Street Photographers Harrassed by Security

Another perfect example of why we need the law explained to these people.
 
Steep said:
Another perfect example of why we need the law explained to these people.
Click to expand...

...and us! I think there could well be something about shops copyright of signs and displays etc which fuel some shopping centres no photography rules (though this wasnt a shopping centre..or doesnt appear to be).
 
To be fair, they could be on private land with public access. As is the case with most shopping malls. In which case they can't take photographs. However, certain aspects of the info ie can't take photographs of people in public as being illegal, is just laughable.

If you consider the paparazzi, love em or hate them, they do just that, take pictures of people, in public. If it was illegal, none of the pictures taken would be allowed to be printed in the press and magazines.
 
I was about to post that perhaps we should get over this, and try not to have a daily thread about it. But...

A good friend of mine was in a similar situation last week. So serious in fact, that she was on the phone to me in tears in the middle of the night. Yes, we've seen plenty of examples of security guards not knowing the rules, but physically restraining somebody is a seriously bad move on their part. Also in this case, the have-a-go-hero guy from the shop should watch himself.

Personally, I would of pressed charges of common assault on those who touched me, purely to make a point and ensure they didn't do it again.

Most disappointing is the fact that guards should be SIA licensed, and have been trained about the law regarding restraint of persons. Guards acting in the way described by this photographer risk losing their SIA badge, and hence their jobs.

We live in a nation of robots, and it sucks.
 
This is outrageous.
I wonder if we could get TP to employ a solicitor to produce a document clearly stating in plain English what our rights are.Then we could produce this when challenged. We could all donate to the cost, then download it. Also get in writing something that states what security can and can not do if it transpires we are on private property.

Whether or not in the instance featured the phographer would have the opportunity to show it to the security i doubt.

It may be a daft suggestion but then again...
 
Speaking of which, that guy wasn't wearing his SIA licence. netjag it's possible of course that that was private property but it looks like any street to me. Either way, I'd have been pressing for charges of assault there and then while the police woman and the culprits were still there.
 
No matter how much we protest and campaign, there'll still be ignorance. For Christ's sake, go out taking photos on the street, and just look at the amount of ineptitude some people exhibit. Too often what people think is right takes priority over what they've been told. I've had plenty of run-ins with security guards, and most have been ok. It seems that those in shopping precincts have the worst appreciation of the rules. Similarly this seems to apply to Police too. I love it how they always have to radio HQ to find out if photography is legal or not...
 
Speechless, this vid and the one of the 2 pcso's in London really are eye opening, it makes me want to go out with my camera even more! (i have never been stopped or questioned)

something really needs to be done soon as this whole situation is really starting to kick off now!
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
...and us! I think there could well be something about shops copyright of signs and displays etc which fuel some shopping centres no photography rules (though this wasnt a shopping centre..or doesnt appear to be).
Click to expand...

That comes from the usage because you might not have a license to use their copyrighted material. For me its simple. If its a public area then I can photograph practically whatever I like. Thats not illegal. Using other peoples work commercially without a license is my issue, not a security guards. If I'm on private property then I have to respect their wishes. Theres a big distinction between taking and using that a lot of people don't get.
 
petemc said:
That comes from the usage because you might not have a license to use their copyrighted material. For me its simple. If its a public area then I can photograph practically whatever I like. Thats not illegal. Using other peoples work commercially without a license is my issue, not a security guards. If I'm on private property then I have to respect their wishes. Theres a big distinction between taking and using that a lot of people don't get.
Click to expand...

Using a corporate logo or image without permission should only be thought about if using it for commercial purposes though....don't think there is any restriction on it for private use!
 
Good old Barnsley !!!

This thread made me wonder about the idea of photographing in Barnsley market (as suggested on my thread of SP), so I called Barnsley's Police HQ to ask if they thought it was okay legally, their reply...

Fine legally, but it's council land, better ask their permission

Whereupon the Police gave me the Council's direct number

Barnsley Council's market dept then said it was fine by them, but asked if I could just pop into their office there to say 'Hi' so they could let their security staff what I'm doing

Seems we're a bit more on the ball here then?

[Hopefully!]

DD
 
Or... they're scared their security guards will f'ck up if they're not told, and then proceed to make an embarassment of the entire Council. I'd say go in without permission, and see what happens.
 
Ok, permission was the wrong word. He has permission already. I meant, do it without notification.

I just think it would be an interesting case study. You've established beforehand that it's legal, so it would be good to see if the security guards have been briefed as such. All very well calling in your presence, but what about the guy that innocently takes his compact out in the street and gets nailed, like the guy with the Flickr video?
 
But the reason DD was going to the market was to try his hand at street photography (as discussed in his thread on the subject). His intention was not to test the reaction of security or to provoke some kind of confrontation. He has different reasons for wanting to do this.
 
It was just a suggestion. I could apologise for being imaginative, but I won't. I suppose I just don't like to accept things I don't agree with.
 
All I'm trying to say is that if everybody now goes to great effort to ask permission, it's not going to do anything to help. We'll just be avoiding an issue, rather than confronting it, and it'll only reinforce the security guards' belief that permission and notification must be sought. We would, in effect, be painting over rust. Of course, it shouldn't be everybody's mission to go out and seek confrontation, but judging by the number of topics of this nature, this is quite a big issue at the moment. And we're the only ones, pretty much, who can do anything about it. It's a war of attrition. Get all the clarification you want from parliament, but it won't help on the street. Look at the guard in the photo - the law says he can't touch people, but he did.
 
If you need a laugh some extracts from
http://www.northernsecurityltd.co.uk/index.asp
'snip
All NSL retail security personnel are fully conversant with current legal procedures for collecting evidence and making arrests.
Customer & Employee Care

The care and well being of customers and client employees is an essential part of our officers training. NSL personnel are aware that shopping should be a pleasurable experience for customers, that is why NSL training not only incorporates strict procedures but also puts emphasis on quiet efficiency.'

'NSL is an approved “Edexcel” learning centre, & we provide a range of relevant “in house” work based training programmes.

We also offer comprehensive training on security & safety related matters to third party organisations on a regular basis.
For further information on third party training please contact;'
 
mobilevirgin said:
Why should he want to do that? If its private land then he needs permission.
Click to expand...

Seeking clarification: Do you NEED permission or SHOULD you seek permission? I always thought you could go on private land and take shots but could expect to be kicked off on grounds of trespass if challenged. And that's about the extent of the long arm of the law...
 
Security personnel have the same rights to arrest as you or I: citizens' arrest. This can only be done if you are sure the person has committed a crime. Otherwise you are liable to charges of common assault.
 
hepburn said:
Seeking clarification: Do you NEED permission or SHOULD you seek permission? I always thought you could go on private land and take shots but could expect to be kicked off on grounds of trespass if challenged. And that's about the extent of the long arm of the law...
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. I've had the Police in my house, looking through my photos. I freely admitted to trespassing, and no arrest was made. They were concerned that I was a possible terrorist, as I was seen 'acting suspiciously too close to an important building'.

People have far more rights than they realise. Too often people choose to conform because they think something is illegal, just like security guards detain people because they too think something is illegal.

There's a pattern here: it's human ignorance.
 
Which law Chillijam?

In that clip I saw two laws being broken.One was the assault by the security guard. As soon as he touched the photographer he committed common assault, no injury needs to be made. Then there is the not so small offence of unlawful detention.

I would be seeking to obtain the CCTV footage under the Freedom of Information Act and also the local Police would be getting two new offences to investigate.
 
hepburn said:
Seeking clarification: Do you NEED permission or SHOULD you seek permission? I always thought you could go on private land and take shots but could expect to be kicked off on grounds of trespass if challenged. And that's about the extent of the long arm of the law...
Click to expand...

You always need permission to enter private land. Often, that permission is implied, eg in the case of a shopping centre, you can go onto the land if the doors are open - the open doors imply that permission is given. But the extent of that permission is often restricted. If I go into a shopping centre and set up a stall to sell my wares, then the chances are that that is a restricted activity - the permission to enter does not extend that far. The land owner sets the limits. Its not always easy to know precisely what those limits are, which is where problems arise.

Permission to use public property is also restricted to certain activities, but these are usually statutory limits (or local bye-laws). For example, I am allowed to use the highway for any legal purpose, but if I'm causing an obstruction, I can expect to be asked to move on. Similarly, local bye-laws may require me to have a licence if I want to go busking.
 
But it's not illegal to enter private land without permission, is it?
 
Ian T said:
But it's not illegal to enter private land without permission, is it?
Click to expand...

Yes it is - its trespass. Trespass in itself is not a crime, its a civil wrong and I can get an injunction to have you evicted.

If you trespass with the intention of stealing, then that becomes burglary. Which is a crime.
 
Then the tresspass is concluded.

This is the only right that the security guards have. The right to ask you to leave and if you agree, you cannot be touched.

If you don't agree to leave you can be evicted, hence you can be thrown out of a pub, but the landowner or their agent can only use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances.
 
Yes, I believe the offence becomes 'aggravated trespass'.

So in theory, you can enter private land, and leave when asked, and only have committed a civil wrong, the following up of which by the landowner would prove pretty pointless.
 
stevegreen said:
Just been digesting the following stuff on Flickr........

I know there are differring opinions on this but it does make interesting viewing/reading.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/2420960125/

and a video....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/photodrift/2422740769/
Click to expand...


As usual this is f*****g outrageous it makes my blood boil, to be honest i would have just stuck one on him, as far as I'm concerned I'm defending myself against an assault, when is somebody going to get these Muppet's in line :annoyed::annoyed::annoyed:
 
Lots of these threads are popping up and I think its terrible that we are in such a position but until the law is clarified into a simple (haha) document then I think people from both sides need to think very carefully about their actions.

From a photographers point of view I am getting extremely frustrated and it is provoking me to actually go out and try and fight my corner against those that believe I would be committing an offence. BUT THIS IS DANGEROUS....as with a lot of other people I only have a small grasp on my rights...I totally agree with the post regarding the clarification by a lawyer into what I can and cannot do...I feel this document would have a lot of support and could be easily collated by somebody completely in the know..
 
everyone should email the head office at enquiries@northernsecurityltd.co.uk

Complain their staff are abusive and underqualifed. If enough people do that then they would have to train out current law and normally release a statement saying sorry. It will bring more attention that way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top