- Messages
- 766
- Name
- Darryl
- Edit My Images
- No
“Impossible to know?” Not sure what you’re getting at...
Private use and social media
- Thread starter chrisc
- Start date
“Impossible to know?” Not sure what you’re getting at...
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Andrew, your assumptions in relation to the law are very 'black & white' where as, in reality they are 18% grey!
The best advice is always be polite and non confrontational with people when you enter into discussion with someone 'in authority' - most of the time this will prevent the situation escalating.
The law around what you can & can't photograph in public is constantly evolving.
The best advice is always be polite and non confrontational with people when you enter into discussion with someone 'in authority' - most of the time this will prevent the situation escalating.
The law around what you can & can't photograph in public is constantly evolving.
OP
- Messages
- 298
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That it's private land... When leaving the M3 driving up past the Premier inn there's no gates or signs to say that the land is private. I thought it was public like Belfast City centre for example.
- Messages
- 766
- Name
- Darryl
- Edit My Images
- No
You’re confusing two things, consent to photograph from a public place and a building is not required and isn’t illegal, however if the owner objects and you persist, you run the risk of falling foul of privacy laws. Freedom of expression and right to privacy are at odds and a court would decide public interest.
- Messages
- 17,669
- Edit My Images
- No
In general it was always my impression that the public footpaths are "public" in regard being there to take photos of subjects around you. But, though rarely marked, paths that approach hotels and other private buildings that have public access are private land.
The assumption that it is public land simply because there is no signage is too simplistic an assumption.
- Messages
- 313
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
So the owner of Buckingham Palace is going to object to me photographing it and that would mean I fall foul of privacy laws? Nope......
- Messages
- 766
- Name
- Darryl
- Edit My Images
- No
There’s reading and then there’s comprehension.
- Messages
- 13,027
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Mate, legally speaking, you haven't got a clue. As for my sweets, they're fine. I know when to take shots and when not to. If someone stops me taking a perfectly legal shot (which can be published*) then I'll argue the case with them, without swearing or raising my voice.
* and that's the key point - published.
There are very few laws that make it illegal to take a particular shot, but there are loads that make publishing that shot illegal. Why take a photograph that can only ever reside on your laptop?
- Messages
- 766
- Name
- Darryl
- Edit My Images
- No
It’s a bit like that, whenever you get anywhere near these developed areas, private land is always a concern.
- Messages
- 13,027
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
If you are taking the shot for any other use than personal, then yes, she or her representatives will protest. It's all in the Royal Parks byelaws.
OP
- Messages
- 298
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeah it's very confusing... You can take pics 364 days of the year except the day I land lol
- Messages
- 313
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
When someone who holds no authority tries to tell me what I can and can’t do, I do not do what they tell me to do. I have the odd encounter with the Police from time to time who are mostly polite and don’t rush in shooting their mouth off like that particular security guard did to me. On one such occasion I remember an at length discussion about Nikon which I shoot and Canon which the Policeman said he used.
The law around what you can and can’t photograph in public hasn’t changed since the Terrorism Act IIRC.
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Andrew - the UK law isn't as simple as you or your mother seem to think! Having the attitude that you think you can photograph anything that is in 'public' with your scant knowledge is likely to get you into trouble.
- Messages
- 13,027
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Case law is constantly evolving. And as pointed out above, it's not so much what you can take but what you can do with the shot afterwards. As I said, why be a pain in the arse for a shot that's never, ever, going to see the light of day?
- Messages
- 313
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
Bit late for that now as I have used a picture that I took of Buck House commercially....... Wonder if the Lord Chamberlain will complain about the picture I took of the Palace Of Westminster that was used commercially?
Perhaps I should cancel going to Windsor this weekend in case the Queen decides to sue me when I use a picture of `Windsor Castle taken from the public footpath commercially.......
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This just isn't true Andrew. As Mark (DemiLion) states case law makes up the majority of the Law in the UK and this changes daily.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 766
- Name
- Darryl
- Edit My Images
- No
I empathise.
It’s only a few months ago I discovered The South Bank Centre owns a considerable distance of the promenade in front of the building, to the river wall.
- Messages
- 766
- Name
- Darryl
- Edit My Images
- No
Christ almighty.
- Messages
- 313
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
My Mother is now in her 80’s and hasn’t practiced for Over 40 years. I’ve been taking pictures in public spaces for over 30 years and I’m yet to get hauled up in court. You name it and I’ve photographed it from RTA’s to buildings, flowers to street portraiture. Not got in trouble yet, doubt that I ever will until their is a specific law preventing you taking a photograph on the street. Imagine enforcing that with 20m tourists who visit the UK every year.......
- Messages
- 13,027
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Re the Lord Chamberlain and the HoP, no he won't complain. However if you took the shot from the centre of Parliament Square (on the green) then the Mayor of London might as it's governed by the same byelaws as Trafalgar Square.
If you are shooting Windsor Castle from the road at the front, then you are fine. Go round the side or the back and you are once again in a Royal Park and commercial photography (inc editorial) requires a licence.
Anything else you want to embarrass yourself about?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 766
- Name
- Darryl
- Edit My Images
- No
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The chances are that taking 'general' photographs in public will not get anyone into trouble, however every situation has to be taken on a 'case by case' basis and offering advice on the forum regarding harassment, photographing into the back of an ambulance, taking photographs of RTC's or what a security guard can and can't do on private property probably isn't the best advice you can offer when you don't have a full understanding of UK law.
Last edited:
Mr Badger
Didymus
- Messages
- 7,457
- Edit My Images
- No
The law is one thing, the correct interpretation of it is another... and then there is courtesy and consideration. I think the latter counts for a lot.
Last week I spotted what I considered to be an interesting car parked on a public road outside someone's house. So I nipped home and got my camera and went back to take some photos. When I arrived the chap who owned the car was just returning to it, so I politely asked him if I could take some photos of his car, and told him why I wanted to take them. He said that was fine and we had a quick chat about the car as I was taking the photos, and I left on good terms with him.
I was sure it was my legal right to take those photos, the car was parked on a public road, but if the chap had said no then I'd have respected that. It might have been my legal right to take photos, but is it my moral right to deliberately upset someone in the street outside their own home? I think life is too short for that sort of thing.
Last week I spotted what I considered to be an interesting car parked on a public road outside someone's house. So I nipped home and got my camera and went back to take some photos. When I arrived the chap who owned the car was just returning to it, so I politely asked him if I could take some photos of his car, and told him why I wanted to take them. He said that was fine and we had a quick chat about the car as I was taking the photos, and I left on good terms with him.
I was sure it was my legal right to take those photos, the car was parked on a public road, but if the chap had said no then I'd have respected that. It might have been my legal right to take photos, but is it my moral right to deliberately upset someone in the street outside their own home? I think life is too short for that sort of thing.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 313
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
I never said I was in a Royal Park (which I am almost certain includes the road at the front of Buck House) when I took the shot of Buck House.........anything else you want to embarrasss yourself about?
- Messages
- 313
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
My reference to the security guard was his interaction with me whilst I was standing in a public space, not on private land. Perhaps you should also address your comments to all the other armchair lawyers on here?
- Messages
- 313
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
It was indeed your legal right, you chose to engage with the car owner which was your choice. I am not saying you were wrong to do what you did.
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Andrew - far from being an armchair lawyer I am a serving Police Officer with 29 yrs experience. During the 1990's & early 2000's I was heavily involved in Policing the Hunts in Cheshire which were always in the news and, on one occasion involved the death of a Hunt Saboteur. I wrote the 'Operational Orders' for many of these events and a significant proportion of these orders revolved around what could/couldn't be filmed by the press/Police/Hunt followers & Hunt Saboteurs on Public and Private land. I could give you examples of where your understanding of 'you can photograph anything if it's in public' are clearly wrong and not only would you be committing civil offences you may well be comitting criminal offences and loose your camera.
Personally I would hate for anyone who is photographing for a hobby to loose £1000's worth of equipment because someone who is 'ill advised' is giving advice on a forum.
HTH
Last edited:
- Messages
- 13,027
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
You can't get a shot of the Palace without being in a Royal Park, unless you took an incredibly crap angle from the top of Buckingham Palace Road.
- Messages
- 313
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
The shot in question wasn’t of the front of Buck House....that will probably tell you where it was taken from
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is this approach that gives photographers a good name - and makes the hobby easier for all of us
- Messages
- 313
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
So let’s get this straight. The Police started telling people what could and couldn’t be photographed on public land? Since when have the Police acted as censors and law makers? How exactly did you enforce these ‘operational orders’ which are highly likely to be in direct conflict with statute law in public spaces? How many photographers and news crews did you order to be arrested and prosecuted? How much equipment did you seize? Under what legislation did you try to enforce these orders? What were the results and lessons learnt? I am yet to see a Hunt go over public land apart from crossing the odd road with the exception of the Chipping Norton hunt who ‘saddle up’ in the public car park in Chippy from time to time. I wouldn’t be on private land without permission to be there.
- Messages
- 13,027
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Likewise, my experience is hardly armchair. I took a course for press photographers that centred on media and photography law. Following that I was the press and PR photographer for a large (non metropolitan) police force, which included advising on public order matters.
- Messages
- 17,669
- Edit My Images
- No
It is this approach that gives photographers a good name - and makes the hobby easier for all of us
Courtesy & consideration should be the tenets of all of our interactions with others not just in matters photographic.
Whatever happened to "manners maketh man" and "treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself". Neither of which mean in the right circumstances you will need to stand up for yourself!
- Messages
- 13,027
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Not really if it's a shot of the Palace itself- rather than it's grounds or the wall surrounding them.
Fraser Euan White
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,062
- Name
- Fraser White
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Lets look at this example:
The back of an Ambulance is 'deemed' as a public place under certain criminal laws in the UK. You assume that if the door is open you are free to take photographs of the occupants. This is not correct.
As Mark quite rightly points out the Public Order Act 1986 covers the behaviour of people in Public Places but it also covers the behaviour of Public to private and private to public.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act covers harassment/alarm/distress and it's 'judgement' is what any reasonable person who is present at the time would consider as causing the harassment/alarm or distress (the actual person doesn't have to be present). You could be/probably would be arrested for committing this offence as I would certainly expect a Court to rule that photographing an injured person in the back of an Ambulance is likely to cause harassment,alarm or distress.
Following this I would seize your camera as it is 'the article used in the commission of the offence' and could also contain evidence you were in fact taking those pictures. I would then ask for a destruction order for your photographic equipment, if found guilty the Court can issue that order (Yes it has happened and the Courts usually issue orders the Police ask for.)
Section 19 of the Police and Criminal evidence Act 1984 covers the seizure/retention of Property and is very 'wide ranging'.
Likewise the Public Order Act doesn't just cover Public Places - e.g. you can not display a racial sign in your house that is visible from a public place.
I can give examples where your understanding of the Law is incorrect but I don't think the thread would benefit from 'showing you up'.
It all comes down to common decency at times - would you be happy with some 'tog' shoving his/her lens into the back of an ambulance whilst the life ebbed from one of your loved ones?
You are trying to generalise and you simply can't; there are numerous occasions when you could be breaking the law by assuming that because you are in a public place you are 'free' to take pictures of what you want.
Andrew Smith said:
Please provide the 'statute law in public spaces' that it is in direct conflict with?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
She didn't practice, she worked.
A solicitor's clerk is simply an assistant role, for which no legal qualifications are required.
They don't act as a qualified fee earner, nor can they proffer legal advice.
- Messages
- 26,312
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Completely and utterly incorrect.
You have no idea how out of your depth you are, this is turning from belligerent to comedy gold.
- Messages
- 313
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- No
So perhaps you can tell me what law prevents me from standing on the public highway outside your house with a camera and taking a photograph of your house. Ever seen Google Streetview and everything that contains?
- Messages
- 26,312
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Have you noticed how much detail google street view obfuscates.
And the bit in bold isn’t what I was saying was incorrect. That isn’t what you posted, you posted...
If that includes the windows it includes the windows and whatever you can see through them
Which is where you pushed your luck and became funny.
