More people being stopped from taking shots??

I was escorted out of my local shopping centre in Reading by 2 security guards. On the way out I did notice that they were indeed correct concerning the ‘No Photography’ signs on the doors.

At first they wanted to confiscate my camera, I think the look on my face put them off that idea!
 
Unfortunately it's getting all to common to be viewed with suspicion when taking shots, but I find talking to someone in charge and being friendly up-front pays dividends.
 
I would have called the police and shown them a letter from my MP stating (as far as he is aware) that there is no law preventing photography in public places in theis country. I'd then ask them to arrest and charge the builder/s with assault or breach of the peace.

I wonder if anyone has asked the SIA if they "train/advise" their applicants on the issue of public photography as part of the licensing scheme they administer?
 
I get the feeling that health and safety may have been of the problem with that one that the foreman trying to stop the pictures been taken incase the photographer got closer and got injured etc (though I am guessing he might have been watching how own back incase any of his crew were braking health and safety laws and could be identified through the photos). He still had no right to stop the shots been taken, but dont think we can say he was viewing the photographer with suspicion. All guess work of course.
 
Yes they do.

And are told that in a public place, they have NO athority. To stop or touch any member of the public. And to do so, leaves them open to a charge of assalt.

If formaly charged with assult, their licence is suspended, and they cannot work as a security guard, untill the case has been heard in court. This can take up to 18 months.
 
hepburn said:
I would have called the police and shown them a letter from my MP stating (as far as he is aware) that there is no law preventing photography in public places in theis country.
Click to expand...

A shopping centre is private property,not a public place,if they want to put signs up saying no photography they can
 
Was taking photos in a car park when security came out and told me to stop, took my details and all. damn annoying
 
I wouldnt be giving my details to some rent-a-cop they have no right to ask you for them either.
 
I have taken many photos in shopping centres (Lakeside is a fav!, Tescos and Gallions Reach), and stations (L'pool st, Kings Cross, St Pancras) and other public places and have yet to be collared! I do it carefully and rarely have the camera to my face. I guess I'll get caught one day but until then...I continue! I think I enjoy the challenge :D
 
heh id have told em to stick it and took a photo of the foremans dissapointment :)
 
What? You're not allowed to smoke in public places... pah!! When did that one come into force... :)
 
wack61 said:
A shopping centre is private property,not a public place,if they want to put signs up saying no photography they can
Click to expand...

My reply was referring to the building site this thread is about. But thanks for clarifying shopping centres for those among us who wouldn't know this.
 
I wonder, in the shopping centre if there is a camera shop....

How would you test out a lens? Would they let you take it outside?:shrug::thinking:
 
OutLore said:
I wonder, in the shopping centre if there is a camera shop....

How would you test out a lens? Would they let you take it outside?:shrug::thinking:
Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's a good point. Are the shopping centre rules applicable inside actual shops and subsequently would you then be able to photograph the shopping centre from inside a shop?

I suspect the shops would probably have to abide by the centre rules and even if they didn't they probably wouldn't want to risk upsetting the landlord for a photographer but for an actual photography shop it would be an interesting argument!
 
wack61 said:
A shopping centre is private property,not a public place,if they want to put signs up saying no photography they can
Click to expand...

I think this is a debatable issue, by being open without charge or fee to the general public the shopping centre becomes a public place.

Yes if they do have a sign saying no photography then you can't, but without the sign I doubt they would win in a court of law.
 
I dont know Whiteflyer - yes it might feel like a public place, but if it is still privately owned land then I dont think they are under any rule to have to have a sign. As far as I understand it they can only stop you taking photographs on the private place, I dont think they can force you to give details or delete photos etc, so if you get stopped you just smile and leave, no biggy - in my opinion.

As for when the streets will be covered in no photography signs like the no smoking ones....I dont think I have ever seen a no smoking sign on the street...as as far as I am aware you are still allowed to smoke on the street, no? same with photography.

As for the whole theatening to call the police and having the builder arrested, is that really going to help? It just gives more photographers a bad name because they are being balshy and more annoying. Just get your shots and b****r off in my opinion. I dont see the need for confrontation. You know the law, you know you are within your rights..If they want to take it further then let them, I would have thought getting all defensive about the situation would only make it worse.

Just my 2p anyway.
 
adamg said:
Was taking photos in a car park when security came out and told me to stop, took my details and all. damn annoying
Click to expand...

Then I would have asked for what purpose they want my details. You have just as much right to ask the security guard for his details as he does from you.
You didn't HAVE to give your details, security guards have no more rights than you or I.
 
Public street, you can take photos and smoke at the same time.

In shopping centres, you can only do what the landowners allow you to.
It's not a public place, but a publically accessible place, there's a difference.
While you are free to wander onto the land, there will be terms and conditions attached to that access. They don't have to publish those terms (by way of a sign etc), but can stipulate what you are or not allowed to do on that land.

If they say "No photography", then its no photography. The moment you start taking photos, you are breaching your conditions of being allowed on that land, and are committing trespass.
Trespass on its own is a civil offense, not a criminal one, so in the first instance, they must ask you to leave, nothing else. They can't make you delete shots, they can't take your camera off you, they can't even 'detain' you until the police arrive.
Once you then refuse to leave, it becomes a different matter IIRC (Although from this point I'm not sure how it's different).
 
Baz777 said:
I was escorted out of my local shopping centre in Reading by 2 security guards. On the way out I did notice that they were indeed correct concerning the ‘No Photography’ signs on the doors.

At first they wanted to confiscate my camera, I think the look on my face put them off that idea!
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the Oracle, I spent an hour or so taking pictures around the canal side area. No hasstle from the security guards, but that was because we were on a college course and had passes from the centre management saying we could. The look of disppointment on the guards faces when they tried to stop us was brilliant :lol:
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
As for the whole theatening to call the police and having the builder arrested, is that really going to help? It just gives more photographers a bad name because they are being balshy and more annoying. Just get your shots and b****r off in my opinion. I dont see the need for confrontation. You know the law, you know you are within your rights..If they want to take it further then let them, I would have thought getting all defensive about the situation would only make it worse.

Just my 2p anyway.
Click to expand...

I used to be that way but you know what? It means the balshy people think they are in the right, when they aren't.

It's not so much about confrontation but getting the message across that they cannot behave that way. Also, by involving the police it hopefully brings them into contact with a subject they clearly need exposure too (given the bad press of late). The more they have to deal with these incidents surely the more they get educated?

Or am I missing something here?
 
Marcel said:
Once you then refuse to leave, it becomes a different matter IIRC (Although from this point I'm not sure how it's different).
Click to expand...

Slightly off topic, but once you refuse to leave the landowner would have to apply for a court order to remove you and until this is granted the police cant do anything either.

This is the grey area that 'travellers' reside in when camping in car parks, fields, open spaces etc.
 
Ooooh next time Im told to stop taking pictures in the shopping centre, I'm gonna sit down and tell em they havent got a prayer :D
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
I dont know Whiteflyer - yes it might feel like a public place, but if it is still privately owned land then I dont think they are under any rule to have to have a sign. As far as I understand it they can only stop you taking photographs on the private place,
Click to expand...

Marcel said:
Public street, you can take photos and smoke at the same time.

In shopping centres, you can only do what the landowners allow you to.
It's not a public place, but a publically accessible place, there's a difference.
Click to expand...


I can take photos in public, I can't take photos in a shopping centre because it's private.

So can I go to the shopping centre, drop my pants and show my dangly bits, safe from being done for exposure in public
 
whiteflyer said:
I can take photos in public, I can't take photos in a shopping centre because it's private.

So can I go to the shopping centre, drop my pants and show my dangly bits, safe from being done for exposure in public
Click to expand...

not sure about that. but anyone taking a photo of you doing that could be chucked out :p
 
Just because the public have " right of access" to private property doesn't confer public rights to you/them.

.....and regards "forced to give details" even the police can not force you to give your details, however they can/will arrest you for failing to do so.
 
I used to work in security If they touch you in anyway it is assult and as they have no powers of arrest or any real power close to it they have no right to ask you for your deatils and can not make you.
 
hepburn said:
My reply was referring to the building site this thread is about. But thanks for clarifying shopping centres for those among us who wouldn't know this.
Click to expand...

My apologies, I didn't click the link I thought we were talking about shopping centres, also my reply reads a bit :bang: which I never intended
 
Slipper-one said:
.....and regards "forced to give details" even the police can not force you to give your details, however they can/will arrest you for failing to do so.
Click to expand...


Which pretty much amounts to the same thing :shrug:
 
wack61 said:
My apologies, I didn't click the link I thought we were talking about shopping centres, also my reply reads a bit :bang: which I never intended
Click to expand...

T'is ok. I never take comments THAT personally and I appreciate the apology. :)
 
sepulchre said:
Which pretty much amounts to the same thing :shrug:
Click to expand...

"Other than under road traffic and anti-social behaviour legislation, you do not commit an offence in English law by refusing to give your name and address to the police. However there are certain situations where the police may arrest you if they cannot establish your name and address, and if you are arrested and charged with an offence you will be unlikely to be granted bail unless they can establish these detail.

http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/carrying_id.html
 
The Police - on the whole - are just doing their job. If you're polite and respectful, they'll most likely just leave you to get on with things.
 
robbiemc said:
The Police - on the whole - are just doing their job. If you're polite and respectful, they'll most likely just leave you to get on with things.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily as they can be quite over the top at times no matter what you say to them.

it's quite ironic really as i remember when 7/7 happened they were asking if anyone who had been in the vicinity taking photos if they could come forward with them, for years and years amateur photographers as well as people taking video have helped out in various situations where incidents have occurred, but now the PC brigade are on to us it just makes me wonder were it's going to end, i just wish the bloody idiots would get a life ! !
 
me and my wife were walking around trafalgar square on tuesday,when my wife decided she needed to visit the loo,so we walked the short distance to charing cross station to use their toilets.whilst she went to the loo,i stood outside with my camera hanging around my neck,and i noticed two transport police looking towards me and talking,when one of them came over and asked me if i'd taken any photo's of the station,if i had any ID etc etc.....i showed him some ID and offered to show him all i had on my storage to prove i hadn't taken any shots.he then said that i wasn't allowd to shoot the structure of the station as i would be contravening section 44 of the terrorism act.

is this correct?
 
stan the man said:
as i would be contravening section 44 of the terrorism act.
Click to expand...

For taking photos, no.
Section 44 covers the Authorisation of the use of Stop and Search powers.

If he said you would be contravening section 44 by taking photos of the structure, he was talking out of his bumhole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top