Street Photography rights

I was expecting a bit of police bashing there, but actually no problems at all; it's just local building security, and unfortunately most of those will be under unfair or unrealistic expectations from their customers / FM companies, so I'm not totally surprised they acted like they did.

Just remember, photographers have no specific rights. :)
 
Your welcome.

Its the same old same old, large companies believing they are above the law.

The part that got me the most was the security guys informing that every tourist taking photos had to go to the reception and complete a form.
 
I agree entirely wish standing up for your rights, but there are parts of that video and others like it, which quite frankly stink of people deliberately going out of their way to attract trouble.

It's a bit like having a moan at people who drive at 42mph everywhere (boils my blood), you MIGHT be able to educate ONE person, but there are thousands of them out there, and your chances of running into that one person again are EXTREMELY slim.

Same goes for people who shout "get some road tax" at cyclists (road tax doesn't exist).

What's really needed is proper education and training, but short of some overzealous security guard killing a high profile photographer with a shock baton, that's never going to happen.

Stand up for your rights, absolutely, but don't think "hey if I stand here I can get my shot, BUT if I stand there I can get my shot AND **** somebody off".
 
Last edited:
I think one of the main problems here is the staff do not have the necessary understanding of certain acts and legislation - the employers should have made staff fully aware of what can be photographed and where those photographs can be taken.
 
Not a big fan of that video, yes it highlights the issue with private security but it also shows alot of whats wrong with the other side of the argument in that they set out to deliberately provoke a reaction in known hot spots then look to score cheap points with security guards.

All in all a bit meh.
 
IMO this clip as been set up to show in action the issues that all photographers are faced with. They also had to show the argument in question.

i would like to thing that most experienced photographers would use common sense but its a known fact that security guards of main buildings in London are out in a flash asking you to stop when your the only person around or even on public land.

I personally was asked to stop taken a photo of Tower Bridge because they did not allow tripods :cuckoo: i of course was on a public walk path (out the way of course) but it did not stop the guy from calling the police, who i am happy to say apologised to me and gave the guy an ear bashing.

IMO you can always get the shot you want without causing to many issues.

Also i am never doing anything illegal so i always offer them the option to look at all images.
 
Andytc said:
I personally was asked to stop taken a photo of Tower Bridge because they did not allow tripods :cuckoo: i of course was on a public walk path (out the way of course) but it did not stop the guy from calling the police, who i am happy to say apologised to me and gave the guy an ear bashing.
Click to expand...

Queen Elizabeth Walk on the south-west side of the bridge, by any chance? It's owned by More London Estates Ltd.*

Security outside the Tower Hotel on the north-east side of the bridge are also well known for approaching photographers with tripods.

* Mind you, without the use of a tripod, I've been questioned by security at More London because my camera was 'too professional-looking'. Oh, and it was a Panasonic G2 with a 30 year old 200mm Canon FD lens on the front. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Yes that's correct, I'm pleased I'm not alone and there is another terrorist looking photographer out there hahaha
 
a1ex2001 said:
Not a big fan of that video, yes it highlights the issue with private security but it also shows alot of whats wrong with the other side of the argument in that they set out to deliberately provoke a reaction in known hot spots then look to score cheap points with security guards.

All in all a bit meh.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't really call it that provocative, they were merely taking photographs in a location close to said security in a normal manner, no effort was made to make the photography "sinister".

I think its a mistake to view this as purely Sun/Daily Mail style "jobsworths" overstepping there role, my guess is that in a lot of cases they've specifically been told to try and limate photography by employers who know full well its not legal.
 
Andytc said:
Because not everyone eats and sleeps on this site!!!

You only had to click back, move on to another topic and get on with your day.

Its not like topics don't get repeated on a daly basis, so keep your pointless comments to yourself and we may see more new members posting.
Click to expand...

My comments were not pointless....it pointed to an earlier thread....all you have to do is use the search function.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top