Candid Photography on Private Property

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yellowbelly said:
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.
Click to expand...
Right you are starting to make assumptions based on your own fears!
You assume if I was ever confronted I would behave in a foul abusive way when nothing could be further from the truth.
You are way off point!
 
I can see this ending up as another 'photographers rights hero' video on YouTube...

You know the ones...
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
Right you are starting to make assumptions based on your own fears!
You assume if I was ever confronted I would behave in a foul abusive way when nothing could be further from the truth.
You are way off point!
Click to expand...
You are reading my post incorrectly. I literally mean I hope you are never challenged as I would not wish more bad press for phtographers. End of.
 
big soft moose said:
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
Click to expand...
Yes I am fully aware of those points but at what point did I say I would take such photos!
I would in fact wait outside and take the shots from public land.
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
Right you are starting to make assumptions based on your own fears!
You assume if I was ever confronted I would behave in a foul abusive way when nothing could be further from the truth.
You are way off point!
Click to expand...

so given what a paragon of virtue you induitably are, pure as the driven etc

why would you choose to commit an act of trespass/invasion of privacy for a small probability of monetary gain ?

surely a Sir Galahad of photographic probity would not sully his lily white reputation by sinking to Papping in the first place
 
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...

If you're on private property with permission and do something not covered explicitly in that permission, you're committing trespass. The security men can use reasonable force to remove you from the premises.

As it's private property, there is an expectation of privacy.
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
at what point did I say I would take such photos!
.
Click to expand...

the point at which you asked about the ability of the shop to stop you doing so ? :bang:

If you weren't contemplating shooting inside boots (or wherever), what was the point of this thread ?
 
big soft moose said:
the point at which you asked about the ability of the shop to stop you doing so ? :bang:

If you weren't contemplating shooting inside boots (or wherever), what was the point of this thread ?
Click to expand...

You have read me wrong I meant in relation to you getting carried away about shampoo and all the rest of it and me taking pictures of such events!
The point of the thread as a point of discussion was about the law if someone found themselves in an objectionable position after taking a picture where they should have not.
 
Yellowbelly said:
You are reading my post incorrectly. I literally mean I hope you are never challenged as I would not wish more bad press for phtographers. End of.
Click to expand...

Do you really think it would make any difference?
I find people either like or dislike photographers and their minds are not going to suddenly change either way based on one event.
 
st599 said:
If you're on private property with permission and do something not covered explicitly in that permission, you're committing trespass. The security men can use reasonable force to remove you from the premises.

As it's private property, there is an expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply.
Is the expectation of privacy relevant to the right of privacy?
 
Dave1 said:
Quite wrong, a security guard can only make a "citizens arrest".



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.
Click to expand...

Splitting hairs, but I'm assuming a security guard may believe that the photographer has committed an offence, you're saying they haven't, the law says its what they 'believe'. You're assuming that they know the law, which we all know is far from the truth.
 
Dave1 said:
Quite wrong, a security guard can only make a "citizens arrest".



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.
Click to expand...

A security guard has no power of arrest. On the holder of a police warrent can arrest.
 
That's not actually so - the police and criminal evidence act 1984 provides that "any person other than a constable may arrest without warrant any other person who they reasonably believe to be in the commission of an indictable offence, so long as it is not reasonably practical for a constable to make the arrest instead

The crux of this particular matter however is that trespass is a civil matter not an indictable offence so the other person arrest would not be justified here - but should a tog be silly enough to seriously assault a shop employee or other customer security guards etc can then arrest them (such assault being indictable) - also if they had reason to believe you were photographing security systems that might be sufficient for 'going equipped'
 
Last edited:
I think any security guard given the opportunity could concoct a law they "believe" had just been broken and affect some argie bargie just because there's nothing to stop them doing that.
That's the trouble with believe and perception, both are open to abuse, whilst the pic taker faces a pile of aggravation with them, the police and any number of bone headed JP's, the security guard will walk away laughing telling his mates how the shooter won't do that again.....not on his watch...regardless of whether any offence was actually committed.
 
joxby said:
I
That's the trouble with believe and perception, both are open to abuse, .
Click to expand...

they've got to have reasonable grounds though - which are quite tightly defined in law

bottom line though is if you are on private property its a bad idea to aggravate them unnecessarily
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
A security guard has no power of arrest. On the holder of a police warrent can arrest.
Click to expand...

:shrug:

You quote my post with the relevant legislation about any person arrest and then try and contradict it. Did you actually read my post? Or was it just part of your speed reading of the thread?

PS: there are many other groups with powers of arrest (above any person powers) for example HMRC, Border Agency, prison officers, Environmental Agency officers, court officers, all have powers of arrest but aren't police officers, and don't have a police warrant.
 
Its their choice to be aggravated, they don't have to be, its just a snap in a shop, they choose to be aggravated because they don't differentiate between someone CLEARLY worthy of a stop, and a snap in a shop.
Its a photo, that's not allowed, I must prove I was awake during the training.
Personally, they're all being a bit too precious with their private property no photography rubbish, you're a shop, you want JP to walk around and buy stuff, there are hundreds of people milling about in a completely un-private environment, everyone in there has a camera with them, what's the ******** problem...

divs
 
big soft moose said:
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.
Click to expand...

At what point was this advice given? The OP was just talking about being in a shop and taking a photograph if the opportunity arose.

Shops do not have a list of things you can't do posted at the door with a member of staff checking that you read it.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
At what point was this advice given? The OP was just talking about being in a shop and taking a photograph if the opportunity arose.

Shops do not have a list of things you can't do posted at the door with a member of staff checking that you read it.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Sigh, you'll note that in the post you questioned I said " they can sue your arse if you defy them" ie if they've told you once and you do it again they can sue you - likewise if they've got signs up saying "no photography" or the European standard sign of a camera with a cross through it then again they can sue

in short if you commit civil trespass they can sue your arse (incidentally they don't have to check you've read the signs so long as they are clearly visible, its your responsibility to be reasonably aware of your surroundings ) In fact they aren't actually required to sign at all - its not a defence to trespass to claim you were ignorant that whatever action wasn't allowed - the only proviso being that they can't be inviting you to carry out the activity or have signs giving permission
 
Last edited:
joxby said:
Its their choice to be aggravated, they don't have to be, its just a snap in a shop, they choose to be aggravated because they don't differentiate between someone CLEARLY worthy of a stop, and a snap in a shop.
Its a photo, that's not allowed, I must prove I was awake during the training.
Personally, they're all being a bit too precious with their private property no photography rubbish, you're a shop, you want JP to walk around and buy stuff, there are hundreds of people milling about in a completely un-private environment, everyone in there has a camera with them, what's the ******** problem...

divs
Click to expand...
Amen to that.
Anyone would think you were walking around with a shotgun the way some people go on!
 
big soft moose said:
Sigh, you'll note that in the post you questioned I said " they can sue your arse if you defy them" ie if they've told you once and you do it again they can sue you - likewise if they've got signs up saying "no photography" or the European standard sign of a camera with a cross through it then again they can sue

in short if you commit civil trespass they can sue your arse (incidentally they don't have to check you've read the signs so long as they are clearly visible, its your responsibility to be reasonably aware of your surroundings )
Click to expand...

Can you name some cases where this has happened?
 
GlennBlackPhotos said:
Can you name some cases where this has happened?
Click to expand...

Do your own research - just google Civil Trespass UK or trespass to land, tort cases and you will find that there are hundreds if not thousands of cases (they largely relate to land , but its the same principle)

For example a famous case is Keeble v Hickeringill (1707) - Hickeringill trespassed on keeble's land thus disturbing the ducks in his care , and thereby damged his livelihood - keeble was awarded £20 which was a shed load of cash back then. I know its a very old case but that's Tort for you - the precedents are ancient

This could easily become precedent for Black vs Boots ltd whereby Black trespassed on boots land and caused nuisance to their customers therby impeding their livelihood - Boots limted were awarded £20k in damages and Black lost his house - as he walked sobbing from the court he was heard to say " If only i'd listened to the guys on TP "

More recent trespass cases include Dutton vs Manchester airport ( environmental protester trespases on land earmarked for second runway, set up camp and gets sued)
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Do your own research - just google Civil Trespass UK you will find that there are hundreds if not thousands of cases (they largely relate to land , but its the same principle)

or for that matter just ignore our advice (as you are clearly going to anyway) , then when you get sued you'll be able to think **** it if only i'd listened :whistling:
Click to expand...
Just because something is the same principle it does not mean a shop has done the same thing because someone has taken a photo or missed a sign!
Then you make sweeping assumptions about what you ''think'' I am going to do.
You don't know what I am going to do or not do so give it a bloody rest going on with yourself.:cuckoo:
 
a) I'm answering your questions - if you want me to give it a bloody rest , perhaps you should stop asking them

b) That is exactly how tort law works - on precedent. If you take a photo on land where you don't have permission to do so then you are trespassing - fact (signs are irrelevant as per the above)

c) If you commit trespass you can (not necessarily will) get sued - also a fact

d) I don't really give a monkeys whether you do or not so i'm saying nowt further on this - but you asked the question, there's no need to throw your teddies because you don't like the answer
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
a) I'm answering your questions - if you want me to give it a bloody rest , perhaps you should stop asking them

b) That is exactly how tort law works - on precedent. If you take a photo on land where you don't have permission to do so then you are trespassing - fact (signs are irrelevant as per the above)

c) If you commit trespass you can (not necessarily will) get sued - also a fact

d) I don't really give a monkeys whether you do or not so i'm saying nowt further on this - but you asked the question, there's no need to throw your teddies because you don't like the answer
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the facts it's when you make assumptions about what I am going to do, that is unnecessary input.
Then you go on to make silly little fictional stories about me going to court and loosing my house and sobbing because I didn't listen to you!!!
WTF!
Jeez every forum has one.
 
Last edited:
It's usually the guy saying 'every forum has one':D.

If you search the phrase it's usually one of the final posts by a banned member. You don't really want to turn into that guy?
 
big soft moose said:
Sigh, you'll note that in the post you questioned I said " they can sue your arse if you defy them" ie if they've told you once and you do it again they can sue you
Click to expand...

Again, sue for what? It might be civil trespass but there is no loss to show and it's also not in their interest as it would have a negative effect on customer perception of them as a business.

GlennBlackPhotos said:
Just because something is the same principle it does not mean a shop has done the same thing because someone has taken a photo or missed a sign!
Click to expand...

Indeed. I am sure I have seen pictures in newspapers of alleged celebrities whilst out shopping. I am also sure that the shop has no way or interest in banning the use of these pictures.

And I have never seen a no photography sign in a shop.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
And whatever the legality, I still say a shot of someone shopping in Boots is going to be pretty crap and I like candid/street shots.

We also know the rights and wrongs of this so not sure what discussion there is to be had. It is like asking can I drive in a 30 zone at 35 and get away with it. Yes of course you can and most people do, however if you get caught you have no argument.
 
ernesto said:
And whatever the legality, I still say a shot of someone shopping in Boots is going to be pretty crap and I like candid/street shots.

We also know the rights and wrongs of this so not sure what discussion there is to be had. It is like asking can I drive in a 30 zone at 35 and get away with it. Yes of course you can and most people do, however if you get caught you have no argument.
Click to expand...

I think the OP's questions were more like, what's the chances of getting caught and if I get caught how bad will it be and would I just be able to ignore whoever caught me.
 
Phil V said:
I think the OP's questions were more like, what's the chances of getting caught and if I get caught how bad will it be and would I just be able to ignore whoever caught me.
Click to expand...


Chances of getting caught - unknown, depends on how good you are
How bad will it be if caught - well you aren't going to prison
Would I be able to ignore whoever caught me - all depends how fast you can run
 
Phil V said:
It's usually the guy saying 'every forum has one':D.

If you search the phrase it's usually one of the final posts by a banned member. You don't really want to turn into that guy?
Click to expand...

I just did do a search for that phrase every forum has one and it did throw up a load of forums with bickering going on :)
 
Steve Smith said:
And I have never seen a no photography sign in a shop.
Steve.
Click to expand...

I don't think I have either, I was asked to not take a photograph in Harrods (quite a few years ago), so I put my camera away.
Now Google glasses and other wearable cameras are coming to the market, how will that effect things?
 
Last_Straw said:
Now Google glasses and other wearable cameras are coming to the market, how will that effect things?
Click to expand...

It won't effect things at all. If it is not permissable to take photos it doesn't matter how you are taking the photos. How likely you are to get caught has no bearing on whether it is allowed.
 
I think what is seen as normal has a bearing on how laws are enforced / interpreted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top