UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

[exosculate]

Its weird when you get bad reactions. I took one of a bloke in a cafe and he went mental. This clearly was not a public space. But I chatted with him for a while about photography what I do it for and all that. He calmed right down. By the end of it he was saying really warm goodbyes.

The photos were crap though. Win some lose some.

 

[toggle]

Right, himself says:

there are buildings in that area that you can be prohibited from photographing under the official secrets act. The security would inform you of the reason why you can't take photos of that building, not try and threaten you of 'consequences' and challenge you to take another photo.

To him, it sounds like either an idiot of a guard, or an idiot of a manager has heard of this and is trying to use the official grounds for not photographing some buildings, and is trying to copy this to make claims that you can't photograph them either.

The situation in which they would call in the police to stop a photographer would be if there had been specific threats against that building, or a recent armed robbery or other serious crime of that sort. In that case, the first thing you would have known about would be the police talking to you. Security guards aren't supposed to stop epople in that situation.

 

[girasol]

on a serious note, is it ok to take photos of private property if you're standing on public property?

 

[exosculate]

Yes, you can, so long as it doesn't break any other laws.

Or do you think they filter out all the children passing by in news pieces, for example?

Have to say, I thought the photographing of children was a grey area. I don't do it much anyway, but occasionally I see good shots that I don't take because of this.

 

[editor]

on a serious note, is it ok to take photos of private property if you're standing on public property?

Yes, so long as you're not breaking any other laws (so you can take pictures of Buckingham Palace from the street but you can't walk into their land and start snapping).

Just think about the photos that shite celeb mags like Heat publish.

 

[editor]

It isn't!! Honestly, go to Portsmouth. Take a shot of the battle ships and the triangular looking one in dock and see how far you get before the red caps swoop on your arse.

It was the same for Telecom Tower:

Curious fact! Despite the BT Tower being one of most recognisable and conspicuous buildings in London, it was classed as an 'official secret' until fairly recently, and taking or possessing photos of the BT/Post Office Tower was technically an offence under the Official Secrets Act!

This rather begs the question: why wasn't Noel Edmonds locked up for broadcasting live Christmas Day programmes there in the seventies?!

In line with its 'secret' status, this 620ft London landmark was also omitted from all Ordnance Survey maps until the mid 1990s (it is now marked on modern maps)

Kate Hoey MP, speaking in Parliament in Feb 1993: "Hon. Members have given examples of seemingly trivial information that remains officially secret. An example that has not been mentioned, but which is so trivial that it is worth mentioning, is the absence of the British Telecom tower from Ordnance Survey maps. I hope that I am covered by parliamentary privilege when I reveal that the British Telecom tower does exist and that its address is 60 Cleveland Street, London"

http://www.urban75.org/london/telecom.html

 

[Poot]

Yes, so long as you're not breaking any other laws (so you can take pictures of Buckingham Palace from the street but you can't walk into their land and start snapping).

Just think about the photos that shite celeb mags like Heat publish.

It does seem a little strange that you can publish photos of Britney Spears's bits for the world to see but you can't take a piccy of a car park.

 

[toggle]

it is bizarre.

(feels ignored here)

 

[Firky]

It was the same for Telecom Tower:

Nuts isn't it? This apparently does not exist, I took this quite hastly:



Despite it being huge, check out the scale with the lorry!

 

[editor]

Nuts isn't it? This apparently does not exist, I took this quite hastly:

*reports firky to the law and waits for reward

Like I said, you can take pics anywhere in a public place unless you happen to be breaking other laws.

Check out this guy getting it wrong:
http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0204nus.html

 

[trashpony]

Nuts isn't it? This apparently does not exist, I took this quite hastly:



Despite it being huge, check out the scale with the lorry!

I don't know what that pic is of. I can't see anything?

 

[exosculate]

I don't know what that pic is of. I can't see anything?

Shudup its illegal.

*move along nothing to see here*

 

[cesare]

He can give his cleaner the day off tomorrow. Every cloud and all that......

Don't drag it down further exo (happy birthday for t'other day btw x)

 

[Kanda]

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf for reference, think it's current.

 

[Firky]

I don't know what that pic is of. I can't see anything?

It is the HMS Invincible, one of the biggest ships in the Royal Navy. It is supposed to be being mothballed - depiste it still being manned and used activley. I'm sure the aussies were supposed to buy it after the first gulf war?

 

[pk]

When I was a video cameraman full time I'd get this shit all the time, and ignore it, shoot first and ask permission later.

 

[Robster970]

I've only just caught up with this thread - the flying squad response would have probably made me piss myself too.

Since I got thrown out of a shopping centre I made a point of knowing exactly where we stand in english law with regards to photographing anything. Paul Russell put up a link in a thread a long time ago on a summary written by an english lawyer - i've found that useful with dispelling the myths when approached by anybody who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Just be polite but firm. Nice one ed.

 

[Firky]

I was thrown off Gunwharf Quays, forgot about that. However they did not throw my flatmate off... could it be because she was a very attractive lass? Methinkso.

Bastards.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I saw a lad last week at Paddington railway station having his details taken by one of those pseudo-cops, community officer types - he was protesting his right to take pictures and, quite reasonably i thought, also pointing out the absence of an clear signage to state that what he was doing wasn't allowed. The fed wasn't interested and told him to be quiet or he would have him arrested and his camera nicked. I would have thought that a train station counted as a public place but apparently not.

 

[Robster970]

I was thrown off Gunwharf Quays, forgot about that. However they did not throw my flatmate off... could it be because she was a very attractive lass? Methinkso.

Bastards.

you should have put a wig on

 

[Paul Russell]

In case the link hasn't already been posted, it's here.

pdf

I should read it myself!

I try not to hang around anywhere too long with security guards, because generally they are bored shitless with inactivity, and get very excited about getting the chance to do actually do something.

I've only just caught up with this thread - the flying squad response would have probably made me piss myself too.

Since I got thrown out of a shopping centre I made a point of knowing exactly where we stand in english law with regards to photographing anything. Paul Russell put up a link in a thread a long time ago on a summary written by an english lawyer - i've found that useful with dispelling the myths when approached by anybody who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Just be polite but firm. Nice one ed.

 

[Kanda]

I posted it earlier in teh thread

 

[Paul Russell]

Sorry. I did skim through the thread. Must have missed it.

I posted it earlier in teh thread

 

[toggle]

I try not to hang around anywhere too long with security guards, because generally they are bored shitless with inactivity, and get very excited about getting the chance to do actually do something.

definately.

 

[editor]

I would have thought that a train station counted as a public place but apparently not.

Well, you'd like to think it was but it's sure to be owned by Inter Railtrack Metro FatCunt Directors PLC

 

[editor]

I'm going to add a page on this to my photography section as I reckon it'll be useful for other photographers to know their rights.

 

[toggle]

Well, you'd like to think it was but it's sure to be owned by Inter Railtrack Metro FatCunt Directors PLC

it depends on your definition of public place. That can differ according to the legislation you are applying. From what I can gather, it is a public place enough for them to need to register to film you with CCTV, but not public for you to be able to take pics without their permission

 

[editor]

it depends on your definition of public place.

Public as in on a public highway and not private land. I was standing on the road when I was taking that picture and that was most certainly outside the security guard's jurisdiction.

Incidentally, you can't take 'professional' photos of, say, a mate's band in a park without permission.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

Incidentally, I've been googling stuff on taking pictures of students and can find nothing, but I know through my line of work that we need written permission to display students' images on the web or on walls in school, and that the Specialist Schools Trust, or the Shakespeare's schools festival, or the East London student voice forum, all ask for written permission if a photographer is going to be present and specifically exclude under 16s without such permission.

 

[Errol's son]

In the UK, are we allowed to take photos of military places, Scotland Yard, MI6, airports etc or are some places (or parts of them) restricted?