Photography in a public place

Hi Matt

Harassment has to be a course of events, so multiple nuisance events are needed. If I stood somewhere and took your photo, that's Okay. If I followed you round all the time, that's not.
 
To the OP, I'd be politely writing back to the person at the sailing club, ascertaining his position and asking what the club position is on photography. I'd also be asking just how he feels that photographing teenagers/juniors full clothed, seated in sailing wear is in any way inappropriate.

But then that's me, and I'm often dismayed by the media frenzy driven attitude that seems to come from some ill informed but well meaning people. Even on here you'll find some saying its wrong to take any images of people without their permission. I like to attempt the challenge what I call the daily mail view, and try to make the person consider their view.

As an example, the RFU have a policy that actively encourages photography of juniors and recognises the positive influence if has toward the sport. They can provide clear guidance to photographers and if required will even crb check a photographer.
 
The world has gone a bit mad.

I got the police called on me for taking photos of my car with Grangemouth power station in the background. To the cops credit though, they were very friendly and understanding just asked to look at the pictures and had a bit of chat about how silly the whole situation was.
 
st599

Hi back,

We're saying the same thing. It's just a case of when a behaviour crosses a line, which isn't specifically defined. I think quoting 'harassment' is wheeled out quickly to try and stop a situation escalating.

But what you have said in your post is the same as my description aside form the need to follow me all the time.

If you did that, it would be a reality show and I'd want a fee!

Matt
 
its a shame - we could have taught him (amongst other things) that its "learn from" not "learn off" :LOL:

Tony and I don't always see eye to eye but he's an acomplished photographer with much that someone less experienced could learn. He's also correct in pointing out that hysterical rubbish doesnt become less incorect just because someone posts it on a website tagged as guidelines.

It is true that some nonces cut and paste childrens faces onto porn using photoshop in order to keep it "fresh" :puke: (also some non nonces alledgedly do this for comercial reasons which is in some ways worse ). However there are millions of images of kids on the net already (billions probably) , so taking a few shots of teenagers sailing is not going to significantly alter this - it also doesnt put the specific kids at risk.
 
I run a 'village news' website, people sometimes send in old photos.
There were a couple showing children in rows - from about 5 to 12 in a classic school photo - from 1932.
Someone actually complained that a paedophile 'might look at them'.
How would it even matter if they did?
So far as we know only two people in the pic are still alive and well into their 80s!

Photographs and Internet seem to induce a certain paranoia - something to do with losing control of who sees a picture at the root of it.
 
Alastair said:
But as far as the original post, if it's their land it's their rules. ).
Click to expand...

That

And incidentally being on a public footpath doesnt make it a public place - its a path on which you have access to freely pass and repass, it doesnt confer a right to do anything else (also nearly every reservoir is private land - usually owned by a water company , so even off the saling club 'land' (you'll probably find that they are a tenant ) you still aren't on public land.

That said photography on private land isn't illegal per se - if you enter onto private land and do anything not permitted by the landowner then usually its an act ogf trespass and a civil matter between you and the landowner (there are exceptions such as agravated or armed tresspass, poaching, vagrancy, unlawful assembly and also different rules appending to crown estates, MOD land, andnational security installations but those arent relevant here).

So in essence the landowner could sue you for trespass if you refuse to stop taking pictures when asked by their officer or agent (which could also be a tenant such as the sailing club officials) but the chances of a water company actually being bothered to do so are vanishingly small
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
How would you know what is and is not permitted on a footpath if there are no signs for example?
Click to expand...

the Countryside and rights of way act lays out what is permitted on a public right of way (in England and wales - scottish access law is different) - so saying you were on a public right of way accross private land won't be a defence if the action you are being sued for isnt covered

That said in order to succesfully bring action for trespass a landowner usually has to demonstrate that they've taken reasonable steps to inform you that whatever action constituted the trespass isn't allowed on their land .. usually by you being told by their officer, or by the use of signs, or by it being made a condition of entry (for example on a ticket).

in practice this means that a landowner is unlikely to win in court if they merely alledge "adrian was photographing on my land" (in fact any competent solicitor wouldn't take that anywahere near a court in the first place) however if they say (and can prove) "adrian was photographing on my land, and after my agent asked him to stop he continued" he would have a stronger case.

The other thing is that damages arent usually punitive (in the uk) so even if a landowner won the case, the damages would probably be limited to any loss or cost you had caused him - if the case was purely "he did this on my land and refused to stop, i don't wan't him to (but didnt actually suffer any loss because he did) then all that would probably result would be the court telling you not to do it again
 
boliston said:
How would you know what is and is not permitted on a footpath if there are no signs for example?
Click to expand...

On a public footpath you have the right to walk along it. Beyond that you're into the realms of being considerate towards others and not taking the p*ss - which are general guidelines that everyone should follow, whether they've a camera in their hands or not.
 
Alastair said:
On a public footpath you have the right to walk along it. Beyond that you're into the realms of being considerate towards others and not taking the p*ss - which are general guidelines that everyone should follow, whether they've a camera in their hands or not.
Click to expand...

Indeed - in 99.9% of cases the landowner won't know you are taking pictures , or care. Where ive been involved with these tresspass cases its usually cycling on a footpath thats the issue not photography , although the principal applies to any activity other than walking (the CRoW act also allows you to bring a usual accompaniement - a long list - but for example this covers walking your dog ... it doesn't as per one case i was involved with cover walking your donkey ) also wheelchairs and class one mobility scooters are considered a pedestrian in the interpretation of the act (Class 2 & 3 mobility scooters are considered to be a powered vehicle and thus only permitted on byways and roads)
 
Ahh.. the perils of take-your-donkey-to-work day. Creates a bloody nightmare for the risk assessments as well..
 
I'm guessing that more photos are taken daily using phones or compacts but it's the DSLR/SLR user that's called a paedophile or terrorist.
 
northernbiff said:
Pete, do you have any records or case law of there being a successful prosecution of a photographer in similar circumstances?
Click to expand...

not specifically - but that doesn't mean there isnt or there can't be (although note its a civil suit not a 'prosecution' - you can't be prosecuted for something that isn't actually illegal) there have been cases of action taken against photographers where they've breached byelaws, and also for violating ticket conditions, although i don't have the citation to hand

I've only been directly involved in two rights of way/tresspass cases involving photographers - in one there was a succesful suit , but the suit turned on the photographer having damaged trees while building a hide , and it was the damage that was the issue not the photography per se (that could have become a criminal case as the damage would have consituted vandalism and thus agravated trespass - but the landowner chose to sue instead of involving the authorities) - the other was where a photographer was actually regularly obstructing a narrow right of way by setting up his tripod on it and refusing to move when asked- that became a police matter because when the landowner asked him to move for the third time in as many days the photographer punched him - assault being a criminal offence the police took it from there and i don't know what happened next

As i said about 75% of the cases ive been specifically involved with were cyclists on footpaths (which follows the exact same principal - its not 'illegal' to cycle on private land without right or permission, but the landowner can sue you if you do, and in my experience will win, and damages will cover any damage you've caused) , most of the other 25% related to motor vehicles on restricted byways , plus a spattering of silly ones like donkeys etc.

As i said before the chances of a landowner in a case like the OP being bothered to take action is vanishingly small (so long as the photographer doesn't act like a complete twunt when asked to move) but the trespass legislation is there, and could be used if someone really wanted to.
 
4wd said:
I run a 'village news' website, people sometimes send in old photos.
There were a couple showing children in rows - from about 5 to 12 in a classic school photo - from 1932.
Someone actually complained that a paedophile 'might look at them'.
How would it even matter if they did?
So far as we know only two people in the pic are still alive and well into their 80s!

Photographs and Internet seem to induce a certain paranoia - something to do with losing control of who sees a picture at the root of it.
Click to expand...

Just crazy,nearly all school have websites,just been on little one school website their are on a trip to France its great to see the photos i know she enjoying herself,and what about all the hundred of hours each week of children tv,with children in the programs,and add on the tv.

:(
 
Ross Wallace said:
The world has gone a bit mad.

I got the police called on me for taking photos of my car with Grangemouth power station in the background. To the cops credit though, they were very friendly and understanding just asked to look at the pictures and had a bit of chat about how silly the whole situation was.
Click to expand...
Strange how the Police have time to call on you for this yet they have no time to visit people who cut the throats of live animals and let them bleed to death in the name of religion.Or prosecute anyone for female genital mutilation.The good old UK where the law is always enforced fairly.MY ARSE:mooning:
 
Ross Wallace said:
The world has gone a bit mad.

I got the police called on me for taking photos of my car with Grangemouth power station in the background. To the cops credit though, they were very friendly and understanding just asked to look at the pictures and had a bit of chat about how silly the whole situation was.
Click to expand...

There is a certain ammount of paranoia/caution about power stations (and oil refineries and such) due to the terrorism potential - i had the same while taking night time shots at heysham powerstation and port ... again the police were perfectly civil , and did explain that if theres a report of someone acting suspiciously arround that sort of installation they have to go out - you can imagine the ammount of crap that would drop on them if there was a terrorist attack and then it came out that previously something had been reported and they'd gone 'nah b****x he's probably taking long exposures"
 
big soft moose said:
the Countryside and rights of way act lays out what is permitted on a public right of way (in England and wales - scottish access law is different) - so saying you were on a public right of way accross private land won't be a defence if the action you are being sued for isnt covered

That said in order to succesfully bring action for trespass a landowner usually has to demonstrate that they've taken reasonable steps to inform you that whatever action constituted the trespass isn't allowed on their land .. usually by you being told by their officer, or by the use of signs, or by it being made a condition of entry (for example on a ticket).

in practice this means that a landowner is unlikely to win in court if they merely alledge "adrian was photographing on my land" (in fact any competent solicitor wouldn't take that anywahere near a court in the first place) however if they say (and can prove) "adrian was photographing on my land, and after my agent asked him to stop he continued" he would have a stronger case.

The other thing is that damages arent usually punitive (in the uk) so even if a landowner won the case, the damages would probably be limited to any loss or cost you had caused him - if the case was purely "he did this on my land and refused to stop, i don't wan't him to (but didnt actually suffer any loss because he did) then all that would probably result would be the court telling you not to do it again
Click to expand...

...what about Legal Costs in this instance (landowner wins the case but no actual loss due to the actual "offence" as opposed to cost of legal proceedings) ?
 
Steve Smith said:
It's worse than that, they can actually see real live children walking about in the street!!


Steve.
Click to expand...

That's it! I have had it! Its disgusting! Seeing children in the street? How very dare they! Children should be heard and not seen! Ban them from the streets! Black out all cars and make them all wear full covering clothes I say!

Have I gone far enough to show I'm taking the mickey?
 
shotokan101 said:
...what about Legal Costs in this instance (landowner wins the case but no actual loss due to the actual "offence" as opposed to cost of legal proceedings) ?
Click to expand...

that can vary - the court might order you to pay the other sides legal costs if you lost a suit , or they might decide that each should bear his own - there's no hard and fast rule as it depends on a mulpilicity of factors including did either side annoy the judge
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top