Will this make a difference?

[spylaw4]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This being new guidelines for the Security Industry vs. photographers. Unfortunately it's use is not compulsory, but it's a start.

[andybarton]

Thanks Brian.

 

That is helpful and would be worth carrying in the bag

[Richardgb]

A step in the right direction, certainly. A pity, though, the guidelines were not addressed to the police, too, from whom hassle has also been reported.

 

One problem in Britain is identifying when one is on private or public land. There numerous examples of places to where the public is admitted, but which are, in fact, private - railway stations as well as some shopping centres and car parks come to mind. Conversely, there are cases where a public right of way (e.g. a footpath) crosses private land, and this counts as being on public land as far as taking a photogrpah is concerned anyway.

 

In case this sounds like doom and gloom, not so. In fact, some larger organisations (the English, Welsh and Scottish railway companies again) tackled this some while ago and produced similar guidlines for those wishing to photograph trains and stations, subject to understandable safety considerations.

 

Finally, I would add that it sometimes pays to play the innocent foreign tourist - take the photo first and look bewildered if challenged.

[pgk]

Finally, I would add that it sometimes pays to play the innocent foreign tourist - take the photo first and look bewildered if challenged.

I would disagree. Acting in a way that clearly states that you are acting with intention and that you obviously know your rights and have a clear understanding of them is my approach - I have never been challenged to date.

 

I would add as an aside that I have seen a policeman (on a tv program) explain to a suspect that they have no right to request that they should not be filmed being arrested in a public place because the photographer has an absolute right to film in a public place - hence why there are numerous police-in-action programs on the telly. So some policemen/women clearly know and understand the law.

[Richardgb]

More on this in the British Journal of Photography

 

"Security guards have no right to prevent street photography," says Home Office - British Journal of Photography

[spylaw4]

A step in the right direction, certainly. A pity, though, the guidelines were not addressed to the police, too, from whom hassle has also been reported.

 

One problem in Britain is identifying when one is on private or public land.<snip>.

 

For those who might not be aware. On the street - footpaths in particular - there is usually an indication of the junction between public and private areas. This may simply be a series of small brass studs inlaid in the paving, or possibly a change in surface material/texture.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those who might not be aware. On the street - footpaths in particular - there is usually an indication of the junction between public and private areas.

But if there is no indication and the public have an established right of use then even private land may be regarded as publically accessible - using common sense (admittedly often in short supply) indicates that it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to actually stop you taking a photo from such areas unless there is a very obvious reason why. Many problems are in the mind but not reflected in reality. For example straying a yard or so from a public footpath would negate the photographer being on publically accessible land - but who is really going to prove/enforce this after the event?