and please use their services
Photographing your kids in a shopping centre
- Thread starter snappingsam
- Start date
- Status
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,209
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
simonblue said:I have been doing photography for nearly 40 years now,I am out with my camera every day,and over the last few years,I feel I have lost some rights to do my hobby,and so do a lot of other people,that why their has been a lot of protests,about photographer rights.
And if their have been no problems,why did Teresa May stand up in parliament,saying she had issuses new guideline to the police,about the way photographers were been dealt with.
But that's not about "photographers rights". The residents of the uk over the years have been given more and more rights,, so as photographers (ie the public) we have more rights than ever.
It's just hysteria, and your comment that you *feel* you have lost your rights illustrates this. There's a lose piece of post 9/11 legislation which is slowly being patched, which was misunderstood by some. Other than that there's nothing that's different from when I started, legally and in relation to our rights. Sure, times have changed but it's up to the individual to adapt.
In reality, exactly what rights have we lost?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Simon
At the beginning of this topic you were on about the guidelines. Have you read them?
They apply to public places, and like it or not, shopping centers are not.
So this particular incident isn't about photographers perceived 'rights', it's about the right of the landlord or owner of private property to make up their own rules.
As happens so often on here when this subject comes up its a one way whine, and perhaps understandably, its always photographers 'rights' that are the issue. Interestingly though, if the rules on rights of landlords or owners were trampled over to accommodate what you want, it would probably apply to your house too. So would you be happy to find a Tourist poking their lens into your front room?
At the beginning of this topic you were on about the guidelines. Have you read them?
They apply to public places, and like it or not, shopping centers are not.
So this particular incident isn't about photographers perceived 'rights', it's about the right of the landlord or owner of private property to make up their own rules.
As happens so often on here when this subject comes up its a one way whine, and perhaps understandably, its always photographers 'rights' that are the issue. Interestingly though, if the rules on rights of landlords or owners were trampled over to accommodate what you want, it would probably apply to your house too. So would you be happy to find a Tourist poking their lens into your front room?
The police officer said to the lady,about the what he could do under the the prevention of terrorist act,what he said was completely wrong under the new guidelines
You have said in quite a few posts,you don't do much photographer theses days,you were even thinking of selling all your gear.
As I do I take my camera out every day,and in the post 9/11,I have been stopped a number of times,the last time with police officer telling me she didn't care about the new guidelines,a she didn't really like photographers on her patch.
After an complaint,she was told to apologise to me,and her senior officer,told me mistakes had been made,and he would make sure all his officers,would be told to read the new guideline.
In all the years before 9/11 or in this country 7/11,I was never stop once by a polices officer,even thought the IRA bombing campaign in this country.
And I know pros, who have been stopped so many times in London,it was becoming a sad joke,with the chief of the Met,saying at one time he had lost control of some of his officer,which led to Teresa May statement in the houses of parliament,saying that she thought, photographer had been given a bad time,and she would issues new guidelines.
Last edited:
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,209
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
simonblue said:You have said in quite a few posts,you don't do much photographer theses days,you were even thinking of selling all your gear.
As I do I take my camera out every day,and in the post 9/11,I have been stopped a number of times,the last time with police officer telling me she didn't care about the new guidelines,a she didn't really like photographers on her patch.
After an complaint,she was told to apologise to me,and her senior officer,told me mistakes had been made,and he would make sure all his officers,would be told to read the new guideline.
In all the years before 9/11 or in this country 7/11,I was never stop once by a polices officer,even thought the IRA bombing campaign in this country.
And I know pros, who have been stopped so many times in London,it was becoming a sad joke,with the chief of the Met,saying at one time he had lost control of some of his officer,which led to Teresa May statement in the houses of parliament,saying that she thought, photographer had been given a bad time,and she would issues new guidelines.
I do take it out, just not as much as I used to do (I'll post up some images from the w/end if you wish
) Not once was I ever stopped by anyone in authority, and that continues through to today.You'll excuse me if I take your post with a massive pinch of salt (a police officer saying she "doesn't like photographers on her patch", come on, no police officer would say that and it's just a little too convenient!).
I'm still waiting to hear what "rights" we have "lost" as I keep hearing this time and time again but as far as I'm aware 'photographers' havnt been excluded from any sections of legislation with regards to rights or the laws of the land.
I'm not having a go at you Simon, it's just all these "photographers rights" issues we keep hearing about have actually nothing to do with legally given and privileged rights, the vast majority are just people failing to use common sense then behaving obtusely when challenged (whether rightly or wrongly).
Last edited:
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The police officer said to the lady,about the what he could do under the the prevention of terrorist act,what he said was completely wrong under the new guidelines
What lady? :shrug:
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The Lady,who link the op,started with
Which, if you'd looked, was actually a man.......
I do take it out, just not as much as I used to do (I'll post up some images from the w/end if you wish
You'll excuse me if I take your post with a massive pinch of salt (a police officer saying she "doesn't like photographers on her patch", come on, no police officer would say that and it's just a little too convenient!).
I'm still waiting to hear what "rights" we have "lost" as I keep hearing this time and time again but as far as I'm aware 'photographers' havnt been excluded from any sections of legislation with regards to rights or the laws of the land.
I'm not having a go at you Simon, it's just all these "photographers rights" issues we keep hearing about have actually nothing to do with legally given and privileged rights, the vast majority are just people failing to use common sense then behaving obtusely when challenged (whether rightly or wrongly).
I find it sad that you dont belive me about the police officers words,but that what she said,when her senior officer came to visit me at my house,and she came,i told them both that theses were the words that worried me the most,she did backtrack a bit,and said to me that, she had said it wrongly that not what she ment to say.
I gald that you say your not having a go at me,but if their are no photographer right issues,then why did Teresa May feel she had to make a statement in the houses of parliament,about it after so many complaint,and a very big protest outside the Met itself
(Mum photographers her kid having an icecream in the Braehead shopping centre.... Read what happened next,)that was op first post
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
(Mum photographers her kid having an icecream in the Braehead shopping centre.... Read what happened next,)that was op first post
Which was also incorrect, as you'd know if you'd clicked on the link
Which was also incorrect, as you'd know if you'd clicked on the link
I clicked the link,and read all the way thought,it dosent say if its a man or woman,i took it as the op,new something we didnt about the sex of the person,but even it it was a man,the police officer was still wrong in his wording
The police officer said to the lady,about the what he could do under the the prevention of terrorist act,what he said was completely wrong under the new guidelines
Absolutely correct, misuse of the law.
- Messages
- 2,092
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I do take it out, just not as much as I used to do (I'll post up some images from the w/end if you wish
You'll excuse me if I take your post with a massive pinch of salt (a police officer saying she "doesn't like photographers on her patch", come on, no police officer would say that and it's just a little too convenient!).
I'm still waiting to hear what "rights" we have "lost" as I keep hearing this time and time again but as far as I'm aware 'photographers' havnt been excluded from any sections of legislation with regards to rights or the laws of the land.
I'm not having a go at you Simon, it's just all these "photographers rights" issues we keep hearing about have actually nothing to do with legally given and privileged rights, the vast majority are just people failing to use common sense then behaving obtusely when challenged (whether rightly or wrongly).
If you don't believe Simon, why not type in Street Photoghapy on Youtube and see
for yourself.
Are you seriously saying I have the same freedom to take pictures today as I did in the 70's ? Lol
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I clicked the link,and read all the way thought,it dosent say if its a man or woman,i took it as the op,new something we didnt about the sex of the person,but even it it was a man,the police officer was still wrong in his wording
- Messages
- 2,092
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well just one example, my local swimming pool :...... No Photoghapy! Not a problem in the 70's.
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,209
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
simonblue said:I find it sad that you dont belive me about the police officers words,but that what she said,when her senior officer came to visit me at my house,and she came,i told them both that theses were the words that worried me the most,she did backtrack a bit,and said to me that, she had said it wrongly that not what she ment to say.
I gald that you say your not having a go at me,but if their are no photographer right issues,then why did Teresa May feel she had to make a statement in the houses of parliament,about it after so many complaint,and a very big protest outside the Met itself
Ok, as you insist on the facts I'll take your word for what happened, but my point still stands - legally and with regards to "rights" nothing at all has changed.
Theresa May had to patch holes in rushed through legislation that her government were responsible for, and The governments initial guidelines to police forces were wrong. Again, this legislation was nothing to do with rights or photography directly.
Last edited:
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,209
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The Greek said:
Bad example.
That's the way of the world, but believe you me pedophiles were taking pictures of kids in the 70's but it wasn't commonly known as the media hadn't cottoned onto it.
And whats it got to do with rights? That's a private property owner making their own rules, not government enforcement so that's not an example by any means.
Would you want to take your camera to the local swimming pool? You've almost proven my point about common sense.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,786
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
...and a very big protest outside the Met itself
Hardly big, it was 60 people.
- Messages
- 2,092
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Would you want to take your camera to the local swimming pool? You've almost proven my point about common sense.
.[/QUOTE]
I have pictures of my children learning to walk, ride a bike, and yes... Learning to swim. It was no big thing 30 years ago.
Your the one that said nothing has changed, I'm saying plenty has, no section 44 back then.
.[/QUOTE]
I have pictures of my children learning to walk, ride a bike, and yes... Learning to swim. It was no big thing 30 years ago.
Your the one that said nothing has changed, I'm saying plenty has, no section 44 back then.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Simon
The act and section may well have been wrong, but the message, if it's as reported by the person concerned is still correct.
Put simply, if the landlords or owners of private property don't want you to take photos there, you can't.
A few things you should also consider:
Ms May hasn't issued any guidelines, ACPO did.
Guidelines means just that, guidelines, not rules.
They only apply in any event to a Public Place.
Not everyone on facebook, like on here always tells the entire truth.
With the exception of mention of the Terrorism Act (assuming that was said), the Police Officer was right, even in the circumstances described.
Being stopped isn't a big issue unless you turn it into one. I've been stopped by Police and in the past I have stopped photographers. Its painless all over in a few minutes and effects my life not one bit.
Lastly, put your self on the other side of the fence for a few moments, and remember that you might know what you and doing and why. To everyone else, it might not be as clear cut as you suppose. Given that not every photo is taken for innocent reasons which would prefer, serious crime to be prevented or you to be left alone, you can't have both.
The act and section may well have been wrong, but the message, if it's as reported by the person concerned is still correct.
Put simply, if the landlords or owners of private property don't want you to take photos there, you can't.
A few things you should also consider:
Ms May hasn't issued any guidelines, ACPO did.
Guidelines means just that, guidelines, not rules.
They only apply in any event to a Public Place.
Not everyone on facebook, like on here always tells the entire truth.
With the exception of mention of the Terrorism Act (assuming that was said), the Police Officer was right, even in the circumstances described.
Being stopped isn't a big issue unless you turn it into one. I've been stopped by Police and in the past I have stopped photographers. Its painless all over in a few minutes and effects my life not one bit.
Lastly, put your self on the other side of the fence for a few moments, and remember that you might know what you and doing and why. To everyone else, it might not be as clear cut as you suppose. Given that not every photo is taken for innocent reasons which would prefer, serious crime to be prevented or you to be left alone, you can't have both.
One thing which all of these incidents highlight, is inconsistency in application of the law and rules for any given situation, whether it be the police or security personnel. Furthermore, NONE of this has anything to do with preventing terrorism or preventing any kind of abuse.
Example:
Famous racing driver visits shopping centre to celebrate winning F1 championship, and the place is full of people toting cameras/lenses of all shapes and sizes - security men do nothing.
Celebrity visits to bookshops to meet and greet are commonplace in this shopping centre, again masses of people taking images - nothing said.
People trying out cameras in the shopping centre (outside photographic retailers) - nothing said.
One photographer taking shots of the roof/architecture in the same shopping centre - security personnel turn up, ask him to stop, saying that photography is not allowed in the shopping centre.
For those people on here, who say that the security staff are well within their rights, can you not see how stupid and pointless their behaviour is?
Example:
Famous racing driver visits shopping centre to celebrate winning F1 championship, and the place is full of people toting cameras/lenses of all shapes and sizes - security men do nothing.
Celebrity visits to bookshops to meet and greet are commonplace in this shopping centre, again masses of people taking images - nothing said.
People trying out cameras in the shopping centre (outside photographic retailers) - nothing said.
One photographer taking shots of the roof/architecture in the same shopping centre - security personnel turn up, ask him to stop, saying that photography is not allowed in the shopping centre.
For those people on here, who say that the security staff are well within their rights, can you not see how stupid and pointless their behaviour is?
Bernie, how many of the millions of tourists visiting London, have ever been approached by police as they take pictures of key London landmarks, and been asked what they are doing, or maybe to stop using the camera?
I suspect that none have.
- Messages
- 2,092
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 4,710
- Name
- Laurence
- Edit My Images
- No
The owners of any shopping centre can be as inconsistent as they wish. As long as they act within the law they can make it up as they go along.
If they allow photography on a Saturday to cover a publicity event as described they are quite justified in restricting or banning it on Sunday.
It's their property, private property, and as long as it's lawful they can do what they like.
We may not like it because it's a perceived restriction of our liberties.
It doesn't of course excuse boorish or bullying behaviour should it occur.
If they allow photography on a Saturday to cover a publicity event as described they are quite justified in restricting or banning it on Sunday.
It's their property, private property, and as long as it's lawful they can do what they like.
We may not like it because it's a perceived restriction of our liberties.
It doesn't of course excuse boorish or bullying behaviour should it occur.
YES I WOULD, when my sons were young I did and if as a family we went there now I would expect my human rights to freedom to photograph MY family.
THIS is reality and what idiots need to worry about not the clearly seen DSLRs.
Every one a camera and video camera. All available from £5 on EBAY. People who are concerned about people with real large cameras are fools, no one taking covert photographs of children would use one and people who think they do are nieve.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,845
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In your first examples, those will be publicity shoots. The press will have been invited to photograph them in most instances, and members of the public will be shooting if they happen to have a camera. Security will know of the event in advance, and the owners of the mall will have given permission for the shoot to take place.
In your second example, if no permission has been obtained then the photographer has no rights to take photographs on privately owned premises.
How often does this have to be repeated? You do not have the right to take photos in a private place. What part of that is giving you difficulties?
How difficult would it be for you to get in touch with the landlords or their agents and ask for permission?
If you have a beautiful garden, say, and you find a bunch of photographers wandering around shooting the roses, how would you react? And if the local camera club secretary called to ask if some members could come and photograph your lovely garden, what would you say?
See if you can work out the difference between the two scenarios. :bang::bang::bang:
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,092
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
YES I WOULD, when my sons were young I did and if as a family we went there now I would expect my human rights to freedom to photograph MY family.
THIS is reality and what idiots need to worry about not the clearly seen DSLRs.
Every one a camera and video camera. All available from £5 on EBAY. People who are concerned about people with real large cameras are fools, no one taking covert photographs of children would use one and people who think they do are nieve.
So would I.
Was quoting odd jim but messed it up lol
Not all with a camera are kiddie fiddlers nor are we a terrorist just becouse its in a backpack.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,530
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Once the head teacher, two years later removed, of a College in Tavistock was most offensive when I asked if I could take photographs of my sons sports day, the pleb kept on moaning about taking photographs of children not allowed, I stated..
"If I WANTED to take photographs you would never know", so I went 100' away to the pavement, used a 150-500 zoom and took the photographs.
In Pontefract a school teacher deliberately walked in front of me on many occasions to stop me videoing MY sons christmas carols in the open public space, are these people morons, paranoid or jobsworths, it is the likes of them who spread concern.
Last edited:
- Status