Candid Photography on Private Property

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GlennBlackPhotos

Suspended / Banned
Messages
65
Name
Glenn
Edit My Images
No
I know this is a bit naughty but I would like to know where I stand legally if I am caught photographing someone candid in a shop like Boots for example.
What can the security staff actually do if a person complains that I have took their picture?
I know its not considered good practice but sometimes a shot presents itself and you may wish to take the shot.
Can the security staff make you erase the image or show the image?
Can they take your camera?
Can they restrain you or prevent you from walking away?
Can they put you in a position where you are confronted by the person you photographed?
thanks.
 
Last edited:
They can ask you to stop and escort you off site
They can ban you from the store.
Any thing else takes a court order.

If they have seen you commit a crime they can restrain you and call the police.
But a civil offence is not a crime.
 
No
No
Only if they believe you have broken a law
Yes
 
That's a lot of questions.

I would say that basically somewhere like Boots is private property and the owners can impose whatever restrictions they see fit (within reason I suspect)

BUT if you are caught in breach of those rules, well in this specific case I suspect they would only be within their rights to ask you to leave.

If they wanted the pictures deleted or tried to restrain you or confiscate your property then I think the Police would have to be called.

If the person photographed objected the sensible thing would be to comply with any request to delete the images, but how much inside a branch of Boots could be argued as a "public place" and therefore not somewhere a member of the public could expect a right to privacy I'm not sure.

All my opinion, will be interesting to see how this thread goes - good luck.

David

Oh I see I type too slowly :-)
 
Last edited:
Any objection by the person photographed is nothing to do with the store. It is between you and that person.

You would however be wise not to cause a breach of the peace, or you will be certain to be arrested.
 
Phil V said:
No
No
Only if they believe you have broken a law
Yes
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.
What would be breaking the law if all you have done is take a pictures of someone?
On what grounds would they present you to the subject?
This may cause a breach of the peace if they got angry for example.
I am only asking I'm not arguing by the way.
All the best.
 
Willid1 said:
If they wanted the pictures deleted or tried to restrain you or confiscate your property then I think the Police would have to be called.
Click to expand...

Clarification on that point, not even the police can delete (or force you to delete) your images.
 
Boots is private property, and will have a 'no photography on the premises' enforcement with permission to shoot only coming from the relevant head office department.

Having worked in the Boots group previously as a Regional Security Manager, if I were to find someone in one of our stores taking photographs without permission, I would most likely recommend the store it was reported to the Police.

There have been times where people take photographs internally before planning some form of criminal activity.

Therefore any unauthorised photograph taken would be investigated fully if the person involved was apprehended in the act, and the explanation not acceptable.
 
I would ask why you would feel the need to take someones photograph in store.
The OP by the tone of his post is already aware it could cause problems, so why do it?
 
cymruchris said:
Boots is private property, and will have a 'no photography on the premises' enforcement with permission to shoot only coming from the relevant head office department.

Having worked in the Boots group previously as a Regional Security Manager, if I were to find someone in one of our stores taking photographs without permission, I would most likely recommend the store it was reported to the Police.

There have been times where people take photographs internally before planning some form of criminal activity.

Therefore any unauthorised photograph taken would be investigated fully if the person involved was apprehended in the act, and the explanation not acceptable.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you would expect the police to do, no offence is committed (unless your security guard commits assault in trying to restrain the person).

I would also add, anyone planning some form of criminal activity is not going to wander around with a DSLR or even a compact camera, they will be using a mobile phone or even more likely a covert mini video camera.
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
Thanks for the reply.
What would be breaking the law if all you have done is take a pictures of someone?
On what grounds would they present you to the subject?
This may cause a breach of the peace if they got angry for example.
I am only asking I'm not arguing by the way.
All the best.
Click to expand...

You're not even arguing: You asked would they be within their rights to detain you, I answered that they could detain you if they believed you'd broken the law.

I never said you would have broken any laws, or even that they would believe that you had. But that if they believe that you have broken the law, and they call the police, and you try to escape, they can use reasonable force to detain you.

Now if they're really stupid, and you're less than tactful, it could go that way. Is it likely to? I doubt it, but I wouldn't rule it out. I've seen enough videos of idiot security guards confronting idiot photographers to know not to discount any possibility.
 
The most likely scenario for the police being caused is if you refuse to desist or leave when asked - in those cases you are trespassing although trespass is a civil issue unless you are stupid enough to aggravate it) the police can be asked to help remove you.

be aware though that if the premises are licenced (boots isn't - usually) e.g pubs, bars, night clubs, restaurants, supermarkets, conveniences stores etc there is a specific offence of 'refusing to leave licenced premises' in the 1979 licencing act, which the police can act on if you are silly enough to make them
 
More importantly, a photo of someone shopping in Boots is hardly going to be anything special is it?
 
it depends if she's really really fit [/stalker] :lol:
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
The same could be said about any candid photo really!
Click to expand...

well it could - but the point of candid's was supposed to be capturing the definitive moment - you have to wonder how many definitive moments are going to occur in boots

That aside its private property with a no photography rule - so even if they can't physically stop you they can sue your arse if you defy them

not worth the risk - go capture the definitive moment in public , simples
 
I think its interesting though that they can film you to their hearts content but object when you photograph someone in their store that has no effect on their store so to speak as in security risk.
Having said that I have no intention to photograph in any store unless it was a celeb and I knew I could get paid for the image which is why I raised the subject.
 
big soft moose said:
The most likely scenario for the police being caused is if you refuse to desist or leave when asked - in those cases you are trespassing although trespass is a civil issue unless you are stupid enough to aggravate it) the police can be asked to help remove you.

be aware though that if the premises are licenced (boots isn't - usually) e.g pubs, bars, night clubs, restaurants, supermarkets, conveniences stores etc there is a specific offence of 'refusing to leave licenced premises' in the 1979 licencing act, which the police can act on if you are silly enough to make them
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone would refuse to desist when asked to leave.
But I dare say there are several youtube videos showing otherwise!
 
big soft moose said:
so even if they can't physically stop you they can sue your arse if you defy them
Click to expand...

On what grounds? You have no contract with them.

GlennBlackPhotos said:
I have no intention to photograph in any store unless it was a celeb and I knew I could get paid for the image which is why I raised the subject.
Click to expand...

In the unlikely event of that happening, just take your pictures then leave.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
On what grounds? You have no contract with them.



In the unlikely event of that happening, just take your pictures then leave.


Steve.
Click to expand...
But that's the whole point Steve you are walking out the door to leave and get stopped by security so cant leave!
Seeing celebs shopping is a weekly occurrence in Manchester.
Fair enough they may only be soap stars but you never know the value of the right pic!
 
Unless you were to capture Michelle Keegan not at her best, buying some cheap shampoo I doubt you'll get a valuable image of a manchester soap star in boots :lol:
 
There is a way that this can be done and with the help of shop staff and nobody bats en eyelid, you don't even need your own camera.

Instead of taking photos in Boots, go to John Lewis and take your own memory card. Pick the camera you would like to take the photos on, then simply snap away.

I went to John Lewis a few weeks back, and I tried out a few cameras. I inserted my own memory card, and I told the assistant I wanted to have a look at the files at home before I bought the camera. The sales assistant was very happy with me doing this, she even posed for a few shots for me.

I was then free to inspect the camera, and had a good old time taking candids of people as they shopped in the store.

People did not see me as some weirdo taking photos, but as another shopper looking at cameras.

Checking the photos when I got back home was fun, I did manage to get one or two good photos :)

It's all about knowing how to blend into your surroundings ;)
 
Phil V said:
You're not even arguing: You asked would they be within their rights to detain you, I answered that they could detain you if they believed you'd broken the law.

I never said you would have broken any laws, or even that they would believe that you had. But that if they believe that you have broken the law, and they call the police, and you try to escape, they can use reasonable force to detain you.
Click to expand...

Quite wrong, a security guard can only make a "citizens arrest".

24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1974.

Arrest without warrant: other persons

(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
Click to expand...

If the person has not committed an indictable offence, and taking photos, being suspicious or being a nuisance are not indictable offences, any arrest would be unlawful and any force used would be assault.

Unless the security guard is sure the person has committed an indictable offence he has no power to arrest or hold the person.
 
Frankly, I am disappointed with the OP's stance. He is aware that taking shots inside private premises may cause problems. Even if he is merely asked to leave, it would take place in front of customers and staff. The grape vine would then be in full operation and the end result is that photographers, i.e. you and I get yet more unwelcome bad publicity.

How can it possibly be worth contemplating this action?
 
Steve Smith said:
On what grounds? You have no contract with them.
.
Click to expand...

For civil trespass - you were on private land , and continued to carry out an activity not permitted by the landowner after you had been advised that it wasn't allowed.

Causing nuisance to other customers (and implicitly therefore damage to their business) could also be an option.

there's more to civil law than contracts
 
Yellowbelly said:
Frankly, I am disappointed with the OP's stance. He is aware that taking shots inside private premises may cause problems. Even if he is merely asked to leave, it would take place in front of customers and staff. The grape vine would then be in full operation and the end result is that photographers, i.e. you and I get yet more unwelcome bad publicity.

How can it possibly be worth contemplating this action?
Click to expand...

I don't think me or anyone else doing this for that matter is going to change the perception people already have.
Papz do it every day and unless you do street photography how will it effect you?
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
I don't think me or anyone else doing this for that matter is going to change the perception people already have.
Papz do it every day and unless you do street photography how will it effect you?
Click to expand...

Papz don't normally bother ordinary people though (they also have a terrible rep)

surely you can see how someone doing this in say Boots, could lead to more bad press about the general photographer -
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
I don't think me or anyone else doing this for that matter is going to change the perception people already have.
Papz do it every day and unless you do street photography how will it effect you?
Click to expand...

The general public do not recognise photographers as belonging to any particular group. All they see is the Dail Wail's hysterical ramblings about how a man with a camera was a) casing a joint, b) identifying terrorist targets, or c) taking pictures of kiddies for nefarious purposes. We, as responsible photographers have a duty whenever possible to do all we can to refute this ridiculous reputation. We will not do it by acting as the OP appears to want to do.

The papz often have little choice but to take "risky" shots, they try to make their living doing so, but unless the OP is a member of the papz, he has no such choice to make.

And yes, I do street on occasion, but I remain sensitive to the wishes and fears of my subjects.
 
big soft moose said:
Papz don't normally bother ordinary people though (they also have a terrible rep)

surely you can see how someone doing this in say Boots, could lead to more bad press about the general photographer -
Click to expand...
I am not saying I am going to do this to Jo Blogs or go out of my way to engage it such activities I am talking about a what if perspective!
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
I am not saying I am going to do this to Jo Blogs or go out of my way to engage it such activities I am talking about a what if perspective!
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should have clarified that in your OP.:)
 
I have taken photos in Boots many times, although I must admit it has been with my iphone most of the time. I have used my little Canon Compact once or twice, but I have always been with my missus. It's all down to how you come across and behave.

For candids I carry my little Compact with wrist strap wrapped around my hand. If in a shop and want to get a shot, I fold my arms while still holding the camera, then take shot while not looking at the subject. If I want to get that angle, I may lift my arm to pretend to mop my brow, take another snap.

Don't use a DSLR or other big bulky camera, small neat compact is what you need ;)
 
Also if you really want to photograph a Z list celeb doing their shopping ( i'd really question why, as there won't be a market for that anyway) surely the way to go is to use a camera phone inconspicuously - its easy to look like you are actually making a call while taking a few shots

(I'm not saying its right - if you want to do the right thing, leave them the hell alone in the first place)
 
Yellowbelly said:
The general public do not recognise photographers as belonging to any particular group. All they see is the Dail Wail's hysterical ramblings about how a man with a camera was a) casing a joint, b) identifying terrorist targets, or c) taking pictures of kiddies for nefarious purposes. We, as responsible photographers have a duty whenever possible to do all we can to refute this ridiculous reputation. We will not do it by acting as the OP appears to want to do.

The papz often have little choice but to take "risky" shots, they try to make their living doing so, but unless the OP is a member of the papz, he has no such choice to make.

And yes, I do street on occasion, but I remain sensitive to the wishes and fears of my subjects.
Click to expand...

I remain sensitive to the wishes and fears of my subjects but have yet to hear either as I never have any problems.
Although I am not a papz that does not mean I cannot have a go if the opportunity arises!
I am an individual trying to inform myself about the law rather than jumping to conclusions about what people might think because (shock horror) someone has took a picture!
 
big soft moose said:
Also if you really want to photograph a Z list celeb doing their shopping ( i'd really question why, as there won't be a market for that anyway) surely the way to go is to use a camera phone inconspicuously - its easy to look like you are actually making a call while taking a few shots

(I'm not saying its right - if you want to do the right thing, leave them the hell alone in the first place)
Click to expand...

Devils advocate, I suppose something like a photo of Katie Jordan Price buying a pregnancy test would be worth a few hundred quid.
 
I once saw footballer Martin Skrtel coming out of Boots with a gorgeous woman. I was going to get a photo, but when I saw the size of him I had second thoughts!
 
Also from the proto papz point of view - if you take a pap shot in boots (like the aforementioned Ms Keegan looking rough as a badgers..while examing some cheap shampoo) where you don't have the right to take photos, then sell it to "hello" or whatever

you are opening yourself and the mag to lawsuits both from the delectable Ms K (on the grounds that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, because no photography is allowed) , and from boots on the grounds that you have shown their product in a non flattering and therefore defamatory light , and taken these shots while committing an act of trespass

That being the case its likely that the magazine won't even buy them

so you'd have been better off lurking outside and shooting her looking rough as a badgers etc while on public land
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
I remain sensitive to the wishes and fears of my subjects but have yet to hear either as I never have any problems.
Although I am not a papz that does not mean I cannot have a go if the opportunity arises!
I am an individual trying to inform myself about the law rather than jumping to conclusions about what people might think because (shock horror) someone has took a picture!
Click to expand...

Let's hope for all of our reputations, that should you decide to proceed with taking photographs in the circumstances you describe you are never challenged.

I cannot understand why, when you are aware that you may cause difficulties, that you may consider going ahead. The law has nowt to do with anything.
 
jonbeeza said:
I once saw footballer Martin Skrtel coming out of Boots with a gorgeous woman.!
Click to expand...

I didn't know they sold those :naughty: Was it a clear case of Puss in Boots ? :lol:
 
You know the answer, the rules are pretty simple, on/in private property you ensure you get the requisite permissions first or you don't shoot.

Could you be arrested - Yes, depending on what happens and where your shooting, in an area with changing rooms you could even find yourself facing a charge of voyeurism.

Off course you could also choose the wrong so called "celebrity" and find yourself with a 70-200mm F2.8 suppository, I'm sure most of them wouldn't mind the assault charge when they know you're sitting in A&E waiting to have a tripod ring and attached lens surgically removed from your chocolate wizz way.

Could it affect other togs? yes... stores could bring in a blanket camera ban, this would affect many people who are out with their camera's and just want to pop in for some quick shopping.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top