Told to stop taking photos !

  • Thread starter Thread starter paul cull-pearce
  • Start date Start date
I think this kiddie thing has gone way OTT, but there you go....

Also for some reason you aren't allowed to use tripods around the Eiffel tower (I didn't know until I was informed by 2 armed police officers, needless to say i apologised in English (for not speaking French) and packed it away pronto)
 
Tripods is a Health and Safety thing in a lot of public places now. Plonking a tripod down in a street or public thoroughfare can also be construed as obstruction. Obstructing the pavement is a specific offence.
 
Marianne said:
if it was a film camera you couldn't delete it...
Click to expand...

The other approach is to say "Oh, I'm not allowed to delete it. This is evidence ....."

And then walk away.

But not until you've seen the panic set in :D
 
petemc said:
While he's scratching his head about which is actually "professional" take a photo, kick him in the nuts and walk off.
Click to expand...
surely you should kick him in the nuts then take a photo...print it out huge and paste it round the town...nothing like public humiliation eh ;)
 
Funny thing is having come back from Brands this weekend I noticed that these days every Tom, Dick and Harry has a DSLR and many of them have decent lenses, certainly most of the Canon users i saw has L glass, but none were 'Pros'. So its just a norm these days, people have to start realising that and deal with it.

Why should i go and spend £200-£300 on a compact camera when i can get a D50 and get better pics. Doesn't instantly make me a kiddie fiddler.

I just want to buy the best kit i can afford to do the job.

No different to buying a big telly to watch films or a decent stereo for music.
 
CT said:
Tripods is a Health and Safety thing in a lot of public places now. Plonking a tripod down in a street or public thoroughfare can also be construed as obstruction. Obstructing the pavement is a specific offence.
Click to expand...

Where does a bi-ped with a walking stick taking photographs fit into this? ;)
 
chuckles said:
Where does a bi-ped with a walking stick taking photographs fit into this? ;)
Click to expand...

He sounds like a definite p*** so he'd come under different legislation. ;)

Years ago you used to be able to spend all day in Lichfield Cathedral for a nominal photo fee of 50p. The only stipulation was no flash, which I could never understand, although available light is by far the best in there and there was no objection to tripods.

Last time I went tripods were a nono. I finally prevailed upon the verger by opening the tripod with a very small footprint (very upright) to show just how little room was taken up by it. He finally relented but he really wasn't happy and furtively followed me around the place checking me out. The daft thing was there were only about three other people in the whole place. :shrug:
 
Where tripods are banned, use a monopod, you get much the same benefit (unless the light is really poor) without the footprint and with more portability.
 
While I'm here I'll just add (I'm sure you all know it anyway) that these restrictions on photographing children have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting them from undesirables. They exist to protect the organisers from being sued by money hungry chancers. The Americans are blamed for a lot of stuff that's not their fault, but the 'sue for damages' culture that exists now is pretty much down to them.
 
In one of the other threads of that artist guy (sorry awful with names) he said that in the US they put a huge English phone booth in the middle of a street but the guy with the camera is the one that got stopped by the FBI (they happened to do it right outside of their headquarters) for hours and never notice the cemented in phone booth.

It is all insane really! I agree with chuckles it is about personal responsibility and not relying on the government to protect you from everything that just might possibly at some stage maybe cause you some sort of itty bitty problem.
 
Steep said:
Where tripods are banned, use a monopod, you get much the same benefit (unless the light is really poor) without the footprint and with more portability.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I was going for long exposures (30 secs or more) at night and I don't think i could have held a monopod steady for that long......
 
Not been told anything yet. One day when I was off work, I thought i'd get out and practice (sitll a noob to photography) and I went of to a old graveyard, so when I am looking round and taking some test shots I notice it over looks a first school and there was this stern looking woman staring at me from the doorway. So I thought oops i'd better b****r orf before I got accused of anything.
Why should we feel uncomfortable, the world is truly fubar.

Cheerz:thumbs:
 
I was outside a whackking great big insurace office in Guildford which had a comanding possition on the river frount when a security guard came down the terraced garden to the public right of way to “tell” me to stop taking picturs of his building. I’ve still got his picture somewhere!

If these companies are going to build fancy offices in prominent locations they can’t be surprised when people take ‘photos of them can they?

ilikebowens
 
if an architect has spend many moons designing and over-seeing the construction of a big fancy building they'd be proud of the interest in it, no?
 
its all daft imo.

Did some work for the local panto group over the last year, and they have a policy of letting anyone who wants to take part have a role, but they also make everyone sign a consent form, which states that the panto will be photographed and filmed, and if anyone wont sign it - they dont let them take part. Which is a shame for the child but it seems to be the only way to fully cover yourselves these days. Which doesnt help in public at all though :(
 
snappy said:
If you're on public property you can shoot whatever or whomever you like
Click to expand...

Tell that to security of the London Eye... even from the footpath a way off, they tell you 'no photo'...
 
Sadly, I have a few tales to tell, and I've only had a dSLR for 6 months!

1. As above, been told off for taking photos of the London Eye

2. Been told 'no photos' when taking shots around Canary Wharf

3. Been told I couldn't cover a testimonial football match, as two of the squad were under 16
 
The only time I've been asked what I was doing is when I met up with some mates outside a Tesco store in Plymouth for a car meet. We all parked up and had a chat and took photos of the cars, bearing in mind not to obstruct anyone's way or cause trouble. Then we had two security staff come over and ask us what we were doing.

I was so tempted to reply with "What does it look like?" (there were 4 of the same type of car parked up perfectly in line with us stood near them, I'd have thought that was obvious!) but we just explained what we were up to and they replied;

"Oh, that's OK then, it's just we've had some customers come up and ask us why there are guys stood outside taking photos. As long as you don't get any of the store in shot then you can carry on."

Why is everyone so damn nosey?! If we were going to rob them or steal their cars we wouldn't stand around with cameras taking pictures we'd just do it!
 
CT said:
Just remember though it's not always that straightforward. Take your average school sports day as an example which is a private event. Before the head will give you permission you need to to have the written consent of the parents of any child who might appear in your photos. In practice that means all of 'em.
Click to expand...

A lot of schools now get the parents to blanket-sign a consent form when the kids enrol (so I just found out when doing a job at the secondary school here).
This allows the school to take the kids on trips, outings, sports events and for phots to be taken for internal and external publicity purposes (I read it to make sure).
This is a standard thing across a lot of schools in the UK now, so check with the Head-Teacher. Parents who don't sign face having their kids excluded from all group events.
 
LadyLens said:
:thumbs:
As for actual rights, 2 little tales since I posted last night. An email from my friend in Germany first - she went upto the castle in the town near by last night, armed with tripod and her D50. She got there early as its a popular spot for some good night time photography, set her camera up and then waited for the light to fade. With her was her hubby [sorry, partner :naughty: ] who is a seargent in the British Army, so no wall flower of a chap. He had walked off a little way to look at something when she was approached by a guy with a big load of kit. With no introductions he told her she must move as she had the best spot, and he was there on 'official' business. She asked what his business was - "taking pictures for the local paper" - to which her response was "good, then I am sure as a local you know how popular it is here and should have been here earlier" He started to rant in german, until the hubby walked back over to see what the fuss was about, at which point he seemed to decide there were other good spots and stomped off! :lol:
Click to expand...

I usually find that in all arguments with Ze Tchermans that reminding them who actually won the War generally does the trick...

I've been asked a couple of times what I was up to but usually find that a hard stare and an attitude of "F*** off or I'll rip your Nads Off!" generally works.
I try to be polite, but it doesn't always come off. Stand your ground - in most cases, even security personnel aren't sure of the legal ground they stand on - if you just front them out, in many cases they'll back down. If not then take the photos anyway - if they attempt to physically restrain you they can be liable for charges of assault (as can we all, including Police Officers on duty where it can be proved that more than Reasonable Force was used), so stand firm.
Our biggest problem is that we can be timid, timourous beasties, us photographers and as such are an easy target for the PC-Crowd. My old Boss, Pete Bristo http://www.petebristophotography.me.uk/ used to just hit people with his cameras. Then take a photo of them lying unconcious.
He's more mellow now if you need a wedding doing.
 
Think I have posted this in another forum somewhere else, but for what it's worth ......

I work as a primary school teacher and the policy that our school (and a lot of others) are adopting is the following. We send a letter out to parents at the beginning of the term asking them to sign if they OBJECT to any photos of their children being taken.This way, we are nor relying on letters coming back into school before we can take photos, and you would be amazed at how many parents 'don't mind' you taking photos when they have to sign something to prevent you taking them!

Anth
 
Interesting thread, Im with Arkady on this one, I have been told to stop taking photos on lots of occasions and just tend to give the person doing the telling a hard stare followed by a look of annoyance and just continue what I was doing. Including security at Meadowhall and a Policeman outside an army recruitment office where the great unwashed were having a demonstration. By Law I know you are not allowed to take photos of mod buildings etc as he pointed out to me and I just said, "is that right " whilst firing off another few before moving on.
 
Arkady said:
I've been asked a couple of times what I was up to but usually find that a hard stare and an attitude of "F*** off or I'll rip your Nads Off!" generally works.
I try to be polite, but it doesn't always come off......
Click to expand...

ROFL - if we had a "post of the year" award - that would have to be a nominee! :lol:
 
iammart said:
Hi
Just been reading this thread with mild disbelief... but not really surprised these days...

Now caution all southern trainspotters... this was in my local paper a couple of weeks ago... http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1004/1004423_trainspotter_threatened_with_arrest.html

Ridiculous!
Martin
Click to expand...

The article mentions "He was confronted by a railway worker who forced him to delete one of the photographs, took his name and address and said he was breaching the Data Protection Act.". Hmmm - looks to me like it's the Rail-muppet who is trying to breach the DPA by not explaining the purpose of taking his details. I'm a bit rusty on the DPA but I'm confident that photos don't get a mention, especially if they're for personal use. :cuckoo:

He'd have to be the world's dumbest terrorist to try and use a modern train to wreak havoc - people would just think he worked for the railway :D 'Terrorism averted by leaves on the line'
 
I've not been told not to take photos....yet.

But along a similar vein, when I've taught children to ride horses I am REQUIRED to tell them if I am going to have to touch their leg, hand or foot, or whatever, and ask whether that is ok.

If they say no then I'm not allowed to help them onto the horse, I'm not allowed to position them properly on the horse and if it comes to it I am, technically, supposed to let them fall off rather than grab them before they hit the deck!

Just BONKERS :shake:
 
Slovensky said:
I am, technically, supposed to let them fall off rather than grab them before they hit the deck!

Just BONKERS :shake:
Click to expand...

And then they sue you for injuries :bang: :bang: :thumbsdown:
 
Pete-stories abound in the Army Phot Branch.
Like the 'Pete Getting Shot in the Head In Bosnia While Taking a Rubbish-Photo' story; the 'Pete Telling 2PARA to Get Back on The Plane and Do It Again' story; the 'Pete killing any Army Phot whose Camera Wasn't Set To Manual' story etc etc etc
 
Geordi69 said:
Not been told anything yet. One day when I was off work, I thought i'd get out and practice (sitll a noob to photography) and I went of to a old graveyard, so when I am looking round and taking some test shots I notice it over looks a first school and there was this stern looking woman staring at me from the doorway. So I thought oops i'd better b****r orf before I got accused of anything.
Why should we feel uncomfortable, the world is truly fubar.

Cheerz:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I was walking to a church to take some photos and was walking past a school when I saw a couple of birds in a tree in the other direction. I felt really exposed (for want of a better word) taking a photo that close to a school. The fact it was half past 5 an noone was there didn't help me one bit. There is to much over the top culture in this country now, mainly due to the media hyping everything up. It's a real shame.:(
 
I wonder what would happen if you wandered around with a camera and dressed tidily rather than casual...would people still pester you?
 
All depends where you are. If its public land/highways theres nothing to stop anyone shooting. If you are in stadium or closed private grounds then you need permision and can be asked to stop shooting.

Case in point, 2 weeks ago , after contact a race organizer I was told by the Triathlon event organizer not to come to his event this year as they have an official tog who has been given soul rights to shoot and sell the images and that if I did turn up I would not be allowed to shoot or sell the images.

Ok, someone else has the job, fair enough.

In reality, the organizer cannot tell anyone not to shoot nor to sell the images. The race is in public land, a beach, and on the open highways ie cycling. Anyone can shoot and sell the images as long as they don't use the sponsors name to advertise their images.

The e-mail used very legalized jargon, which it looks like was to scare me off. I also checked with the Scottish Press Photographers Asc on their views.

In these cases, stand your ground, if the officail tog is there, don't let them bully out of shooting. Number of events I have been official tog for and other togs have turned up....nature of the game, just get on with taking the best pics you can.

cheers
Iain
 
I've been reading this thread with interest, and the subject certainly raises some issues.

As a former police officer however, I can confidently state that there are no laws or other legislation, that restrict the taking of photograps in a PUBLIC place. This includes Canary Wharf and the London eye, which, unless anybody tells me differently, are both approached by a public right of way, ie the road or the footpath.

In essence, what this implies is, that you can politely tell any so called 'official' or other jobsworth, that you intend to continue taking photographs, whatever he may say. If he continues to insist, then the most direct course of action is to take out your mobile, and call the police, and tell them that there is a potential breach of the peace. The police are honour bound to attend, though whether they actually do is anothe matter.

Taking photographs on private property is another matter however, but unless there is a sign to the contrary, or a notice printed on the admission ticket, I would contend that the same applies here as it does on public property. As there is no legislation regarding taking photographs on private property (other than those properties subject to the Official Secrets Act, ie sensitive government or military properties), I would tend to take action in the same manner - ie, ask the officious official/official officious photographer, to wait whilst I called the police. You certainly wouldn't be breaking the law!!

So, snap away - the law is on your side (at least for the time being), and there are no legal restrictions whatsoever that could curtail your hobby.

The above said, there are some circumstances that may preclude you taking the photographs that you want. Parent sensitivity is the most obvious one. Taking photographs at serious accidents/incidents is another - you would be surprised how many ghouls are around when there is blood to be seen. As a former SOC photographer, I can attest to this!! Often when I was photographing a serious accident, drivers would stop their cars, and start taking pics of blood'n bones - not in it'self an offence, but a good police officer could always frame an offence to fit the situation. In any case, I wouldn't stop or take pics in this situation. It would be unhelpful, and I'd almost certainly get in the way.

Stick up for your rights as a photographer. The law is on your side, at least for now!
 
Hi Doug

Canary Wharf is a private estate... no public right of way through it at all.
 
Weggy said:
Hi Doug

Canary Wharf is a private estate... no public right of way through it at all.
Click to expand...

Hi Weggy, that may be true, but the approach roads, and the roads through it, if subject to the Road Traffic Act, and I can't see how they could not be, will be public rights of way. Stand on the road, and take all the pics you like.

The building of any estate, private or not, can NEVER take precedence of public rights of way, which is why, despite the attempts of landowners and farmers, there still exist public footpaths in the UK.
 
dougdarter said:
Hi Weggy, that may be true, but the approach roads, and the roads through it, if subject to the Road Traffic Act, and I can't see how they could not be, will be public rights of way. Stand on the road, and take all the pics you like.

The building of any estate, private or not, can NEVER take precedence of public rights of way, which is why, despite the attempts of landowners and farmers, there still exist public footpaths in the UK.
Click to expand...

Thanks Doug. It's a busy place, but I'll have a go at standing in the road and taking some shots... see if I get pulled by security, again!
 
London Eye is definately on private property I'm afraid - there are signs up to that effect also. However I've never had any problems around there until I've tried to use a tripod - that upsets 'em!
 
Witch said:
London Eye is definately on private property I'm afraid - there are signs up to that effect also. However I've never had any problems around there until I've tried to use a tripod - that upsets 'em!
Click to expand...

Is it.... I wonder??

Notices can be deceptive.

As far as I remember, the London eye was built on Queens Walk, on the Thames Embankment, as a TEMPORARY structure to celebrate the Millenium. It was supposed to have been torn down in 2001, and is now an 'illegal' structure in contravention of planning regulations, and is still subject to an on-going case in the courts, following 'temporary extended permission which expired in 2005.

The Thames Embankment is certainly a public right of way.

http://www.londoneye.com/community/pdf/planning_guide.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top