Trafalgar square new bylaws affecting photography

As far as I am aware you needed permission for professional photography in Trafalgar Square for some years now.
 
Trafalgar Square has had a `no commercial photography` bylaw for years.


Edit to add: ...as Chappers said more quickerer!
 
So people taking street photography may not gain financially from their images unless they obtained prior permission?
 
Um, yeees, that's the meaning of `commercial` in this context, I should imagine.
 
Does anyone know why though?

I mean, first off, why do the borough of London do this, to stop you making money of a picture of Trafalgar square? Is it to give them more control over the images out there and who takes them just to get some cash out of it?

Secondly, what if you did take a picture and decided to sell it on, what exactly would the penalty be?
 
sc0ttie said:
So people taking street photography may not gain financially from their images unless they obtained prior permission?
Click to expand...


People may not abuse TS for profit it mostly says to me. I read that as, if I tried to make a living shooting tourist portraits down their with TS as my obvious backdrop Id be abusing its use for my profit, and that would be illegal.
 
As chappers said its not really new. It's one of numerous London locations that require a permit for commercial photography
 
So if you were a tourist who filmed on their little digital camera the scenes in Trafalgar square and you happen to catch something spontaneous and funny then uploaded your video to youtube, where you had a monetarized account and your video went viral...you would be breaking the law. Quite bizarre really!
 
sc0ttie said:
So if you were a tourist who filmed on their little digital camera the scenes in Trafalgar square and you happen to catch something spontaneous and funny then uploaded your video to youtube, where you had a monetarized account and your video went viral...you would be breaking the law. Quite bizarre really!
Click to expand...

I agree and i am not sure if or how they would be able to do anything about it.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
It would be full of illegal burger vans and gawd knows what wannabe entertainers scamming tourists otherwise. ..keeps it all clean and tidy. :)
Click to expand...

I lvoe a good burger van :) People have to make there money somehow and i dont think street entertainers are scamming tourists.
 
Been taking pic in London for the last few years,no problem :)

Years ago people used to take photos of people with pigeons on them,then sell them the photos,this does not happen any more,so many rules out their it's hard to keep up :(
 
simonblue said:
Been taking pic in London for the last few years,no problem :)

Years ago people used to take photos of people with pigeons on them,then sell them the photos,this does not happen any more,so many rules out their it's hard to keep up :(
Click to expand...

...mainly because they got rid of the pigeons and tent dwelling protesters feeding from peoples hands tends to be frowned up :D



FWIW - the Youtube example probably wouldn't be a problem, as the square would merely be a backdrop, not the actual focal point of the film - but I wouldn't like to be the one to find out for definite either.

As already said, many bits of london, inc Traf sq and Parliament square have needed permission for commercial use for years, it is nothing new. You are not allowed to sell pics of the London eye without a licence, but this came up in a magazine a few years ago and a lawyer specialising explained that it couldn't be the main focal attention on the picture, that would require licencing. However, if it was something else [for the sake of argument, lets say the restaurant ships permanently moored on the opposite bank asked you to do the new images for their website or brochures] where you physically cannot photograph them without the eye appearing in the background, that was fine, as it was incidental to the image.
 
Well there's Vespa World Day but can't think of anything else to get excited about personally
Click to expand...

Hey Paul, if you happen to be anywhere near this with your camera will you post a few pics on here for me. I was going to attend but it looks like I'm going to be on holiday in Cornwell at the time.
 
The same bye law has been in place since 2000 and something, there's nothing new in this.
The Bye law ONLY applies to photos taken WITHIN the Square itself, and therefore, if you are the other side of the road, there is no offence.
Why is the bye law there? I understand that it dates back to pre 2000, when people sold bird seed in the square at rip off prices, and other people sold their services to tourists taking photos of them surrounded by pigeons, and ripped them off even more.
Ken Livingstone hates pigeons, and besides they do damage the Column and lions with acidic poo, apparently. This measure was part of getting rid or reducing the pigeons.
 
Yv said:
...mainly because they got rid of the pigeons and tent dwelling protesters feeding from peoples hands tends to be frowned up :D



FWIW - the Youtube example probably wouldn't be a problem, as the square would merely be a backdrop, not the actual focal point of the film - but I wouldn't like to be the one to find out for definite either.

As already said, many bits of london, inc Traf sq and Parliament square have needed permission for commercial use for years, it is nothing new. You are not allowed to sell pics of the London eye without a licence, but this came up in a magazine a few years ago and a lawyer specialising explained that it couldn't be the main focal attention on the picture, that would require licencing. However, if it was something else [for the sake of argument, lets say the restaurant ships permanently moored on the opposite bank asked you to do the new images for their website or brochures] where you physically cannot photograph them without the eye appearing in the background, that was fine, as it was incidental to the image.
Click to expand...

I miss the pigeons,it was great fun feeding them I remember it from being a kid :)
 
simonblue said:
I miss the pigeons,it was great fun feeding them I remember it from being a kid :)
Click to expand...

So do I. Daresay they are a pest, but there was something about Trafalgar Square and the pigeons...............
 
I think some of it was set up originally to stop the people with monkeys etc, you know the "have your pic taken with a monkey" which was very popular at one time, and similar "street" photographers rather than what we'd think of today as commercial.
How they could ever police it now is beyond me, some compacts have good enough quality to sell I'm sure, and I honestly can't see them stopping all the tourists to check.
 
Bernie174 said:
The same bye law has been in place since 2000 and something, there's nothing new in this.
The Bye law ONLY applies to photos taken WITHIN the Square itself, and therefore, if you are the other side of the road, there is no offence.
Why is the bye law there? I understand that it dates back to pre 2000, when people sold bird seed in the square at rip off prices, and other people sold their services to tourists taking photos of them surrounded by pigeons, and ripped them off even more.
Ken Livingstone hates pigeons, and besides they do damage the Column and lions with acidic poo, apparently. This measure was part of getting rid or reducing the pigeons.
Click to expand...

Actually there is. The new byelaws now carry a summary conviction for breach with a (max) £1,000 fine for trading and £200 for other cases. That's why it requires the SoS's sign off.

As a matter of interest, the same byelaws ban the use of mobile phones in the square!
 
modchild said:
Hey Paul, if you happen to be anywhere near this with your camera will you post a few pics on here for me. I was going to attend but it looks like I'm going to be on holiday in Cornwell at the time.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'll be going to be honest as I'm a Lambretta man personally :thumbs:

lambretta.jpg
 
Last edited:
LOL, nah seriously, I've had both Vespa and Lambrettas but definitly prefer the Bretta.

That's the only one I have on the road I do have to admit, got another I crashed in me yoof that will be back on the road one day. :cool:

This one though I love to bits, goes everywhere without skipping a beat, even did Lands End - John O Groats on it twice in one week in 2006 and my only problem was a rear puncture :thumbs:
 
Demi
No, there is nothing new. The previous bye laws were much the same, the fine may have gone up, (it may also have not, I can't recall the max penalty), but its not been permitted for a very long time for commercial purposes. If its not a photo for gain, then you can fill your boots. Same as you can from the opposite side of the road. It's never been a problem before, it wont be now either. If you want to take photos in the square for gain, all you have to do is ask. From what I understand, very few requests have been refused, as the rules are simply to stop tourist being ripped off. It being crown land (Not public as some think) , the preventive measure can be taken, unlike elsewhere.
 
The restrictions and provisions of the two byelaws may be the same, but the legal structure and penalties that frame it are completely different.

It really isn't hard to understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top