London Copyright Law for Selling Prints?

[Terrywoodenpic]

No. They would just have to show that the photos that were taken breached the access licence. At which point any money made from those images would be forfeit.

It is a civil matter and they would need to take you to court. As you have no contract with them they are unlikely to be able to claim any damages. They are unlikely to spend that sort of time and mony, with so little to recover.

 

[sk66]

It is a civil matter and they would need to take you to court. As you have no contract with them they are unlikely to be able to claim any damages. They are unlikely to spend that sort of time and mony, with so little to recover.

If I let you into my house but say "no pictures," and you agree, then there is a binding agreement/contract/license in effect....it's only verbal and a written/signed NDA would be much better protection on my part, but it's still binding.

Like wise, if you buy a ticket to a show in my stadium and one of the terms is no photography, then there is a binding contract in effect... agreed to you by the act of purchasing the ticket and entering the venue. It might be a policy on giant posters everywhere, in tiny print on the back of the ticket, a notice on the website, or a policy you have to call and ask about; it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if the property is enclosed or not... if you enter private property you are under contract to abide by said terms of entry. Being a matter of civil law instead of criminal law doesn't make it legal to break the contract. And you cannot have any legal rights to/in images obtained illegally...

One can take a photograph of any trademark or anything copyrighted the law only affects what you do with it afterwards.

A photo of a copyrighted item (say a painting) can constitute creating a copy... which is an exclusive right of the copyright owner.

 

[sphexx]

If I let you into my house but say "no pictures," and you agree, then there is a binding agreement/contract/license in effect....it's only verbal and a written/signed NDA would be much better protection on my part, but it's still binding.

Indeed, but what are you going to do about it if I don’t publish the photo in any way or otherwise make money from it. It would be a civil matter and you would have to show what loss you had suffered that required compensation. I know you are in USA where laws are a bit different -- especially the law of trespass which is civil here but criminal in in US — not sure if that varies with State etc.

A photo of a copyrighted item (say a painting) can constitute creating a copy... which is an exclusive right of the copyright owner.

It would be difficult to take any photograph that included man made objects or structures that didn’t include any material that was trademarked or copyrighted or protected in some way or another. Whether there are any consequences depends on your intent, how it’s “treated” in the photo, and what you do with it afterwords. As you probably know, you can make and sell copies of protected items provided your copy is somewhst derivative (not sure if that’s the right term) — the famous example of the “Campbell’s Soup Can”!

 

[Bridges]

You seem to believe that you can do whatever you want on any land, public or private.

I’d just like to point out that I’ve never actually said this at all. Argument I can accept. Misrepresentation I can’t. Just so’s were clear on that.

 

[Bridges]

It doesn't matter if the property is enclosed or not... if you enter private property you are under contract to abide by said terms of entry. Being a matter of civil law instead of criminal law doesn't make it legal to break the contract. And you cannot have any legal rights to/in images obtained illegally...

Oh dear.

Once again: the act of taking photographs is of itself not an offence (unless indecent images blah blah see above). There isn’t even any part of civil law that ‘outlaws’ it. If the conditions of entry are ‘no photography’, then taking photographs still isn’t an offence in any way. There is no ‘breach of contract’ here cos no contract has actually been agreed upon in law. That’s the bottom line. Because you cannot forbid something that is otherwise legally permissible, unless it is in breach of actual laws; see right to privacy and indecent images etc. A landowner or their agents only have the power to ask you to leave. That is the extent of their legal powers. That’s it.

Ok so to explain this further; imagine a scenario where a person takes covert images in say a workplace where they believe breaches of law are taking place; could be health and safety issues or whatever. Such images are then used to expose the landowner/employer. The landowner/employer has no power to stop such images being published, for commercial gain or not. Cos they’ve broken other laws.

This is why photography isn’t illegal even on private land (within reason already specified). Ergo; such images cannot possibly be obtained ‘illegally’.

I hope this clears things up.

 

[NCV]

You might like this link Or this old article from DPR, which also covers Europe.

Basically you have nothing to worry about. Most of the problems arise with problems like trespass on private public areas.

Nobody is going to come after you for selling a print with their building in it. It would not be worth the hassle and legal costs. Thousands of pictures of monuments are published every day for commercial gain without permission of the owners. Even in countries without freedom of panorama like France and Italy, it is never enforced, due to lack of resources to police every picture taken and published.

On a slightly different note. Sombody stole a whole series of pictures from my Blog and passed the pictures of as their work in a book. I complained to the publisher. The author probably had some difficult questions to answer. But taking the publisher to court for copyright infringement just seemed like a waste of time and money.

 

[Ed Sutton]

You seem to believe that you can do whatever you want on any land, public or private.

You can't.

Whoever cut down a certain sycamore tree earlier this week doesn't agree!

 

[Bridges]

You might like this link Or this old article from DPR, which also covers Europe.

Basically you have nothing to worry about. Most of the problems arise with problems like trespass on private public areas.

Nobody is going to come after you for selling a print with their building in it. It would not be worth the hassle and legal costs. Thousands of pictures of monuments are published every day for commercial gain without permission of the owners. Even in countries without freedom of panorama like France and Italy, it is never enforced, due to lack of resources to police every picture taken and published.

On a slightly different note. Sombody stole a whole series of pictures from my Blog and passed the pictures of as their work in a book. I complained to the publisher. The author probably had some difficult questions to answer. But taking the publisher to court for copyright infringement just seemed like a waste of time and money.

Thank you; some actual common sense at last!

I’ve been the ‘victim’ of copyright theft myself, more than once. As you say, it’s such a pita to try and rectify it, that I generally haven’t bothered. I think only twice have I ‘gone after’ someone for this. And one time I got £50. And I once did some portraits for someone who was featured in a book; I didn’t ask for payment, just a credit. One of the images was used, but without any credit. Annoying! Of course, I could technically have demanded retribution, but that could well have led to withdrawal of an entire print edition, cost the (small independent) publisher a fortune, and probably caused a fair bit of bad blood. I figured I hadn’t actually lost anything as a result, and life is too short to be wasting energy on such trivial matters.

 

[sphexx]

Oh dear.

Once again: the act of taking photographs is of itself not an offence (unless indecent images blah blah see above). There isn’t even any part of civil law that ‘outlaws’ it. If the conditions of entry are ‘no photography’, then taking photographs still isn’t an offence in any way. There is no ‘breach of contract’ here cos no contract has actually been agreed upon in law. That’s the bottom line. Because you cannot forbid something that is otherwise legally permissible, unless it is in breach of actual laws; see right to privacy and indecent images etc. A landowner or their agents only have the power to ask you to leave. That is the extent of their legal powers. That’s it.

Ok so to explain this further; imagine a scenario where a person takes covert images in say a workplace where they believe breaches of law are taking place; could be health and safety issues or whatever. Such images are then used to expose the landowner/employer. The landowner/employer has no power to stop such images being published, for commercial gain or not. Cos they’ve broken other laws.

This is why photography isn’t illegal even on private land (within reason already specified). Ergo; such images cannot possibly be obtained ‘illegally’.

I hope this clears things up.

Bear in mind that Steven is in a different jurisdiction where different laws may apply, particularly trespass and in many places it’s OK to shoot people on your land, photographers or not, if you ”feel” threatened or possibly if they refuse to leave. under “stand your ground” laws.

 

[Bridges]

Bear in mind that Steven is in a different jurisdiction where different laws may apply, particularly trespass and in many places it’s OK to shoot people on your land, photographers or not, if you ”feel” threatened or possibly if they refuse to leave. under “stand your ground” laws.

I have only referred to UK law. I have, I believe, stated this. This is a UK based website is it not? And the OP was enquiring about photography in London. Which, last time I looked, was in the UK. Ergo anyone reading this should view it in that context. I cannot comment about other countries, and I haven’t attempted to do so. If anyone else has been referring to other countries, then they should have made that explicit.

 

[DemiLion]

Oh dear.

Once again: the act of taking photographs is of itself not an offence (unless indecent images blah blah see above). There isn’t even any part of civil law that ‘outlaws’ it. If the conditions of entry are ‘no photography’, then taking photographs still isn’t an offence in any way. There is no ‘breach of contract’ here cos no contract has actually been agreed upon in law. That’s the bottom line. Because you cannot forbid something that is otherwise legally permissible, unless it is in breach of actual laws; see right to privacy and indecent images etc. A landowner or their agents only have the power to ask you to leave. That is the extent of their legal powers. That’s it.

This is why photography isn’t illegal even on private land (within reason already specified). Ergo; such images cannot possibly be obtained ‘illegally’.

I hope this clears things up.

At the risk of annoying Lindsay, I can only repeat: that is not it.


You have absolute no right to carry out any act on private land apart from that granted by a specific licence or an implied one.

If you take photographs in an area that has specifically forbidden that act, then you are breaking the law: the law of trespass.
The fact that it is a civil law is immaterial, as I pointed out earlier, in the same way that copyright is.


I can't make it any clearer than that.

 

[DemiLion]

I have only referred to UK law. I have, I believe, stated this. This is a UK based website is it not? And the OP was enquiring about photography in London. Which, last time I looked, was in the UK. Ergo anyone reading this should view it in that context. I cannot comment about other countries, and I haven’t attempted to do so. If anyone else has been referring to other countries, then they should have made that explicit.

There is in general, not such thing as 'UK' law. And certainly not when it comes to trespass.

 

[Bridges]

f you take photographs in an area that has specifically forbidden that act, then you are breaking the law: the law of trespass.

So I think what you’re getting hung up on, is the idea that the act of taking photographs is unlawful. It’s not. The offence would be that of trespass, but the actual photography bit still isn’t illegal. That bit is irrelevant. To help understand it, think of those investigative journalism type tv shows, where a film crew go onto a premises to confront a dodgy trader or whatever. You know the type. And the landowner or whoever gets irate and tells them to leave, which they tend to do, but they keep filming. You know the scenario, Roger Cook made a living out of it. The act of filming/photographing was never illegal. That’s why they were allowed to publish their footage. Cos you cannot legally prevent anyone from photographing. Cos that’s not illegal.

The first link NCV posted basically says what I’ve been saying all along. And it’s written by someone who lectures in photography related law.

 

[Bridges]

There is in general, not such thing as 'UK' law. And certainly not when it comes to trespass.

Generally the same (regarding the act of photography) applies in England and Wales, as well as Scotland, N Ireland and all the other little islandy bits. But you can score a point for your pedantry.

 

[sphexx]

I have only referred to UK law. I have, I believe, stated this. This is a UK based website is it not? And the OP was enquiring about photography in London. Which, last time I looked, was in the UK. Ergo anyone reading this should view it in that context. I cannot comment about other countries, and I haven’t attempted to do so. If anyone else has been referring to other countries, then they should have made that explicit.

I don’t think being “UK” based is relevant, there are quite a few members from other jurisdictions some comletely different, eg Nigel in Italy, and some from similar but completely different as USA & Australia.

Since the laws about trespass are partly relevant to this discussion I suspect they are different in Scotland given its different access policy to that of England. I’ve no idea about Nothern Ireland but it wouldn’t surprise me to find that is different too both in legality and in practice!

I wasnt correcting you just trying to be helpful — I replied to @sk66 in the same vein as well — however I will correct you on your statement that “… London. Which, last time I looked, was in the UK.” which while true is also untrue for the purpose of any discussion about legality since UK contains more that one jurisdiction.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If I let you into my house but say "no pictures," and you agree, then there is a binding agreement/contract/license in effect....it's only verbal and a written/signed NDA would be much better protection on my part, but it's still binding.

Like wise, if you buy a ticket to a show in my stadium and one of the terms is no photography, then there is a binding contract in effect... agreed to you by the act of purchasing the ticket and entering the venue. It might be a policy on giant posters everywhere, in tiny print on the back of the ticket, a notice on the website, or a policy you have to call and ask about; it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if the property is enclosed or not... if you enter private property you are under contract to abide by said terms of entry. Being a matter of civil law instead of criminal law doesn't make it legal to break the contract. And you cannot have any legal rights to/in images obtained illegally...


A photo of a copyrighted item (say a painting) can constitute creating a copy... which is an exclusive right of the copyright owner.

Those are all private property with restricted entry, which may or may not restrict photography. To be effective it must clearly indicate photography is restricted. However a breach of a restriction still requires a prosecution in a civil court in such circumstances. The alternative is to ask the person lo leave. There is no ability to arrest that person, confiscate a camera or see or delete images,

In the case of a shopping mall or other venues that are free to enter, including prive property, there is no contract. Any restrictions must be clearly visible and or conveyed to the visitor, who can be asked to stop taking photographs or to leave. Prosecutions of any sort are vanishingly rare. And while the photography is usually stopped, and publication of the prior images might be controversial, but probably not illegal. Unlike the USA the police have no involvement in such civil matters.

 

[sphexx]

Those are all private property with restricted entry, which may or may not restrict photography. To be effective it must clearly indicate photography is restricted. However a breach of a restriction still requires a prosecution in a civil court in such circumstances. The alternative is to ask the person lo leave. There is no ability to arrest that person, confiscate a camera or see or delete images,

In the case of a shopping mall or other venues that are free to enter, including prive property, there is no contract. Any restrictions must be clearly visible and or conveyed to the visitor, who can be asked to stop taking photographs or to leave. Prosecutions of any sort are vanishingly rare. And while the photography is usually stopped, and publication of the prior images might be controversial, but probably not illegal. Unlike the USA the police have no involvement in such civil matters.

I hope I don’t upset you too but although the OP was asking about London, England, @sk66 specifically says “my house” and “my stadium” which are presumably in Harrisburg PA so …

 

[Bridges]

I don’t think being “UK” based is relevant, there are quite a few members from other jurisdictions some comletely different, eg Nigel in Italy, and some from similar but completely different as USA & Australia.

I have no idea where other members are based. But we are talking specifically about London. The thread even has the tag ‘London’ next to the title. Hence, any discussion here should refer to London/the UK. I thought that was a given.

ince the laws about trespass are partly relevant to this discussion I suspect they are different in Scotland given its different access policy to that of England. I’ve no idea about Nothern Ireland but it wouldn’t surprise me to find that is different too both in legality and in practice!

I’m talking about the legality of the act of photography. Not trespass.

I hope I don’t upset you too but although the OP was asking about London, England, @sk66 specifically says “my house” and “my stadium” which are presumably in Harrisburg PA so …

But how are we to know that? This thread is about photography in London, not elsewhere.

 

[NCV]

These discussions always end up in some hypothetical fantasy world where the owners of buildings and monuments are policing the media to find pictures of their properties, and then taking legal action to enforce any rights they might have. If I publish a picture of let's say ,the Shard in a magazine or website, nobody will come after me. If I am engaged to do a major publicity campaign that features prominently the Shard, then things might change. The owners might come after agency, as they smell the scent of money.

I once took a set of pictures for a company which built the Bugatti factory. I had all the relevant permissions and they vetted the pictures, taking out those where the cars were prominent. So I guess I could still includes the shard in my publicity shot if it was a small pimple in the background.

For the small guy selling a few prints, I cannot see anything to worry about. People take legal action where they see a good monetary return after paying legal fees.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I hope I don’t upset you too but although the OP was asking about London, England, @sk66 specifically says “my house” and “my stadium” which are presumably in Harrisburg PA so …

I have no idea what the various laws might be in a particular state in the USA. I doubt many Americans have either, as it will depend on the jurisdiction. But as americans tend to react to any trespass with violence and are backed up by both the police and the courts. I would suggest extreme caution at all times.

Unlike the UK. Where if you don't know, don't ask, is a reasonable way to proceed. It is not something that I would do in another country.
(If you don't ask, you can not be refused, and it puts the onus on the other party to react or not)

 

[NCV]

Sorry, but trespass has nothing to do with taking a picture. A landowner can stop me taking pictures, by kicking me out of his property, if I am trespassing on his land.

This is what happens when you take unauthorised pictures of lets say a concert. They expel you from the venue. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for taking pictures.

Probably there is no legal way a landowner or concert promoter can force you to delete pictures or confiscate your camera.

 

[gramps]

Probably there is no legal way a landowner or concert promoter can force you to delete pictures

In the UK only a court can make such an order.

I think there is a difference in this discussion in what is 'lawful' and what is liable to be 'prosecuted' - it's a bit like the 20mph limit in the streets around my home.
Drivers should not exceed 20mph but the majority take the view that no one is going to do anything about it, so carry on regardless - doesn't make it right no matter how much you spout that no one will do anything.

 

[Deleted member 95743]

See what Sphexx said.

So you can’t even answer a simple question that only YOU would know the answer to.

I will rephrase the question, what are credentials in the laws pertaining to photography?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

However a breach of a restriction still requires a prosecution in a civil court in such circumstances.

I always understood that there is no such thing as "prosecution in a civil court" in the UK.

As I understand the rules, an individual may institute a prosecution in the criminal court, subject for meeting the standards required to bring that prosecution. In such cases, the Crown Prosecution Service may take over such a prosecution and either continue it or halt it, at their discretion.

However, I believe that the civil courts in the UK only deal with actions in tort or other actions for damages or curtailment, which are disputes between two or more parties but are not prosecutions.

Perhaps a member who is qualified can advise us?

 

[sphexx]

For the small guy selling a few prints, I cannot see anything to worry about. People take legal action where they see a good monetary return after paying legal fees.

Usually but not always. Sometime a wealthy organisation has an axe to grind (and may make money other than in the legal process) eg the famous monkey selfie and PETA (and yes I know it was in USA, but PETA operates in UK too) which as I understand it had the incidental effect of ruining the photographers livelihood

Edit to add: I think I”ll bow out of this discussion. I only joined to pour oil on troubled waters but seem to have ended up pouring fuel on flames

 

[Bridges]

So you can’t even answer a simple question that only YOU would know the answer to.

I didn't answer because the question is irrelevant. I don't need to answer it.

I will rephrase the question, what are credentials in the laws pertaining to photography?

See above.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I always understood that there is no such thing as "prosecution in a civil court" in the UK.

As I understand the rules, an individual may institute a prosecution in the criminal court, subject for meeting the standards required to bring that prosecution. In such cases, the Crown Prosecution Service may take over such a prosecution and either continue it or halt it, at their discretion.

However, I believe that the civil courts in the UK only deal with actions in tort or other actions for damages or curtailment, which are disputes between two or more parties but are not prosecutions.

Perhaps a member who is qualified can advise us?

"To prosecute is to participate in or pursue something to completion, like a government’s intention to prosecute a war. Prosecute is most often used for bringing legal action against an accused person or group."
To bring an action against, fall within this meaning.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

"To prosecute is to participate in or pursue something to completion, like a government’s intention to prosecute a war.

I agree.

Prosecute is most often used for bringing legal action against an accused person or group."

This is both the common and the legal usage, as I understand things.

To bring an action against, fall within this meaning.

This is where I disagree. It is an almost archaic use of the word, so far as I can tell.

My real question is whether it would be techically correct in legal terms, where the word seems to be used only in the context of the criminal courts and does not appear to apply to actions in civil courts.

As I wrote earlier, it would be good if someone from the legal profession could clarify its use in that context.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The universal use of smart phones has made the control and limitation of taking and sharing of photographs uncontrollable and impossible to prevent. However related court cases of any kind are virtually nill.

Only in the commercial aspects, involving copyright or defamation issues involving substantial monetary values, do we find any notable number of cases.

As soon as the courts become involved, costs inevitably and exponentially outrun benefits.

 

[sk66]

Those are all private property with restricted entry, which may or may not restrict photography. To be effective it must clearly indicate photography is restricted.

What do you mean by "effective?" There is no requirement that the restriction be "clearly indicated"... there doesn't need to be signage or a document you sign. You need to verify that what you want to do is allowed... you might assume photography is allowed, and that assumption could be wrong. It's the "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" thing...

Whether you were notified prior versus later, and how you act, may well affect how egregious the violation is deemed to be; and therefore the penalty imposed. And yes, you would have to be taken to civil court... again, how you act may well determine whether that happens or not.

I hope I don’t upset you too but although the OP was asking about London, England, @sk66 specifically says “my house” and “my stadium” which are presumably in Harrisburg PA so …

I was just trying to give an easy "logic trail" to follow... it applies in most locations where entry onto private property without permission is trespass (i.e. the UK). Being given permission also assumes some limitations are also in place... i.e. anything not specifically granted should be assumed to be limited. Just because you are allowed access does not mean you can do anything you want...

There really is no legal distinction between taking snapshots with your phone, pictures with a DSLR, taking pictures using several lights/stands/assistants/etc, or throwing a party... or doing any of that for commercial purposes (financial gain); except that throwing a party (rave) could be a criminal offense rather than civil (UK). The only thing that makes one allowed is the license/permission granted.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Being given permission also assumes some limitations are also in place... i.e. anything not specifically granted should be assumed to be limited.

My understanding of UK law is rather different.

So far as I can see, having been invited in, (entered by licence) any action which is legal and which has not been prohibited as a condition of entry, is permitted. I understand that there's a difference in how this works if you have made a contract for entry (e.g. by paying an admission charge) in which case the contract defines your rights and obligations.

In both cases, however, it is up to the landowner to make all conditions clear before you enter their property.

 

[lindsay]

At the risk of annoying Lindsay, I can only repeat: that is not it.

You haven't annoyed me - clearly other people are happy to continue a rather pointless argument about this. Like I said, I prefer not to take the risk of someone confronting me either in law or by force, so would not choose to ignore any restrictive covenant or common-sense limitation of my behaviour.

I had a colleague once who wrote a bit of code to draw a full-page picture of Snoopy every other page of a system log on Dixons' mainframe computer system. He had already left the company, but they took him to court seeking damages for theft of computer resources and some other related point - he had to pay them £3000 damages (in 1989 a decent sum of money). Sometimes a company will go after someone who isn't wealthy just to prove a point. Another business acquaintance started a publication that used the word "Visa" in its title. He was taken to civil litigation by Barclaycard Visa on a copyright claim - fortunately they withdrew the case after he agreed to print a large disclaimer on the inner front cover every issue, as he couldn't possibly have afforded the legal costs of fighting it. It was a very difficult time for my friend and he almost closed the business due to the stress of it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What do you mean by "effective?" There is no requirement that the restriction be "clearly indicated"... there doesn't need to be signage or a document you sign. You need to verify that what you want to do is allowed... you might assume photography is allowed, and that assumption could be wrong. It's the "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" thing...

Whether you were notified prior versus later, and how you act, may well affect how egregious the violation is deemed to be; and therefore the penalty imposed. And yes, you would have to be taken to civil court... again, how you act may well determine whether that happens or not.


I was just trying to give an easy "logic trail" to follow... it applies in most locations where entry onto private property without permission is trespass (i.e. the UK). Being given permission also assumes some limitations are also in place... i.e. anything not specifically granted should be assumed to be limited. Just because you are allowed access does not mean you can do anything you want...

There really is no legal distinction between taking snapshots with your phone, pictures with a DSLR, taking pictures using several lights/stands/assistants/etc, or throwing a party... or doing any of that for commercial purposes (financial gain); except that throwing a party (rave) could be a criminal offense rather than civil (UK). The only thing that makes one allowed is the license/permission granted.

I most cases in the UK trespass is a civil matter. And is entirely up to the owner to bring an action.
In some business and retail locations the roads and surrounds may also be private, but you do not break any law by being on them. None of this involves ignorance of the law. Criminal Law is not involved, it is a private matter between you and the owner.

There are a few places in the UK where trespass is a criminal offence especially royal, government and military premises. However this is alway obvious as they are fenced, locked and guarded.

As I said previously,Any sort of private litigation for trespass is extremely rare in the UK. Criminal prosecution is so rare as to be news worthy.

Taking photographs is rarely prohibited at public events on private land. However commercial photography would almost certainly require permission, and governed by terms and conditions.

It is highly unlikely that police would attend a call out to a trespass, unless there is ongoing criminal damage or threatening behaviour. Today even large events, open or ticketed are expected to provide their own stewards.
Football clubs are charged for the police attendance at matches.

It is extremely rare for police to even attend burglaries, attempted burglaries or shoplifting situations when you report them, they will just give you a crime number over the phone, to give to your insurance company. Except in exceptional cases they are never investigated. They are no longer interested at all in people taking photographs.

 

[sphexx]

K

I was just trying to give an easy "logic trail" to follow...

Yes, I understood perfectly and wasn’t criticising you.! In England and Wales trespass is mostly a non event if you have caused no damage and leave when asked and complicated (or simplified) since there are extensive public rights of way over much farmland* and a right to roam over some other parts of the countryside.



* and famously through a USA “spy” base (which is nominally an RAF facility) where someone neglected to get a footpath moved before building the base . Someone used to exercise that right once a year under the watchful eyes of armed US MPs but I haven’t heard about it recently so may have been resolved.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

K


Yes, I understood perfectly and wasn’t criticising you.! In England and Wales trespass is mostly a non event if you have caused no damage and leave when asked and complicated (or simplified) since there are extensive public rights of way over much farmland* and a right to roam over some other parts of the countryside.



* and famously through a USA “spy” base (which is nominally an RAF facility) where someone neglected to get a footpath moved before building the base . Someone used to exercise that right once a year under the watchful eyes of armed US MPs but I haven’t heard about it recently so may have been resolved.

I once worked on a large industrial site built on ex farmland. In Kent. It had a public right of way running completely through the middle, from the front controlled gate to a small picket gate at the rear, and onto a narrow farm lane.
It was only known to a few locals and a few serious walkers who liked to keep such rights of way open.

It was somewhat hazardous as all of its length was constantly used by fork lifts and lorries moving products from manufacturing to distribution warehouses.

As far as I know the right of way was never moved.

 

[Brendan Mulachy]

In June 2010, ‘The Shard Indian Restaurant’ opened on Tooley Street, a couple oh hundred metres away from The Shard

In May 2011, while The Shard was still under construction, they renamed it to ‘The Shad Indian Restaurant’ - Shad Thames happens to be the name of one of the streets nearby.

Shad Indian Restaurant, 96 Tooley Street SE1 2TH

Shad Indian Restaurant, London SE1 2TH: contact details, location and user reviews.

www.london-se1.co.uk

All I can say is that the architects in Renzo Piano’s office, who originally came up with the name for the skyscraper, were highly amused by the whole thing

im just glad they never came up with the name SHART for their indian restaurant, probably not the best play on words name for an curry house

 

[Musicman]

im just glad they never came up with the name SHART for their indian restaurant, probably not the best play on words name for an curry house

Personally, I always favoured the Bengal Clipper on Shad Thames, which was conveniently opposite the office where I worked at the time.

 

[sk66]

My understanding of UK law is rather different.

So far as I can see, having been invited in, (entered by licence) any action which is legal and which has not been prohibited as a condition of entry, is permitted. I understand that there's a difference in how this works if you have made a contract for entry (e.g. by paying an admission charge) in which case the contract defines your rights and obligations.

In both cases, however, it is up to the landowner to make all conditions clear before you enter their property.

It's the same as with all contracts (license)... if it's not in writing then it is implied (which is messy).

For example, you have a house with a walk that goes from the public roadway to your front door... barring anything else there is an implied license that allows someone to use that walkway to enter your property and knock on your front door. That implied license does not also imply that it is okay to peep through the front windows. Nor does it imply that it's okay to continue around to the back garden; it certainly doesn't imply that it's okay to start taking pictures once in your back garden. And that implied license can be revoked at any time (giving the offender adequate time to leave the property).


Whether or not you will have to go to court over it isn't really particularly relevant... you could probably punch a stranger in the face for no reason and not end up in court.