Ejected from The Oracle

Grendel

Grendel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,005
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
I met up with Catdaddy today at The Oracle in Reading - a shopping centre with the River Kennet running through the middle of it. We thought it would be a great opportunity to try our hand at some street / candid photography. The light was good and the place was fairly busy so lots of people about. Neither of us have ever tried anything like this before and it it was actually quite nerve racking! How were people going to react to having their photo taken by a complete stranger? It made a big difference trying this with someone else, a kinda mutual confidence boost. Any way, it soon became apparant that it's actually not that bad, with a 300mm zoom, the subjects don't actually notice you there at all, the odd one or two that did just gave a smile or a thumbs up. However, that's more than can be said for the Oracle security! We moved into the indoor shopping area after about 30 minutes and started taking some shots of the elevators and general surroundings. Then a security guy came up to us to explain that this was private property and "we couldn't take photographs in here". Fair enough we thought, no problem. We apologised and went outside to a different area of the shopping centre and carried on squeezing the shutter at any opportunity, and their were plenty! But no, that wasn't acceptable either. Another three security guards came along, surrounded us and told us that (get this!) the buildings were all protected by copyright and we couldn't photograph them at all, not unless we had an official pass to do so! We expalined that we weren't interested in the buildings but that didn't help. We were moved on and that was that! So we went to yet another part of town that is nothing to do with The Oracle and got some pretty good shots with no problems at all. BUT, back at the Oracle there is a bridge that was just crying out for a photo to be taken. Surely no one could get upset if we just took a photo of a bridge could they? Yup, apparantly they could. I think the final straw for them was Chris setting up his D70 on his tripod, it tipped them over the edge! I mean how dare we, stand there blatently photographing a bridge! A very pleasant security guard came along and told us that we now had to leave the shopping centre as they take their security very seriously and we were causing a potential terrorist threat by photographing the architecture! Seriously! So we told him we would just pop for a pint then be on our way, but no.....he actually escorted us away from the area and told us not to return today!

Well I've had a quick look through and despite being so unwelcome, I reckon I've got some fairly decent photos so I'll post some up in the next couple of days. I'm sure Chris has some keepers too.

For a first attempt at street photog it's been great fun! A really interesting experience. I mean it's not often you get thrown out of a shopping centre is it?
 
:eek: I've been to The Oracle a few times, but not with my camera :) I can understand them asking you to leave the actual shopping centre, but escorting you away from the area altogether :eek:
 
What a load of old ********!

You can take photos in public places as much as you want to. Tell the security people to go and **** themselves, and if they want to prosecute you then tell them to do so and an entire courtroom can have a laugh at their expense.

Prats!
 
As mini said, we could understand them not wanting us taking photos inside - if it's private property then thats fine but outside, taking photos of bridges etc! Potential terrorist threat! :shrug: Unbelievable! They said they were ready to call the police if we didn't leave!
 
Just as bad as on the London meet - we weren't allowed to take photo's using a tripod outside the county hall :cuckoo: When we asked the security guys to explain why, they didn't know, except that their boss had told them so :lol:
 
Do you get the impression that somehow, having a compact wondering around taking snaps is fine but as soon as you're seen with an SLR, a tripod and a Lowpro on your back you're somehow a threat to society! In reality what's the difference? You're still just taking photos at the end of the day!
 
Lol! It was a great afternoon though, and the final security guard (bless him, he looked like he wouldn't normally say 'Boo' to a goose!) was a really nice guy! We kinda felt sorry for him cos he was only doing his job. So we told him that we were going to leave quietly and go for a pint... only to be told we couldn't go to 'that' particular bar because it was on the Oracle site - and if we did go in there, they'd have every right to call the police! So there you go - we were officially thrown off site!

Got loads of pics to wade through and find the keepers... will post as and when!
 
He wouldn't let us take his photo either! We did try! lol loads!
 
even the car park is private property, so they are entitled to ask you to leave if they feel your breaking their rules on photography.

It's a pia :razz:
 
minimeeze said:
Just as bad as on the London meet - we weren't allowed to take photo's using a tripod outside the county hall :cuckoo: When we asked the security guys to explain why, they didn't know, except that their boss had told them so :lol:
Click to expand...

You can get into heaps of trouble for using a tripod in any public place without a licence/permit/agreement...all sorts of health a safety and public liability crap, granted I have never had problem with using one for photography but stick a video camera on top and you are in for it!
 
Thanks Mr Lemon. Never knew that.
Will paint my tripod concrete grey and dress up like a pigeon next time I go out in public. Think that'll work?
 
oldigt said:
Thanks Mr Lemon. Never knew that.
Will paint my tripod concrete grey and dress up like a pigeon next time I go out in public. Think that'll work?
Click to expand...
Well it works for traffic cameras. Or it did before they decided to paint them all yellow.
 
You know the answer for this type of 'no tripod' problem, stick a camera mount onto a Zimerframe, sorted :naughty: :lol:
 
I hope that would be a magfibre zimmer with a joystick head :D
 
Ah bloody hell, I'd love to try it also .. One of these days I might just do so, when I get my 50mm anyway.

Can't wait to see the shots you got.
 
Although this Security man seemed a bit OTT it is not beyond belief that somewhere like the Oracle (or any other large shopping complex) could be targetted for a terrorist attack (didn't the PIRA do just that in Manchester?)
In the current climate I'm suprised the Police weren't called & thinking about it what great cover for casing the place a couple of amateur photogs wandering about is (?) Mind you you'd think a terrorist would be a bit less conspicuous than walking around with a DSLR & tripod :thinking:
Paul :thumbs:
 
It is a well known fact that all Terrorists use SLRs , compacts just give to much noise to allow for accurate bombing plans . Infact to get maximum yield of death and destruction a tripod is essential.

Osama Bin Laden is believed to have his own personal Hasselbad H3D with full Manfrotto tripod/head kit
 
i would send a snot-o-gram to the manager, with the threat of copy to local paper..just for kicks
 
mrgubby said:
It is a well known fact that all Terrorists use SLRs , compacts just give to much noise to allow for accurate bombing plans . Infact to get maximum yield of death and destruction a tripod is essential.

Osama Bin Laden is believed to have his own personal Hasselbad H3D with full Manfrotto tripod/head kit
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Hoodi said:
I get this all the time :lol:
Click to expand...

Ditto. Been told I can't take pics of Xmas lights in a shopping center as I needed permission. Got told I can't take pics of people in a tiny shopping alley due to security. I got one shot before being moved along. I then stood outsie and took pics on public property where the guy couldn't do anything :D Been stopped by the police a few times. They just didn't quite know what to make of me when I said I was drawing stick men with a torch light :D I was told by one nutty security guard not to take pics of a building down the road. It wasn't anything to do with him. Seriously screwed up world. Its not like you can't get photos of Google or with a camera phone on the sly ffs. As long as its private property they can throw you off for whatever made up reason, annoyingly. What you should do is take out your camera phone and say "Does this make me more or less of a terrorist? Everyone else gets away with them, are they also terrorists?" These guys won't know what to do when someone actually questions them but they will get annoyed and use whatever means to get rid of you. One thing to note is that you're not alone. Check out this dudes history. Crazy ass world.
 
Funny old thing - a certain Afghan Warlord, Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance was assassinated by suicide bombers posing as a Pakistani News Team - the bomb was hidden in the video camera.

It's not as far-fetched as you might think.

Oracle security are quite within their rights to move you on, nause though it may be - in theory it's always a good idea to ring the PR peeps beforehand (or customer services) and get permission to shoot. That gives them a chance to check you out.
Even I have to get clearance for certain areas (MoD main building for example) when I go on jobs.
Plus it's common courtesy to introduce yourselves.
I've been able to blag a pass at various venues by turning up unannounced and going to the manager's/security office and explaining what I'm about.
 
How about a forum meet at the Oracle centre, Reading? I'd like to see what they do when a mass of shutter bugs descend on their patch... and who ever heard of copyrighting a building?! wtf. well, my face is copyrighted and anyone loking at it has to pay a hefty fine!! that might shut them up.

honestly, give someone a uniform and they become a freakin' job's-worth. I think I'm right in saying you could have told the security guard to naff of if you were outside and if he laid a finger on you or any of you equipment you're entitled to call the police, but then its only getting petty by that stage. Only if they forcably try to remove you though, and I guess if you took pictures all the time you'de have a record of it all too...
either way security morons are getting worse in this country - there doesn't seem to be an issue of AP without someone claiming they were accosted unjustly by some goon of sorts. Is everyone really THAT paranoid? theres even that utterly ridiculous proposal of sticking 'no photography here' signs up in public places, why? terrorism? paedophiles? christ man! if a terrorist wanted to know the location and so on of a building don't you think he'd be a bit more discreet?!!? and as for the P****, well, I can't speak for any of them but I'd imagine they'd not want to draw attention to themselves either...
so in the end the innocent, photography enthusiast gets bummed by arsey rules and jobless-johns with sweet FA better to do than make themselves feel important by trying to impose their uniforms upon others.
There is also something called the law, and despite hating all these gutless politicians and their self loving circles, PC crap and the like, it can come in handy for the average photographer confronted by security guards.
They cannot touch you, they cannot arrest you, they cannot touch any of your property in any way. In fact there's very little they can do legally - shop lifters know this but they act as a deterant to most. Check the AP website as there's a pdf I've seen floating around about what they can and can't do...worth having a printout in the bag
 
All of the above may be true in court, but it won't stop them from beating the crap out of you if you try arguing the toss...
And I wouldn't be surprised if you got laughed out of court either...

Anyway, the Oracle centre is a private building and the security guards are employed there for a reason. They do have the right to refuse anyone entry without having to give a reason for doing so - in the same way that you can refuse right of entry to your home if you felt like it.

If you think the Terrorist threat in the UK is a bluff, just ask the families of those killed and injured in London last year.
 
If you refused to leave private premises on request, and the police were called, you'd stand every chance of being arrested for Conduct Likely To Cause A Breach Of The Peace. Stand up for your rights by all means, but know when to call it a day.:)
 
To be honest, I can fully understand their stance not allowing photography on the site, what with the IRA bombing in Manchester a few years back... And it is their prerogative, after all. I didn't see any 'No Photography' signs though - not saying they don't exist; just that I didn't see them.

Thing is though, the 2nd time, when we were stood on public property and taking shots, from what I can gather they would have no actual right to stop us as they hold no jurasdiction over the area we were stood on. Am I right about that? (The fact that they moved a poppy seller on from the same spot would seem to back up their 'jobsworth' approach)

I might contact the Marketing department in a few days' time to see how a tog pass is for a day, and what the contract states... Just out of interest...
 
Arkady said:
I'm in the Army - employed as a photographer - I still have to ring in advance - that was the point.
Click to expand...
yes, thats a fair point, and I'd expect any unauthorised snapping near MoD bases would be rather stupid.
 
Catdaddy said:
Thing is though, the 2nd time, when we were stood on public property and taking shots, from what I can gather they would have no actual right to stop us as they hold no jurasdiction over the area we were stood on. Am I right about that? (The fact that they moved a poppy seller on from the same spot would seem to back up their 'jobsworth' approach)
Click to expand...
If you stand on a public right of way like a foot path or something - and providing you're not causing obstruction i.e tripod out and faffing everywhere etc - you should be fine, there's no reasonable cause to remove you from the premises
 
shiato storm said:
If you stand on a public right of way like a foot path or something - and providing you're not causing obstruction i.e tripod out and faffing everywhere etc - you should be fine, there's no reasonable cause to remove you from the premises
Click to expand...

If we're on a public right of way, there are no premises to remove us from! (Other than by the police for obstruction - not that we were actually getting in the way more than any other pedestrian, that is!)
 
Great thread this. :thumbs:

It is my belief that the guards were just poorly briefed. As Pete points out in the states it is worse and all in the name of homeland security.

Private property is private property and even if you took those photos you do not (fully) own the copyright unless you have a property release. You can understand therefore how as this sort of information is disseminated to the average knuckle dragger who is also asked to look out for potentially suspicious behaviour which may or may not be an extremist group at work can lead to scenarios as described above.

I think we just have to take these factors into account as part of our pursuit and politely argue the point with a higher authority - not the ape that will most likely lamp you one!
 
Catdaddy said:
Thing is though, the 2nd time, when we were stood on public property and taking shots, from what I can gather they would have no actual right to stop us as they hold no jurasdiction over the area we were stood on. Am I right about that? (The fact that they moved a poppy seller on from the same spot would seem to back up their 'jobsworth' approach)
Click to expand...

Well I can categorically state that they hold no jurisdiction outside the curtiledge of the private property on which they're employed. Furthermore they have no special powers at all other than those which can be utilised by any citizen under certain circumstances. Let's' face it they have a job to do, and I suspect, they're being instructed by someone hiding away watching proceedings on a monitor back in the office.

The whole thing is a real grey area, and isn't really understood by even your average cop, but why should it be, it's hardly 'bread and butter' police work. I was once threatened with being arrested and my camera confiscated by a copper for taking photos in the street. When I asked him to explain very clearly what offence I was committing and what powers he had to sieze my gear he was man enough to back down.

As for photographing private property from a public place, obviously that applies to certain government and military buildings, but the idea that it applies to taking shots of the outside of a shopping precinct is ludicrous. :cuckoo:
 
I don't think he was saying that the terrorist threat isn't real Rob, just that it's overboard to accost anyone taking photographs as a potential terrorist.
I can understand general waryness with regards to anyone taking an interest in a building, but surely it's gone too far.
The bomb in Manchester wasn't even in the shopping centre. It was from a van parked on the street.
I would honestly love to know how many terrorist atrocities were aided by the taking of photographs of the area first.

I think in general these security guards are simply carrying out orders from misinformed superiors, and like has been said, they really are only doing their job. I find if you're polite with them, they're polite back (usually, no doubt there will be exceptions to that rule).
It's the ones who are forceful and 'gorilla-like' in their approach which get my back up.
Accosting someone on the street is a no no.

I was in the Arndale in Manchester last year taking some photos and the security guy told us we couldn't take photos. I did as I was asked and put the camera away and got chatting to him. I simply said "Go on then mate, why...and I know the official line, but what's the real reason". He said "Well you could be planning a robbery and casing that jewellers over there. It might look like you're taking an innocent photo, but you could be planning on robbing it". He was nice about it and said "If it wasnt for the big lenses, we wouldn't have even noticed or even bothered". But he did try telling me about peoples copyright of their own images and I explained to him about privacy laws and public places etc etc, something he didn't really know about. So it seems he was just acting on orders.

He even pointed out a shot that I hadn't seen (of another building, through the skylight). The light wasn't right at the time, but he said a few people go for that shot :thumbs: hehe
 
Marcel said:
I would honestly love to know how many terrorist atrocities were aided by the taking of photographs of the area first.
Click to expand...

Pearl Harbour, according to the film with the same name. They took flights around to get a good set of shots apparently. Dunno how true that really is.
 
I don't know that you could call Pearl Harbor a terrorist atrocity. If thats the case then most of the WW2 bombing raids would count as many were based on photo reccon.

I agree with the general principal of your though direction though.

Its clear that if you want to shoot in a location like a shopping center, you need to get some sort of clearance first. But then wouldn't a terrorist be clever enough to do that anyway :thinking:
 
This has turned into a really interesting thread :thumbs:

The one thing I learnt from the whole experience is that you just can't walk into a public place and take photos without seeking permission. And that's fair enough. The thing that suprised me is the way you are viewed if you have an SLR in your hand compared to someone taking photos with their phone or a compact. Aren't we all just doing the same thing in reality? OK I'm specifically there to take a specific set of photos - premeditated if you like, wheras the guy with a phone cam or the girl with a compact is taking spontanious shots "because they can", but in the end we're all just taking photos. The Oracle security really had a thing about the buildings having copyright but surely the other guys / girls will still get pictures of buildings in their shots! Why do mine matter more because I looked like I meant it when I took the photo? I guess it's about perception, just in the same way you perceive the guy at a sporting event with 3 1D's and L glass over his shoulder as a pro and the chap with a point and shoot as a casual observer.

I totally accept the point about security but I think the over riding issue has been raised in this thread already. If Chris and I were actually there on a mission for Osama Bin Laden then we would have probably got a pass to be there to cover ourselves and could have taken all the shots we wanted with their blessing! How secure is that then?

Still, we live in a crazy world! :cuckoo:

Right, time to fire up Photoshop and sort out my keepers from the day - bloody annoyed that Chris beat me to it coz now I've got to find some shots that I took and he didn't! :bang:
 
Catdaddy said:
Thing is though, the 2nd time, when we were stood on public property and taking shots, from what I can gather they would have no actual right to stop us as they hold no jurasdiction over the area we were stood on. Am I right about that? (The fact that they moved a poppy seller on from the same spot would seem to back up their 'jobsworth' approach)
Click to expand...

If it were on public property as you say I'd have told them to "go call the police if you want but if you continue to harrass me on this here public property I'll call them myself." oh and I'd have taken his picture too as evidence.
 
Catdaddy said:
Thing is though, the 2nd time, when we were stood on public property and taking shots, from what I can gather they would have no actual right to stop us as they hold no jurasdiction over the area we were stood on. Am I right about that? (The fact that they moved a poppy seller on from the same spot would seem to back up their 'jobsworth' approach)...
Click to expand...

Now that is a fair point - AFAIK the only things you cannot photograph from a public place (i.e. a public road or footpath adjacent to...) are MoD bases in the UK although there may be others I'm not aware of.
I think you still have to have permission to photograph public buildings like council offices, police stations etc as well, but it would vary from County to County.
I regularly see camouflage-suited plane spotters around the roads near Heathrow, cheerfully snapping away with their Zenith RPG-7 lookalikes, so obviously British Transport police are well on the case there as well...:thinking:

Best thing to do, I'd suggest is either ring beforehand if it's a planned trip, or just ask to see the security manager or Customer Services manager if you just happen to come across something that looks good on your travels.

All that's for the UK - almost all photography of transport hubs across europe is prohibited (though in France you'll get away with murder as they just don't care outside Paris - in Paris itself, you'll get chain-whipped by the CRS and thrown in a dungeon for six months while getting a*s-raped by Morroccan Hash smugglers...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top