Advice to photographers in Uk

[spylaw4]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't be embarrassed Louis! Higher profile of this issue is good!

 

I have sent a link to the article and a pdf of the Home Office letter to the helpful folks at City Hall (see above), with "raise this" request. particularly given the City Hall role in ODA Affairs.

[Michael-IIIf]

And be careful what you wear when flying...

 

BBC NEWS | England | London | Gun T-shirt 'was a security risk'

 

BAA really do take the biscuit in the stupidity stakes.

[MrEd]

And be careful what you wear when flying...

 

BBC NEWS | England | London | Gun T-shirt 'was a security risk'

 

...the article ends this way:

 

"A BAA spokesman said there was no record of the incident and no "formal complaint" had been made.

"If a T-shirt had a rude word or a bomb on it, for example, a passenger may be asked to remove it," he said.

"We are investigating what happened to see if it came under this category.

"If it's offensive, we don't want other passengers upset."

 

 

...it sounds as if they want to be "sensitive". That's great, now they want to control how people "feel"....

 

 

 

.

[MrEd]

It really is time to get a grip on this nonsense from the most right-wing government we have had in my lifetime before it goes any further. And how much is all this costing?

 

I agree, however the reality is these actions are more left-wing Stalinist, "the government knows what's best for the people"

 

 

 

.

[Pitxu]

I agree, however the reality is these actions are more left-wing Stalinist, "the government knows what's best for the people"

.

 

That's the trouble with extremism, when the left and right go too far, they meet round the back.

[spylaw4]

I see that Amatuer Photographer has an article about a "Rights" card issued by the BFP to its members.

[biglouis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I see that Amatuer Photographer has an article about a "Rights" card issued by the BFP to its members.

 

Brian

 

This is very interesting and it goes to the heart of the incident that involved Steve and I outside the ODA last month.

 

The question I want answered is this. What is the law with respect to photographing private premises and people on private premises from a public space?

 

The BFP card implies that no one or thing has the right to privacy in a public space and that includes buildings. This would imply that buildings and private land has no right to privacy if photographed from a public space. What about individuals on a private space photographed from a public space?

 

The security staff at the ODA questioned Steve and myself about photographing their security staff which they said was "not allowed" (exact words from memory). I believe that this was being used as an excuse to stop general photography and the issue of their personnel was just a blind.

 

So, bottom line, if I'm standing on the pavement and I photograph premises that include people is that included in the lack of privacy in a public space because I can see it from a public space?

 

LouisB

[Nick De Marco]

First thanks to those who pointed me to this thread from the M8 forum.

 

I read with interest the article concerning your recent run in with the authorities, Louis. It seems too me to be yet another example of certain people in authority interpreting the law to be more restrictive of photographers than it is.

 

As well as being a photographer, I am a barrister in a set of chambers that is one of the leading ones in the UK on human rights law. Although it is not my specific field of expertise, I would summarise things as follows:

 

1. So far as a general law of privacy is involved, this concept itself is controversial and not generally accepted. The protection against the invasion of private and family life, pursuant to Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act, is generally a protection from interference by a public body, it does not (although argument remains about this) create a free-standing right that one private individual can rely on against another.

 

2. Individuals’ right to be left alone by other individuals is protected by other areas of the common law and the Protection from Harassment Act. In short, torts such as trespass would prevent a person from doing something on another person's land or property (and that could include taking photographs) without permission. The Protection from Harassment Act might be enough to provide a person with a remedy against a persistent photographer or paparazzi who follows them everywhere causing them fear or distress - even if that photographer does so in a public place. There are other more marginal areas of the law (such as nuisance, defamation, copyright) that could apply in certain circumstances.

 

I would assume the following. Generally it is not unlawful to take a photograph of any person or thing when you are in a public place (albeit you may not be allowed to use that person's image for commercial purposes without consent). On private property (and that can include some shopping malls etc.) the landlord will generally have a right to decide the conditions of your entry (and therefore whether you take photographs). If you are in a public place and taking a photograph of a private place - for example you are on the street photographing a shop - that in itself is not unlawful. If you are asked to stop and you continue to do so there may be an argument that you are committing some offence (whether of harassment or nuisance etc) but I think it will be very difficult for anyone to prove in court without persistent and threatening conduct by the photographer.

 

In addition to this there are various (widely drafted) offences purportedly aimed at protecting children from sexual assault and preventing terrorism. These may deem photographing to be suspicious conduct in certain circumstances. However, if the photographer is not ‘grooming’ or harassing a child, is not using a child's image for sexual purposes and/or is not taking a photograph to assist in a terrorist act, then all the authorities can lawfully do is treat such conduct in certain circumstances as suspicious, as the photographer should be able to explain him/herself.

 

It is not illegal to take photographs in this country - yet!

 

As I say, I don't specialise in this are of law, although my practice does touch on it, but that is my understanding.

[biglouis]

It is not illegal to take photographs in this country - yet

 

Nick

 

Firstly, thank you very much for a legal opinion.

 

I absolutely concur with and understand my responsibilities towards landlords on their premises. To that end, for example, I have recently negotiated with British Land that I will be able to take photographs on their premises for a 2 hour period at some point in the future. I recommend that amateur photographers approach landlords and try to do this rather than enter private spaces and photograph and then complain about mistreatment, when in fact they do not have a leg to stand on.

 

In the case of Steve and myself, because we both understand the restrictions of photography on private land and we neither entered the ODA, nor did we actually take photographs, if you like a belt and braces approach in order to avoid just the kind of unpleasant incident that did happen.

 

In fact, your interpretation seems to indiciate that we could have taken photographs from the public pavement of the ODA site and if objected to then (as I have always suspected) there is no immediate right to take action but you have to take legal steps through the courts to suppress images or otherwise control the actions of a private individual.

 

The whole crux of the incident at the ODA is that we were challenged on the public pavement about our 'suspicious' activities by private security guards, when in fact the only authority who could do this in a public space is the police.

 

And in any case, regardless of our status, it is unlikely that the ODA can argue any right of privacy for property or individuals photographed from a public place.

 

Thanks again for taking an interest and for the clarity you bring to the debate.

 

Louis

[Michael-IIIf]

 

And in any case, regardless of our status, it is unlikely that the ODA can argue any right of privacy for property or individuals photographed from a public place.

 

Especially one we are paying for.

[Michael-IIIf]

On private property (and that can include some shopping malls etc.) the landlord will generally have a right to decide the conditions of your entry (and therefore whether you take photographs).

 

Nick,

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Just to add to your above point. I believe photography is prohibited in the Royal Parks as well. They are, one assumes, private property and therefore the Royal Parks Commission has the right to apply this rule if they wish. However, in practice I've never seen anyone stopped for photography in my many many excursions to Regent's Park.

 

Michael

[spylaw4]

Michael, I would assume that the Royal Park so called ban is there so that it can be used promptly against anyone deemed to be harassing someone or causing a nuisance.

 

Nick, thank you for that clear summary of the law that you as a barrister understand it. I have always assumed that if one is in a public place one can photograph objects/people that are on private property within obvious limits (unlesss of course the object is the offspring of J K Rowling). It would be helpful to have a good (legal) definition of a "public place"? Is it arguable that a notionally private space e.g. the communal external areas of a shopping precinct owned by a developer for example, by the very fact that they are permanently open for public access could become "public space", especially if there was no visible notice indicating private ownership?

[andybarton]

Brian

 

The demise of a private property in the context that you describe, is often marked on the ground by the way of brass studs, or something similar.

 

As a member of the public, you are permitted to walk across and use the space, but it is not in itself "public". It is still private property, until you cross the stud line.

 

A bit like Gregory Peck in "The Scarlet and the Black"

 

You might also see a notice on an adjacent wall, confirming that the area is private property. Without such a notice, after 12 years (IIRC) continual and unfettered use, the private property would become public in the true sense. Therefore, if you have people walking through your garden for 12 years, they will have created a public right of way, if you don't stop them. Better check now

 

I have worked on projects where we created a "permitted path", to allow free access for the public through the scheme. However, on one day each year, a gate is closed for 24 hours, thus preserving our rights to withdraw the permission at any time.

[spylaw4]

Ah yes, I had forgotten about the stud line.

 

Difficult to walk through my "garden" as I'm on the 1st floor !

[farnz]

...Just to add to your above point. I believe photography is prohibited in the Royal Parks as well. They are, one assumes, private property and therefore the Royal Parks Commission has the right to apply this rule if they wish. However, in practice I've never seen anyone stopped for photography in my many many excursions to Regent's Park.

<sigh> Regretfully I come to the fore again ... I was stopped from photographing by a security guard in the early morning last summer in Greenwich Park. I was minding my own business using a tripod to catch the early light in the open collonades at the Imperial War Museum (picture below) and the security guard approached me and told me that I could not use a tripod for photography in the Royal Parks. I asked him if I could use a monopod (I was prepared to retract two of my tripod's legs) but he unconfidently said he didn't think so and told me that I was being recorded on CCTV and I'd get him into trouble with his boss. I didn't want to push it because he was apologetic, I had all the shots I wanted and the magic hour was already over so I left.

 

Pete.

 

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!

[elansprint72]

So; is a photographer engaged in lawfully taking photos in a public place, who is tackled by a private security guard or PCSO, not therefore covered by the Protection from Harassment Act?

[biglouis]

So; is a photographer engaged in lawfully taking photos in a public place, who is tackled by a private security guard or PCSO, not therefore covered by the Protection from Harassment Act?

 

Well, that is sort-of my point with ODA. The bottom line is that I could still walk into a police station and report the incident. It would then be up to the police to decide if I had been assaulted or harassed in some way. But life is way too short to start down that route......

 

LouisB

[DaveB]

Tourists and others have been getting hassled by security while photographing at Union Station in Washington, D. C. So the local TV station decided to investigate and were assured by the manager of the rail authority that there was no prohibition to photograph inside the train station.

 

While interviewing the gentleman inside Union Station a security guard approached the TV crew and told them they were not allowed to film.

 

From this weekend apparently.

 

MyFox Washington DC | Union Station Photo Flap

[wattsy]

<sigh>the security guard approached me and told me that I could not use a tripod for photography in the Royal Parks.

 

The 'ban' on tripods and the like in the Royal Parks has been around for years and has more to do with protecting commercial rights than a creeping paranoia about privacy, etc. The Royal Parks will happily let you pay for a permit to take professional/commercial photographs.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[elansprint72]

I have seen the future.............

 

Guardian Weekly podcast: Naomi Klein on Police State 2.0 | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

Shenzhen, population 12.4m, CCTVs 2m and rising..........