just outside the railings .....

Slightly disheartened at the state of society.

Away to set up on princess street !!

 

[Badger UK]

The world has gone mad.

 

[CopeImages]

Send it to your local paper.

It's only used because people don't stand up to it. If people stand up to it then they (the individuals responsible for enforcing it) have to categorically prove what law clearly states you taking pics of a particular subject in a particular location is illegal/or prohibited.

If this cr@p carries on, wedding photographers won't be alowed to take pictures at a wedding or sports photographers won't be able to take pictures at a race circuit.

Lie down and be walked over or stand up and bcome a thron in someone's side until someone gets their facts right rather than blanketing everyone with the anti-terrorist rubbish.

 

[petemc]

This place? I took that there last year and had no problems. Great place for photos. Damn shame if they're kicking up a fuss now but I'd say get that permit and go shoot.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

So thats one street covered, whats happened to the rest of Edinburgh?

 

[contrastingLight]

This place? I took that there last year and had no problems. Great place for photos. Damn shame if they're kicking up a fuss now but I'd say get that permit and go shoot.

Yep that's the place, I too was there last year and also took a load of photos with not a problem.

This year has been a different story, I went along later and got some shots from the outside.

I spotted an opportunity to take a wander inside and try and get some shots without getting rumbled by security.

This worked for ten minutes as several of them just ignored me, however after I managed to get the shot I was looking before a security personnel approached and asked if i had a licence to take photos.....:nono:
I did not, he informed me this time that because of child protection laws, I was not permitted to take photos.
I asked if he had been telling everyone who was taking photos even without tripods, he replied yes all afternoon.
Yet again he was unable to tell me who I could ask or apply to for a permit.


I for one find it hard to believe that they are trying to use child protection laws to stop people form taking photos form within the cordoned area.

If this was such a big issue would they not prohibit the use of camera equipment from princess street, which is only 2 feet away and actually would have better shot if this was my quest.

I can only conclude that either they found the amount of toggers coming to take photos with tripods last year over whelming or they believe that they must stop people making any revenue from the photos they can produce.:shrug:

I will be investigating the permit and will be in contact with the council also the event manager.


Cheers

Richard

The rest of Edinburgh seems to be operating normally!!!

 

[petemc]

Oh ffs. Child protection laws? Print it off and ask him to point it out next time you see him. Although I'm not sure it looks good if you carry a copy of the child protection law around with you

 

[Willid1]

This makes me really sad.

I have been taking photographs for the best part of 30 years but more recently I walk round waiting for the "what do you think your doing" question, and wondering who might possibly take offence at my harmless photography.

I take it this is the place you mention

Winter Wonderland

Nothing on their website about photography. What do they gain by stopping you posting some rally nice shots of their commercial enterprise. I might even be enthused to go (if I didn't live in London).

I wouldn't normally say boo to a goose but I think in your case I would have been politely but firmly asking for deatails of the permit, or be taken to see the person in charge, just to make a point.

Sounds like a good place to arrange a Talk Photography meet.

I have sent them an e mail asking for clarification, see if they respond.

David

 

[OutLore]

Is the area which was "hired from the council" still public land? If so then they surely can't tell you not to do anything that does not break criminal law? At the very least they should be able to show you some form of official documentation stating that the "public" land had been allocated to someone else for that period of time.

Write to the council and ask for a refund in your council tax as you could not use all the facilities you pay for - even if it's 1p it will cause them no end of grief!!

You should have asked the security guy to move as you had rented the piece of land he was standing on and you had strictly stated "No ar**h*les."

 

[Splog]

His reply was because this area had been hired from the council by the contractor they are requesting no photos are taken within the grounds.

WE own the councils! as far as 'Security' guards go :shrug:..I would like to know ... just how do these 'security' guards stop you doing what you want to do, i.e. taking pictures

 

[EdinburghGary]

I have just been told to put my camera away by security in a section of princess street gardens which is hosting a carnival with a big wheel & merry go round .
I had spotted a fellow togger getting grief from security, so to show support I set up my tripod to capture some shots.
Before I could even get my camera out my bag security approached and I asked me what I was doing.

Taking photos was my reply......

His reply was because this area had been hired from the council by the contractor they are requesting no photos are taken within the grounds.
I can apply for a permit, however he was unable tell me where from.

You can take some shots from princes street just outside the railings .....

Slightly disheartened at the state of society.

Away to set up on princess street !!

I had a major blowout with a jobsworth there this morning. He told me "You can't bring your dog or your camera in here". I simply replied "**** off", and continued on my way. He followed me for 2 min then gave up. I will not be told I can't use my own city gardens. *******s.

Gary.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Let me guess, Rock Steady were doing the security were they?

He's actually right, but a sign stating that photography isn't allowed would go a long way to helping.

Interestingly it's only prohibited if you're using a "professional" (read dslr) camera, if you have a point and shoot or cameraphone they will let you snap away with impunity :shrug:

 

[EdinburghGary]

Let me guess, Rock Steady were doing the security were they?

He's actually right, but a sign stating that photography isn't allowed would go a long way to helping.

Interestingly it's only prohibited if you're using a "professional" (read dslr) camera, if you have a point and shoot or cameraphone they will let you snap away with impunity :shrug:

I ignored him and continued to shoot. Screw them. Im going to go again tomorrow just to make a point.

 

[Yv]

'Child Protection' is utter tosh, that is either a security guard trying to think on his feet or his superior providing him with an excuse that will put 99% of people off. If the land is rented, pressumably it then comes under the rules of private property for the duration of the event and the contracters can, I imagine, stop you taking pics as they can on any private land. However, saying that it is allowed with a permit is a bit rich if they cannot provide the information on where to get such a permit. Sounds to me like a commercial decision. Alos, tripods in such busy places are frowned upon in most placs as a trip hazard. Fair enough, especially with so many kids running around [and it will be the contractor that is sued when some kid falls over it and smashes their face open], however, on that basis it is my considered opinion that all those bloody child buggies should be banned on the same grounds, in fact more so, you can stand still and the useless gits at the wheels still run them straight into you

 

[Flash In The Pan]

you can stand still and the useless gits at the wheels still run them straight into you

and then go back and lad the brood into a Scenic and drive off

 

[desantnik]

If they allow child buggies and not tripods, get the big sized gorilla pod and attach it to your small child's buggy and use that as a tripod

I knew having children would be useful at some point...

 

[Yv]

and then go back and lad the brood into a Scenic and drive off

OI!! nothing wrong with scenic....well....NO, there is NOTHING wrong with a scenic, just 99% of the people that dr......DAMN, cant say that either, I currently drive one. :shake: Oh lord, what has life come to....

 

[contrastingLight]

Is the area which was "hired from the council" still public land? If so then they surely can't tell you not to do anything that does not break criminal law? At the very least they should be able to show you some form of official documentation stating that the "public" land had been allocated to someone else for that period of time.

Write to the council and ask for a refund in your council tax as you could not use all the facilities you pay for - even if it's 1p it will cause them no end of grief!!

You should have asked the security guy to move as you had rented the piece of land he was standing on and you had strictly stated "No ar**h*les."

It is hired off the council and the first Security Guard, who I think may be a supervisor did say it was the private contractor who did not want any photos to be taken.

Let me guess, Rock Steady were doing the security were they?

He's actually right, but a sign stating that photography isn't allowed would go a long way to helping.

Interestingly it's only prohibited if you're using a "professional" (read dslr) camera, if you have a point and shoot or cameraphone they will let you snap away with impunity :shrug:

No Sign, however upon questioning the security did say that all photographers were being told no photos.

'Child Protection' is utter tosh, that is either a security guard trying to think on his feet or his superior providing him with an excuse that will put 99% of people off. If the land is rented, pressumably it then comes under the rules of private property for the duration of the event and the contracters can, I imagine, stop you taking pics as they can on any private land. However, saying that it is allowed with a permit is a bit rich if they cannot provide the information on where to get such a permit. Sounds to me like a commercial decision. Alos, tripods in such busy places are frowned upon in most placs as a trip hazard. Fair enough, especially with so many kids running around [and it will be the contractor that is sued when some kid falls over it and smashes their face open], however, on that basis it is my considered opinion that all those bloody child buggies should be banned on the same grounds, in fact more so, you can stand still and the useless gits at the wheels still run them straight into you

Totally agree, I think this is what they had been told what to use when questioned and it is purely down to the private company not wanting you to take photos.....


I have written to the company in question,asking politely for a photo permit this web site is linked above feel free to fire off an email!!!


cheers

Richard

 

[OutLore]

It is hired off the council and the first Security Guard, who I think may be a supervisor did say it was the private contractor who did not want any photos to be taken.

Richard

Without doubt then - letter to the local council asking for a 1p refund in Council Tax as they had restricted you in using public land because they had made money from the hire of said public land.

 

[contrastingLight]

I had a major blowout with a jobsworth there this morning. He told me "You can't bring your dog or your camera in here". I simply replied "**** off", and continued on my way. He followed me for 2 min then gave up. I will not be told I can't use my own city gardens. *******s.

Gary.

Now Gary I admire your forthright protest however I would like you to cast your mind back to a recent news article about a polish togger getting lifted outside the omni centre for a "breach of the peace"after getting involved in a photo incident.

I would hate to find out you were lifted and we had to organise a peaceful protest to get you freed!!:nono:

Let us know how you get on !!!
Inside or out!!!!!

 

[contrastingLight]

Without doubt then - letter to the local council asking for a 1p refund in Council Tax as they had restricted you in using public land because they had made money from the hire of said public land.

Would love to do this, however I live in the sticks and don't pay Edinburgh council any Tax!!!

Edinburgh Gary its in your court............

 

[jpwone]

You probably don't need a permit at all. Permits are usually only required for commercial photography. The use of tripods (in city centres particularly) has become associated with commercial photography and so rather than enforcing permits for commercial photography some site owners choose to ban tripods.

You can photograph in a public place with few exceptions. A public place is defined as somewhere that the public has access to (even if it is privately owned) and there are no restrictions on who may enter. This applies even if the ground you are entering is ticketed. Conditions may be applied to entry but they must be clear and available to view (usually on the ticket). A condition of entry can exclude photography in the grounds. Shopping malls etc. are no different in this respect. The site may exclude photography but it is not a crime to take a picture. The shop/mall can ask you to leave (they cannot take your camera, make you delete photos or insist on seeing what you have taken) and treat it as trespass should you refuse.

The Child Protection Act has nothing at all to do with photographing in public. Children are not given any special rights when it comes to being photographed in public with the exception of children that are on an 'At Risk Register'. It is perfectly legal to photograph people (including children) in a public place.

I am not a lawyer. This is simply my understanding of the current status of photography in public places. Thought I had better be clear on this before anyone gets upset

John

 

[Jaco]

I was in there the night it opened had camera taking pics no one said anything to me a few days earlier the security guard let me in when they were setting up wheel to take pics. Obviously different strokes for different folks ?

 

[natjag]

I have to admit I hate these people that say you can't take photos for what ever reason they seem to call to memory at the time of conflict with the photographer. If this public land was hired, it could be classed as private land with public through-fare. To my best knowledge the person that has paid to hire the land can impose restrictions on it as they seem necessary. Just like shopping malls, you're free to walk through them, but they generally have restrictions.

Anyway I've found a link, which has been posted before to photographers rights. It helps, but this incident is not clear cut.
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

 

[Splog]

I have to admit I hate these people that say you can't take photos for what ever reason they seem to call to memory at the time of conflict with the photographer. If this public land was hired, it could be classed as private land with public through-fare. To my best knowledge the person that has paid to hire the land can impose restrictions on it as they seem necessary. Just like shopping malls, you're free to walk through them, but they generally have restrictions.

Anyway I've found a link, which has been posted before to photographers rights. It helps, but this incident is not clear cut.
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

If it's public land that is hired out by the council it must still remain public land, the council cannot change the status of the land :shrug: they can try, but it is still public land

 

[Flash In The Pan]

If it's public land that is hired out by the council it must still remain public land, the council cannot change the status of the land :shrug: they can try, but it is still public land

Incorrect, I'm afraid. If there is a fence around the area in question, which assuming it's the same as the set-up in George Square in Glasgow there will be, and the company have rented the area from the council for the duration of the event, it is, to all intents and purposes private property and they can set whatever restrictions on admitance they like.

Trust me, I've been through this before, with both organisers and the police

Even if technically they don't have a leg to stand on all they need to say is you were creating a disturbance or placing other members of the public in s state of fear or alarm and bingo...it's breach of the peace....

 

[Marcel]

If it's public land that is hired out by the council it must still remain public land, the council cannot change the status of the land :shrug: they can try, but it is still public land

Really? Any idea where this can be backed up? I'd love for proof of this if it's true....seriously

Things like the Southport Air Show, where they cordon off the whole seafront then charge you to get in.

And also situations like this one in Edinburgh, it REALLY annoys me...on principle.

 

[Splog]

Really? Any idea where this can be backed up? I'd love for proof of this if it's true....seriously

Things like the Southport Air Show, where they cordon off the whole seafront then charge you to get in.

And also situations like this one in Edinburgh, it REALLY annoys me...on principle.

My point exactly and just my opinion but what I would say is... Public land is public land and that councils cannot change that without public consultation! I accept that they are there to manage public land but not there to hand it over to private concerns for making money! The point is the status of the land remains the same, it's akin to TV companies taking over a street to make a film :shrug: OK they pay but they can't stop you walking down the street whilst the'yre filming! but the point is they think they can and most people go along with it

 

[Splog]

Incorrect, I'm afraid. If there is a fence around the area in question, which assuming it's the same as the set-up in George Square in Glasgow there will be, and the company have rented the area from the council for the duration of the event, it is, to all intents and purposes private property and they can set whatever restrictions on admitance they like.

Trust me, I've been through this before, with both organisers and the police

Even if technically they don't have a leg to stand on all they need to say is you were creating a disturbance or placing other members of the public in s state of fear or alarm and bingo...it's breach of the peace....

I don't disagree with your point:shrug: but a public right of way is exactly that! a public right of way and councils have to abide by their own rules as do everyone else

 

[frank]

maybe they have rented the land but the historical monument (Sir Walter Scott Monument) is sandwiched between the ferris wheel and the carousel. I'm sure the monument is not part of the hire. As the monument is still open for business as usual for visitors and has nothing to do with the fairground or security folk then I'd say photos can be taken of the monument. It just so happens that the fairground is in the way. Now that would confuse the knuckledraggers on the gates

Anyways, to anyone looking to take photos there the best place I reckon is to go is the side of the National Gallery and Royal Scottish Academy art galleries, (public areas) You get a good view over the winter wonderland ice rink and the Ferris wheel etc . A wall there is a nice height and wide enough to sit a camera on if you don't want to use a tripod. a example shot I took from this location last year Click Here Theres better togs here than me that could probably do much better.

Side door of Jenners gets a good shot of the carousel.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

My point exactly and just my opinion but what I would say is... Public land is public land and that councils cannot change that without public consultation! I accept that they are there to manage public land but not there to hand it over to private concerns for making money! The point is the status of the land remains the same, it's akin to TV companies taking over a street to make a film :shrug: OK they pay but they can't stop you walking down the street whilst the'yre filming! but the point is they think they can and most people go along with it

I'm with you, but what’s really happening is the Council is acting on behalf of its citizens by utilising a street for profit, to make money for the area and citizens (supposedly) and also for the peoples entertainment. ... and that’s one of the things we have agreed they should do when we voted them in, they're there to manage and run the council and make it a profitable business.

So then, having hired out a piece of our public land to a private entertainment company they cannot enforce to the companies the way in which they run there business.... obviously a business has to make money and protect its methods in anyway it can and that’s all fair and expected.


---

Personally I think all these anti-photographic businesses are missing a trick, a photo does little harm, and if someone really wants to copy there display, its all to easy to snap away with a mobile camera ..... I'd have though the benefit of loads of photos being shown around the world would do nothing but good for them in the long run ...

Scared sheep they are...

 

[stressless]

I ignored him and continued to shoot. Screw them. Im going to go again tomorrow just to make a point.

what time and i will see you there!

Michael.

 

[feeb]

Hey guys, do you think you would be up for signing up for some sort of 'toggers' license that covers the whole of the country and means we can prove we are not spies, terrorists or on the sex offenders register?

i dont find much trouble being asked to stop togging because i am 25 and a dreadlocked art student (very obviously an art student!) so they generally pass me by.

However it would be good for there to be some sort of system in place where we could still go out and tog. Social photography is such a massive part of society and they really are causing a gross injustice if they do not let people photograph life.

so perhaps some sort of CRB check like they do for nurses, and a card of some kind to prove we are okay?

 

[petemc]

Hey guys, do you think you would be up for signing up for some sort of 'toggers' license that covers the whole of the country and means we can prove we are not spies, terrorists or on the sex offenders register?

Firstly that would sound so stupid. Licensed Togger. Seriously? Have a bit of respect for the art and call yourself a photographer. So it would be a photography license. Secondly, no. Why should you have to be licensed? You shouldn't because you are operating within the law and doing no wrong. You're not harming anyone. The NUJ do have a press card that is recognised by the police but you have to be a working journalist to get one. Its not meant for every "togger". The problem here is security personal and annoyingly its a battle we have to fight because they are misguided.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

The NUJ do have a press card that is recognised by the police but you have to be a working journalist to get one.

Even that is no guarantee that you'll be left in peace by either minimum-wage security staff or our wonderful police service. Plenty of working press photographers have been either hassled/intimidated or even arrested whilst acting completely within the law...

 

[feeb]

Firstly that would sound so stupid. Licensed Togger. Seriously?

now lets not get all caught up in semantics right away Pete! obviously it would be called whatever the governement chose for it to be called, it was the idea i was trying to put forward.

Have a bit of respect for the art and call yourself a photographer.

I have plenty of respect for myself and i DO call myself a photographer, it just seems to be the slang on the internet so that is what i chose to use, had i know you would read so far into it, i wouldnt have. - i doubt the main poster would have called his thread 'Togging in Edinborough' either, if he knew it offended you so much

So it would be a photography license. Secondly, no. Why should you have to be licensed?

Because otherwise we are going to keep coming up against these silly laws and regulations and i dont see the other side backing down, its not ideal, but it might mean we can continue taking photographs without worrying about having our kit ceased or being made to stop taking photos

You shouldn't because you are operating within the law and doing no wrong. You're not harming anyone.

which is why i think it would benefit from some sort of proof of the fact, we live in an increasingly paranoid society and for some reason restrictions are being placed on our art.

The NUJ do have a press card that is recognised by the police but you have to be a working journalist to get one. Its not meant for every "togger". The problem here is security personal and annoyingly its a battle we have to fight because they are misguided.

i think an amateur photographer would find it hard to get a press card, i am fairly sure there are some working limits to you having something like that

i know its annoying, i think its harsh that we have to succumb to it, but i would rather keep taking photos than fighting against someone whose not going to listen to a word of it. Unfortunatly in a world of plastic identity, we need to make some decisions about what is more important. I find it hard because society is moving more and more towards not allowing people to be photographed at all, which is rubbish for us and for historical reference in the future

 

[petemc]

Aye. I've been told that it can be detrimental because they don't like the press.

 

[petemc]

I have plenty of respect for myself and i DO call myself a photographer, it just seems to be the slang on the internet so that is what i chose to use, had i know you would read so far into it, i wouldnt have.

I know its internet slang and its something I hate with the firey passion of a thousand suns.

Because otherwise we are going to keep coming up against these silly laws and regulations and i dont see the other side backing down, its not ideal, but it might mean we can continue taking photographs without worrying about having our kit ceased or being made to stop taking photos

Ain't going to happen. As Flash in the Pan said, NUJ accredited journalists have had issues with the police despite having a recognised card on them. You get a card that says you're a licensed photographer so they say no commercial photography. Then you need a card that says whether you're licensed for professional or amateur use. Then you're an amateur who takes a photo for non-commercial use but someone wants to buy it, but you're not licensed by the government to do so. In the entire history of photography we haven't needed licensing because we're only capturing light. We take photos.

which is why i think it would benefit from some sort of proof of the fact, we live in an increasingly paranoid society and for some reason restrictions are being placed on our art.

We shouldn't restrict them further with the need for a license. Just how would you even run such a system? Every phone has a camera now. Would they need licenses? At what point would you need one? Its only going to cause more trouble than its worth and cost a boat load of money to run. We live in a "free" society where we are legally allowed to take photos of anything we want while on public property.

i think an amateur photographer would find it hard to get a press card, i am fairly sure there are some working limits to you having something like that

Kinda why I said you have to be a working journalist not an amateur

i know its annoying, i think its harsh that we have to succumb to it, but i would rather keep taking photos than fighting against someone whose not going to listen to a word of it. Unfortunatly in a world of plastic identity, we need to make some decisions about what is more important. I find it hard because society is moving more and more towards not allowing people to be photographed at all, which is rubbish for us and for historical reference in the future

What is more important is keeping our freedoms instead of having to apply for a license so that we can then be allowed to enjoy said freedoms.

 

[feeb]

yep your right, you've shown quite well that a license would only hinder our abilities to take images further, than actually give us a stepping stone to have something to say back

i just want to be able to take pictures in peace :bang:

and i love taking pictures of children and families too, they are so lovely and people are so nice. Such a shame its so difficult now...

 

[petemc]

Its a change in the media thats needed. I did a job at a shopping centre once. I was wearing a security pass. All the security people knew why I was there. I was taking photos of the interior and exterior of the shopping centre for the owners. So there I am, taking photos and wearing a fully visible security pass when a random old woman starts having a go at me. Apparently I wasn't allowed to take photos in the food court. Despite being hired by the people who owned the land, the building and paid for security, despite wearing a pass I wasn't allowed to in her books. So you could have all the credentials in the world but if you take a photo and some nutter sees you you're done for. Its annoying and I think the media has created this problem, or at least fed it.