Right to roam and can you take pics?

admirable

admirable

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,612
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
In Scotland we have the right to roam on large estates.

Where do togs rights lie regarding the taking of pics as legally we can scoot about the place but as we would still be on private land do we need permission from the landowner to take pics?
 
Jim, you seem to be confusing right to roam with right to take pictures of anything you want.
Step on to private land with a camera and you can and probably will be asked nicely to leave. If you start quoting right to roam then you will probably find the police will start quoting a few laws of their own down the station.
If you want to take pictures on private land or do anything other than roam you need permission.
 
Jim, I do a bit of work for Dundee Courier and not allowed to go onto private land to take photos unless invited.

Trev
 
So let's say the estate owner allows the local village to hold their annual cross country event, part of their Highland Games, on the land belonging to the estate. Do we still need to ask permission to photograph the runners.

There is no entry fee to the event.
 
If the estate owner is kind enough to open up his grounds to the community for the event then he sounds very approachable. Wouldnt do any harm to ask.

I've never been refused access, and always met by a look of surprise by farmers at the fact that someone has actually asked permission instead of just wandering over their crops etc.

There may be areas he doesnt want people, ie, newly planted saplings, gamebird pens, etc.
 

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003

An Act of the Scottish Parliament to establish statutory public rights of access to land for recreational and other purposes, and to extend some of the provisions for that purpose to rights of way and other rights

...

Chapter 1

Nature and extent of access rights

1 Access rights

(1) Everyone has the statutory rights established by this Part of this Act.

(2) Those rights (in this Part of this Act called “access rights”) are—

(a) the right to be, for any of the purposes set out in subsection (3) below, on land; and

(b) the right to cross land.

(3) The right set out in subsection (2)(a) above may be exercised only—
(a) for recreational purposes;
(b) for the purposes of carrying on a relevant educational activity; or

(c) for the purposes of carrying on, commercially or for profit, an activity which the person exercising the right could carry on otherwise than commercially or for profit.

(4) The reference—
(a) in subsection (2)(a) above to being on land for any of the purposes set out in subsection (3) above is a reference to—

(i) going into, passing over and remaining on it for any of those purposes and then leaving it; or

(ii) any combination of those;

(b) in subsection (2)(b) above to crossing land is a reference to going into it, passing over it and leaving it all for the purpose of getting from one place outside the land to another such place.

(5) A “relevant educational activity” is, for the purposes of subsection (3) above, an activity which is carried on by a person for the purposes of—

(a) furthering the person’s understanding of natural or cultural heritage; or

(b) enabling or assisting other persons to further their understanding of natural or cultural heritage.
Click to expand...

Looks pretty clear cut to me, unless photography is somehow not a recreational activity? :suspect:

Edit: The law, in Section 2 of the Act, requires that the rights set out be exercised responsibly.

Photography is not in the list of conduct excluded from access rights in Section 9 of the Act.
 
i would say yes, as still on private land, irrespective of an entry fee or not... though in 999/1000 times can't see there being a problem....
 
1/ I would like to know if I can take pics of the runners and sell the for profit via a website.

2/ Would the runners expect a degree of privacy as they are running on private land. (There will be a few famous/titled runners within the group that have plenty of dosh to sue me if I'm wrong :lol:)

3/ The organisers don't know the answer and the landowner is out of the country.
 
admirable said:
1/ I would like to know if I can take pics of the runners and sell the for profit via a website.
Click to expand...

Section 1, 3c

(3) The right set out in subsection (2)(a) above may be exercised only—
(a) for recreational purposes;
(b) for the purposes of carrying on a relevant educational activity; or

(c) for the purposes of carrying on, commercially or for profit, an activity which the person exercising the right could carry on otherwise than commercially or for profit.
Click to expand...

2/ Would the runners expect a degree of privacy as they are running on private land. (There will be a few famous/titled runners within the group that have plenty of dosh to sue me if I'm wrong :lol:)
Click to expand...

I'd have thought their expectation of privacy is relatively low, especially if spectators are expected to attend.

3/ The organisers don't know the answer and the landowner is out of the country.
Click to expand...

If you want a proper legal answer, take proper legal advice from a lawyer, not from a random person on the internet.

Assume for these purposes that I am a random person on the internet :)
 
The local Lawyer says no photography, the event organisers are wondering how they are going to police that.
 
They might own the land, but only God owns the light reflecting off of it...that's all we do: capture reflected light.
 
admirable said:
1/ I would like to know if I can take pics of the runners and sell the for profit via a website.
Click to expand...

I would of thought that the same rules apply as for any other event. Why can't you just get permission from the organisers (not the land owner I know he's out of the country).

I would ignore the lawyer though :bonk:
 
Musicman said:
Keith W said:
What's wrong with just asking for permission? :shrug:
Click to expand...

admirable said:
the landowner is out of the country.
Click to expand...


That would be the problem with that, I guess.


[edit: Absentee landlordism, eh? I suggest you boycott the event and pay no rent until Parnell and Dillon are freed from jail :)]
Click to expand...

I meant in general with situations such as this.

Having said that I am sure that land owner would not just b****r off without leaving somebody in charge to make decisions on there behalf
 
There is an estate factor who controls everything whilst the owner is absent. All he knows is the public have access to the land under the right to roam. He is unsure regarding the law re taking pics, this is new ground to him.

I was under the impression that I needed permission from the landowner to take pics on private land. If I take a pic of a runner and he/she objects do they have the privacy law on their side?

Does the owner by allowing the event to take place on his land automatically give permission for taking pics?
 
I manage 3500 acres of privately owned, but public access land. This is our take on a similar situation. I'm not saying it's correct, but this is what we've implemented.
Taking pics for pleasure, no problem
Taking pics for commercial gain, we'll charge you. (impossible to police, but they're the rules).
For a commercial event, the organisers (who will have already paid us), have the say in who shoots what, of the event. :)
 
Musicman's post is correct.

In the full version of the Outdoor Access Code that accompanies the legislation:-

What you can do under access rights

Section 2.7
Sightseeing, painting, photography and enjoying historical sights.
 
arclight said:
Musicman's post is correct.

In the full version of the Outdoor Access Code that accompanies the legislation:-

What you can do under access rights

Section 2.7
Sightseeing, painting, photography and enjoying historical sights.
Click to expand...

Thread Closed.

I can still see people wanting to set about seeking permission though...
 
I should amplify my post at 1207.

Access legislation in Scotland covers almost all land and water for recreational and educational purposes.
Taking pics for commercial gain would not be included in that.
 
I can't see how there would possibly be a problem. Legally.

You may get individual issues if you photograph some local dignitary taking a leak behind a tree or something, but that's unlikely to have much legal substance either.

But as a general comment about what you can do legally, and from a moral standpoint - they are miles apart.

Rule of thumb is that if you behave yourself, as I'm sure you will, and don't upset anybody with what you do with the images, then you'll get no trouble and probably get asked back next year.

When problems arise in situations like this, there is almost always money invloved - ie you're making it, and somebody else isn't. The 'law' often get quoted, but it's rarely a legal matter at all.
 
HoppyUK said:
I can't see how there would possibly be a problem. Legally.

You may get individual issues if you photograph some local dignitary taking a leak behind a tree or something, but that's unlikely to have much legal substance either.

But as a general comment about what you can do legally, and from a moral standpoint - they are miles apart.

Rule of thumb is that if you behave yourself, as I'm sure you will, and don't upset anybody with what you do with the images, then you'll get no trouble and probably get asked back next year.

When problems arise in situations like this, there is almost always money invloved - ie you're making it, and somebody else isn't. The 'law' often get quoted, but it's rarely a legal matter at all.
Click to expand...

That is actually the basis of the access legislation in Scotland. You can wander almost anywhere within reason, but respect privacy and don't interfere with other folks countryside activities beyond what the legislation permits. There is a lot to the legislation, but most of it is simple common sense and merely puts into statute what has been traditionally going on for a long time.
 
With the risk of sounding an idiot...

In a public place, I understand it is perfectly OK to take photos of people etc for any purpose...

As the OP wants to take pics of competitors to make a profit from, on private land, does this not complicate things further with the rights of those running?

*Ducks to dodge the flack!
 
arclight said:
I should amplify my post at 1207.

Access legislation in Scotland covers almost all land and water for recreational and educational purposes.
Taking pics for commercial gain would not be included in that.
Click to expand...

and I shall amplify my post #9 with the interpretation put on s1 3c of the Land Reform Act (Scotland) 2003 by the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme

http://www.dofe.org/go/scotlandoac/

DofE said:
As a result of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act of 2003 access in Scotland is on a very much wider basis than in England and Wales. The Act gives a statutory right to be on, or to cross, all land, inland water and the foreshore. The right may be exercised for recreational purposes or in order to undertake a relevant educational activity and, unlike the CRoW Act of England and Wales, the Act gives a right to undertake activities with a commercial purpose provided that the activities could be undertaken otherwise than commercially or for profit. This means that those activities most closely associated with open air recreation, such as mountain guiding or instructing, may be undertaken on a commercial basis.

...

Activities Within the Statutory Right

...

Pastimes such as watching wildlife, sightseeing, painting, photography, and enjoying historical sights.
Click to expand...

[emphasis added]

So, for example, if you were to be running a business guiding walkers across private land using the access rights granted under the Act, you would be acting legally.

I cannot, under the terms of the Act, see any distinction made between such a commercial operation or taking photographs for commercial gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top