Photography forbidden
We had a day trip to Chester on Wednesday, and my wife was taking photos of the Rows on her phone. We came upon a branch of Boodles, the posh jewellers. It drew our attention, because we'd watched an interesting documentary on C4 about this company a while
back.
My wife decided to take a photo of this shop, not a closeup of the window display, just a general picture of the Rows, with Boodles in it. At which point, a bloke wearing a suit, who I'd noticed loitering nearby, accosted my wife, 'Excuse me, young lady,
but you are not allowed to photograph Boodles', citing some nonsense about privacy, and it being a civil offense.
My hackles had already arisen at his tone, as he was at least 10 years younger than us, and I asked him who he was. Boodles security.
In my internal fantasy world, I'd have given the insolent fellow a sound thrashing, but back in the real world I merely retorted that in this case I'd just go and rob a different branch of their firm. I would have taken it further, but my wife didn't want
a scene. His parting shot was 'Enjoy the rest of your day, young man'.
From his manner and appearance, I'd guess at retired policeman, arrogant and sarcastic.
But seriously, from what I've just read on Google, provided one is stood on public property, one can photograph whatever one likes, withing obvious reason. Or have I inadvertantly visited the USSR or North Korea by accident ?
And maybe Boodles ought to have a word with Google about Street View.
Comments
-
Its a difficult one and perhaps a bit of a grey area because you do have to exhibit a degree of caution when taking photographs. Whilst the intention might be perfectly innocent others can draw completely the opposite view. As you mention that you took a
particular interest in this shop it seems the security person also noticed this. Whilst he may well have jumped the the wrong conclusion it was his job to protect the interests of his employer. Obviously no excuse for the manner.David
0 -
If he had approached me, I'd have taken two photos just to see what happened.
0 -
You were in a public place and not a place of national security. They have no right to stop you taking photo's. If you were taking photo's of door locks or other security devices I could understand. No need for the patronising approach though.
PS Their own website has interior pictures
0 -
As a long standing photo enthusiast that chap is talking pure nonsense, if you were on public land you can photograph what and who you like, including the police BTW. We had a lawyer once on our camera club who explained it all. I would have asked him name and if i could be bothered see/write in to his manger
post edit: even police cannot ask you to delete your photos
0 -
this is good one to watch: even the police agree with the photographers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH9F7HcluoModertor Edit:
Link now live.
0 -
I would have used just two words, he had no right at all to stop someone taking a photo of a shop front.
Now if it were an MOD property .........
or even a crisp factory?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjTBYdJwQ4Ior even the gate of a dock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JAWxpXSf6kModerator Edit:
Links now live.
0 -
Richard in a case like this you are fully within your rights to use a camera in a public place.We are on camera every day of our lives nowadays.In most cases not even the police can stop you useing a mobile phone or camera to take still or moveing pictures
in a public place.The public today are far more in touch with their rights and wont be dictated too by some jumped up ill informed jobsworth.Myself i would have told the guy politely to mind his own business and sod off.peter.
0 -
The only time a similar thing happened to me was when my son was playing a cricket match (about 10 years ago) in a place called Ryhope near Sunderland. It is famous (?) for the pubs in the main street which are all very grand loooking with marble (looking) columns and elaborate plaster work and painted signs. I was taking a photo of one when the very large landlord came out and angrily asked what I was doing, I explained and said what a fantastic pub front he had, he striaght away changed and a broad simle came on his face and then took me in to show me the plaster work inside. he explained that there had been a 'terrible' fight the privious night and he though I was a reporter. Looking at him if he thought the fight was terrible it must have been bad!
0 -
As others have said, you were perfectly within your rights taking photographs in a public place. As Cornersteady has stated no one can ask or force you to delete a photo, you would actually be destroying evidence.
I remember reading articles about his subject in photo magazines some years ago, they had legal advice and sought the opinion of Austin Mitchell, an M.P. and keen photographer. In a nut shell the article confirmed you could stand on a public pavement outside
a private house and take photographs of the inside of the house with a telephoto lens and not be committing any offence. It only becomes an offence under the harassment law if you repeatedly took photos of the house interior.0 -
I'm afraid that taking photos nowadays is fraught with possible litigation or prosecution. Gone are the days where we could take photo's in a public space. It's down to the over zealous Political Correctness brigade.
We cannot turn the clock back, so we are now stuck having to be a bit inventive when we want to take our pictures.
K
0 -
so we are now stuck having to be a bit inventive when we want to take our pictures.
K
The only bit inventive is trying to work out the settings 'K', other than that it's snap at everything and anything within the law, and any confrontation will get short shrift.
Have to admit PC can label someone wrongly even using the camera innocently.
0 -
The only bit inventive is trying to work out the settings 'K', other than that it's snap at everything and anything within the law, and any confrontation will get short shrift.
Have to admit PC can label someone wrongly even using the camera innocently.
I would be very surprised if most police constables understand the law regarding taking photographs.
0 -
I'm afraid that taking photos nowadays is fraught with possible litigation or prosecution. Gone are the days where we could take photo's in a public space. It's down to the over zealous Political Correctness brigade.
We cannot turn the clock back, so we are now stuck having to be a bit inventive when we want to take our pictures.
K
I disagree, the law is very clear, stated above so I won't repeat it, doing what you suggest (being inventive) will actually generate suspicion about your actions. If I see a photo that is worth taking I quite openly take it, the only time I ask would permission is if its taking a photo of a child clearly by him/her self, but I never do that anyway.
0 -
Did have the police turn up one day when looking for Waxwings in Lowestoft. I had a DSLR camera, a 650mm lens and bino's. It was a residential area so wasn't too surprised when a police car cruised up. He told me a concerned resident had called them.
Told him what I was up to and showed him photos on camera so no problem. Didn't get the Waxwing0 -
The only bit inventive is trying to work out the settings 'K', other than that it's snap at everything and anything within the law, and any confrontation will get short shrift.
Have to admit PC can label someone wrongly even using the camera innocently.
I would be very surprised if most police constables understand the law regarding taking photographs.
well they should do, and I think they do in tourist places. Here is part of the advice given from the Met to its officers:
We encourage officers and the public to be vigilant against terrorism but recognise the importance not only of protecting the public from terrorism but also promoting the freedom of the public and the media to take and publish photographs.
Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications. The following advice is available to all officers and provides a summary of the Metropolitan Police Service’s guidance around photography in public places.
Freedom to photograph and film
Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.rest is here: http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice
Moderator Edit:
Link now live.
0 -
Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications. The following advice is available to all officers and provides a summary of the Metropolitan Police Service’s guidance around photography in public places.
Freedom to photograph and film
Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.rest is here: http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice
Moderator Edit:
Link now live.
Good link Cornersteady, covers the subject nicely.
0 -
As others have said, you were perfectly within your rights taking photographs in a public place. As Cornersteady has stated no one can ask or force you to delete a photo, you would actually be destroying evidence.
I remember reading articles about his subject in photo magazines some years ago, they had legal advice and sought the opinion of Austin Mitchell, an M.P. and keen photographer. In a nut shell the article confirmed you could stand
on a public pavement outside a private house and take photographs of the inside of the house with a telephoto lens and not be committing any offence. It only becomes an offence under the harassment law if you repeatedly took photos of the house interior.Remember this quite clearly, W !! The Photo Mag "Amateur Photographer" had a good article about this, including the work done by Austin Mitchell M.P. , and had a section which I cut from the mag & still carry it in
my camera bag somewhere amongst the detritus in the bottom. The one point clearly made was that the vast majority of the Police involvements were by the P.C.S.O.s who had not received full and proper training in this area
{ no reason why they should really -- its not an everyday occurence }It was made clear that unless you are in an M.O.D. or similar area of tight security the confiscation of films, or deletion of digital pictures cannot be forced upon the poor old camera-wielder without a Court Order!.
0 -
P.S.
The only place that I have not been allowed to use my camera was in Durham Cathedral several years ago.
I was told I could have a Permit to photograph only if
1) it was for educational purposes
2) it was not for any commercial activity
3) I must obtain permission from the parents of any child in the picture. **
4) It would cost me £50 per day.
** There was a schools choir competion taking place & rehearsals were in full swing. So I would have needed to contact the parents ( plural !!) of about 120 kiddies !! Try enforcing that in these days of photo capable mobile phones .**
0 -
I'm not sure that a church or Cathedral is a public space, more likely privately owned building to which the public generally have access. In which case if you want to take photographs you need permission of the owner (or their representative. God might be a bit busy for you to ask
).0 -
Too True W !! I've never had a refusal before tho! Canterbury, Wells, Ely, York, Carlisle, Norwich etc etc none of them ever complained -- they just requested a donation of between £2 & £5 which I normally doubled anyway & they then give you a sticker for the camera strap. But Durham could not / would not even produce a slide or picture of their own
0 -
Another place that I have seen some “no pictures to be taken” signs was outside some of the shops in Camden Town Lock market. Probably not just for security but in case of copyright protection.
0 -
They can put the signs up as large & as obvious as they like, but unless you have knowingly entered private property which is clearly marked as such, they would be unable to legally enforce it I think. Its rather like
those carefully placed "No Parking" signs on rough land which people use as free car parks. Many of them have gone to court to enforce them and lost.0 -
As others have said, you were perfectly within your rights taking photographs in a public place. As Cornersteady has stated no one can ask or force you to delete a photo, you would actually be destroying evidence.
I remember reading articles about his subject in photo magazines some years ago, they had legal advice and sought the opinion of Austin Mitchell, an M.P. and keen photographer. In a nut shell the article confirmed you could stand on a public pavement outside a private house and take photographs of the inside of the house with a telephoto lens and not be committing any offence. It only becomes an offence under the harassment law if you repeatedly took photos of the house interior.
WOW Brians filing system has proved it's worth !!
I found the article in Amateur Photographer dated 27 March 2010 reporting the meeting on 9th March 2010 between Minister of State for Crime & Policing, David Hanson M.P. Austin Mitchell M.P. & representatives of Met Police, & A.C.P.O. along with Editor & News Editor of A. P. & reps from Royal Photographic Society, Bureau of Freelance Photographers and others !
Nett result was that the Police were reminded of their duties & responsibilities Especially with regard to Anti-terror Regulations which they must NOT use in these circumstances without obvious signs of such behaviour by the camera people !
Carry on Clicking Folks
!!Brian
0 -
As others have said, you were perfectly within your rights taking photographs in a public place. As Cornersteady has stated no one can ask or force you to delete a photo, you would actually be destroying evidence.
I remember reading articles about his subject in photo magazines some years ago, they had legal advice and sought the opinion of Austin Mitchell, an M.P. and keen photographer. In a nut shell the article confirmed you could stand on a public pavement outside
a private house and take photographs of the inside of the house with a telephoto lens and not be committing any offence. It only becomes an offence under the harassment law if you repeatedly took photos of the house interior.WOW Brians filing system has proved it's worth !!
I found the article in Amateur Photographer dated 27 March 2010 reporting the meeting on 9th March 2010 between Minister of State for Crime & Policing, David Hanson M.P. Austin Mitchell M.P. & representatives of Met Police,
& A.C.P.O. along with Editor & News Editor of A. P. & reps from Royal Photographic Society, Bureau of Freelance Photographers and others !Nett result was that the Police were reminded of their duties & responsibilities Especially with regard to Anti-terror Regulations which they must NOT use in these circumstances without obvious signs of such behaviour by
the camera people !Carry on Clicking Folks
!!Brian
yes I seem to remeber that they said that having a camera, or taking photos (by itself) was not a basis for using the anti terror laws, or using them to ask individuals to account for their actions while taking photos. Taking photos would not be grounds
for reasonable suspicion0 -
Just to add a little to this.
After the incident, we went to look around Chester town hall. And what a contrast in attitude. We naturally asked if it was OK to take photos, and were told that we were welcome to do this. In fact, the pleasant young chap at reception insisted in getting
us to pose on the stairs whilst he took a picture using my wifes phone.I mentioned the Boodles business to him, and he was already aware of their position on photography, so it couldn't have been an isolated incident.
Daft thing is, if I'd had my proper camera with me, I could have stood on the opposite side of the street and zoomed right in on the window display, out of range of jobsworth chap.
0
