swanseamale47
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,876
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Misposted sorry
Candid Photography on Private Property
- Thread starter GlennBlackPhotos
- Start date
- Status
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I swear this thread is going round in circles - you answer your own question - sue for civil trespass :shrug:
That is how trespass is enforced in the UK (its a tort) - X says Y commited an act of trespass on his land and sues him, the court finds in Xs favour and awards damages which can be from very little to huge
In terms of what damage has been caused the obvious allegation is that the photographer has upset other customers by photographing them against their wishes and thus damaged the business
Again, so what, signs arent necessary to enforce a trespass case - when you enter onto private premises it is your responsiblity to know what is permitted and ignorance is not a defence to a trespass suit.
I bet you don't have a sign on your front lawn saying "no camping" , but that doesnt mean I can pop round and bivy up without your consent
And as to the "negative perception of them as a business" that depends how you spin it - you may have noticed that photographers don't have the greatest rep in the media (we are all paedophile or terrorists according to the daily heil) so a suit like that could easily spin as them protecting their customers from the nasty photographer , creating a positive perception amongst customers.
Bottom line is that the OP wanted to know what powers security guards have to stop him photographing in a shop - the answer to which is that the security guards can do very little except ask you to leave and escort you from the premises , but the shop owners can also enforce their rules by civil suit for trespass if they so wish
whether they will or not probably varies from shop to shop but thats how the state of the law in the uk stands.
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
So if someone decides to ban people wearing red socks from their premises but doesn't put up a sign pointing out that fact, anyone walking in wearing red socks is instantly guilty of trespass?
I don't think it is automatically trespass just by being there. I think you have to be asked to leave and refuse to do so for it to become trespass.
Steve.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Exactly
and Steve - you don't trespass just by being there , after all you are there by permission to browse and buy - the point being that the permission doesn't extend to any other activity , so as soon as you start doing something not covered by the permission you are trespassing
But whatever lets just agree to disagree because I really can't be arsed with this fruitless argument
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes. But you have to be told.
e.g. "Excuse me sir but we don't allow photography in here, please leave".
Or equally "Excuse me sir but we don't allow people wearing red socks in here, please leave".
It's the point at which you continue doing it after being told you are not allowed that it becomes trespass.
Steve.
You take the shot, security ask you to stop. If you don't then you are then trespassing and can be told to leave if you do not then you can be ejected with reasonable force. NO MORE.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh for ... no , no you don't have to be told - for about the fourth time you are trespassing as soon as you commit the act , and ignorance is not a defence
from the law teacher website
now can we please just leave it alone ?
Last edited:
modchild
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,914
- Name
- Stuart or just Stoo!
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This isn't going to help in the OP's original questions, and I think most of them have been answered already, but I remember being in Boots years ago (around 12-13 IIRC) when they used to do a lot of film processing and sold a fair number of cameras too. I'd seen a camera (early Fuji digital zoom camera) in both Boots and Dixons on Lincoln High St. (Oh what choice) and I was having a hands on play with it in the shop.
I turned around from the counter and clicked a few shots to have a look at on the rear screen, next thing I know there's a woman screaming and shouting, calling for the store security and basically creating a 'major fuss'. She'd seen me with the camera and thought I'd taken her photo, which I gather she didn't like, and wanted me arrested for doing so. I hadn't a clue who she was, even to this day, so maybe she was some celeb slumming it or something but it was nearly enough to make me think of giving up photography altogether and I left the store voluntarily and rather swiftly.
I ended up going to Dixons about 200 yards further up the road and got the camera and when the assistant started getting the camera out of the display section so I could have a play around with it I told him to forget about that and just give me a boxed one. I think he was quite surprised that I didn't even want to have a look at it, let alone try it out. I daren't risk another kerfuffle in there though. At least nowadays I know what my rights are and everyone elses' so I try to keep within the boundaries. The funniest bit about all the fuss in Boots though, I hadn't even took the womans photo, I was just testing the zoom out on a product on a shelf nearby.
I turned around from the counter and clicked a few shots to have a look at on the rear screen, next thing I know there's a woman screaming and shouting, calling for the store security and basically creating a 'major fuss'. She'd seen me with the camera and thought I'd taken her photo, which I gather she didn't like, and wanted me arrested for doing so. I hadn't a clue who she was, even to this day, so maybe she was some celeb slumming it or something but it was nearly enough to make me think of giving up photography altogether and I left the store voluntarily and rather swiftly.
I ended up going to Dixons about 200 yards further up the road and got the camera and when the assistant started getting the camera out of the display section so I could have a play around with it I told him to forget about that and just give me a boxed one. I think he was quite surprised that I didn't even want to have a look at it, let alone try it out. I daren't risk another kerfuffle in there though. At least nowadays I know what my rights are and everyone elses' so I try to keep within the boundaries. The funniest bit about all the fuss in Boots though, I hadn't even took the womans photo, I was just testing the zoom out on a product on a shelf nearby.
Last edited:
What a silly conversation.
It's vanishingly unlikely that Boots are going to bother taking legal action against some Joe for taking a picture in a store.
It may technically be possible for them to bring an action. It's also technically possible for Topshop to bring a trespass action if you drink a can of Fanta in a store. The most that's likely to ever happen in either situation is that you'll be challenged and asked to leave. Unless you make a spectacular trumpet of yourself, in which case they might call the police to either remove you or noise you up a bit, or they might ban you from the store.
I'm also quite certain the law would require reasonable efforts to be made on the part of the store to deal with things amicably before getting the courts involved. I'm speculating about trespass here, but I know for a fact that guidelines on libel suggest that the injured party should make attempts to reason with the antagonist - i.e. give them the chance to retract an injurious statement - before suing. In your model a shop-owner could sue for trespass simply because they didn't like the jacket you had on. After all, there's no requirement for a set of rules at the door. A property owner can decide whatever conditions of entry he/she sees fit.
Nobody is going to get sued for trespass here.
No, this is incorrect. As soon as you're on private property doing something you don't have permission to do it's trespass. Even if you had permission then the owner removed that permission.
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
No. You are technically correct - however:
If you have a shop and you invite people in and then you decide that you don't like what someone is doing. e.g taking photographs which you have decided you will not allow, you do not go straight down the route of sueing for civil trespass.
You inform that person that what he is doing is not allowed and you come to an agreement which could be that he stops doing the not allowed activity or he leaves the premises.
You can only go to the next step if he refuses either of these options. This is reasonable. Going straight to litigation is not reasonable.
Anyway, I thought you were finished... something to do with running out of fruit!
Yes, I appreciate that, but that alone is not a reason to sue as there is no loss or defamation. And the owner has to do more than just decide for himself that he has removed that permission. He has to tell you and give you the option to leave.
Steve.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Whilst I'm not entirely sure what the OP has to gain from the thread, I think certain members with a longer membership / more posts are pretty pathetic by jumping on him and nit picking for no gain.
I'm fairly certain most people are older than I am, and I'm not sure why they come across as so bitter! lighten up, it's embarrasing
All this thread has taught me is to try and avoid TP, or at least anything other than the film section
I'm fairly certain most people are older than I am, and I'm not sure why they come across as so bitter! lighten up, it's embarrasing
All this thread has taught me is to try and avoid TP, or at least anything other than the film section
supersammy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 534
- Name
- sam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Unless they were retarded they would ask you to stop and then to leave.
Only a court order can lead to photo's being deleted. From memory I believe it is required to come from the hight court.
In reality a big security guard may help you do it, as may an ignorant copper. You are entitled to sue them if you want, however it probably won't be worth your while. A much better course of action would be to complain to the ipcc or the sia, and have them reprimanded.
Either that, or claim your camera has been damaged by their unauthorised use. I'd do this to get a couple of grand out of them. If they tried to contest it you would have much fun in small claims court, and the Police or a large shop would pay out before it got close to getting to this.
Only a court order can lead to photo's being deleted. From memory I believe it is required to come from the hight court.
In reality a big security guard may help you do it, as may an ignorant copper. You are entitled to sue them if you want, however it probably won't be worth your while. A much better course of action would be to complain to the ipcc or the sia, and have them reprimanded.
Either that, or claim your camera has been damaged by their unauthorised use. I'd do this to get a couple of grand out of them. If they tried to contest it you would have much fun in small claims court, and the Police or a large shop would pay out before it got close to getting to this.
- Status