'You are not allowed to photograph this building'

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

They are bully boys who are doing London a disservice. In most cities anyone can take pictures of interesting looking buildings, and why not? As I am interested in and write about design I do so quite a lot. Two occasions I have found pictures to be unwelcome: inside a Dunedin shopping mall here in NZ (heritage architecture looked appealing) and shop frontages in Venice -- perhaps because owners are worried rivals will steal their shop dressing ideas.

 

From what I have read it certainly looks as if Britain is paranoid about people taking photographs. Will the authorities behave this way when the Olympics is on? It certainly won't encourage visitors.

 

I looked up Palestra and saw Palestra, London, Architect, Southwark Office Building, Palestra London architect is Will Alsop (ALSOPSPARCH) Why not email him direct, say you were keen to take a picture of the building he designed but were harassed and intimidated by security goons? Also perhaps email the tenants. It's not good PR or a good look for anyone involved with this building.

[aymoon]

@Andy Barton

 

Not sure if your reference to posting from an iphone was with regards to getting a release form etc. but there's an app called 'easy release' and it's brilliant. Has a built in standard waiver which the model/property owner can sign on the screen, and it automatically generates a pdf and jpg which can be emailed immediately. I used it on my last assignment (albeit on an ipad) and it is brilliant!!!

 

To the OP: God I wish I was there!!! Well done!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[MarkP]

I just realised you can't post the images as they were taken with the Hasselblad:(.

If you copy the images using your Leica you could then post them:D

 

Mark

[stuny]

Nick -

 

Very nicely done. You might want to send a print of the guard's photo to the company.

[Jaybob]

He picked on the wrong guy.

 

Well played, Nick. Keeping a level head while asserting your rights is always the way to go about it. Asserting your rights without keeping a level head almost never works out.

 

Jay

[Guest BigSplash]

I congratulate Nick for his stance and look forward to seeing the images of the idiots that tried to stop him taking photos of a building. I have read the above and find the law somewhat confusing.

• Taking photos in Harrods is against the rule of that store (to protect the IPR of the items on display, and the display arrangements that Harrods have made) I guess I can live with that one as it is private property. I guess that this is OK despite it being openly accessible to the public. because that access has a well marked restriction of "No Photography" at each door. I presume that stores that do NOT post their restrictions are not able to enforce a "No photography" rule...is that correct?
  
• Taking photos at a football match, or at Wimbledon is also private property and in both cases press photographers and TV have paid heavily for the photo rights. So if I take a winning image and sell it ...what then?
  
• If I take from the street an image of someone and use this image in a book with other images and I sell the book then do I risk anything if I do not have a signed disclaimer / right to use? (Clearly that is different to taking a Wayne Rooney image and then using this within an advert, or as part of merchandizing material.)
  
• If I take occassional images of a potential terrorist targets then is that now allowed .....House of Commons, Heathrow Airport Interior (excluding security area which is noted as forbidden), ?
  

Surely there is an obligation on a property owner, or the authorities for public places to identify any restrictions on photography in a given area....

 

Surely taking even a celebrity photo and using this for personal gain (not product endorsement) is also OK ....Onassis Kennedy failed to secure her right to not be hounded by one press guy, until he was found guilty of harassment. Lady Di was photographed quite a lot also.

[farnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...

[*]If I take from the street an image of someone and use this image in a book with other images and I sell the book then do I risk anything if I do not have a signed disclaimer / right to use? ...

You risk nothing unless you deliberately portray said subject in a degrading or detrimental manner in which case he may have grounds for a civil suit against you. In practice, few publishers will publish a photo without an appropriate release so the question becomes largely moot anyway.

 

...

[*]If I take occassional images of a potential terrorist targets then is that now allowed .....House of Commons, Heathrow Airport Interior (excluding security area which is noted as forbidden)? ...

How do you define a 'potential terrorist target'? The list is potentially endless so the only people who would know would be terrorists themselves. Is there something you're not telling us, Frank ... ?

 

Pete.

[pico]

You risk nothing unless you deliberately portray said subject in a degrading or detrimental manner in which case he may have grounds for a civil suit against you. In practice, few publishers will publish a photo without an appropriate release so the question becomes largely moot anyway.

 

I am not sure that's true of the USA publishers.

 

For the rest - surf out the lawsuit brought by Erno Nussenzweig against Philip-Lorca diCorcia because Nussenzweig's image appeared in diCorcia's book, Heads.

[jaapv]

I'm confident of your ability to talk yourself out of any situation, Frank..

[LuxBob]

So what did the security guards do when the Google car came by? Here it is in Google Street View Google Maps If this doesn't work got to Google Maps Strret view and there it is identified as Palestra.

I assume therefore that the owners or leasors, whoever its is that is worried, has an action against Google?

Sorry the link just goes to the global view but if you enter 197 Blackfriars Road, London SE1, it gets you there.

Edited December 6, 2010 by LuxBob

[steich]

Wow.

Wikileaks and Google Street View seem to cooperate.

Or why do THEY show that top secret building?

197 Blackfriars Road - Google Maps

 

Regards

Stefan

[farnz]

I am not sure that's true of the USA publishers.

I accept that but Frank was asking about photography in the UK following his trip here this week.

 

Pete.

[bill]

Nick, well done - I am delighted that they picked on the wrong person

 

Now. For the sake of clarity, before this thread deteriorates... Legislation regarding what constitutes public or private property, copyright, use of model releases, etc. is specific to a country. There is no global agreement on these issues. It is therefore up to the photographer to ensure that they are aware of their rights and the relevant legislation in the country in which they are operating, whether they are resident or just visiting. One universal truth is this - ignorance of the law is no defence.

 

PLEASE therefore do not state categorically that a model release is mandatory; it may be in the US, for example, but it is not in the UK.

 

Finally, this subject has been discussed in detail for the last thirty three months here. I would suggest reading before asking questions that have been addressed many times before.

 

Thank you.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[roguewave]

Nick, interesting account of your adventure. I run into this issue all the time in Chinatown. In particular, on Canal Street, we have the largest open air & small shop gathering of illegal, knock offs of every consumer item possible. Increasingly, the Chinese (not American Chinese, but Chinese Chinese) illegal counterfeiters are employing African illegals to sell the goods on the streets & act as buffers between the police & the owners of these counterfeit rings.

 

Because of the over the top paranoia, every time I raise my camera, the street guys go crazy. I inform them they have no rights to interfere with my activities or person. I tell them this is America, not some 3rd world country. When they try to intimidate me I take multiple pictures of them, which brings the situation to head. I tell them that if they want to stay here, they need to know what their rights are & the rights of others, so they can be good citizens. I stress that I fight for my rights & so should they, but trying to intimidate others will only lead to jail & having to leave the country.

 

People don't mess with me much in this regards anymore. They know me, but there's always the new guy. It's a perilous issue for everyone. The Africans are scared of getting caught & deported. The vendors that supply the illegal goods are even more paranoid, because the shops are completely open to the street and I stand on the sidewalk & take their pictures and shops. They rant & rave until I tell them they have no right to stop me & if they try I will sue them for harassment. I always laugh when they try to get heavy with me. "How can you tell what to do when you are selling illegal goods in the middle of Canal Street", is my usual reply.

 

Glad you're in the fight.

[Bo_Lorentzen]

LOL. Ben good for you.

 

.

[Guest BigSplash]

Finally, this subject has been discussed in detail for the last thirty three months here. I would suggest reading before asking questions that have been addressed many times before.

Bill

 

Actually what you are referring to is being stopped in the UK by the police (rather than private property security guards) for taking images of what individual police officers deem to be potential terrorist targets .....such as Big Ben! That sticky gave an insight into many people who were stopped, even brought to police stations and eventually this resulted in a statement from the Home Office. Time has moved on in any case and the new government says that it is committed to more freedom of the individual.It has stopped the identity card program for example.

 

I am now of the opinion that taking a photo of Big Ben, or within Euston Station or Heathrow (excluding the security check area) is no longer an issue ...I hope that is correct! However as someone who is none resident in UK I am intrigued as to precisely what the CURRENT UK law is on photography in nominally public places.

 

Recently I took the image below that is likely to be used as the cover of a tourist magazine here in France, depicting "our heritage". I did not ask the lady for a "right to use" signature ......I now wonder if that would put me at risk of being sued by her. Separately the image shows the local town hall ...a public building, and perhaps one that might be targeted by terrorists or unhappy locals

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[andybarton]

In my opinion, you should have got a release from this lady as her image will be used to sell a commercial magazine or publication.

[bill]

+1

 

It is therefore up to the photographer to ensure that they are aware of their rights and the relevant legislation in the country in which they are operating, whether they are resident or just visiting.

 

The lady is clearly recognisable and that sounds like commercial use to me, both intended (at the time of taking the snap) and actual.

[earleygallery]

In my opinion, you should have got a release from this lady as her image will be used to sell a commercial magazine or publication.

 

I agree - my understanding of the French law is that you need permission from the subject if they are the main person/recognisable and if you are going to commercially publish the image.

 

However, the woman in question would need to see the image, and then object/take legal action if she was unhappy. Chances are she'd be quite flattered in this context. In any case the publisher will probably refuse to use the image without a model release form.

 

Frank, I suggest you consult your legal council first.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[arminw]

Well done for standing up and not letting the security guards walk all over you ...