Taking pictures inside shops / cafes?

There was case in Gloucester about 2014 in which an amateur photographer was threatened by a policeman.

You can still see this case

Dave
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
It is very seldom that I disagree with Terry but on this I will.

If you perfect the technique of taking pictures without being noticed, you will get the image you want and no-one will be disturbed. Using modern small cameras and being familiar enough with the equipment to compose the picture without drawing attention to yourself, you can avoid confrontation entirely. At any rate, it's worked well for me over nearly sixty years.

View attachment 384064
Click to expand...

If you are friendly upfront and open. You are mostly not noticed nor seen as a threat.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
If you are friendly upfront and open. You are mostly not noticed nor seen as a threat.
Click to expand...
Different folks, different strokes as my American in-laws put it. :)
 
Dave Canon said:
I think it is sad that we have got to this state but understand why. When my Children were first learning to swim, I was able to video them but of course we cannot see a video of my granddaughter and nor can we be there as she lives so far away. When taking my children to the Park, I would occasionally photograph other children if it made an attractive picture. But this was in the late 80's and certainly not to be considered now. I have used images of my children in the occasional club photographic competition with their permission but would not do so with any images of my Granddaughter.

At the Primary School my children attended, the headmaster took photographs and all the parent agreed to this. He was not a bad amateur photographer so was able to capture images and videos of our children we would not have otherwise seen.

Dave
Click to expand...
It is not illegal to photograph children in school or anywhere else. It is that in schools, churches and clubs and the like. The law requires that the correct safeguards must be in place for the safeguarding of children. These are in place to safeguard them from the STAFF not from parents or visiting public. However they may, like anyone else set the rules for their own property.
There is no actual law concerning photographing children in school or anywhere else. But lots of rules , mostly imposed by governors, very frightened by their own shadows, and those of equally fearful education departments.

However there are very strict laws about taking indecent images of children.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Different folks, different strokes as my American in-laws put it. :)
Click to expand...
My way of working is to be very open but in the background long enough for people to forget that I am there, and get on with their lives. In a strang way a camera soon makes you invisible or just part of the furniture. Posing does not come into it. However I do not point my camera at people for periods of time. If I think a shot is likely to present it self, I will frame up a potential image and. Lower the camera and revert back to the whole scene. Should the situation develop as expected , taking the shot becomes almost instantaneous.
There was a period a few years ago when people with cameras were regarded with great suspicion, fortunately that is slowly fading again. But there will always be the jobs worth's and the paranoid to contend with.

Even a small country village like ours has numerous CCTV cameras constantly recording it's entire length. You would think that people would be more worried about that, than the occasional photo enthusiast.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Even a small country village like ours has numerous CCTV cameras constantly recording it's entire length. You would think that people would be more worried about that, than the occasional photo enthusiast.
Click to expand...
The nearest thing to CCTV in our village is a Ring doorbell or two. :naughty:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
The nearest thing to CCTV in our village is a Ring doorbell or two. :naughty:
Click to expand...
But are you sure? Not even outside the pubs and restaurants? Not sure how many we have but they are all covered.

We are now a posh dormitory village and evening entertainment spot for Manchester as is the whole of Saddleworth.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
But are you sure? Not even outside the pubs and restaurants? Not sure how many we have but they are all covered.

We are now a posh dormitory village and evening entertainment spot for Manchester as is the whole of Saddleworth.
Click to expand...
Nothing posh about East Devon! :naughty:

There may be some private CCTV installations that I haven't noticed but the nearest official ones seem to be on Sandygate roundabout, which serves J30 of the M5.
 
We recently installed a wildlife type camera in our garden to try to identify the dog that keeps leaving deposits, but the village has no cameras on the street.
 
RobC said:
You wouldn't want to test it in court
Click to expand...

Oh believe me I would. There is no legislation in this country that prevents photographs of under 18's unless the images are obscene.

The only possible exception is where a court order is in place.
 
KIPAX said:
No... There was bank robbery close to where I live so I went and stood at the cordon just as the police with dogs arrived... I spoke to a polciewomen who was presumably there to stop anyone getting to close and said I was going to take some pics and I showed her my press card.... she wasnt sure and went to get a police seargant who when I tried to explain was rather rude and before I could mention press or show my card (I think these where his exact words) "what are you telling me for, I cant stop you" then walked away.. Even the polce women semed embarresd

View attachment 384058
Click to expand...

In the normal way, The police have neither the power to stop you nor give you permission.

However you do not have the right to hinder them in their duties. If you are in danger of inflaming a situation they can move you on, for your own and interests of public safety.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
In the normal way, The police have neither the power to stop you nor give you permission.

However you do not have the right to hinder them in their duties. If you are in danger of inflaming a situation they can move you on, for your own and interests of public safety.
Click to expand...


Well thats just common sense wether you ahve a camera in your hand or not...

DemiLion said:
Oh believe me I would. There is no legislation in this country that prevents photographs of under 18's unless the images are obscene.
Click to expand...

I thought the rule wasn't child specific ? I thought this applies to any age as there are no child specific thingy ? :)
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Much of the information you require on the subject is here: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06787/
Click to expand...
The law effecting the welfare and safeguarding of children is a minefield that even council legal departments have trouble getting right.

My grand daughter is in the final stages as qualifying as a family law solicitor. Much of her time is spent on cases and in court, sorting out errors and decisions made by councils in regard to families and children.

As far as I know she has never had to deal with a question of photography. Of course the law does protect children from all forms of abuse. But obscene photography is very much a special case and in the great scheme of things. Does not figure often in the daily case load.
 
www.avonandsomerset.police.uk

Report someone taking photographs in a public place | Avon and Somerset Police

There is no law preventing people taking photographs in a public place, providing they are not considered to be indecent.
www.avonandsomerset.police.uk www.avonandsomerset.police.uk

There is no law preventing people from taking photographs in public. This includes taking photos of other people’s children.


If you are taking photographs from private land, you need to have the land owner’s permission. Taking a photo of a person where they can expect privacy, such as inside their home or garden, is likely to cause a breach of privacy laws.


Unless the images which have been taken are indecent, no one has the right to:


  • ask a photographer to stop
  • ask for a copy of the photos
  • force a photographer to delete the photographs
 
Andrew Benbow said:
If you are taking photographs from private land, you need to have the land owner’s permission
Click to expand...
I'm surprised by that particular statement.

My understanding is that, if you take pictures on private land, the owner has the right to ask you to stop and / or tell you to leave. If you are told to leave and fail to do so, you are trespassing. The problem for the landowner is that trespass is not, of itself, a crime, though it forms a part of several acts that are crimes.
Still, I'm sure that Avon and Somerset Police checked that page with their legal department. :tumbleweed:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I'm surprised by that particular statement.

My understanding is that, if you take pictures on private land, the owner has the right to ask you to stop and / or tell you to leave. If you are told to leave and fail to do so, you are trespassing. The problem for the landowner is that trespass is not, of itself, a crime, though it forms a part of several acts that are crimes.
Still, I'm sure that Avon and Somerset Police checked that page with their legal department. :tumbleweed:
Click to expand...

I wonder what privacy laws that they are talking about? In the UK they are few and far between and give very little protection.
 
KIPAX said:
I thought the rule wasn't child specific ? I thought this applies to any age as there are no child specific thingy ? :)
Click to expand...

It's part of the amended Protection of Children Act 1978. So, yes. It is specific. Which is why I mentioned it.

There is no restriction on obscene images of adults, apart from a few activities, otherwise pornography would not now be legal in the UK.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I'm surprised by that particular statement.

My understanding is that, if you take pictures on private land, the owner has the right to ask you to stop and / or tell you to leave. If you are told to leave and fail to do so, you are trespassing. The problem for the landowner is that trespass is not, of itself, a crime, though it forms a part of several acts that are crimes.
Still, I'm sure that Avon and Somerset Police checked that page with their legal department. :tumbleweed:
Click to expand...


Copyright infringements not a crime either (in general) and yet......


Most private land has an implied licence to pass and repass (for example delivering mail) for access.

There is no implied right to take photographs, or perform any other leisure activity, therefore it would be a breach of the landowners rights.

So, yes. Avon & Somerset are correct.
 
boliston said:
this guy is good when it comes to dealing with jobsworths when trying to photograph in public spaces...
Click to expand...
One does wonder about the paranoia displayed by some when a camera points in their direction... :tumbleweed:
 
One wonders what they think that they are protecting from what.?
 
So the question is this: did the photographer go there with the genuine intention of photographing the building, or did the photographer go there with the intention of deliberately trying to provoke a reaction from the staff.

As per usual with these videos we only see the bits that the photographer wants us to see. We have no idea what the photographer was doing or how he was behaving prior to the confrontation taking place.

At the start of the video the photographer is stood on “private property” so the staff have every right to ask him to move. The member of staff also explains that there are “vulnerable people” in the building. Should not the photographer show a little bit of respect and consideration for those vulnerable people.
 
L320Rio said:
So the question is this: did the photographer go there with the genuine intention of photographing the building, or did the photographer go there with the intention of deliberately trying to provoke a reaction from the staff.

As per usual with these videos we only see the bits that the photographer wants us to see. We have no idea what the photographer was doing or how he was behaving prior to the confrontation taking place.

At the start of the video the photographer is stood on “private property” so the staff have every right to ask him to move. The member of staff also explains that there are “vulnerable people” in the building. Should not the photographer show a little bit of respect and consideration for those vulnerable people.
Click to expand...
Whatever the intention, nothing positive has come from the confrontation. His attitude merely fuels the case for those who object to photographs being taken in public places.
As a street photographer he has done absolutely nothing to enhance my hobby.
He is an absolute embarrassment.
 
gramps said:
He is an absolute embarrassment.
Click to expand...
True enough.

However, sometimes our freedoms are served by such embarrassing people, making the point rather than simply turning away when wrong headed petty officialdom attempts to impose fake law on us. I wouldn't do what he did but I wouldn't stop him from doing it either.
 
I went through a phase of watching a lot of those auditing videos - in some ways it was pretty educational, and it helped me for sure. However, the auditor should maintain some sort of high ground for it to work, and I became tired of the bullying / intimidation from their side so stopped watching.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
True enough.

However, sometimes our freedoms are served by such embarrassing people, making the point rather than simply turning away when wrong headed petty officialdom attempts to impose fake law on us.
Click to expand...
I don’t think people like him aid freedoms at all, they just alienate people. “I’m xxxxxx xxxxxx look me up” - I mean what an absolute embarrassment!
Rights can be defended without making an idiot of yourself and alienating those around you.
 
gramps said:
Rights can be defended without making an idiot of yourself and alienating those around you.
Click to expand...
There are many people, going by the news reports we see daily, who appear to hold a different opinion on that.

At least this bloke and others like him are just being embarrassing and not hurting others.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
At least this bloke and others like him are just being embarrassing and not hurting others.
Click to expand...
Not physically hurting others but he’s definitely causing damage to other street photographers.
 
We have seen all these confrontations before between ignorant people. they are generally unenlightening and not helpful.

The question of vulnerable people is real but impossible to manage.
There are vulnerable people everywhere but they are very largely indistinguishable from the rest of the population. as such they can not be avoided.

The major concern is identifying people in photographs who are being protected from people looking to harm them. Such as the wives and children of abusive partners. fortunately the chances of such people seeing the resulting photographs is vanishingly small. and even if the do it is fortunately unlikely to lead to their location at the present time.

The chances involved are rather less than their chance meeting on the street.

However If you are taking photographs of vulnerable people in their place of residence or regular place of education or support. Then the law against publishing such photographs of vulnerable people comes into direct force,. and restrictions should be and usually are enforced. by the staff. This can be achieved by banning the taking of photographs, separating out the vulnerable people at the time of an official photo shoot. or by asking the photographer to avoid photographing particular people.

Such restrictions can rarely be applied to street photography. as without blanket ban on photographing people, it would be impractical.
 
gramps said:
Not physically hurting others but he’s definitely causing damage to other street photographers.
Click to expand...

What you are suggesting is victim blaming.

He was perfectly with in his rights to photograph that building.
With out the intervention of the security staff there would have been no incident at all.

At most they should only have advised him to remain on public property. They have no other authority.

Fortunately we are now seeing fewer such incidents. As the staff involved (and the police) are becoming better educated as to the rights of photographers, and the limits of their own authority. This has come about largely through the publication of incidents like this one, and a few court cases.

The greatest complication in recent times is knowing the limits of private property. As some large developments include the roads and walkways and open spaces through them.

This can include Housing estates where the roads have not been adopted by the local authority.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
What you are suggesting is victim blaming.

He was perfectly with in his rights to photograph that building.
With out the intervention of the security staff there would have been no incident at all.

At most they should only have advised him to remain on public property. They have no other authority.

Fortunately we are now seeing fewer such incidents. As the staff involved (and the police) are becoming better educated as to the rights of photographers, and the limits of their own authority. This has come about largely through the publication of incidents like this one, and a few court cases.

The greatest complication in recent times is knowing the limits of private property. As some large developments include the roads and walkways and open spaces through them.

This can include Housing estates where the roads have not been adopted by the local authority.
Click to expand...
My comment stands ... he dealt with the situation very poorly, he was an embarrassment and by his offensive & combative stance inflamed a situation to the detriment of other photographers ... and then published it.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
My comment stands ... he dealt with the situation very poorly, he was an embarrassment and by his offensive & combative stance enflamed a situation to the detriment of other photographers ... and then published it.
Click to expand...
There are various possible opinions of that particular situation. You have chosen one and I another.

As with all such discussions, neither of us is correct and neither of us is incorrect.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
idence or regular place of education or support. Then the law against publishing such photographs of vulnerable people comes into direct force,. and restrictions should be and usually are enforced. by the staff. This can be achieved by banning the taking of photographs, separating out the vulnerable people at the time of an official photo shoot. or by asking the photographer to avoid photographing particular people.
Click to expand...

Which law would that be? Please list it and provide a reference.



(Hint: it doesn't exist)
 
Last edited:
benc98 said:
I went through a phase of watching a lot of those auditing videos - in some ways it was pretty educational, and it helped me for sure. However, the auditor should maintain some sort of high ground for it to work, and I became tired of the bullying / intimidation from their side so stopped watching.
Click to expand...
this guy has got to be one of the most 'polite' auditors i have seen - he has a real skill of keeping really calm even when he is taking a lot of abuse from others https://www.youtube.com/@DJAUDITS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top