Think I prefer my land of wishful thinking,in which governments local or state work for the good of people.
I thought where the state own everything and tell you what to do,was call communism
and the site receives a small commission
Photographing your kids in a shopping centre
- Thread starter snappingsam
- Start date
- Status
Think I prefer my land of wishful thinking,in which governments local or state work for the good of people.
I thought where the state own everything and tell you what to do,was call communism
- Messages
- 817
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I thought where the state own everything and tell you what to do,was call communism
I thought that was Fascism and Communism is when the people own everything equally in stateless and classless society?
Last edited:
Wow, I'm hooked. Should really quit but not much else of interest tonight.
Toggerman, this isn't about inside shops, factories or wedding photographers. In fact, as a supplier to the DIY sheds in my last business, I regularly went into stores to photograph ranges that we were bidding for. Of course, permission was always sought from store managment before we started. So I have no misunderstanding of standard of conduct in those situations.
What we have here is a dad snapping a pic of his kid in a situation (eating an ice cream on a toy Vespa bike seat I believe) that, now that most people have some sort of camera with them all of the time, almost demands a pic. It is pathetic that there are rules/policies prohibiting this and this is now changing.
As I said a few posts ago. Why defend the indefensible? Those who ran with the ridiculous rules/policies are now changing them.
Toggerman, this isn't about inside shops, factories or wedding photographers. In fact, as a supplier to the DIY sheds in my last business, I regularly went into stores to photograph ranges that we were bidding for. Of course, permission was always sought from store managment before we started. So I have no misunderstanding of standard of conduct in those situations.
What we have here is a dad snapping a pic of his kid in a situation (eating an ice cream on a toy Vespa bike seat I believe) that, now that most people have some sort of camera with them all of the time, almost demands a pic. It is pathetic that there are rules/policies prohibiting this and this is now changing.
As I said a few posts ago. Why defend the indefensible? Those who ran with the ridiculous rules/policies are now changing them.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 817
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, but a shopping centre is the same as a shop/factory as in they are private property which is owned by someone who paid to have it built. If you genuinely believe that it is a public place that you have full access and rights to then try entering one after it's shut and see what happens. Just because you leave a door open at home with a sign saying please come in does not make your house a public place does it?
We had something similar a few times and as long as they had some form of business ID then there was no problem either.
Granted it is just a dad, but they are blanket rules, otherwise all it takes is for someone to take their kid/pet with them and then they have an excuse for using a camera. I have seen people before using kids, not quite in this manner, more shoplifting than anything else, but there are a lot of unscrupulous people out there and I wouldn't put it past some of them to exploit loopholes in the rules.
But you might not see it as being so ridiculous if it was your time/money/IP/product. Personally I have no problem with people taking pics of their kids, I do it all the time (whilst obeying any rules of someone's land as that's just courteous), but if a person then just started snapping at the shops/layout/building then I can see the owners not liking that and swooping down quite quickly.
Last edited:
Toggerman, happy to agree with everything except: there is nothing in this story that has got anything to do with what happens when the centre is shut; nothing to do with shoplifting; nothing to do with IP and product protection. These are all adequately dealt with in law and centre security are there to deal with these situations.
The whole problem is that taking a picture of your child, partner, friend used to be caught up in the same mindset. That is now changing in the context of shopping centres.
The whole problem is that taking a picture of your child, partner, friend used to be caught up in the same mindset. That is now changing in the context of shopping centres.
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How come no one has mentioned the Human Rights Act, says he stirring the pot just for fun
You sir, are worse than Hitl........
- Messages
- 817
- Name
- Scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, they are sort of relevant in the sense that they are dealt with by enforcing blanket policies such as no photography of any kind. And at no point by saying no photography allowed are they breaking any laws or infringing on anyone's rights as it is clearly private property that the company owns.
I am glad that it's changing as The Mall (that's its name, not a description) in Cribbs Causeway is one of the ones that might change and they've got a brilliant fountain inside which my 3yo is always throwing money into. I do however expect and appreciate that I will be watched like a hawk as soon as I get my camera out, but that's fine with me.
I am glad that it's changing as The Mall (that's its name, not a description) in Cribbs Causeway is one of the ones that might change and they've got a brilliant fountain inside which my 3yo is always throwing money into. I do however expect and appreciate that I will be watched like a hawk as soon as I get my camera out, but that's fine with me.
How come no one has mentioned the Human Rights Act, says he stirring the pot just for fun
- Messages
- 4,016
- Name
- Duncan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I haven't seen any pictures that would make me want to drive over to Cribbs.
Hang On
W
whiteflyer
Guest
All the people defending the Private Property rule may as well sell your kit as there is going to be very few places you can shoot in England ( I would think most of the UK is the same)
Private Property as in your house or a company building is fine, but if you allow and encourage the public to enter free then this should be classed as a public space and the rule should not apply IMHO
As an example the Lake District or Peak District would be out of bound to take photos, you may have the right to roam, but it is still private land, be that a Land owner or the National Trust, if they all join your no photography on private property campaign then we are all going to be buggered.
No going to shoot planes at the Mach Loop and London is a non-no as I'm sure you know that every bridge in the City of London is privately owned.
Examples of private land in the City of London include:
All the park and garden areas in the City,
City churches and their gardens,
Paternoster Square,
Barbican Centre and the Barbican Estate,
Smithfield Market,
Leadenhall Market,
Museum of London,
Broadgate Estate,
Network Rail Stations,
London Underground Stations,
New Street Square,
Aviva Square,
Inner and Middle Temple,
Forecourt areas and squares attached to buildings (such as St Pauls Cathedral, Aviva, etc.)
All the Bridges in the City (Tower Bridge, London Bridge, Southwark Bridge, Millennium Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge)
Private Property as in your house or a company building is fine, but if you allow and encourage the public to enter free then this should be classed as a public space and the rule should not apply IMHO
As an example the Lake District or Peak District would be out of bound to take photos, you may have the right to roam, but it is still private land, be that a Land owner or the National Trust, if they all join your no photography on private property campaign then we are all going to be buggered.
No going to shoot planes at the Mach Loop and London is a non-no as I'm sure you know that every bridge in the City of London is privately owned.
Examples of private land in the City of London include:
All the park and garden areas in the City,
City churches and their gardens,
Paternoster Square,
Barbican Centre and the Barbican Estate,
Smithfield Market,
Leadenhall Market,
Museum of London,
Broadgate Estate,
Network Rail Stations,
London Underground Stations,
New Street Square,
Aviva Square,
Inner and Middle Temple,
Forecourt areas and squares attached to buildings (such as St Pauls Cathedral, Aviva, etc.)
All the Bridges in the City (Tower Bridge, London Bridge, Southwark Bridge, Millennium Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge)
Last edited by a moderator:
- Messages
- 4,016
- Name
- Duncan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I thought it already was (technically), along with their image rights grab.
Just Google "National Trust Photography", loads of stories.
Was that problem sorted out?
W
whiteflyer
Guest
You do know it's not compulsory to read any or all threads.
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
the point was that it was private property AND it had a no photography rule.
how many of those places dont allow photography?
- Messages
- 3,536
- Name
- Spike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What people are saying is that if somewhere is Private Property then it is perfectly legal for there to be conditions associated with entry to that property.
English Heritage and the National Trust, for example, require you to obtain a licence from them for any commercial photography on their property.
Another example is The National Marine Aquarium at Plymouth which prohibits flash photography (on the grounds that it's bad for the fish).
On a non-photographic angle, many shopping complexes will require people to wear a shirt, T-Shirt, etc. Some restaurants have a 'no jeans' policy, etc.
These are all 'conditions of entry', and the owners are free to decide what they should be (subject to the many and varied legalities of discrimination laws).
And, as in this case, are free to change their minds when the such rules result in a ridiculous series of events such as those that triggered this thread!
How many places actually display what you are and are not permitted to do? How is a member of the public expected to know if a place has a no photography rule without being told, after all, museums, churches and art galleries manage to inform the public of this, so you would have thought that it would be possible for a shopping centre to do the same thing.
There is a very simple solution to all of this.
Every private venue has to be bound by the laws of the land, so there is no need to let us know what they are. Any "rules" not covered by the law need to be plainly displayed for all to see, that way we will not have a situation where ignorant security guards can harrass members of the public for no good reason.
Free to change their minds about a "condition of entry" unknown to anyone but the people making it up at the time, unlike the other perfectly valid examples which you have given, where obvious rules of the establishment are displayed.
Well, the FB page which linked to in the first post states that there were signs saying 'No Photography' (according to the police officer), but that he hadn't spotted them (as a Dad with 4 & 6 yr old daughters I can understand that - keeping track of children can take all your attention!).
I am not saying that I like rules restricting photography - just that they something we have to live with - and like any other 'rule' if there is enough opposition to it then there is a chance it may get overturned.
BTW: The 'No Commercial Photography' rule applies to ALL NT land and Property, including things such as coastal paths, and is not displayed at points of entry for a large number of them.
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
How many places actually display what you are and are not permitted to do? How is a member of the public expected to know if a place has a no photography rule without being told, after all, museums, churches and art galleries manage to inform the public of this, so you would have thought that it would be possible for a shopping centre to do the same thing.
There is a very simple solution to all of this.
Every private venue has to be bound by the laws of the land, so there is no need to let us know what they are. Any "rules" not covered by the law need to be plainly displayed for all to see, that way we will not have a situation where ignorant security guards can harrass members of the public for no good reason.
actu....
..sod it i cant be bothered, im off to talk to a brick wall
Why would you keep coming back to something thats get on your nerves :bonk:
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
Bye bye,
easier to argue with something which doesn't question you.
more a case of it being more productive..
SarahLee
TPer Emerita
- Messages
- 13,060
- Name
- Sarah
- Edit My Images
- No
How come no one has mentioned the Human Rights Act, says he stirring the pot just for fun
Yep. This thread is definitely slacking in that area
Just as a reminder to all participants and to any newcomers to this topic, you may want to refer to this handy guide for taking part in photographers' rights threads.
Might even make it a sticky
How to participate in photographers' rights threads
- Read the following true statements.
- Legally, shopping centres / swimming pools etc are private property and the owners are perfectly entitled to prohibit photography / impose whatever rules they choose.
- Morally, we would all hope that some discretion, common sense and courtesy would be applied when writing and enforcing said rules.
- Some security guards and/or some police officers are complete numpties.
- Some parents and/or some photographers are also complete numpties.
- Choose one (and only one) of the above statements. Preferably the one that best fits your world view, but it's all going to end the same way, so it doesn't really matter which one you pick.- Morally, we would all hope that some discretion, common sense and courtesy would be applied when writing and enforcing said rules.
- Some security guards and/or some police officers are complete numpties.
- Some parents and/or some photographers are also complete numpties.
- Now pretend that the other statements don't exist. That's it. Wipe them completely from your brain.
- Proceed to embellish, adorn and exaggerate your chosen statement in any way that suits the point that you're trying to make at any given time.
- Time for a quick check. Do you have your ladder ready? You're going to need it right about now so that you can mount your high horse.
- If you've followed the instructions correctly the argument should be really warmed up at this point, so don't forget to invoke Godwin's Law. A little Reductio ad Hitlerum goes a long way.
- Finally if you haven't done it already, throw any remaining common sense out of the window and remember that no matter what happens, you must defend your chosen statement to the bitter, bloody death. Even after the particular incident in question has been resolved.
- Easy isn't it? Just repeat the steps above every time a thread on this topic is posted on the forum.
It's alright we won't get bored with it.
- Messages
- 115,214
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
SarahLee
TPer Emerita
- Messages
- 13,060
- Name
- Sarah
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 255
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
On the STV website it now states the father has been reported to the procurator fiscal for taking images of a shop assistant in the ice cream shop with his zip down after reviewing CCTV.
It seems there may have been more to this than originally stated.
It seems there may have been more to this than originally stated.
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 255
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Indeed Flash!
They are insinuating that he was questioned about this at the time rather than anti terror laws.
Who is creating the smoke screen? Him or the Police?
This one will roll a bit I reckon....
They are insinuating that he was questioned about this at the time rather than anti terror laws.
Who is creating the smoke screen? Him or the Police?
This one will roll a bit I reckon....
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Indeedy. You'd have to wonder why someone who was exposing themselves would bring the incident to the attention of the media....
- Status