Told to stop photographing shopping centre

[48thEagle]

Why not approach them, and ask if it would be possible to be allowed in half an hour before they are due to open, to get pictures of the architecture, and to be able to do it in a way which won't impede any members of the public.

By doing that, you are showing that you are a) only taking pics of the building itself, as opposed to anything trademarked, such as company logo's b) trying to minimise the risk to the public, therefore reducing any liability on their part c) showing them courtesy by approaching them.

A little respect goes a long way.....

 

[Steve Smith]

5 secs later and a security guard approched me and told me to stop and delete the photos.

As I stated before. He had no authority to make you delete the photographs even if they were taken in a place where photography is not allowed.


Steve.

 

[it's alive]

As I stated before. He had no authority to make you delete the photographs even if they were taken in a place where photography is not allowed.


Steve.

True, but in this instance it would have been simple and a nice gesture to do just that. Unless Liam_uk was especially proud of a picture of the floor and a wall.

Unless you wish to leave the area post haste and risk a ban it's always worthwhile to extend a little courtesy (just because you don't HAVE to do something doesn't mean you can't).

But asking first is always the best policy, as has been said, here and elsewhere, ad nauseum, it's a wonder that given the high profile that this type of incident has that anyone is even surprised when they are asked to stop.

*goes off to un-boggle mind* I may be some time

 

[Jayst84]

True, but in this instance it would have been simple and a nice gesture to do just that. Unless Liam_uk was especially proud of a picture of the floor and a wall...

One could argue that would encourage the security to badger photographers in the future though. And perpetuate their (possible) misunderstanding of the law.

Of course, subject matter, and personal artistic opinion, count not one jot.

 

[Dom]

Security guards or the police can not delete anything.

The police can seize equipment. Deletion of images is destruction of evidence and judges tend to frown on that, a lot..

 

[Martyn...]

Security guards or the police can not delete anything.

The police can seize equipment. Deletion of images is destruction of evidence and judges tend to frown on that, a lot..

You are correct, it would be a criminal offence to delete the images.

A warrant is needed to seize a camera.

A court order is needed to delete images.

Even under current stop and search law a camera is not considered a concealed weapon, so cannot be confiscated without a warrant.

 

[spencer]

You are correct, it would be a criminal offence to delete the images.

A warrant is needed to seize a camera.

A court order is needed to delete images.

Even under current stop and search law a camera is not considered a concealed weapon, so cannot be confiscated without a warrant.

It appears that some people are missing the point here.:bang:

All you have to do is ask to take photographs! Surely this is not to much trouble to go to?

It is far easier to get a pass/permission than to have a confrontation with a member of security.
And then stand there bleating on about you're rights as a photographer and how they can't force you to delete images.

This is why they appear to jump on unauthorised toggers even before they get any shots off.

Spence

 

[zarozinia]

I just want to say that I am a beginner/hobbyist, I dont know all the laws involved and to be honest was taking what I consider as snap shots, for me to use as practice in processing HDRs. I did not set out to cause trouble, be a nuisance or get up anyones nose.
I had no idea passes were required, its not a subject I would normally photograph, so I was ignorant. If the security guard had just explained politely that I needed a pass and how I could get one then I could have followed his advice then and there. The issue would have been resolved quickly and neither him nor I would have ended up disgruntled. I am a perfectly reasonable, respectful person generally and had the security officer communicated effectively as his job surely entails then there would not have been this misunderstanding.

 

[Martyn...]

It appears that some people are missing the point here.:bang:


Spence

I did not miss the point, I stated what can and cannot be done by a Police Officer. The previous poster had stated a Police Officer can seize your camera equipment, they need a warrant to do so.

You are correct, if you are on private property, simply seek permission to take photographs.

 

[it's alive]

One could argue that would encourage the security to badger photographers in the future though. And perpetuate their (possible) misunderstanding of the law.

Of course, subject matter, and personal artistic opinion, count not one jot.

Similarly one might say that the security staff have become less inclined to exercise a softness of touch as a result of the somewhat extreme reactions from 'togs (who are in the wrong, albeit unkowingly) that they approach.

Deletion of images is a related, but different, issue. As with everyone else here I agree that you cannot be compelled to delete anything. I did advocate doing it as a courtesy though. Especially as you might then be able to go and get the permission that you should have obtained before and take more.

@Zarizona: it is wrong that the guard treated you harshly. That they were misinformed re:deletion is also not good. However judging by the responses here I suspect that previous approaches to togs have been heated, can you blame them for being harsh? I don't condone their aggressive approach, but sometimes it pays to cut someone a little slack.

Ignorant or not, you were in the wrong and the guard was in the right in asking you to cease photography. Taking further pictures after being asked not to certainly didn't help and doesn't earn you the right to sympathetic treatment. Doing such a thing simply reinforces the guards' opinion of togs in the same way as there is a pretty polarised opinion of guards here.

 

[zarozinia]

@Zarizona: it is wrong that the guard treated you harshly. That they were misinformed re:deletion is also not good. However judging by the responses here I suspect that previous approaches to togs have been heated, can you blame them for being harsh? I don't condone their aggressive approach, but sometimes it pays to cut someone a little slack.

Ignorant or not, you were in the wrong and the guard was in the right in asking you to cease photography. Taking further pictures after being asked not to certainly didn't help and doesn't earn you the right to sympathetic treatment. Doing such a thing simply reinforces the guards' opinion of togs in the same way as there is a pretty polarised opinion of guards here.

Hi
Yes, I was in the wrong and I allowed myself to feel wound up quite easily too, which is quite unlike me - normally I am a very patient individual. I was not seeking sympathy and I am glad that I posted this thread as it has resulted in some useful discussion/debate/facts etc. I am not afraid to admit that I was in the wrong, I was letting off steam I suppose - I have learned from this experience and hopefully others have too. Now I know that permission is required for such activities I will in future seek appropriate permission. However it does sadden me that these days we have less and less freedom to go about our daily lives and enjoy a simple harmless hobby.

 

[jakeblu]

I did not miss the point, I stated what can and cannot be done by a Police Officer. The previous poster had stated a Police Officer can seize your camera equipment, they need a warrant to do so.

No warrant needed they can simply arrest you if they suspect you are in the process of commiting a crime. Whilst it might seem unlikely that a crime is being commited kick off with a security guard or especially a police officer and they may arrest you for breach of peace. Or perhaps children have been photographed and someone complains to a security guard or police officer again you may be arrested and then they can 'seize' what ever you are carrying at the time. Even more if they so desire whilst under arrest they have the right to search your home without a warrant and if there is a complaint regarding the photographing of children or suspicion of such you are likely to have all your computers 'seized' as well.

So beware the full implications, its no good cleverly informing a police officer he has no right to 'seize' your equipment or to ask you to delete your images you may end up with more than you bargained for.

If asked to stop photographing on private property then simply do so or ask if it is possible to get permission and regarding deletion photos are easily recovered.

Steve

 

[it's alive]

Absolutely, I feel the same way. Although I have found that when I have asked permission or introduced myself to the local security I have always been treated well.

Don't lose heart, it is still possible to get out and enjoy the hobby. It just requires a little bit of thought first!

 

[Dom]

Further to what has already been said.

It is better to ask permission than to seek forgiveness.

 

[Martyn...]

No warrant needed they can simply arrest you if they suspect you are in the process of commiting a crime. Whilst it might seem unlikely that a crime is being commited kick off with a security guard or especially a police officer and they may arrest you for breach of peace. Or perhaps children have been photographed and someone complains to a security guard or police officer again you may be arrested and then they can 'seize' what ever you are carrying at the time. Even more if they so desire whilst under arrest they have the right to search your home without a warrant and if there is a complaint regarding the photographing of children or suspicion of such you are likely to have all your computers 'seized' as well.

So beware the full implications, its no good cleverly informing a police officer he has no right to 'seize' your equipment or to ask you to delete your images you may end up with more than you bargained for.

If asked to stop photographing on private property then simply do so or ask if it is possible to get permission and regarding deletion photos are easily recovered.

Steve

I take your point Steve, and to be honest would never take photographs on private property without seeking permission first.

If I am in a public place however, it is not illegal for me to photograph children, however I understand the undertones this would construe and is not something I would do, in fact the whole undercurrent of suspicion that is rife in society is why I no longer have any interest in 'street photography'.

 

[jakeblu]

I take your point Steve, and to be honest would never take photographs on private property without seeking permission first.

If I am in a public place however, it is not illegal for me to photograph children, however I understand the undertones this would construe and is not something I would do, in fact the whole undercurrent of suspicion that is rife in society is why I no longer have any interest in 'street photography'.

Dont get me wrong on this Martyn, I think the country has gone p*** crazy, a lot to do with the reporting of such crimes in the media. But if you get some obstropulous person shouting pervert you may find yourself in an uncomfortable position. Again like you one of the reasons I have no interest in street photography.

Steve

 

[Martyn...]

Dont get me wrong on this Martyn, I think the country has gone p*** crazy, a lot to do with the reporting of such crimes in the media. But if you get some obstropulous person shouting pervert you may find yourself in an uncomfortable position. Again like you one of the reasons I have no interest in street photography.

Steve

Exactly Steve, I am made to feel guilty for going about my lawful business, it is a sad state of affairs.

 

[spencer]

I am a perfectly reasonable, respectful person generally and had the security officer communicated effectively as his job surely entails then there would not have been this misunderstanding.

I know you are, & I wasn't trying to imply otherwise.

I quite sure you've probably met up with a rather unpleasant member of the security team, but the ones that I have spoken to are always very polite & helpful.
There are quite a few of them, and its not until you start looking that you realise how many of them there are.

I also imagine that they areprobably a bit peeved after chasing Selkie around all day.

Spence

 

[theredrocket]

I had the same issue last year at Elvaston Castle (which is owned by the council) in Derby. Basically a security guard told us to stop taking pictures and we had to get permission in the castle grounds, because people might complain. I let it go, but since then the castle security guard has responded on my Flickr account....

Any thoughts? http://www.flickr.com/photos/redrocket/2240480824/

A complaint was received from a family group. An adult male did not like pictures being taken of his family whom were in the direct line of your camera shots.

I have witnessed a photographer get punched before for taking camera shots of another mans children and I was concerned for your safety.

Its been 13 months since you stated the above incorrect comment.

I did not say anything about dodgy blokes what so ever.I suggested that you speak to the authorities at the Castle if you wanted to make any special arrangements to take any photographs when the Park is closed so you could get clear shots and avoid unwanted people in the way.

Groups and individuals do make inquiries and arrange to take photos or other events.

You were not prepared to listen to me when I approached you and spoke those first few words, "obviously decent people" , you just wanted to make this into a big issue.

We have helped many people over the years. We are here for the Castle and the public safety.

We want people to come and enjoy themselves on the Park.

People have to be considerate towards other people.

Regards to everyone
Security Manager

 

[seriousrikk]

Personally reading that I think the security manager has you mixed up with someone else - unless of course the complaint is what stuck in his mind and your role as innocent photographer was second place.

Either way whoever the photographer was I expect security acted in a way that they deemed (at the time) most likely to diffuse a tricky situation.