'You are not allowed to photograph this building'

[Nick De Marco]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This morning, on the way to the darkroom to make some prints, Ripon and I both had to finish some films - many of you might know I have this Rangefinder Chronicles project and blog whereby I must take and upload a film rangefinder photograph every day for ever.

 

We stopped by Southwark tube and I set my tripod up with a Hassleblad Xpan on it and started shooting an office block with interesting architecture:

Palestra House, 197 Blackfriars Road.

 

Within second the security guard came out and said 'You an't take photographs here' I asked him why. He said it was private property. I was standing below the over hang of the building on what looks like the pavement, but it had different colour paving stones. So I picked up my tripod and put it one inch the other side of what was obviously the pavement and continued photographing.

 

Security guard continued to tell me I was 'not allowed" to phtograph the building. I told him I was in a public place and of course I could photograph it. This exchange carried on for a few minutes and I started to take some photographs with my Leica of the security guard. He said "don't take my photograph" - so I said, 'fine, get out of the way of my lens'. But he wouldn't move and kept telling me that it was not allowed to take photographs of the office.

 

He picked on the wrong guy. I'm a barrister as well, and I told me that of course I could photograph it, he had no legal entitlement to tell me otherwise and no right to continue to harass me. I suggested if he was so concerned he could as a policeman.

 

A couple of minutes later a policeman arrived and asked me what I was doing. I told him that although it was no business of his, I was obviously taking photographs of this building and for some strange reason the security guard believed I was not allowed to which was, of course, nonsense. The policeman established I was not on their property and after a brief discussion shrugged and walked off.

 

the the security man got some more security people down. One said, in a very official voice, that I was 'not allowed' to photograph the building. We had the same conversation, and when I asked on what grounds, I was told, because you are not allowed. Naturally, I told them they were mistaken, and continued to photograph.

 

The first security guy then called the police again. And a car, with siren blairing (!) soon pulled up. One police officer came up and asked me what I was doing. I asked the officer why she was so interested. She said they had been called to a disturbance and a 999 call had been made. Of course, I stood my ground again, told them it was nonsense and they should think about questioning the security guard for wasting police time.

 

Another officer suggested to me that the security guard might be worried because of the "terrorist climate" (that old chestnut, wheeled out when all else fails. I said, 'you look like a sensible man, officer, do you really believe a terrorist would come along in broad daylight with a tripod and a film camera and take photos, and when challenged instead of going away would suggest the security consult the police as they were mistaken. He accepted this was ridiculous and, in a nutshell, the police must have told the security guys to stop wasting everybody's time.

 

I had in fact taken all the photographs I wanted about 10 minutes before, but decided to stay simply to resolve this. A share this rather mundane story because I get increasingly irritated by people asserting that it is unlawful to take photographs. It's an interference in everyone's civil rights, and as a photographer it is tiresome. Of course it helps to know a little about about your rights as a photographer before entering an argument about this, but I strongly advocate every other photographer to stand up for their rights when they can. By doing so, you usually defeat those who think they can stop us photographing. By not doing so they achieve their aim.

 

Once I develop my film I shall see if I have any nice portraits of the Security Guard to upload on my Rangefinder Chronicles blog

 

Nick

Rangefinder Chronicles

[Nikkor AIS]

Way to go Nick. I applaud you standing up for the rights of photographers. Further more it's really important that we all take note of how you handled this situation.

Your calm and level headed demeaner is the perfect reponse to this types of situations.

Thanks for sharing your story

 

 

gregory

[Keith (M)]

Well done, Nick. these 'JobsWorths' can be a real pain in the neck. Time they were educated as to the law regarding taking photographs in public places.

[click]

"I am not photographing the building, I am photographing the light and no one owns the light."

[redbaron]

This should be a sticky! Well done.

 

I got told off by a 'security' guard for using a pro camera in a covered arcade in Melbourne a while ago. I was writing a travel article on Melbourne and had intended to use a photo of the arcade. While Wally was venting his spleen tourists all around us were taking pictures! Only pro cameras were banned, he claimed. I gave up but later phoned the manager and told her what had happened. She offered a special permit, but I told her I would either leave the arcade out of the story or tell readers not to bother with it. She was furious.

[earleygallery]

Well done Nick, it's only by standing ones ground and challenging these idiots that we will stop or stunt the spread of such paranoid behaviour. Luckily you dealt with sensible policemen too!

[Guest BigSplash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nick I find this a very interesting thread and would like to know exactly what are the legal rights to photograph in the UK.

Specifically:

• If you had taken images from a position on the pavement of the property is that illegal, and if so what law have you broken and what damage / retribution do you face?
  
• If you take an image of a person is that allowed?
  
• If you subsequently use the image of a person or building etc for an advert etc where you as a photographer make a commercial gain is that allowed or do you need a waiver signed by the person / property owner?
  
• If you take images in a shop (eg Harrods) they advise that you must not take photos...is that legal? Shops are on one side private property, but are also freely available places for the public to access so how does the law accommodate this?
  

I am intrigued by these issues as on my visit to Uk this week I was amased by how legalistic the UK situation seems to be for someone who has lived in France for a long time. Maybe that is just my perception.

I i

[andybarton]

Good grief...

 

Taking phtographs on public property, such as the street, is perfectly legal. It is perfectly legal to take a photograph of anyone on the street. Why would it not be?

 

If you are on private property, then the owner if the property can stop you taking photographs. So Nick moving beyond the curtilage of the building put him on public property. Harrods is private property. Al Fayed can ask you to leave at any time, just as you could if he were in your house.

 

If you take someone's photograph WITH THE INTENTION OF PUBLICATION FOR GAIN, then a rights waiver would be required. I gave one to a photog when he took my photo while I was walking in Snowdonia a few years ago. No idea if it was ever used - I doubt it.

 

Photographers have far more freedom on the street here, even now, than they do in France.

[redbaron]

Andy, 'public place' should be replaced by 'public property'. Some places, like sporting grounds, are public places, but they are also private property, so may have restrictions on photography. I know you are aware of this, but it's a very fine legal technicality that is often misunderstood.

 

And Frank, to answer your questions; it depends...

[IkarusJohn]

Hi Nick,

 

I'm surprised (and relieved) the Police did not press the "disturbance of the peace" argument, nor did they point out that you had no right to stop on the footpath and set up your tripod, as the right to use the road and the footpath is only to pass and re-pass. This argument used to be used in the dark old ages (well, 1960s actually) to surpress dissent and to generally keep people from being a nuisance. Nice to see it wasn't raised in your case.

 

A few years ago, I stayed at the Paramount Hotel, just off Times Square. In the entry way, they had a wall with single red roses arranged geometrically against a white marble background (designed by Phillipe Starck). I took a few pictures, and a security guard, dressed in a very groovy black tee-shirt and suit, approached and told me that they discouraged people from taking photographs.

 

I continued snapping till I got the picture I wanted, and said that as the wall was visible from a public place, and I was on the sidewalk which was a public place, they had no legal grounds for their "discouragement", and further as a guest of the hotel, I felt his approach was at best impolite. He didn't push the matter and and went inside.

 

I'm not at all sure about "photographers' rights", as it seems a bit of a grey area. As an individual, it seems to me that I have rights, for example to protect my children from snoopers etc (and the case law here in NZ backs that situation) - not everything that's visible in public should be photographed (breast feeding mothers, naked children, etc). So any rights, it seems to me, come with obligations.

 

But people claiming copyright on buildings etc need to be given a lesson, I agree. I loathe the way in which event organisers control the sale of rights, including images - this seems all wrong to me. Whether the Football World Cup in Germany (a nasty US beer the only officially sanctioned beer? in Germany? D'oh!), or in South Africa (they carried the cost of development, but failed to get the lion's share of the income) or the Rugby World Cup here next year (just wait and see - the IRB will be exploiting this event like mad).

 

Fortunately, photography of interest here is unlikely to cause problems.

 

Cheers

John

[adan]

I've had two more or less identical experiences - and took more or less the same line with the rent-a-bobbies.

 

"Is this sidewalk your property? No? End of conversation."

 

In my cases that actually WAS the end of it - no real cops involved.

 

Just for the record, it does not have to involve officialdom (even ersatz officialdom). I've had a pricey sports car driver tell me to stop photographing his car (parked in a public lot). My response was "Public place, bro."

 

Andy, I'd question your phrasing slightly. If I take a picture of someone (or something) with the INTENTION of publishing it, fail to get a release, and then decide not to publish, I doubt the person can claim I violated the law because of my intention alone. The publication has to actually take place.

 

However, getting the release on the off-chance is a good idea while the person is present.

[andybarton]

These things are true, guys. Thanks. However, if you intend to publish, for gain, then getting a release is a pretty good idea, whether you actually do or not.

 

Posting from an iPhone has its drawbacks...

[earleygallery]

I don't think we need another debate over what our rights as photogeaphers are, we already have several lengthy threads and of course laws differ around the world.

 

Just to correct one point however, public place means just that, somewhere freely open and accesible to the

general public. A store, 'mall' or sporting arena is private property where you enter at the owners permission ( or terms) or pay to enter.

[redbaron]

I don't think we need another debate over what our rights as photogeaphers are, we already have several lengthy threads and of course laws differ around the world.

 

Just to correct one point however, public place means just that, somewhere freely open and accesible to the

general public. A store, 'mall' or sporting arena is private property where you enter at the owners permission ( or terms) or pay to enter.

 

That depends on which legislation you are looking at. If a person is carrying a weapon, for instance, a mall or sporting ground is a public place. Being found drunk in a public place, or using offensive language in a public place are also offences in many countries.

[andybarton]

A street is a public place and public property; a shopping mall or "Harrods", is a private place, open to the public, at the will of the owner. That makes a huge difference.

 

The overhang, under a building, even if accessible to the public, is still private property, even if the public have access 24 hours per day. The owner of that property can still decide what he or she will allow to take place on that property.

 

James is right - there is already a huge thread dedicated to this subject that has done it to death.

[redbaron]

I'm sincerely sorry if people think I have derailed this thread. That was not my intention. I applaud Nick's actions and my point was actually to suggest that it is just as important to know where you stand legally (pun intended) as to be able to defend your rights.

[Ronazle]

Bravo Nick,

ron

[dave_d]

I look forward to seeing the portrait to go along with the story.

[MarkP]

I look forward to seeing the portrait to go along with the story.

 

I agree. Please post the images of the building.

 

Mark:)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[menos I M6]

Thanks Nick for standing your ground and giving some knowledge to the unknowing.

Thanks also for keeping the cool and not falling for the standard traps and harassment.