No public access restrictions, yet no photos allowed to be taken???

Woodsy

Woodsy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,676
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
No
Hi all.

I'm some what hacked off. This evening, myself, my housemate, and some other people from the photographic society here at uni went into Exeter city centre to take some night time shots. Now I'm not sure if anyone knows, but a whole new shopping place has been built there recently. About 5 minutes into taking photos, a security guard comes over and tells us to stop taking photos as it is private property. As you can imagin, I got a little miffed and was a little short with the guy. He said we needed permission to take photos there, no matter who we were.

Now, there are no gates to walk through to get to where we were, there are no signs or any rules and regulations posted anywhere stating that we could not take photos. Also, the whole complex has what appears to be complete public access at all hours.

I don't know if any of you know, but the area surrounding the London eye is also like this, in that people are not allowed to take photos. Security guards there will also tell you that you can't take photos.

My question is this. If there is no information posted anywhere in these areas, and no prior warning that you are not allowed to take shots because the area is "private property", is it actually illegal to take photos there? Also, just out of curiosity, why is the bureaucratic BS put in place in the first place? Only it really ***** me off. :bang::bang::bang:

rant over.
 
If it's private property, then technically you're there by invitation.

As part of that invitation, one of the conditions would be that you don't take photos.

The owners have a right to ask you to leave.

Bear in mind the most you will be guilty of, by taking photos ON private property is trespass (in this instance of course), which is a civil offense. So the most they can do is ask you to leave.

It sucks I know.
 
Do you still have the photos you took Woodsy? I don't think they can tell you to delete them anyway.
 
Sucks big time. I do still have the shots I took, yes.

What I fail to understand though is that telling us to leave is only going to attract bad publicity. So is there literally nothing that can be done without requesting permission?
 
Ok, let's play devils advocate...

If you left your car parked on the street would you be happy for someone to use the bonnet as a seat while they had their lunch?

Why not, after all you left it in a public place with no gates, no signs, nothing at all telling people they can't use it in that manner.
 
pxl8 said:
Ok, let's play devils advocate...

If you left your car parked on the street would you be happy for someone to use the bonnet as a seat while they had their lunch?

Why not, after all you left it in a public place with no gates, no signs, nothing at all telling people they can't use it in that manner.
Click to expand...

Not sure If thats a good example.

If there allowing people to enter their private property freely, signs would be a good Idea to tell people the rules. Security depending on the guard could be Intimidating to people and put them off from going to the place In future.
 
Whilst I don't want to take your example literally, because lets face it, you are assuming no common sense is involved, taking a photo of a building is hardly the same as sitting on an individuals car. If you are going to play devils advocate, atleast come up with a situation that is remotely analogous.

And besides, can you atleast see why I might be miffed about this?
 
Yes I can understand you were miffed. How would you have felt if there had been a sign saying no photography allowed?
 
Woodsy said:
My question is this. If there is no information posted anywhere in these areas, and no prior warning that you are not allowed to take shots because the area is "private property", is it actually illegal to take photos there? Also, just out of curiosity, why is the bureaucratic BS put in place in the first place? .
Click to expand...

Having no signs makes no difference.. there shopping center. there rules.. I bet theres loads of stuff your not allowed to do.. including walking your dog through it (seriously) .. Would be a big daft never read sign if they listed everything.. hence the guards. not just there for security.

As to why? why no photography... well buggered if I know :(
 
No photography usually means that the property owners don't want to see images of their buildings in print without being paid for them. It's annoying yes, but I'd rather expend energy finding something else to shoot without interruption than get worked up about where I'm not allowed to.
 
just to add to it, as far as I'm aware, that a large part of the new development is residential too. This may also be a reason the security are a bit more sensitive to cameras.
 
The same rule applies for the Oracle centre in Reading, although they have lots of notices saying this. We did a shoot there for our C&G photography course and had to make sure we had written approval from the centre well ahead of time. It was good fun showing our permits to any security guards who came challenge us.

JimLin
 
Actually, 5 of us from here were approached by a security guard at the london eye, and I think he was a little overawed by 4 tall fellas and one short but nasty woman, [:naughty: ] so merely confirmed that we were purely amateurs. He pointed out that commercial togs did need to have permission to shoot there. However, I have heard of plenty of people that have been asked not to take pics when using a dslr round the eye, though its never happened to me personally, even on the occasion when I stood next to a pair of security bods whilst I took a picture.

It is very annoying, moreso when there is nothing to tell you of this 'rule' when you enter the property. :bonk:
 
I can uderstand why you want pics of PrincessHaye, nice lighting etc. I was down there a few weeks back shopping with my Griflfriend, and there were about 50 people all running round with point and shoot cameras, so why should it differ if you have more professional looking gear. The security down there are being reported as being very over zealous, they have been in a few local papers so far, with not good comments. I think if they keep up the bad attitude they have, people will be put off goign there.
 
From a terrorist security point of view, it might be possible that the guard has been told to use his discretion regarding photographers.

eg, what does a terrorist photographer look like?
 
I can understand if your in a shopping centre that is obviously privately owned, but at an official London Landmark! a sightseer's paradise!! can you imagine them telling all the japanese tourists to put thier cameras away!! its a sodding joke!! whats next??

Right, must get back to my book, its a George Orwell classic... :naughty: Paranoid!! me!!!!! :lol:
 
admirable said:
From a terrorist security point of view, it might be possible that the guard has been told to use his discretion regarding photographers.

eg, what does a terrorist photographer look like?
Click to expand...

He probably doesnt run round with a dslr, tripod, kit bag, etc... in fact, he probably uses his mobile phone so as to blend with the masses. :suspect:

This is more about commercial rights imo, the big fat bottom line - MONEY!!
 
Ok, a quick phone call to PrincessHay and I spoke to Linda who said they had no problem with someone going along to take photos after hours so long as they were not for publication. Linda said all I had to do was ring her and let her know when I'd like to go and she would inform security so there'd be no hassle.

Woodsy you can call Linda on 01392 459838
 
Nice one pxl8, keeps everyone happy. :)
 
LadyLens said:
Actually, 5 of us from here were approached by a security guard at the london eye, and I think he was a little overawed by 4 tall fellas and one short but nasty woman, [:naughty: ] so merely confirmed that we were purely amateurs. He pointed out that commercial togs did need to have permission to shoot there. However, I have heard of plenty of people that have been asked not to take pics when using a dslr round the eye, though its never happened to me personally, even on the occasion when I stood next to a pair of security bods whilst I took a picture.

It is very annoying, moreso when there is nothing to tell you of this 'rule' when you enter the property. :bonk:
Click to expand...

I know that you cannot use any images taken of the eye for commercial gain, i wasnt aware that it wasnt allowed! ive got about 100 photos of the eye from all different angles and i have never been approached, that may have something to do with the fact im 6'2 rather large and have a shaved head though!

(although im as soft as a fluffy bear!)
 
Did you use a tripod dizzledazzle? I seem to remember from earlier threads that tripods upset them more than anything else.
 
Ok, heres a good question to get you thinking. When does private property stop being private property commercially? That is to say, lets take the eye, at what point does it stop being a pic of the eye that your can't sell without property release, and start being a a feature of the landscape in a picture full of other features? ditto other objects in the same landscape shot? HOW far do their commercial rights extend is what I mean?

to demonstrate, lets say the restaurant owners of this ship wanted to buy the picture.... I couldn't take that shot without the eye being in the background....its not the main focal point so am I ok to sell that image without their permission.

restaurant.jpg


or this one, a bit different, it features several famous landmarks, would I be allowed to sell it or not, as unlike the first, the eye is one of the main subjects, though only by dint of the fact its the biggest....or do I need permission from government aswell because the Palace of westminister is in there too? :suspect: see what I mean, where is the line in the sand drawn?

theeye.jpg



I know the obvious answer is to use common sense, but it seems that the property owners don't and the rules vary from place to place... :shrug:
 
Steep said:
Did you use a tripod dizzledazzle? I seem to remember from earlier threads that tripods upset them more than anything else.
Click to expand...

Yep, both me and Theory had our tripods out, the first time we went we were approached by the police who were very friendly and happy for us to take pics once they had confirmed we wernt actually terrorists, the second time i was on my own with tripod, still no problems..

:shrug:
 
LadyLens said:
Ok, heres a good question to get you thinking. When does private property stop being private property commercially? That is to say, lets take the eye, at what point does it stop being a pic of the eye that your can't sell without property release, and start being a a feature of the landscape in a picture full of other features? ditto other objects in the same landscape shot? HOW far do their commercial rights extend is what I mean?

to demonstrate, lets say the restaurant owners of this ship wanted to buy the picture.... I couldn't take that shot without the eye being in the background....its not the main focal point so am I ok to sell that image without their permission.

restaurant.jpg


or this one, a bit different, it features several famous landmarks, would I be allowed to sell it or not, as unlike the first, the eye is one of the main subjects, though only by dint of the fact its the biggest....or do I need permission from government aswell because the Palace of westminister is in there too? :suspect: see what I mean, where is the line in the sand drawn?

theeye.jpg



I know the obvious answer is to use common sense, but it seems that the property owners don't and the rules vary from place to place... :shrug:
Click to expand...

I think the first one would be fine, although they would have something to say about the second, the wheel seems to be the "main" subject in the pic.

Im going to do some investigating as you have made a pretty good point!
 
Those are just two I already had in my gallery DD, I have plenty of others that would be very much more borderline, which is why I am asking.... not that I am likely to sell anything anytime soon, but the same applies to us all, whether its well known landmarks, shopping centres, whatever - how far do commercial rights extend? :shrug:
 
I know the obvious answer is to use common sense
Click to expand...

Ahhhh, optimism, naivety and hopefulness. All about at superfluous as common sense these days but I still love them all. ;):lol::lol:
 
Thanks for all your input guys, appreciate the points of view. You're right, I don't want to get worked up over this, and now that I slept on it, It's no big deal. I think the reason it anoyed me was because I organised the outing with the photosoc people, and to be turned away was rather anoying.

We did explain to the security guard that we were not professionals and were just out for fun, but he didn't seem to want to listen

pxl8, Appreciate you doing that mate, didn't mean to come accross short.

Seems strange though, if they don't seem to have a problem with it, surely the security guard could have assessed the situation, and called someone? Because ultimately, someone had to tell him what to do didn't they?
 
Woodsy said:
Thanks for all your input guys, appreciate the points of view. You're right, I don't want to get worked up over this, and now that I slept on it, It's no big deal. I think the reason it anoyed me was because I organised the outing with the photosoc people, and to be turned away was rather anoying.

We did explain to the security guard that we were not professionals and were just out for fun, but he didn't seem to want to listen

pxl8, Appreciate you doing that mate, didn't mean to come accross short.

Seems strange though, if they don't seem to have a problem with it, surely the security guard could have assessed the situation, and called someone? Because ultimately, someone had to tell him what to do didn't they?
Click to expand...
Great post Woodsy... :clap:

Have to say though, that the security guard was being a typical security guard I guess... i.e. "I'm da boss, and you do what I say... OK" - useless jobsworth's some of 'em.
 
useless jobsworth's some of 'em.
Click to expand...

Yup... but to play devils A for a mo. There's a bloke who's job is primarily to keep the property safe, then to follow instructions and do what he's told.

If some snappers want to take shots then they can, if they call ahead and arrange it. It's not that much of a burden and certainly not one that the security guard should be taking on. It's not part of his job to make that judgement call.
 
Yes, I agree. Which is why to a certain extent I feel a bit bad about being "almost rude" to the guy. But as said, he could have called someone in the know to ask. That's all im saying :)
 
Woodsy said:
Seems strange though, if they don't seem to have a problem with it, surely the security guard could have assessed the situation, and called someone? Because ultimately, someone had to tell him what to do didn't they?
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the default position is a big fat no unless they've been told otherwise. If they keep calling someone to check it looks like they can't do the job to their superiors. On the other hand if you can say check with Linda whatsit on 01392... then it carries a bit more weight - security bloke would worry that he'll get into trouble for not checking and turning away someone who had permission and is likely to complain about it.

Anyway, I hope you go back under better circumstances and get some cracking shots :thumbs:
 
Fair point Daz.

I do wonder though what the security guard would have said if you had told him you had permission? Would he have called through to check...? If so, then what's the difference in calling through to see if it is OK...?

I feel the correct course of action would have been for the security guard to ask if permission had been requested and obtained from the management of the center, then to validate this, and permit access and photo's to be taken. He/she did not do this as far as I can tell, simply telling Woodsy and mates not to take pics.
 
The default position is no, end of. They can't start a discussion about it and it is up to you to show you have permission. When I did the Joss Stone video shoot I turned up on set and as soon as I got the camera out people were saying no, you can't take pics, go away, etc. I had permission to be there and these people knew to expect a photographer but they can't let on in case I wasn't the one they were expecting. So it was no until the right person identified me and said it was ok. Then they were full of apologies and friendly as can be. It's always going to be that way because people will try and blag it if they can.
 
Doh, to slow. This was in reply to tMM's post.

Oh, I agree.

But without being too harsh......

What are the odds of someone with good admin and interpersonal skills, who also shows good initiative and is PR minded working the night/evening shift on security duty???? ;)

Perhaps my take is a little different as if I was wanting to shoot there, chances are I'd need those shots and would plan it ahead to make sure I got the booty. :)
 
dizzledazzle said:
I know that you cannot use any images taken of the eye for commercial gain, i wasnt aware that it wasnt allowed!
Click to expand...

Er, surely you can take photos of (almost) anything (except certain locations, such as MOD bases etc) from public land and do what you will with them?
 
I've just bought tickets for the london eye, and was wanting to check about whether I should expect to be allowed to take photos. Does anyone have any experience of taking a DSLR on the eye itself?
I searched the T&Cs presented as I bought the tickets, and the only mention of photography is that you might be included in some publicity photos, and its tough if you don't want to be.
Will be there on thursday for hopefully a sunset "flight" booked in for 4pm (for a supposed sunset of 4:15)
 
dizzledazzle said:
I know that you cannot use any images taken of the eye for commercial gain,
Click to expand...


What makes you say this?

The reason I ask is that according to the photographers rights guide "it is not an infringement of copyright to take photographs of buildings, sculptures and works of artistic workmanship that are permenantly situated in public place or in premises that are open to the public".

There are also images on Getty Images that are of the London Eye that don't have property releases and have been cleared for commercial use. Similarly there are thousands of images on Photographers Direct and Alamy which don't have property releases.
 
nutter426 said:
I've just bought tickets for the london eye, and was wanting to check about whether I should expect to be allowed to take photos. Does anyone have any experience of taking a DSLR on the eye itself?
I searched the T&Cs presented as I bought the tickets, and the only mention of photography is that you might be included in some publicity photos, and its tough if you don't want to be.
Will be there on thursday for hopefully a sunset "flight" booked in for 4pm (for a supposed sunset of 4:15)
Click to expand...

Sorry I can't help you about taking photos on the Eye itself but I was on the South Bank last week and was able to take photos of the Eye from the ground with no problem with my DSLR. Loads of folk appeared to be taking photos of it, with SLRs and point & shoots :)
 
SimonTALM said:
What makes you say this?

The reason I ask is that according to the photographers rights guide "it is not an infringement of copyright to take photographs of buildings, sculptures and works of artistic workmanship that are permenantly situated in public place or in premises that are open to the public".

There are also images on Getty Images that are of the London Eye that don't have property releases and have been cleared for commercial use. Similarly there are thousands of images on Photographers Direct and Alamy which don't have property releases.
Click to expand...

I too would like to know the rules with regards to thjis specific point. I can't imagine how a "city skyline" can be copyright to the London Eye owners for example, because it is a main feature.

Lets pretend you take a photo of a Football Stadium which also has a massive big wheel next to it. Would you have TWO potential problems?

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top