Stopped from taking pics on southbank because camera looks too professional.

There must be something about the south bank, I witnessed this in 2012, started with a loud "OY - stop that" which made everyone look around

142505337.jpg

142505338.jpg



but his mate was recording it also.

142505339.jpg
 
I've come across a number of truculent and over zealous security guards, the last episode was in Manchester when I was photographing cityscapes. I have always found the charm offensive to be the best strategy when dealing with some of these numbskulls. Some are genuinely trying to do their job but others enjoy their power far to much.
 
melaniejane said:
As far as I know, a lot of the South Bank is a Public Right of Way, but is privately owned. Therefore, they can demand that you stop shooting, but I'm not sure what powers they have to actually evict you from the property?

Edited to add: Yes, I've been stopped from shooting there too (with a 5D). Well, actually, I was told that I couldn't take photos of the new office blocks, etc, but that I could take photos of Tower Bridge.
Click to expand...

That sounds like 'More London', not the South Bank.
South Bank is the bit with the Royal Festival Hall, Haywood Gallery, BFI, Waterloo Bridge.

If you've gone past HMS Belfast to the new tower blocks (where the water feature is), that's 'More London', a private development.
 
@Byker28i ,,,blimey byker ,,,,,sorry Mr Byker ,,,,,you're tall ,,,,either that or those three are damn short :):)
 
dean messenger said:
In fact the police can't (or rather, shouldn't) do any of those things either without reason to suspect that you are connected with a crime or act of terrorism.

in fact they cant do that anymore.. not since Section 44 was repealed and they can now only rely on section 43

this is the old Bust card
http://nottingham.indymedia.org.uk/...16/142/photographer_not_terrorist_s44bust.pdf

but with the change over section 44 it is no longer valid hence a new one is being worked on .


s43 Terrorism Act 2000, police need reasonable grounds to suspect that
you are a terrorist (use or intend to use violence/cause serious damage to
property to influence government or intimidate public to advance a political,
religious or ideological cause) and can search anything that may be evidence
you are a terrorist, including computers, cameras, personal papers.

They cannot delete images or confiscate memory cards or camra without obtaining a court order. and they have no right to ask you to delete them either.
Click to expand...
And has nothing to do with taking photos on private land, all of which was already covered :).
 
melaniejane said:
Lindsay, you obviously need to fumble a bit more...look at your camera with a puzzled look on you face and scratch your head. Maybe hold it the wrong way around and take a few pictures of your eye. That sort of thing.
Click to expand...

What you really need for these situations is a lens cap on a string :cool:
 
This is a big problem in London for photographers - so I'm told, I don't get down there very often but I'm passionate about street photography so I tend to keep up to date with issues like this. Regarding camera gear, it one of the reasons I love my X-Pro1 set up or a film rangefinder if I shooting film. People just don't view them the same way as dSLR cameras. I just look more like a tourist with a point and shoot.

From my understanding, the big problem is that huge swathes of London are actually privately owned - far more area than you would think. These areas often look like a public walkway / plaza / garden and are often sited outside tourist attractions but are actually private land.

I'm a big believer that the law should state that if I layperson could reasonably consider an area of private land to be in use in such a manner as to actively encourage its use by the public (i.e. no signs, benches out, commercial stalls, bordering rights-of-ways with no boundary set up etc... (i.e. like most of those areas in London)) then those areas should be consider as public for laws such as photography / trespass etc.

Blank_Canvas said:
I've come across a number of truculent and over zealous security guards, the last episode was in Manchester when I was photographing cityscapes. I have always found the charm offensive to be the best strategy when dealing with some of these numbskulls. Some are genuinely trying to do their job but others enjoy their power far to much.
Click to expand...

Where in Manchester, if you don't mind me asking? The only over zealous ones I've seen are in the Picadilly One development (those very photogenic buildings next to the train station). He wasn't an arse or anything, I was just surprised at the speed at which he came out to speak to me!

I can't find it online, but there was a story in the MEN about a photographer stopped from talking pics on one of the new development sites in Manchester. The photographer was a Magistrate if I remember correctly, and the article express his disbelief at being stopped for taking some photos. Made me laugh that at a time that the Chief Police Officer of Greater Manchester Police has declared the city unsafe and under-policed past midnight that here we are stopping Magistrates from taking photographs! (I've lost count of the serious assaults that have happened since I've been at the University).
 
Last edited:
I've not found its 'a big problem' in London. I spent three months, every weekend travelling the tube system taking images for a project. I've also often wandered around taking images, including canary wharf. You will of course hear of the issues, but not from those not stopped.

Personally I've found a chat or smile goes a long way. If you really want to disarm someone, bore them silly. Talk about the light, the considerations of which body to use, which lens would be the best choice, then the consideration of the exposure triangle. I did this once to someone who stopped me and they soon got bored, or thought I was a nutter :D
 
melaniejane said:
As far as I know, a lot of the South Bank is a Public Right of Way, but is privately owned. Therefore, they can demand that you stop shooting, but I'm not sure what powers they have to actually evict you from the property?

Edited to add: Yes, I've been stopped from shooting there too (with a 5D). Well, actually, I was told that I couldn't take photos of the new office blocks, etc, but that I could take photos of Tower Bridge.
Click to expand...
Do they realistically plan to stop photos of an office block will be taken because they invented a rule to forbid it?
What would be the purpose of such a stoopid rule anyway?

Anyone could use a camera phone or small action cameras to record every detail and have it on youtube or flickr in minutes - and they wouldn't have a clue it had been done.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Few years back AP gave away a freebie lens cloth with photographers rights printed on it. Keep it in my bag, but as yet never had the need to quote from it.
If I was within my rights would definitely stand my ground, suppose it depends what sort of person you are and how far to take it.
Click to expand...

i got that cloth too!
 
4wd said:
What would be the purpose of such a stoopid rule anyway?
Click to expand...
Most security guards are not employed by the building's owner (or occupants) but rather by a property management company (perhaps even a security firm subcontracted by the management company).
They are on the hook to the owners. If a photo of the building appears in a negative or controversial light ('Why did you let this happen?') or used commercially ('Why aren't we getting money?') the management company get it in the neck.
Easier just to ban it.
 
Steve Smith said:
That's where a south bank is.


Steve.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm concerned the "South Bank" of the Thames in London is the area between Westminster and Waterloo Bridges, where the Royal Festival Hall and National theatres are.
I believe the "water fountains" alluded to by the OP are in an area called "More London" which is between London Bridge and Tower Bridge.
More London is private property, and there are prominent notices on display informing you as such.
However, the only time I've seen any photographer hassled in that area was for using a tripod, and even then you can get away with it most of the time.
Given that more than 50% of tourists (the indigenous species of the area) seem to use SLR cameras, I find it amazing that someone should be "stopped" for using a "professional" camera.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Few years back AP gave away a freebie lens cloth with photographers rights printed on it. Keep it in my bag, but as yet never had the need to quote from it.
If I was within my rights would definitely stand my ground, suppose it depends what sort of person you are and how far to take it.
Click to expand...

didn't that relate to rights with regard to photography in public though ? so would be irrelevant on private land .
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
Most security guards are not employed by the building's owner (or occupants) but rather by a property management company (perhaps even a security firm subcontracted by the management company).
They are on the hook to the owners. If a photo of the building appears in a negative or controversial light ('Why did you let this happen?') or used commercially ('Why aren't we getting money?') the management company get it in the neck.
Easier just to ban it.
Click to expand...

Except its not banned - it just requires a permit (if for commercial purposes)
 
Llamaman said:
That sounds like 'More London', not the South Bank.
South Bank is the bit with the Royal Festival Hall, Haywood Gallery, BFI, Waterloo Bridge.

If you've gone past HMS Belfast to the new tower blocks (where the water feature is), that's 'More London', a private development.
Click to expand...
Indeed, you are right, I haven't been to London for a couple of years, but it used to be denoted by a change in the paving.

I have to say that the only 2 times I was ever stopped from taking photos was there and at Canary Wharf (also privately owned). Both times I had set a tripod up and both times the security guard was polite and, when asked, explained what I could and couldn't do.

I lived in London for 4 years and specialised in night shots so was often out with camera and tripod and never encountered any other problems.
 
melaniejane said:
Indeed, you are right, I haven't been to London for a couple of years, but it used to be denoted by a change in the paving.

I have to say that the only 2 times I was ever stopped from taking photos was there and at Canary Wharf (also privately owned). Both times I had set a tripod up and both times the security guard was polite and, when asked, explained what I could and couldn't do.

I lived in London for 4 years and specialised in night shots so was often out with camera and tripod and never encountered any other problems.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think tripod means "professional" to more people than a big black slr does.
I've taken hundreds of shots, all hand-held, around both Canary Wharf and More London and I've never even been approached.
The only time I have seen anyone spoken to was when they were using a tripod at More London, but even then it was really busy and they were more concerned with the trip hazard than if the guy was a "pro."
If they wanted to stop people taking photos around More London then they would have to exclude everyone from the area.
 
Last edited:
richardm said:
This is a big problem in London for photographers - so I'm told, I don't get down there very often but I'm passionate about street photography so I tend to keep up to date with issues like this. Regarding camera gear, it one of the reasons I love my X-Pro1 set up or a film rangefinder if I shooting film. People just don't view them the same way as dSLR cameras. I just look more like a tourist with a point and shoot.
Click to expand...
You don't come to London much do you?
From a casual survey, I've concluded that over 50% of tourists are using SLR's these days.
(The majority of the remainder are using phones.)
 
Last edited:
Brian G said:
You don't come to London much do you?
From a casual survey, I've concluded that over 50% of tourists are using SLR's these days.
(The majority of the remainder are using phones.)
Click to expand...

My point is specifically regarding serious/professional photographers and the perception of them by laypeople. We're not talking little prosumer dSLRs. Yes, technically they are dSLRs. But the common distinction the lay person makes is by size - hence a 1D sized body (or something with a grip) plus L lens = 'pro kit' in their eyes. Lay people don't distinguish between SLR/TLR/MF/FF/Crop/Canon/Nikon etc. To the lay person a prosumer dSLR is a point-a-shoot.

Holding a 1D and L lens does make you stand out and certainly isn't typical of the average tourist set-up. However, carry a Leica M or similar and no-one bats an eyelid. It's one of the fantastic things about it. High quality rangefinder optics are tiny too. My 50 1.5 Nokton is way smaller than a 'nifty 50'. Turn up to a paying gig with a Leica M / X-Pro1 etc and you'll often be asked "is your gear in the car?". I spotted a photographer at the World Cup final taking pictures of the Germany team when they won with an X-Pro - my OH was like "why's one of the German guys taking pics, isn't it a bit pointless with all those professionals taking pics?".
 
Brian G said:
You don't come to London much do you?
From a casual survey, I've concluded that over 50% of tourists are using SLR's these days.
(The majority of the remainder are using phones.)
Click to expand...
Recent trip along the South Bank, I'd say that black plastic Canikon DSLRs numbered in the hundreds (at least). They seem to be the standard point & shoot camera format for global tourists now. Hence I'm a little surprised that a 5D would attract any attention. I'd be interested in knowing what made it stand out to them. My recent day trip, I was using a particularly noticeable and large Bronica mf film system.

It is a shame that this is happening more often.
 
XA2inmypocket said:
I'd be interested in knowing what made it stand out to them
Click to expand...

Size, for sure. Then followed by appearance. There's a big difference in the appearance of a prosumer dSLR and anything approaching a 'pro' body dSLR.

Which of these do you think a security guard is going to think is a 'pro'? Similar cameras, very different outward appearance. The first one could be Annie Liebovitz for all the security guard knows, but he'll assume the second is the pro. It's not even about the camera - something about him screams "I AM A PHOTOGRAPHERRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

As for the guy with the rangefinder - the security guard wouldn't even notice him. It's the main choice for us street shooters for a reason. Sometimes I think dSLR users become desensitised to the size and outward appearance of their kit.

BD415K.jpg

CC2CBF.jpg

CTJE2W.jpg
 
Just realised as well just how much the photographers in Byker28i's post further up look like photog #2. They look like they've ready to work a Premiership football game. Is it really a surprise a security guard would think 'what are these two up to?'. It's their job to detect and question anything dodgy on their patch after all - whether that be some kids in hoodies, skateboarders, professional photographers, buskers, or anything else the owners of the land don't want.
 
richardm said:
Just realised as well just how much the photographers in Byker28i's post further up look like photog #2. They look like they've ready to work a Premiership football game. Is it really a surprise a security guard would think 'what are these two up to?'. It's their job to detect and question anything dodgy on their patch after all - whether that be some kids in hoodies, skateboarders, professional photographers, buskers, or anything else the owners of the land don't want.
Click to expand...

Let me guess,maybe they are taking photos :rolleyes:
 
big soft moose said:
But they don't - all they want is for pro photographers to get a licence first ... which is reasonably enforceable if anyone publishes images for which they didn't licence a photoshoot

http://www.morelondon.com/media/filming-photography-request/
Click to expand...

They say

4.2 More London supports amateur and student photography taking photographs for a private
portfolio, educational coursework or other non-commercial use. It will be necessary for the
filmmaker to confirm in writing that the images will not be used for any other purpose by
completing our filming license.

So I interpret this as covering most of us with the terms "amateur" and "non-commercial use"

This means that you should be giving them all your details, when where what for etc then wait
as they say

"We aim to acknowledge receipt of a formal application within 48 hours and no later than 72
hours. Granting of a licence will take a minimum of 15 working days."

So by using the words amateur and non commercial they have covered everyone taking photos but have obviously singled out DSLR users for special attention.

I still think it should be sufficient to tell security staff you are not a professional and be left alone.

David
 
Byker28i said:
I see an easy way to get that changed.

Everyone write to them saying you are thinking of heading to London and are thinking of taking tourist based shots for your own personal use. Could you have a permit please.
Click to expand...
Very Mark Thomas :sneaky:
 
I did it for TfL. Wrote to them, explained I was a mature student and the nature of my project and asked for permission which was granted. After 3 weeks they gave me a general letter :D
 
Byker28i said:
I see an easy way to get that changed.

Everyone write to them saying you are thinking of heading to London and are thinking of taking tourist based shots for your own personal use. Could you have a permit please.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plan, I'm going to get one off in the post Monday !


Sent from my iPad using Talk Photography Forums
 
There's no such thing as 'photographers rights' though.
 
I'm no expert on these matters, but those water fountains are part of the South bank centre, private property I guess.
 
richardm said:
My point is specifically regarding serious/professional photographers and the perception of them by laypeople. We're not talking little prosumer dSLRs. Yes, technically they are dSLRs. But the common distinction the lay person makes is by size - hence a 1D sized body (or something with a grip) plus L lens = 'pro kit' in their eyes. Lay people don't distinguish between SLR/TLR/MF/FF/Crop/Canon/Nikon etc. To the lay person a prosumer dSLR is a point-a-shoot.

Holding a 1D and L lens does make you stand out and certainly isn't typical of the average tourist set-up. However, carry a Leica M or similar and no-one bats an eyelid. It's one of the fantastic things about it. High quality rangefinder optics are tiny too. My 50 1.5 Nokton is way smaller than a 'nifty 50'. Turn up to a paying gig with a Leica M / X-Pro1 etc and you'll often be asked "is your gear in the car?". I spotted a photographer at the World Cup final taking pictures of the Germany team when they won with an X-Pro - my OH was like "why's one of the German guys taking pics, isn't it a bit pointless with all those professionals taking pics?".
Click to expand...
WE all know those things, because we are photographers.
Your typical Gumby "security man" doesn't know the difference.
"Professionals" use big black cameras, so, in some cases, they choose to exercise their "authority."
 
Everyone needs a licence -but only proffesionals have to pay for it - see clause 4.2 that wiild posted above
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top