Harassed for photographing in 'public' spaces

Faldrax said:
(EG No nude photography of under 18's - which includes criminalising nude self portraits)
Click to expand...


Just to clarify, the wording is 'indecent images' not 'nude'. They are two very different things.
 
Phil V said:
You're very much mistaken.
For most of us, most of the time we're in public space where we're free to do what we like within the law.

Which is the whole point of the article in the OP, because lots of things that look and feel like public space are now owned by private companies, who have very different rules about what they allow.
Click to expand...
I think I am summarising this correctly ... but essentially in a public space you are free to do anything which the law does not prohibit. In a private space - or a psudo public space the Guardian article was about - that principle is reversed and you are not allowed to do anything except those things which are allowed.

The big problems are that (a) many of these spaces are not obviously privately owned and (b) the sets of rules and regulations are not readily available and (as found by the Guardian) even writing to the owners of the property do not get you details of what is and isn't permitted. Leading to the thought that rules are just made up as they feel like it.

Now non of this (the control over private property) is illegal ...
 
Eloise said:
I think I am summarising this correctly ... but essentially in a public space you are free to do anything which the law does not prohibit. In a private space - or a psudo public space the Guardian article was about - that principle is reversed and you are not allowed to do anything except those things which are allowed.

The big problems are that (a) many of these spaces are not obviously privately owned and (b) the sets of rules and regulations are not readily available and (as found by the Guardian) even writing to the owners of the property do not get you details of what is and isn't permitted. Leading to the thought that rules are just made up as they feel like it.

Now non of this (the control over private property) is illegal ...
Click to expand...

Not quite - the difference is that in either you are free to do anything the law does not prohibit, BUT in a private space (including private spaces which are open to the public, such as shopping complexes, and public spaces which are 'temporarily private' such as for a specific event) there may be additional restrictions - and there appears to be no requirement for such restrictions to be made public!
 
I've never understood why people feel the need to harass photographers. It's rare I take photos of people/photos with people In the background so that's not a big issue for me. I do fully understand if a persons face is clear in a photograph and they don't want to be photographed I'll delete it. But if you're taking pictures of a landscape/macro ext and you're on public property or even private property that has no signs and no barriers so it is not clear that it's private property I don't see the issue? If someone asks you to leave and you're on private property that again isn't marked as private/has no barriers be polite and leave as requested but you should still be allowed to keep the photographs? You're not harming anyone, you haven't damaged anything as long as you're respectful I don't see what harm you have caused.
 
Last edited:
Ryan95 said:
I've never understood why people feel the need to harass photographers. It's rare I take photos of people/photos with people In the background so that's not a big issue for me. I do fully understand if a persons face is clear in a photograph and they don't want to be photographed I'll delete it. But if you're taking pictures of a landscape/macro ext and you're on public property or even private property that has no signs and no barriers so it is not clear that it's private property I don't see the issue? If someone asks you to leave and you're on private property that again isn't marked as private/has no barriers be polite and leave as requested but you should still be allowed to keep the photographs? You're not harming anyone, you haven't damaged anything as long as you're respectful I don't see what harm you have caused.
Click to expand...
No, I don't understand this either and it's even more odd since in English cities people are being filmed all the time by CCTV.
 
doublem1 said:
How do people usually respond in these situations?
Click to expand...

I usually say hello and claim ignorance of any rules and show genuine interest in complying with the rules, asking how I should go about things in future. I find being polite and open seems to work quite well. I don't think I've ever been stood over while I pack up or anything, more that they wander off and I go on my way and find another shot. I did once have a theoretical discussion with one security guard after he suggested that if I didn't stop he could confiscate my camera and call the police, pointing out I'd be calling the police to report a theft, but still kept it amicable.

Much of the time, I try to avoid such confrontation, by not laying a tripod down in one place for a long time or selecting a public footpath instead. Sometimes a bean bag on a wall or bench or something can attract less attention. If I'm hand holding, I wouldn't expect any trouble. No different to any tourist. It seems to be tripods that security pick on.

But, I've started to think the best way to find out is to whack that tripod out and see what happens, because it may be that they aren't bothered, despite all the private signs and cctv warnings. I've been approached by the Thames Barrier every time I've spent time there with a tripod, but they just go on about commercial stuff, check you're not filming and let you get on with it really.

Would be interested to hear where folks in London have had trouble with tripods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top