Since recording this, I've found a much better resource than the council websites which covers the whole UK rather than just local council areas: findmystreet.co.uk/map
The National Trust has no rights whatsoever to make any statements about photography on National Trust land. It’s land with public access. That’s the legislation governing the matter. They are clearly misusing the hawking bylaw. Furthermore, if I’m not mistaken, The National Trust holds land on behalf of the people of this country, therefore they don’t OWN it in the strictest terms. The land is in trust - on OUR behalf. The way some people panic over photography, especially in an age when EVERYONE has a still camera and video camera with them all the time, is simply ludicrous. It’s ruined real photography.
@@G58 unfortunately you are mistaken. This is the great misnomer of the national trust. It is an incorporated company, independent of government, which operates as a charity. It has special powers to run itself much like a council of local governance via an act of parliament including the implementation of byelaws. You are invited onto its land by accepting the byelaws. The statement you refer to is their statement of intent, not a statement on who owns the land. As a legal entity it is the second largest landowner in the England. The true public landowner is the forestry commission (which is also the largest landowner) as this is owned and run by government and therefor the people.
@@LetsClickPhotography The official Purpose of the National Trust is to look after Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty permanently for the benefit of the nation across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If one defines ‘the nation’ as the state, then the National Trust would potentially have powers over people on National Trust land. However, if one recognises the fact that without the people, there is no nation, then the true purpose of the the National Trust is indeed to look after Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty permanently for the benefit of the people. And only a slave gives away powers to others in open spaces.
Whilst on public land I was taking photos around Sullom Voe in the Shetland Isles when I was accosted by oil terminal security staff. We had a perfectly amicable chat, apart from the chap threatening to inform the police if I didn’t give them my name. That went no further when I invited him to do so. This took place at the RAF Sullom Voe memorial. The following day I had a phone call from the local police. A complaint had been made so the police were obliged to investigate. This wasn’t the first time they’d been informed and they did enough to satisfy the instruction but didn’t take it seriously. The copper came out to meet me as it was better than sitting in the office dealing with a stack of paperwork. Apparently it had been suggested to the terminal owners that they put up signs prohibiting photography and/or to buy the road leading to the terminal gate, it serves no other property. They’ve refused to do either of those. The copper had only recently moved from Glasgow and was still in “tourist mode”. Our chat ended with him giving me tips on places to visit.
Some years ago I was commissioned to photograph all the gate signs of defence establishments in the south east of England - as seen from the road. I arrived at many of them, set up my camera, and watched startled guards turn out, fuss around and generally take their time to react to what they perceived to be a potential threat! I duly took my photos and gave them all enough time to confront me. None did! A week later I had a call from my local police, and the military police, asking if I had been present at a range of military sites as my car numberplate had been noted there. I confirmed that I had. They then said that they were coming round to confiscate ALL my camera equipment, office equipment and computers. I just laughed at them, which put them on the back foot a little! They asked what I was doing and they told me in no uncertain manner that it was ‘illegal’ to photograph MoD sites, even from the public highway. I informed them that it was quite legal to do that but they ignored me, asking me if I was commissioned to take the shots, even though that really had no bearing on the matter. They said that they would be round to my office to close me down within 30 minutes, citing a breach of the Official Secrets Act as their reason! I gave them a phone number to call and then asked them to call me back. My commissioning officer worked at the Ministry of Defence and the shots were simply to illustrate the different range of signage used at defence sites! Naturally nothing more was ever heard from the police! Even if I was shooting the images as a private individual, anything photographed from a public highway is legal. Never allow yourself to be bullied by those who think that their authoritative position allows them to ride roughshod over your rights! Great, informative video 👍🏼
Actually as you were commissioned to do so, you were classed as being authorised, though you should have had some form of confirmation on you for the work as this would have stopped any confusion and approaching the guard room with this info would have meant you would have been left alone. The rest of the information re the OSA is actually correct though it has now been replaced by the National Security Act 2023, you can be charged for taking pictures OF a prohibited place (anywhere used for defence or HM Forces) and be subjected to a fine or imprisonment. Section 5 and 7 of the 2023 NSA are your references for this, this includes taking pictures from public land of that establishment unless there is a specific area set aside by the MOD for photographs (such as a viewing spot for aircraft spotters/photographers).
That's rubbish. I've just read that and it only relates to a "Person" who has accessed the "Prohibited Place" and then takes photographs or video!! And not taken photographs or video from a public place!!
@@stephenjp13 I don't know what you were reading but it wasn't the legislation regarding this, there is also no mention of public spaces as that has nothing to do with photography or where you can do photography, laws on the otherhand over rule anything you may think a photographer can do. The 2023 NSA says this. the person- (i)accesses, enters, inspects or passes over or under a prohibited place, or (ii)causes an unmanned vehicle or device to access, enter, inspect or pass over or under a prohibited place, (3)In subsection (1)(a) a reference to inspecting a prohibited place includes taking, or procuring the taking of, photographs, videos or other recordings of the prohibited place. The 1911 OSA says this. (a)approaches, [F1inspects, passes over] or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act; or (b)makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy; or The expression “sketch” includes any photograph or other mode of representing any place or thing;
I took one photo of the outside of a shopping centre, then as I walked in with the lens cap over my DSLR, but hanging from its strap, 3 security guards congregated around me and told me no photos or videos allowed of the place as it was private property. They didn’t seem bothered when I pointed out loads of other people filming with their phones, and even showed them lens cap was on, yet dozens make TikTok videos in the centre, so just me.
The one thing you missed at 1:52 is that many 2D works of art are _out of copyright_ simply because the term of their copyright has expired. There clearly cannot be an infringement of a copyright that no longer exists, so you cannot be restricted from photography on grounds of copyright under those circumstances. Photography may be restricted for other reasons, of course, but not for copyright infringement in the UK, for example with a painting whose composer died over 70 years ago.
The only time I've been challenged when I was taking photographs was when I was approached by two security guards at Media City, Salford. They asked if I had a permit from the land owners. I was approached because I was using a camera on a tripod because I was using slow shutter speeds. I explained that what I was doing was no different from all the people who were taking images using their phones. They wouldn't have it because I had a 'professional camera'. I explained that I was not a professional photographer doing professional work. They radioed a supervisor then asked me if my pictures were for personal use (which I'd already explained) and I confirmed that. The supervisor confirmed I was fine do do what I was doing. The conversation with security was friendly enough and I stayed reasonable and calm throughout. Some people might start getting arsey and argumentative when challenged which, in the end, helps no one. Attitude, on both sides, is key. A really good, informative video.
Personally, I would never discuss/explain ANYTHING I was doing to ANY jobsworth individual who confronted me in a PUBLIC space. Why take on THEIR problem. Totally IGNORE such numpties and let THEM decide what their next move will be. Responding to IDIOTS never results in a happy outcome.
@@fontybitsIgnorance stems from those people who think they have a right to do anything they want, regardless of whether it is right or not. The fact that private land is not owned by the person with the camera means that they can be asked what they are doing, being ignorant and not explaining your situation will not benefit any photographers that come afterwards. If you cannot be polite, interact with people or explain what you are doing so that you can ensure the next person that comes along won't be hassled means you probably don't have the attitude to be a photographer in the first place as like every hobby or profession, people love to talk about what they do.
@@tonyb1223 "Ignorance........regardless of whether it is right or not." REGARDLESS??????? If I KNOW that something is right, I don't have to acknowledge an individual who hasn't got a clue about it. End of! 😀
@@fontybits And that makes you ignorant, because you have not acknowledged them and are instead ignoring them, this shows that you either lack the understanding of the issue or are uneducated in the subject matter that you have no reply to either educate them or that you understand the issue and explain where they are wrong. Being right and silent is just as bad as being noisy and wrong.
Back in the early 2000s, I took a photo of a cute young woman aged around twenty leaning on the balustrade at Trafalgar Square. She caught my eye because she was wearing a rainbow-coloured hat with brightly coloured earphones, and she had a pretty face to match, though the photo was taken at an angle so you couldn't see it completely. I uploaded the photo onto Flickr with a Creative Commons Attribution licence. Some years later she commented on the photo and seemed surprised that I'd taken it. She had been told of its existence by her aunt, I seem to recall. Even more years went by and, probably when she was in her early thirties, an online magazine used my photo under the CC-A licence as the lead image on an article about drug use. I had no idea this had happened until the lady was told about the article by someone else. Understandably, she was really upset and she asked me to take the photo down, which I did willingly. I'm really against this kind of misuse of anyone's photos. I replaced her photo with a black image with an explanation as to why I'd taken the original down. I emailed the magazine and told them in no uncertain terms what they'd done wrong and that they were never to ever use any of my images again. I explained to the woman in the photo how I'd tried to put things right and she seemed less upset, though there's always the possibility that the image and article might have been republished elsewhere. If she had told me that she wanted to sue the magazine company for every penny she could get, I'd have willingly stood in court and testified on her behalf. But she was Italian, over here at the time studying, I believe. She almost certainly didn't know our laws, or how they differ from Italy's. And I doubt that she could testify without having to spend a lot of money.
The magazine is at fault, because the image didn't come with a model release license. Any stock image website offers multiple licenses, and if there are recognisable people in the image, whoever wants to use the image must pay for an additional model license. The Creative Commons license only applies to the image, the model isn't covered under that. Did you ever get a response from the magazine?
She had no right to ask you to take the image off the site. She could have objected years before but chose not to. Opportunity missed. Her issue was obviously with the magazine. Not sure what case she could make though. You did the wrong thing by removing it.
@@G58She didn't ask me to take the image off the site. She couldn't have objected until she knew the image was there. And she contacted me as soon as she knew.
If you release photos of people with a CC license, you should definitely ask the subject if it is ok, preferably in writing. You are responsible for every use you authorize for your photos. A CC license is extremely broad and you have zero control over the photo’s usage, so this is something that probably happens much more than people realize. Protect your subjects and ask for consent if you give away free usage rights!
@@stickgarrote8582 The law here in the UK says that no one has an expectation of privacy in a public place. And although I have zero control over the photo's usage, this is not my responsibility. But thanks for your thoughts on the subject.
Great well presented information. Some years ago I went to my local shopping mall wishing to photograph a model……..Although the mall was full of public I aired on the side of caution and went to see the mall manager and politely asked for permission which he granted me. He instructed his security to afford any help I might need and were so polite and helpful. The problem today has been the rise in Terrorism and acts of………so this has caused concern with security guards trying to keep us all safe.
"Security guards trying to keep us all safe". Yeah ... right. A terrorist who is taking photos with evil intent will not be carrying a camera with a big wide aperture lens sticking out of the front of it. He'll be holding an iPhone pretending to have a conversation or send a text. And they know that. But the guy with the camera is visible; so why not?
I only ever had one instance where I was questioned by a police officer regarding the use of my camera. He was really angry and unnecessarily threatening but I stood my ground and kept asking what law I’d broken. In the end, perhaps because several witnesses that had gathered due to his agitation, he backed down and scuttled off. One of his colleagues came and explained, politely, the nature of the incident and asked, respectfully, if I would consider deleting the images I had taken. Given the reasonable approach and explanation, I was more than happy to comply. Attitude is everything.
I agree with you about attitude…from both sides. The fact is that some young police officers on the beat are unsure of the law re photography in public or private places. Its not exactly a priority for them. But equally I think the police should be able to engage with people taking photos, always realising, in most cases, people taking the photos are doing nothing wrong. Equally the photographer needs a bit of common sense about when it’s appropriate to take photographs in public. I suppose that’s what makes street photography potentially an area of conflict and that’s not with the police either.
I think I have had three instances, at least that I remember as they were all over a decade ago.. The first I was taking photos when a Met officer turned up on a motorcycle. I was taking photos on the street and not realized I was dong it outside the MI5 headquarters. But I explained what I was doing and he was happy and left me to it. Another time was a plain clothed officer after I had got on a tube train at Canary Wharf because I had been taken photos waiting for the train. I was leaving anyway and he just said to not take photos there and left, but that was weird. Thought the estate and station are covered by by-laws. The third time was in the City of London and I was photographing a street when a City of London officer asked what I was doing. Apparently there was a Church of Scientology on it and so it had called the police. I had already moved further down the street so by that point did not matter, but it still annoys me. Even if I was photographing the church it would have been perfectly legal, and the police should have told it so rather that acting as its own private [overreaching] security firm.
Please note that when referring to the law in the UK you have to recognise that Scotland had a separate legal system so referring to the whole of UK as a single unit is incorrect. For instance the law of trespass is very different in Scotland with the right to roam laws in effect.
That is an important consideration and even more so in the USA, as you have 50 states where the law of trespass can differ significantly. As a general rule in the US, if you can see it from a public space you can photograph it.
One thing to note is that on the Underground you can do photography freely however you will be asked to stop if you setup a tripod and get spotted and Flashes are strictly prohibited.
Very informative video buddy, thanks for the upload. The overreach on behalf of security, police etc is always an issue. It's made more problematic by certain people stating that they're not covered by GDPR, that they're private individuals blah, blah, blah, then go on to state that they make money from their videography on youtube. I think for the most part, common sense prevails. I live in a semi rural environment now, most folk understand what I'm doing as a photographer, but if push comes to shove, they don't like what I'm doing then I'll respect their wishes. Saves on arguments. It seems the more you gravitate towards urban environments, bigger cities, that the issue becomes such a great problem.
I was thrown out of the National Portrait Gallery in London, for photographing an artist making a sketch of a statue, even though she gave me permission to make her photo. In my defence, I stated that there was no public expectation of privacy in an art gallery. They showed me a document which declared their policy and regulations, which forbade the photography of people in the gallery. Ironic, as the gallery is full of photos. Haven’t been back there since and most of my photography is now in remote parts of the world. I now have no interest in photographing London or people on it’s streets.
The National Portrait Gallery, while open to the public, is not a public place. It's exactly the same for any privately owned premises to which the public have even almost unfettered access and they have exactly the same rights as you have in your own home; i.e. they can permit or forbid entry and photography as they wish. Shopping malls are a good example.
A few weeks ago, I was taking some pictures of the St Martin Church in Birmingham which is next to the Bullring shopping center.There is a hill which divides between the 2 wings of the shopping center. The top of the hill is a great view of the church. I took a few shots, angling towards the church and this security woman approached me asking if I had a permit. I said no. It turns out i am standing on private property (the hill between the 2 wings entrances of the bullring shopping mall). Even though I wasn't taking pictures of the mall at all, without a permit I wasn't even able to stand there with my camera since its considered a professional camera. I asked how is this any different to a professional photographer/videographer who uses a smartphone entirely to do the same thing but just on their phone. She just couldn't seem to answer this to me, and told me I had walk a few meters after the hill where it becomes public footpath if I wish to use my camera. I did not wish to argue and just walked along. Later that same day, at the same spot, when night fall, I was walking through and there's a northern light display at the same spot where I was taking pictures of the church. And they were many other photographers taking pictures with their camera of the Northern Lights with obviously the common folks with their smartphone. I highly doubt that those photographers have a permit as well.
I once visited Liverpool and as I just arrived at the Lime Street Train Station, I was photographing pigeons in the ceiling of the building and a security guard approached me to ask me what I was doing. He was reassured by my explanations and didn't ask a delete or to leave. But I had an analogous "problem" while photographing pigeons in a street park in Rouen (France), as behind the pigeons were a small groups of thugs/small drug dealers sitting on a bench - one of them came to "ask" what I just had photographed and "asked" (="forced") me to delete the photos they were on (in the background...).
I live in Glasgow, I had some misfortune and had to rent council property for a time, I once decided to photograph an interesting sky…I pointed my camera upwards towards the sky…I was in a top floor tenement flat. About a half hour later I noticed police cars swarming around and enquired to one of the police officers what was their interest…after a short conversation they explained that a complaint had been made about someone photographing stuff from a window. Yeah it was me, I let them in and gave them access to my computer files that supported a genuine interest in photography, we actually had a laugh…but on reflection I struggle to find an argument that justified what I experienced…during my stay in Altyre St Glasgow, I witnessed a disturbance involving my neighbours where a bottle was smashed and used to injure another youth…guess what…if this incident was reported to the local constabulary they didn’t seem to be as interested in that activity than the incident that involved me…I suppose it’s all about priorities and resources…maybe my concerned neighbours are more worried about high end camera equipment than broken bottles…or maybe it’s safer to investigate ‘suspected’ photography deviants than youths brandishing broken bottles?😇
@@bgoode2903 Oh! Yes, indeed, that's pretty incredible! Someone called the police because they saw someone with a photo equipment and the police came for this reason?! YOu have to admit though, that for the police it is much safer to check on photographers "deviants" than on young thugs... I live in a 10-floor building (in Switzerland) and regularly take photos from the birds around with my 200-500 super tele, hope my neighbours won't have the same idea than yours had 😅
In Australia there was a high profile case where a well known photographer was not shooting commercially for some family friends with the opera house in background . it was not commercial and received a fine , it went to court , its also amazing how they determine your commercial if you use a tripod which is stupid. so on the other foot its not allowed on sydneys foreshore to shoot without a permit , but there are thousands of tourists around , some with tripods! but its ok for the council during the event called vivid to get everyone to tag the event on social media platforms and get free advertising.
The Sydney Foreshore Authority are notorious for 'protecting' their environment and the architecture in it. The Opera House and Bridge in particular are completely off limits for commercial photography without a License/Permit. And should you want to do any video work at a 'commercial level' you will be faced with insurmountable (for many) insurance requirements.
@@barrieshepherd7694 yes , but its just stops the average good photographers doing fun shoots . like a model shoot, i always think , hey we pay our taxes already and in a public space . The opera house was funded by the public in the first place really .
@@057rcbartman Oh I certainly don't support the SHFA one bit - just stating my understanding of their 'rules' Not sure if they have ever managed to enforce them in a Court though.
So i went to film school in the US and a prof once told us "even if the cops can't take your footage it doesnt mean they wont try and that they wont make your life hell if you try to stop them. The best thing to do is to always have a dumpy sd card on hand that the camera guy or producer can palm to act like you are taking it out of the camera and give it to the cops. It also helps for street photography when someone gets on your case because they dont understand how sidewalks work." He also told us it always helps to have a extra person on set when you are shooting somewhere you are not supposed to to keep watch. when they see security or the cops coming you have them walk to the cops instead of them walking to you and try and fast talk them. that way you keep shooting. that way the extra person can try and be like "look, we are almost done, can we just finish this shot?" make sure they say they are in charge or like a producer or something so the cops think they are talking to someone important
I was asked in the 1990's by security to not take photos, I was on a pavement outside a factory, however they said if I stood on the opposite side of the road I was OK to continue doing so. In India many museums and historic sites have charges for photography and video. Many museums here in UK have signs about photography.
I had an amazing thing happen about 15 years ago in France. I got off a train at my local station and took a photo of the engine at the front. It was a 30 year-old electric of which there were more than 300 in service. Every single detail about them can be found in books and magazines. An employee came out and told me I couldn't take photos of it. Because the EU had opened up the network to private companies, the SNCF (national rail company) was afraid of "industrial espionage". A bit like banning photos of "Flying Scotsman". I couldn't stop laughing. On another occasion, in Belgium, I was told by police that I couldn't photograph engines from the carpark as it was a "strategic location" but I could take photos on the platform.
What an excellent video…full of facts and information. I’ve never fallen foul of any of the laws in this video. I’m on long term vacation in Mindanao Philippines and many people, when they see my camera, have stopped me in the street and asked me to take their photo which I’m happy to do. I’ve even known motorcyclists to stop in the middle of the road and ask for a photo.
Thank you for such an informative video. It is increasingly common for security guards to stop photographers from taking photos, especially inside a shopping centre. I have been stopped and questioned because I was carrying a camera. However, when I asked if I can take photos and videos with my mobile phone like the women sitting behind me, they said yes! So, guess what. I continued taking photos with my phone inside the Bull Ring!
No-one has the right to ask you to stop using a camera. They only have the right to ask you to leave the premises if it is a private property. Copied directly from the MET police guidance for officers page "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."
@@LetsClickPhotographyI watched an episode of black belt barrister and he stated even shops or similar, although may be a private business, the place would still be classed as a public place or space as you say they could ask you to leave their premises. Funny how every shop films us, I know it's for security and they can because It's their property, having said that they are liable under GDPR which the average public is not.
@@LetsClickPhotographyA shopping centre is not a public place, though - it is private property. There are strong arguments that there is an implied licence for the public to enter a shopping centre, but this does not make the land a public place. Moreover, an implied licence that arose without payment is essentially revocable at any time by the landowner and their agents (security guards etc.) and is also limited as to purpose. The landowner's intention is that you enter a shopping centre to browse and purchase goods and services, perhaps also to meet people and consume food and drink sold in the shops. Entering to photograph places or people puts you in a grey area with respect to the implied licence.
@@DavidWood2 whilst I don’t doubt that argument, it still holds true that you cannot be ‘told’ to stop photographing. You can be asked and then told to leave if that request is refused. At that point it becomes a point of trespass but photographing in a private space is not of itself illegal, especially one in which privacy would not be expected.
On a couple of occasions I have been approached by Jobs Worth shopping centre security people with the "You can't take pictures here" statement - I smile and point out that they are wrong, I just have taken pictures, and my camera worked perfectly. Fools then follow me around till they get bored. Never have they asked me to leave - which of course I would have to do.
Very interesting topic, good presentation! :) Data privacy laws, especially GDPR are often used as an excuse for not allowing this or that even though they don't even apply there.
Times they are a changing! Just this summer had my first run-in with someone while out hiking with Otis and demanded to see my camera and footage as she was convinced that I had been filming her...I politely declined and we made our way with the air being filled with her obscenities. A friend who does street scenes was told that he was not allowed to take images of a building from his vantage point on public property even here in Nova Scotia. Even though people have not rights to deny such instances, some think that they have the right to do whatever they wish. Such great information and I am sure that every one who takes pictures of any kind have stories to tell.
I'm fairly certain that Canada have the same freedom of panorama laws in place as the UK, I haven't looked into it enough to say for sure but Canada was listed alongside the UK as having the highest freedoms within the act when I was researching the UK act of parliament. But you're right of course, many people believe that they know best and have a right to demand things. Just as you did, I find the best course of action to just walk away......profanities and all haha
I've recently photographed two NT properties here in Cambridgeshire, and both times the staff have watched me and said nothing other than to remind me not to use flash. These are Wimpole Hall and Anglesey Abbey. I'd not been using a tripod or flash in either case.
There is a wealth of information about photography on NT property - just look at their website and do a bit of Googling. Rules do vary between property often because not all items inside buildings are NT property, some parts of estates are still privately owned and occupied. As others have said flash and tripods are not allowed inside although I have used a tripod without comment outside where it does not block a thoroughafare.
Good guide , but a couple of comments . While , in general , you can photograph or film anything you can see from a public place , there are a few exceptions . The first and most obvious one is military installations : army , navy or air force bases ; other places with connections to security services , and indeed places like prisons can be 'sensitive' about people taking pictures around them ; having said that , I've taken pictures and video inside prisons by prior arrangement , and usually escorted by a member of staff just to guide me what I can and cannot photograph ; similarly on board an active Royal Navy Warship , I had an escort . Some airports can also be quite sensitive about photography on their premises , but if you're just taking pictures of aircraft from a distance it isn't a problem . In general photography in railway stations is fine , as long as you don't get in anyone's way , and it's usually polite to just ask any staff on duty before you go ahead . One notable addition is concerns about privacy ; it ought to be common sense that photography in places like public lavatories or swimming pool changing areas is absolutely forbidden ; but less obvious is photos of people in and around their homes ; while you can absolutely take pictures of someone in an open front garden , which is readily visible from the street , it is NOT ok to photograph someone , for example , sunbathing in an enclosed back garden , where there IS a reasonable expectation of privacy , even if you are in an elevated position with a view over a high wall ; similarly , it is illegal to point cameras into peoples windows and photograph them within their homes , again that is a private place where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy . Finally , and related to that , you cannot take identifiable photos of people inside a private motor vehicle , even when it is on a public road ; that is why a PRIVATE car is called that , and that is why speed cameras are only permitted to take general photos from behind ; if your photos show individuals who can be identified from your photos , then it is illegal because it is a breach of privacy , people do and are entitled to have an expectation of privacy when inside their private cars , even if is just so they can pick their noses at the traffic lights ! I'm surprised none of the vigilantes who go around photographing people using phones inside cars haven't yet been prosecuted for this . Vehicles CAN be photographed from the front for traffic violations , but the recording should only show the number plate along with speed and time data , and should not directly identify the occupants , faces would need to be blurred if otherwise captured ; again this goes back to privacy laws where , for example , a married man who was photographed out in his car with someone else's wife and the photograph resulted in a divorce , could sue the photographer or agency for invasion of privacy .
Have you got references for the 'private vehicle' legislation. Cars are classed as public places as far as a search for, eg, knives or guns is concerned - having a knife or a gun in a public place without good reason? -
Basically the same in the US. However, those interfering with a photographer who is well within their rights to photograph is a criminal act in certain instances.
A 100% worthwhile video covering what has remained in the gray area for too long. What I don't understand is, why it has 156 thumbs down? Could this be the selfy flock?
Awesome video, and thank you for the research and effort behind it. I’ve been out of the UK for almost a decade now, but only got into photography while away. Planning to finally get back later this year and have been wondering about these exact issues. I suppose a thank you to the algorithm for suggesting your video too!
Spotted a suspicious looking character filming The Ivy in this film Dave 😂😂 Very interesting stuff and well worth doing your own research especially when out and about in other countries as the rules vary so much ! The NT is a very interesting one especially re Drone flying which appears to be a no no at all the sites I’ve visited so far and another film on this topic would be welcomed from me anyway. All good informative stuff and see you soon for a catch up in town 👍🏻👍🏻
I'd forgotten that piece of footage was in here, when I read your comment I had to skim through to see who it was haha....it's you! There is actually a test case that can be used in relation to the NT and drone flying. I'm checking into it further but I'm at the point where I believe the NT have no grounds to have that rule in place and it doesn't seem to be enforceable.....as long as certain criteria is followed. Interesting to read their page on Drone Flying and their reasoning for their blanket ban, they're using lines from the drone code and then giving 'how they translate' backup to the ban, imo some definite overreach in action there. Looking forward to it mate.
@@LetsClickPhotography Yes, it's pretty clear that the NT does not own the airspace over their properties. Of course, you don't have permission to fly from NT land, but if you fly from outside their boundaries using a 249g drone and don't breach the rules on flying that drone, they really have no legal means of preventing you from taking aerial photographs that could include their properties.
@@RexxSchneider Surprisingly, this covers theme parks too. Due to the recent overhauls (and new rollercoaster) at Thorpe Park and Alton Towers, people have been flying drones over the parks taking photos. As you say, as long as you aren't taking off from their land, you're fine. They don't own the airspace.
Great video, thanks. I've been approached while in a public area by building security in London, who asked if I had a permit to photograph the buildings. I said I was a tourist like all the other people around here, just taking personal photos. He said my gear was clearly professional and that I needed to apply to the council for a permit and said I couldn't continue taking pictures. I wasn't up for an argument as I was just out for fun, so I left. While shooting at a local bike park, a rider broke his leg, and paramedics came to take him to hospital. I took some shots of him being stretchered off, and all the paramedics said I wasn't allowed to take photographs and that I had to show them that I had deleted any containing them doing their job. Most lads at the park, when they have any incident, always ask if there are any shots so they can post on instagram. But they wouldn't progress until I deleted my shots.
Most of the city of London, including pathways (sidewalks for yanks) and the little parks /open spaces are privately owned. Train stations are another, also different local councils have different rules regarding filming and permits needed. ( not photographing). Some councils say that a tripod is professional equipment thus requiring a permit, particularly if it’s on a path. It’s nothing to do with the footage obtained, but it’s because it can be seen as obstruction and someone could trip over it. To get a permit you need to provide proof of insurance thus taking liability away from the council. That’s all it is.
Great information mate! And after reading through the comments, seems to be quite a few gray areas, just like over here. We have similar "laws"... absolutely no drone flying from within national parks, some state parks, and even some country and city parks. I know Jim Fisher did a couple videos on the on again, off again enforcement within the parks. Its all a bit of a mess if you ask me. I've had a couple of minor run-ins here while photographing some of these old buildings around here (local business owners)... paranoid that I'm from the city doing code enforcement or something 😂 Always a great learning mate, nice work! Have a great weekend pal, chat soon!
Thanks mate, yeah it's a hot topic about the National Trust over here, much the same as the National Parks over there. A lot of the 'rules' here are over reaching , using ambiguous language to scare photographers (and drone flyers) into submission. If you know your stuff though the UK laws are pretty much on the side of photographers......and we have a little more leeway when it comes to private land trespass over here (I would be being far more aware stateside of the repercussions of that). Funny thing is our National Parks are the result of (in part) a mass organised trespass in 1932 in what would become the Peak District. At that time most land was fenced off from the public by private landowners and this was one of the things that got the issue being discussed in parliament - 17 years later the PD became the first National Park.
@@LetsClickPhotography holy smokes mate, you've hit the "views" jackpot on this one! Congratulations! And a massive congratulations on moving way past the 3K sub mark! The last time I checked you were just shy of it and now you've blown past it!
I’ve had no problems taking personal photos on NT property or in their buildings. However I always ask their policy on entry. Usually it is OK if you ensure there is no flash - which could affect old fabrics and art works etc. if there is a special exhibition of art work or historical items, you may be told you can’t take photos of the objects. I would prefer stricter rules in art galleries where people stand in front of an art work to take selfies though!! Asking is always the safest option!
Selfies at all locations, inside or outside, should be illegal!! When I have tried to take landscape vista photographs at Australian tourist spot there are hordes of tourists each taking selfies of each other blocking views.
A saying I've heard in the cycling world is relevant here - knowing you had right of way doesn't mean much when you're underneath a car. Knowing your legal rights as a photographer is great and all, but if someone is going to beat the living crap out of you if you don't delete a photo then sometimes it's better to back down.
My camera has duel card slots. Just record an image on both, then when someone complains, simply delete one copy and leave the other intact. (Of course if there is a reasonable excuse to ask you to delete a picture of someone, then on a human level I think you should delete it completely. It’s only a photograph).
Just found your channel - very useful and well explained info and,yes,i have subscribed ! One thing that always seems to cause confusion and i'm not sure if you mentioned it is if you are on public land taking photos that's on private land, not people but perhaps an old private building. I'd always thought that was permissible but i'd appreciate some comments on that situation.
Basically privately owned spaces that are open to the public have certain conditions which must be observed to continue to be allowed access. - such as no skateboarding, no photography etc etc. it should however be noted somewhere what the restrictions are though I don’t believe it’s required by law. so technically the security can ask you to stop doing the thing, on the grounds of if you don’t, you forfeit your right to be there. It’s also worth noting that although tresspass is a civil matter, if you continue to ignore the request to leave, knowing that you are now committing tresspass, it then becomes aggravated tresspass which is a criminal offense.
personally if I take a shot and a car is in it I will always blur the plate of the car, if people are in the shot its almost always a crowd so I tend to keep faces in but when it comes to license plates I always blur them
📸 Absolutely stunning! 🇬🇧 Love learning about photography laws in the UK. 📷 Such valuable info presented in a captivating way! 👏 Keep up the fantastic work! 🌟
I travelled to Battersea Power Station (Station) to photograph the new station, whilst there I thought it would be an opportunity to photograph the actual new site/previous Power Station. Which is an outside space open to the public, soon got approached by security, they took offence to the professional equipment I was using, and I could be taking shots into apartments (16-35mm f2.8 😂), they suggested I when to the management suite to seek permission and a permit (didn’t bother) but the site has lots of signs advising people they might be photographed (that’s mad)
I did a shoot for Chit and Chaat restaurant in Deansgate Square a couple months back and actually saw a photographer being hassled by security through the window. Most security guards I've ever had to speak to have no idea of the laws whatsoever, just a blanket belief that they're in the right :(
As a former bbc cameraman I had problems with man United. If you would like to know an interesting fact about access to their perceived property please get back to me. Also areas called precincts of the court.
Thank you, great information. I was approached by station staff at a local railway station and told I couldn't photograph buildings or trains from the station, and if I did he would call the police and report me under terrorism laws!
They can call the police, and the police can come and talk to you, but unless you are behaving in a suspicious manner, they cant do anything else. (And they can't just say that in their opinion you are behaving suspiciously, they have to have some evidence that you are - they are not above the laws they are there to enforce).
I have taken photos at over 150 stations in the South East (SWR area) in the last 2 years. At many smaller ones, they're either unstaffed, or there's just one or two staff members there and mostly they either didn't say anything or they came over and said hi and asked what I was doing. My stock answers was "I'm just a train enthusiast taking photos of trains", which was more or less true (although I did want to get photos of the station architecture too). Most were satisfied by my explanation and said ok carry on. Some said "ok but don't take any photos of signals and CCTV cameras and stay behind the yellow line". At the bigger stations I had a few staff members shout at me and say "oi, what are you doing!?". To which I gave them my standard answer and they mostly just said the same things. At a few of the busiest ones, I was asked to go and sign in at the station managers office, and a couple of times I even got a lanyard (in particular at Waterloo). Once I'd done this, nobody bothered me. Basically, as long as you act calm and pleasant and just say you're photographing trains, they will leave you alone.
That's particularly odd, as Network Rail does not prohibit photography on train stations, unless it's commercial photography, or if you're taking photos of security related equipment, such as CCTV. Otherwise, they're quite happy with photography, especially if you see suspicious or unusual things. So technically, you have already obtained permission to take photos in the station. There's an article about it on the Network Rail website.
@@DaedalusYoung Staff on the ground don't always know their own rules in reality, or they use the excuses of safety and security to be more heavy handed than they should.
@@DaedalusYoungYou should speak with the staff in the information office to what you are doing as this should clarify what you can and cannot do whilst in the station. Remember that stations can be subject to laws and byelaws which is why you should inform staff before filming.
Interested in a National Trust, English Heritage and Forrestry Commission piece. Notably the Forrestry Commission has a site at Grizedale with artwork on their forrest trails.
These are mostly issues with the law of England and Wales. Scotland has its own legal system. For example, there is no law of trespass in Scotland. You can go anywhere you like, as long as you are not impacting anyone's privacy. And while the National Trust get a bit uppity about commercial photography on their properties, there are no such issues with the National Trust of Scotland, who actively encourage it.
Im not sure what you mean by Public Trust buildings,basically in this country providing you are on public land you can take a photo of anything you want, there are some exceptions though
In London, the open areas around the South Bank, and around Canary Wharf for example, are private but with public access, so they can ask you to stop. There was a scene with children hardly identifiable, playing in the fountains. I was asked by an official (not parents) to stop as I confirmed I was not a relation. It seems they assume you are a paedophile unless you can prove you are not. You can take pictures of children on public land, although if a parent requests you dont, it would be moral and polite to stop. Bert Hardy took iconic press photos of kids on the street in his day.
Brilliant advice. I have worked in publishing for several decades and didn’t realise that photographs of architecture in the UK don’t infringe the IP of the architects (as is the case in many countries). Does this apply throughout the UK or just in the law of England and Wales?
Recently visited Lancaster castle everything was going fine until going through the main gates and was swarmed by a couple of security people who advised me that it was fine to take photographs but if I put the camera on my tripod then there would be a £600 fee to pay for the privalage.
I can see their point - photographers messing around with tripods at busy tourist spots can cause obstruction and 'safety' issues. There is also the view that a photographer wanting to use a tripod is a little more than happy snapper and could well be aiming to make money from their photographs of the location so the location owners want their cut.
@@barrieshepherd7694I have never seen the place crowded with tourist and the security people asked me if I was an amateur or professional. I am certainly an amateur at the time equipped with a Canon bridge camera and a £30 tripod which I bought to take reference pics for paintings. However I see your what you are saying.
Worth noting Trespass law in the UK is in most cases a civil law, security guards can threaten to call the police but even if the police come they can’t remove you because you aren’t committing a crime. You don’t even have to leave when the security ask you to, pointless staying if the security is blocking your shot, but worth knowing they can’t intimidate you and they certainly can’t touch you.
Many many years ago I was taking pictures at an RAF airfield where Vulcan bombers were active (yes that long ago) I had my telephoto lens poked through the fence at the side of the runway - a smart member of the Military Police came over and told me - quite sternly - that I could only take pictures if my camera was outside of the fence and I was stood on the footpath not the grass between the fence and the footpath. I retreated and he smiled and mouthed 'Sorry'. Not sure if the Military Police would be that understanding these days!
Interesting, Some good examples of security getting heavy handed is with Drone 'Auditers' a couple af good ones are DJ Audits and ACE Audits, they mainly do industrial estates and can give a real life view from both the security overeach on these sites and the results if ever the police are called in these situations. (basically police can do naff all if filmed from public land) It's really interesting how many security wrongly think they know the law and just because they or the company may not like the practice of filming or drones often doesn't mean it's illegal and there are times when standing up to security bullies is required.
@@tonysutton6559 A very valid point and maybe if they were left to do a legal activity instead of overeaching security rising to the bait and trying to lay down their own view of the law many auditors or 'frauditiors' maybe be out of a job. like them or not they are doing a legal activity and highlighting how security often think the worst and use their limited powers to seemingly create their own legal framework. I'm not against security btw, we need them, just they think often they are the law.
Re taking pictures in galleries..... They are NOT a public space. It is a private space that people are permitted to enter under certain conditions. (See the National Trust fiasco) The same applies to shopping malls and the like. They are private spaces that permit the public access.
You are correct - that is the basis of the Law - but that does not mean you can photograph from private land. The border between public and private is not always obvious.
When it comes to people, it is necessary to consider the law on breach of confidence as it has developed in light of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 10 (right of free expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The law on misuse of private information might be relevant but this is perhaps unlikely to be relevant to photographers unless they are photographing something they know is private and confidential. Another important area to consider is the law on harassment. One area where you cannot take photographs is in a court - doing so is contempt of court and has led to the photographer being sent to prison.
Hey just to be clear, I’m not advocating that everything everywhere is there for a photographers gratification. As I stated in the video my opinion is that we should be using good moral judgement in our decisions as photographers. This vid isn’t there to promote terrible photography practice’s, but to state the facts on the ground. Article 8 (and 10) are directly concerned with state rather than individuals though aren’t they? I may be wrong on that but from loose knowledge I thought that was the case.
The Human Rights Act protects the people from the state and organisations. So the right to privacy is about keeping people's private lives and affairs away from the government and all it's arms including the police. It is not about keeping private or confidential information from other people, especially in a public situation. That's why lots of photographers say the "there is no right to privacy in a public place" as a response to people claiming privacy. What does come into play is more about societal norms. So recording a conversation between two people sitting on a park bench is wrong. Looking over someone's shoulder at an ATM is definitely not allowed. But not a crime. But recording a video of people walking down the street is perfectly acceptable.
@@LetsClickPhotographyThe European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is relevant to the individual because of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires the courts to interpret the law in line with ECHR as far as possible. The consequence of s. 6 HRA 1998 is that ECHR does affect how the law applies to private individuals and other private organisations such as companies. Perhaps the leading case with respect to photography, breach of confidence and ECHR is Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2004] UKHL 22, which I studied in the human rights and tort elements of my law studies at university. However, Campbell was decided before the European Court of Human Rights' ruling in the Von Hannover case, which could potentially change the courts' views of the balance between ECHR rights. Murray v Big Pictures [2008] EWCA Civ 446 is interesting because it shows that sometimes photographs taken in a public place can infringe Article 8 ECHR rights. Like most of the press freedom cases, the focus in Campbell and Murray was on the harm caused by publication, not least because legal action is expensive and most people are not prepared to invest those resources if they do not foresee widespread dissemination of a photograph via publication. What I am unclear about is whether there has been a test case examining drone photography and videography. It is perfectly possible to send up a drone from public land which remains over public land, but which gives a view into private land that would not otherwise be possible. That said, I doubt that such a case is needed because I think the answer is clear from cases involving surreptitiously taken photographs using long telephoto lenses. If photographic equipment is used in such a way that it infringes the reasonable expectation of privacy on private land, especially by going far beyond the unaided view you could obtain from public land, then you are likely to be in breach of confidence and therefore on the wrong side of the law. Whilst I have a broad appreciation of the law in this area, media law is not my specialist area and, in any event, I am not a regulated legal professional. I am explaining the law as I understand it, not giving legal advice. As you say, a good policy is to let sound moral judgment (or you could say, don't be a d*ck) govern our actions. Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.
I used to work in TV. We were working in Nottingham. We were informed by the local Council that they owned the copyright to the image of Nottingham Castle and that they would sue our company if we took or used any images of the castle without purchasing a (very expensive) license from them, even if the image was taken from outside the castle grounds. Clearly the creators of the castle are long dead so there's no valid claim there. How do the Council get away with claiming this? Is this some local bylaw they've passed?
Nottingham City Council are bankrupt so they will try anything to extract money. IANAL but I think they would be laughed out of court if you 'accidently' caught an image of the Castle while taking photographs from another vantage point. Try Sydney and the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (Opera house, Circular Quay, Bridge and Barangaroo park) - their 'commercial terms' are mind blowing.
They may have AN image with copyright of the castle, but they cannot, surely, have a copyright of all photographs or video of the castle from a public space. Maybe the commercial use of the castle image is relevant.
Really interesting and informative video. There seems to be a bit of a grey area to me. For example the NT does not permit commercial photography on their land, which is fair enough, but if I took an image for my own use and posted it on social media and someone took a liking to it and wanted to buy the rights to it for whatever future purpose, then has that image become commercial and, therefore, illegal in the eyes of the NT? No such luck this ever happened to me but presumably it would be the user of the image to seek permissions rather than the original photographer? Just me speculating on totally hypothetical situations instead of doing something useful or sleeping :)
This is something I’m going to talk about in the more in depth NT video coming soon. The byelaws only extend to behaviour upon their land though and speculative photography is personal photography!
I've had exactly the same issue/concern. I can't see the point of getting a licence on the basis that I might get a stunning image from open NT coastline or land, on any given trip, and so if someone were to purchase a print, I suppose I'd have to pay for retrospective commercial permission if that is even possible. Given the vast swathes of coastline and open land that the NT own, I find it rather immoral that they can charge for 'commercial' photos, if get lucky with stunning weather conditions. 😞
@@LetsClickPhotography Thanks for this video. Glad I found it, am new to your channel. Would love to hear your thoughts about potential sale of photos from NT land, if I hadn't gone out with that aim. I have researched NT's policy, which seems to assume you are a shooting commercially, or its personal use.
I have a question if I am out walking and I see a water mill or some other feature in a garden, can I take a photo of it, or do I have to ask the landowner's permission? Thank you very much for this article, it has answered many questions for me.
If the photo is taken from public highway or public right of way, then yes, you can unless it's a breach of privacy (such as if a person is in the photograph eg)
Photographing something does not infringe on any copyright. Publishing or displaying the photograph may infringe depending on whether the photo is derivative or a completely separate work of art. At least this is how it works in the EU. I also wouldn’t trust that map shown, it needs a ton of asterisks to explain what the rules actually mean in each country.
I had two plain clothes officers turn up at my place of work after I'd been stopped and given a notice by a police beat officer, for photographing a building in Woking. I told them why I'd taken the photo and they laughed and apologised for wasting my time.
“UK law” is a broad stroke, England have wildly different laws from those that are in Scotland. Some are shared but others are not and would do your due diligence before you head off wildly photographing things but common sense should prevail.
Had a touch of mither from Media City security a couple of years ago but nothing too serious. More bothered about tripods being used. Great watch and you even included Sale Town Hall where we got married a couple of years ago! Nice one, Richard
Thanks for joining Richard. I've heard a few stories from Media City but never had a problem with security there myself.....the scallys on the other hand!!! And hey, small world, Sale Town Hall is right around the corner from me, I've covered a few weddings there :) Top Stuff, Dave
Is it allowed to take pictures inside a railway station? I was a couple of years ago in a small town north of Birmingham and inside a railway station a woman told me to stop photographing. I was not taking any picture of her but of the architectural construction.
I was shooting the full moon rising through Tower Bridge. I was on the Southbank surrounded by 100's of people taking photos. Security came over to say I could not use my tripod. They were ok with me having it, just not using it.
I'm curious about an incident I experienced. I was in a clothing store (in England) that had a complete wall dedicated to a display of sewing machines, which I started photographing. Security asked me to stop, which I did...... but were they withing their rights to insist that I not take photographs?
absolutely, I had this with a security guard last year. He considered me, in the middle of a public square on a tripod with a really conspicuous camera and lens in full view of all, to potentially be up to no good. I pointed out that the square was littered with people filming and photographing completely discreetly and hidden on their phones. 'Which is more likely to be untoward?' I asked. He shrugged and walked off.
Only this week I was told I was embarrassing* for photographing things with an actual camera. I stuck it in my pocket, pulled out my phone, and kept going. * Good thing that's the worst that happened. 😅
When you are fined or sent to prison, you may regret that action 😂 You still have to follow the law whilst out photographing things, and its up to you to understand what you can or cannot do and to also understand any laws that could affect you.
@@barrieshepherd7694 yes indeed. YT doesn't allow including external links so I request searching for "Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill". Met Police: "Police powers: If we think a drone could be connected to an offence, we can: make you land your drone. stop and search people or vehicles to find drones or drone equipment. confiscate and keep drones or drone equipment found during a search."
As long as you not photographing wildlife on National Trust land! I dislike the NT for several reason - they are a very well off charity but have these very unreasonable attitude towards photographers. They own such vast amounts of land all over the UK. I would never dream of becoming a member. The RSPB, despite their faults, don't seem to mind people photographing birds in their reserves as far as i know, even at a professional level.
Great video, Dave. I've been lucky as I've never been stopped whilst doing street photography. The National Trust is an interesting one. I have seen many photographers selling prints of National Trust monuments. I'm guessing that it isn't something that they actively try and prevent. I'd love to know if you have found any legal cases where they have prosecuted photographers in the past. As smart phones get better and better, this is going to be a rule that is going to be very hard to police. I do know of many drone pilots who fly close to Penshaw monument for example. The National Trust don't allow flying from their land, so the drone pilots take off from outside the NT land and fly over it as airspace is governed by the CAA not the Trust. It would be interesting to know if there was any prosecutions brought by the Trust. I'd be interested in a further video on the subject.
Thanks a bunch mate, I'm glad you've said that as I'm halfway through recording it! haha. Found some really interesting stuff about their byelaws and (in my opinion) the overreach they use to try and scare photographers and, yes, drone pilots too. You're spot on about the CAA and in relation to their rules on drones, there is actually a reference case that would suggest they wouldn't have a hope of a prosecution, if following a few simple rules - TOAL spots, height of flight. Coming up soon I guess :)
Fabulous video Dave, thank you. Always an area that has been somewhat ‘grey’ for me, so this really helped affirm a few points, and clarify others. I see from the comments that you’re already doing the NT video, I think that would be very useful too.
@@martingoff-jones2184thanks Martin. Yes it’s already in the works - well in fact I’ve recorded it twice already….but in each one I managed to go off on a tangent of personal outrage haha
Pretty sure Network Rail have Bylaws about photography which interpret as personal photography without tripods and flash are Ok but commercial photography or use of lighting and tripods requires an approach for permission - primarily to ensure that obstruction is not caused or in the case of lighting no possibility of interfering with the signal lights or dazzling drivers. In general I have always found station staff relaxed by photography so long as it does not gather a crowd or block station and platform access. Maybe I have been lucky!
No. You do not need to respect "laws" that are against official law. BTW: what means "no photography allowed"? Can they proof that you've made a photo?
I believe even on privat land that is publically accessible they can not ask you to,leave because you are just taking pictures, ken livingstone did a couple of videos on this at Canary warf and pretty much told security and police to do one.and he did know the rules as he helped draft them. Think practiacl photography did a couple as wel, woth the police who had an officer very rehearsed in photography laws.
Since recording this, I've found a much better resource than the council websites which covers the whole UK rather than just local council areas: findmystreet.co.uk/map
The National Trust has no rights whatsoever to make any statements about photography on National Trust land. It’s land with public access. That’s the legislation governing the matter. They are clearly misusing the hawking bylaw.
Furthermore, if I’m not mistaken, The National Trust holds land on behalf of the people of this country, therefore they don’t OWN it in the strictest terms. The land is in trust - on OUR behalf.
The way some people panic over photography, especially in an age when EVERYONE has a still camera and video camera with them all the time, is simply ludicrous. It’s ruined real photography.
@@G58 unfortunately you are mistaken. This is the great misnomer of the national trust. It is an incorporated company, independent of government, which operates as a charity.
It has special powers to run itself much like a council of local governance via an act of parliament including the implementation of byelaws. You are invited onto its land by accepting the byelaws.
The statement you refer to is their statement of intent, not a statement on who owns the land.
As a legal entity it is the second largest landowner in the England.
The true public landowner is the forestry commission (which is also the largest landowner) as this is owned and run by government and therefor the people.
@@LetsClickPhotography The official Purpose of the National Trust is
to look after Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty permanently for the benefit of the nation across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
If one defines ‘the nation’ as the state, then the National Trust would potentially have powers over people on National Trust land.
However, if one recognises the fact that without the people, there is no nation, then the true purpose of the the National Trust is indeed to look after Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty permanently for the benefit of the people.
And only a slave gives away powers to others in open spaces.
Whilst on public land I was taking photos around Sullom Voe in the Shetland Isles when I was accosted by oil terminal security staff. We had a perfectly amicable chat, apart from the chap threatening to inform the police if I didn’t give them my name. That went no further when I invited him to do so. This took place at the RAF Sullom Voe memorial.
The following day I had a phone call from the local police. A complaint had been made so the police were obliged to investigate. This wasn’t the first time they’d been informed and they did enough to satisfy the instruction but didn’t take it seriously. The copper came out to meet me as it was better than sitting in the office dealing with a stack of paperwork.
Apparently it had been suggested to the terminal owners that they put up signs prohibiting photography and/or to buy the road leading to the terminal gate, it serves no other property. They’ve refused to do either of those.
The copper had only recently moved from Glasgow and was still in “tourist mode”. Our chat ended with him giving me tips on places to visit.
Some years ago I was commissioned to photograph all the gate signs of defence establishments in the south east of England - as seen from the road.
I arrived at many of them, set up my camera, and watched startled guards turn out, fuss around and generally take their time to react to what they perceived to be a potential threat! I duly took my photos and gave them all enough time to confront me. None did!
A week later I had a call from my local police, and the military police, asking if I had been present at a range of military sites as my car numberplate had been noted there. I confirmed that I had. They then said that they were coming round to confiscate ALL my camera equipment, office equipment and computers. I just laughed at them, which put them on the back foot a little! They asked what I was doing and they told me in no uncertain manner that it was ‘illegal’ to photograph MoD sites, even from the public highway. I informed them that it was quite legal to do that but they ignored me, asking me if I was commissioned to take the shots, even though that really had no bearing on the matter. They said that they would be round to my office to close me down within 30 minutes, citing a breach of the Official Secrets Act as their reason! I gave them a phone number to call and then asked them to call me back. My commissioning officer worked at the Ministry of Defence and the shots were simply to illustrate the different range of signage used at defence sites! Naturally nothing more was ever heard from the police! Even if I was shooting the images as a private individual, anything photographed from a public highway is legal. Never allow yourself to be bullied by those who think that their authoritative position allows them to ride roughshod over your rights!
Great, informative video 👍🏼
Actually as you were commissioned to do so, you were classed as being authorised, though you should have had some form of confirmation on you for the work as this would have stopped any confusion and approaching the guard room with this info would have meant you would have been left alone.
The rest of the information re the OSA is actually correct though it has now been replaced by the National Security Act 2023, you can be charged for taking pictures OF a prohibited place (anywhere used for defence or HM Forces) and be subjected to a fine or imprisonment. Section 5 and 7 of the 2023 NSA are your references for this, this includes taking pictures from public land of that establishment unless there is a specific area set aside by the MOD for photographs (such as a viewing spot for aircraft spotters/photographers).
That's rubbish.
I've just read that and it only relates to a "Person" who has accessed the "Prohibited Place" and then takes photographs or video!!
And not taken photographs or video from a public place!!
@@stephenjp13 I don't know what you were reading but it wasn't the legislation regarding this, there is also no mention of public spaces as that has nothing to do with photography or where you can do photography, laws on the otherhand over rule anything you may think a photographer can do.
The 2023 NSA says this.
the person-
(i)accesses, enters, inspects or passes over or under a prohibited place, or
(ii)causes an unmanned vehicle or device to access, enter, inspect or pass over or under a prohibited place,
(3)In subsection (1)(a) a reference to inspecting a prohibited place includes taking, or procuring the taking of, photographs, videos or other recordings of the prohibited place.
The 1911 OSA says this.
(a)approaches, [F1inspects, passes over] or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act; or
(b)makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy; or
The expression “sketch” includes any photograph or other mode of representing any place or thing;
I took one photo of the outside of a shopping centre, then as I walked in with the lens cap over my DSLR, but hanging from its strap, 3 security guards congregated around me and told me no photos or videos allowed of the place as it was private property. They didn’t seem bothered when I pointed out loads of other people filming with their phones, and even showed them lens cap was on, yet dozens make TikTok videos in the centre, so just me.
The one thing you missed at 1:52 is that many 2D works of art are _out of copyright_ simply because the term of their copyright has expired. There clearly cannot be an infringement of a copyright that no longer exists, so you cannot be restricted from photography on grounds of copyright under those circumstances. Photography may be restricted for other reasons, of course, but not for copyright infringement in the UK, for example with a painting whose composer died over 70 years ago.
The only time I've been challenged when I was taking photographs was when I was approached by two security guards at Media City, Salford. They asked if I had a permit from the land owners. I was approached because I was using a camera on a tripod because I was using slow shutter speeds. I explained that what I was doing was no different from all the people who were taking images using their phones. They wouldn't have it because I had a 'professional camera'. I explained that I was not a professional photographer doing professional work. They radioed a supervisor then asked me if my pictures were for personal use (which I'd already explained) and I confirmed that. The supervisor confirmed I was fine do do what I was doing. The conversation with security was friendly enough and I stayed reasonable and calm throughout. Some people might start getting arsey and argumentative when challenged which, in the end, helps no one. Attitude, on both sides, is key.
A really good, informative video.
Private land is not a public place even if the public are allowed admittance to that private land.
Personally, I would never discuss/explain ANYTHING I was doing to ANY jobsworth individual who confronted me in a PUBLIC space.
Why take on THEIR problem. Totally IGNORE such numpties and let THEM decide what their next move will be.
Responding to IDIOTS never results in a happy outcome.
@@fontybitsIgnorance stems from those people who think they have a right to do anything they want, regardless of whether it is right or not.
The fact that private land is not owned by the person with the camera means that they can be asked what they are doing, being ignorant and not explaining your situation will not benefit any photographers that come afterwards.
If you cannot be polite, interact with people or explain what you are doing so that you can ensure the next person that comes along won't be hassled means you probably don't have the attitude to be a photographer in the first place as like every hobby or profession, people love to talk about what they do.
@@tonyb1223 "Ignorance........regardless of whether it is right or not." REGARDLESS??????? If I KNOW that something is right, I don't have to acknowledge an individual who hasn't got a clue about it. End of! 😀
@@fontybits And that makes you ignorant, because you have not acknowledged them and are instead ignoring them, this shows that you either lack the understanding of the issue or are uneducated in the subject matter that you have no reply to either educate them or that you understand the issue and explain where they are wrong.
Being right and silent is just as bad as being noisy and wrong.
Back in the early 2000s, I took a photo of a cute young woman aged around twenty leaning on the balustrade at Trafalgar Square. She caught my eye because she was wearing a rainbow-coloured hat with brightly coloured earphones, and she had a pretty face to match, though the photo was taken at an angle so you couldn't see it completely. I uploaded the photo onto Flickr with a Creative Commons Attribution licence.
Some years later she commented on the photo and seemed surprised that I'd taken it. She had been told of its existence by her aunt, I seem to recall. Even more years went by and, probably when she was in her early thirties, an online magazine used my photo under the CC-A licence as the lead image on an article about drug use. I had no idea this had happened until the lady was told about the article by someone else. Understandably, she was really upset and she asked me to take the photo down, which I did willingly. I'm really against this kind of misuse of anyone's photos. I replaced her photo with a black image with an explanation as to why I'd taken the original down. I emailed the magazine and told them in no uncertain terms what they'd done wrong and that they were never to ever use any of my images again. I explained to the woman in the photo how I'd tried to put things right and she seemed less upset, though there's always the possibility that the image and article might have been republished elsewhere.
If she had told me that she wanted to sue the magazine company for every penny she could get, I'd have willingly stood in court and testified on her behalf. But she was Italian, over here at the time studying, I believe. She almost certainly didn't know our laws, or how they differ from Italy's. And I doubt that she could testify without having to spend a lot of money.
The magazine is at fault, because the image didn't come with a model release license. Any stock image website offers multiple licenses, and if there are recognisable people in the image, whoever wants to use the image must pay for an additional model license. The Creative Commons license only applies to the image, the model isn't covered under that.
Did you ever get a response from the magazine?
She had no right to ask you to take the image off the site. She could have objected years before but chose not to. Opportunity missed.
Her issue was obviously with the magazine. Not sure what case she could make though.
You did the wrong thing by removing it.
@@G58She didn't ask me to take the image off the site. She couldn't have objected until she knew the image was there. And she contacted me as soon as she knew.
If you release photos of people with a CC license, you should definitely ask the subject if it is ok, preferably in writing. You are responsible for every use you authorize for your photos. A CC license is extremely broad and you have zero control over the photo’s usage, so this is something that probably happens much more than people realize. Protect your subjects and ask for consent if you give away free usage rights!
@@stickgarrote8582 The law here in the UK says that no one has an expectation of privacy in a public place. And although I have zero control over the photo's usage, this is not my responsibility. But thanks for your thoughts on the subject.
Great well presented information.
Some years ago I went to my local shopping mall wishing to photograph a model……..Although the mall was full of public I aired on the side of caution and went to see the mall manager and politely asked for permission which he granted me.
He instructed his security to afford any help I might need and were so polite and helpful.
The problem today has been the rise in Terrorism and acts of………so this has caused concern with security guards trying to keep us all safe.
"Security guards trying to keep us all safe". Yeah ... right.
A terrorist who is taking photos with evil intent will not be carrying a camera with a big wide aperture lens sticking out of the front of it. He'll be holding an iPhone pretending to have a conversation or send a text. And they know that.
But the guy with the camera is visible; so why not?
I only ever had one instance where I was questioned by a police officer regarding the use of my camera. He was really angry and unnecessarily threatening but I stood my ground and kept asking what law I’d broken. In the end, perhaps because several witnesses that had gathered due to his agitation, he backed down and scuttled off. One of his colleagues came and explained, politely, the nature of the incident and asked, respectfully, if I would consider deleting the images I had taken. Given the reasonable approach and explanation, I was more than happy to comply. Attitude is everything.
I agree with you about attitude…from both sides. The fact is that some
young police officers on the beat are unsure of the law re photography in public or private places. Its not exactly a priority for them. But equally I think the police should be able to engage with people taking photos, always realising, in most cases, people taking the photos are doing nothing wrong. Equally the photographer needs a bit of common sense about when it’s appropriate to take photographs in public. I suppose that’s what makes street photography potentially an area of conflict and that’s not with the police either.
Never ever delete images. It doesn’t matter who asks. We don’t live in a Nazi state.
I think I have had three instances, at least that I remember as they were all over a decade ago.. The first I was taking photos when a Met officer turned up on a motorcycle. I was taking photos on the street and not realized I was dong it outside the MI5 headquarters. But I explained what I was doing and he was happy and left me to it. Another time was a plain clothed officer after I had got on a tube train at Canary Wharf because I had been taken photos waiting for the train. I was leaving anyway and he just said to not take photos there and left, but that was weird. Thought the estate and station are covered by by-laws.
The third time was in the City of London and I was photographing a street when a City of London officer asked what I was doing. Apparently there was a Church of Scientology on it and so it had called the police. I had already moved further down the street so by that point did not matter, but it still annoys me. Even if I was photographing the church it would have been perfectly legal, and the police should have told it so rather that acting as its own private [overreaching] security firm.
You were photographing an accident?
@@Mezman999
No.
Please note that when referring to the law in the UK you have to recognise that Scotland had a separate legal system so referring to the whole of UK as a single unit is incorrect. For instance the law of trespass is very different in Scotland with the right to roam laws in effect.
That is an important consideration and even more so in the USA, as you have 50 states where the law of trespass can differ significantly. As a general rule in the US, if you can see it from a public space you can photograph it.
Also, the National Trust for Scotland is a quite different organisation from the National Trust, and is also rather more chill.
One thing to note is that on the Underground you can do photography freely however you will be asked to stop if you setup a tripod and get spotted and Flashes are strictly prohibited.
Very informative video buddy, thanks for the upload. The overreach on behalf of security, police etc is always an issue. It's made more problematic by certain people stating that they're not covered by GDPR, that they're private individuals blah, blah, blah, then go on to state that they make money from their videography on youtube. I think for the most part, common sense prevails. I live in a semi rural environment now, most folk understand what I'm doing as a photographer, but if push comes to shove, they don't like what I'm doing then I'll respect their wishes. Saves on arguments. It seems the more you gravitate towards urban environments, bigger cities, that the issue becomes such a great problem.
I was thrown out of the National Portrait Gallery in London, for photographing an artist making a sketch of a statue, even though she gave me permission to make her photo. In my defence, I stated that there was no public expectation of privacy in an art gallery. They showed me a document which declared their policy and regulations, which forbade the photography of people in the gallery. Ironic, as the gallery is full of photos. Haven’t been back there since and most of my photography is now in remote parts of the world. I now have no interest in photographing London or people on it’s streets.
The National Portrait Gallery, while open to the public, is not a public place. It's exactly the same for any privately owned premises to which the public have even almost unfettered access and they have exactly the same rights as you have in your own home; i.e. they can permit or forbid entry and photography as they wish. Shopping malls are a good example.
A few weeks ago, I was taking some pictures of the St Martin Church in Birmingham which is next to the Bullring shopping center.There is a hill which divides between the 2 wings of the shopping center. The top of the hill is a great view of the church. I took a few shots, angling towards the church and this security woman approached me asking if I had a permit. I said no. It turns out i am standing on private property (the hill between the 2 wings entrances of the bullring shopping mall). Even though I wasn't taking pictures of the mall at all, without a permit I wasn't even able to stand there with my camera since its considered a professional camera. I asked how is this any different to a professional photographer/videographer who uses a smartphone entirely to do the same thing but just on their phone. She just couldn't seem to answer this to me, and told me I had walk a few meters after the hill where it becomes public footpath if I wish to use my camera. I did not wish to argue and just walked along. Later that same day, at the same spot, when night fall, I was walking through and there's a northern light display at the same spot where I was taking pictures of the church. And they were many other photographers taking pictures with their camera of the Northern Lights with obviously the common folks with their smartphone. I highly doubt that those photographers have a permit as well.
The law is one thing, common sense is another. It annoys me when photographers set out to deliberately
antagonize people.
😂 Just say it "Auditors"
I once visited Liverpool and as I just arrived at the Lime Street Train Station, I was photographing pigeons in the ceiling of the building and a security guard approached me to ask me what I was doing. He was reassured by my explanations and didn't ask a delete or to leave. But I had an analogous "problem" while photographing pigeons in a street park in Rouen (France), as behind the pigeons were a small groups of thugs/small drug dealers sitting on a bench - one of them came to "ask" what I just had photographed and "asked" (="forced") me to delete the photos they were on (in the background...).
I live in Glasgow, I had some misfortune and had to rent council property for a time, I once decided to photograph an interesting sky…I pointed my camera upwards towards the sky…I was in a top floor tenement flat. About a half hour later I noticed police cars swarming around and enquired to one of the police officers what was their interest…after a short conversation they explained that a complaint had been made about someone photographing stuff from a window. Yeah it was me, I let them in and gave them access to my computer files that supported a genuine interest in photography, we actually had a laugh…but on reflection I struggle to find an argument that justified what I experienced…during my stay in Altyre St Glasgow, I witnessed a disturbance involving my neighbours where a bottle was smashed and used to injure another youth…guess what…if this incident was reported to the local constabulary they didn’t seem to be as interested in that activity than the incident that involved me…I suppose it’s all about priorities and resources…maybe my concerned neighbours are more worried about high end camera equipment than broken bottles…or maybe it’s safer to investigate ‘suspected’ photography deviants than youths brandishing broken bottles?😇
@@bgoode2903 Oh! Yes, indeed, that's pretty incredible! Someone called the police because they saw someone with a photo equipment and the police came for this reason?! YOu have to admit though, that for the police it is much safer to check on photographers "deviants" than on young thugs... I live in a 10-floor building (in Switzerland) and regularly take photos from the birds around with my 200-500 super tele, hope my neighbours won't have the same idea than yours had 😅
In Australia there was a high profile case where a well known photographer was not shooting commercially for some family friends with the opera house in background . it was not commercial and received a fine , it went to court , its also amazing how they determine your commercial if you use a tripod which is stupid. so on the other foot its not allowed on sydneys foreshore to shoot without a permit , but there are thousands of tourists around , some with tripods! but its ok for the council during the event called vivid to get everyone to tag the event on social media platforms and get free advertising.
The Sydney Foreshore Authority are notorious for 'protecting' their environment and the architecture in it. The Opera House and Bridge in particular are completely off limits for commercial photography without a License/Permit. And should you want to do any video work at a 'commercial level' you will be faced with insurmountable (for many) insurance requirements.
@@barrieshepherd7694 yes , but its just stops the average good photographers doing fun shoots . like a model shoot, i always think , hey we pay our taxes already and in a public space . The opera house was funded by the public in the first place really .
@@057rcbartman Oh I certainly don't support the SHFA one bit - just stating my understanding of their 'rules' Not sure if they have ever managed to enforce them in a Court though.
So i went to film school in the US and a prof once told us "even if the cops can't take your footage it doesnt mean they wont try and that they wont make your life hell if you try to stop them. The best thing to do is to always have a dumpy sd card on hand that the camera guy or producer can palm to act like you are taking it out of the camera and give it to the cops. It also helps for street photography when someone gets on your case because they dont understand how sidewalks work." He also told us it always helps to have a extra person on set when you are shooting somewhere you are not supposed to to keep watch. when they see security or the cops coming you have them walk to the cops instead of them walking to you and try and fast talk them. that way you keep shooting. that way the extra person can try and be like "look, we are almost done, can we just finish this shot?" make sure they say they are in charge or like a producer or something so the cops think they are talking to someone important
I was asked in the 1990's by security to not take photos, I was on a pavement outside a factory, however they said if I stood on the opposite side of the road I was OK to continue doing so.
In India many museums and historic sites have charges for photography and video.
Many museums here in UK have signs about photography.
I had an amazing thing happen about 15 years ago in France. I got off a train at my local station and took a photo of the engine at the front. It was a 30 year-old electric of which there were more than 300 in service. Every single detail about them can be found in books and magazines. An employee came out and told me I couldn't take photos of it. Because the EU had opened up the network to private companies, the SNCF (national rail company) was afraid of "industrial espionage". A bit like banning photos of "Flying Scotsman". I couldn't stop laughing.
On another occasion, in Belgium, I was told by police that I couldn't photograph engines from the carpark as it was a "strategic location" but I could take photos on the platform.
What an excellent video…full of facts and information. I’ve never fallen foul of any of the laws in this video. I’m on long term vacation in Mindanao Philippines and many people, when they see my camera, have stopped me in the street and asked me to take their photo which I’m happy to do. I’ve even known motorcyclists to stop in the middle of the road and ask for a photo.
Solid, common-sensical advice - Thank you.
Thank you for such an informative video. It is increasingly common for security guards to stop photographers from taking photos, especially inside a shopping centre. I have been stopped and questioned because I was carrying a camera. However, when I asked if I can take photos and videos with my mobile phone like the women sitting behind me, they said yes! So, guess what. I continued taking photos with my phone inside the Bull Ring!
No-one has the right to ask you to stop using a camera. They only have the right to ask you to leave the premises if it is a private property. Copied directly from the MET police guidance for officers page "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."
@@LetsClickPhotographyI watched an episode of black belt barrister and he stated even shops or similar, although may be a private business, the place would still be classed as a public place or space as you say they could ask you to leave their premises. Funny how every shop films us, I know it's for security and they can because It's their property, having said that they are liable under GDPR which the average public is not.
@@LetsClickPhotographyA shopping centre is not a public place, though - it is private property. There are strong arguments that there is an implied licence for the public to enter a shopping centre, but this does not make the land a public place. Moreover, an implied licence that arose without payment is essentially revocable at any time by the landowner and their agents (security guards etc.) and is also limited as to purpose. The landowner's intention is that you enter a shopping centre to browse and purchase goods and services, perhaps also to meet people and consume food and drink sold in the shops. Entering to photograph places or people puts you in a grey area with respect to the implied licence.
@@DavidWood2 whilst I don’t doubt that argument, it still holds true that you cannot be ‘told’ to stop photographing. You can be asked and then told to leave if that request is refused. At that point it becomes a point of trespass but photographing in a private space is not of itself illegal, especially one in which privacy would not be expected.
On a couple of occasions I have been approached by Jobs Worth shopping centre security people with the "You can't take pictures here" statement - I smile and point out that they are wrong, I just have taken pictures, and my camera worked perfectly. Fools then follow me around till they get bored. Never have they asked me to leave - which of course I would have to do.
Very interesting topic, good presentation! :)
Data privacy laws, especially GDPR are often used as an excuse for not allowing this or that even though they don't even apply there.
Times they are a changing! Just this summer had my first run-in with someone while out hiking with Otis and demanded to see my camera and footage as she was convinced that I had been filming her...I politely declined and we made our way with the air being filled with her obscenities. A friend who does street scenes was told that he was not allowed to take images of a building from his vantage point on public property even here in Nova Scotia. Even though people have not rights to deny such instances, some think that they have the right to do whatever they wish. Such great information and I am sure that every one who takes pictures of any kind have stories to tell.
I'm fairly certain that Canada have the same freedom of panorama laws in place as the UK, I haven't looked into it enough to say for sure but Canada was listed alongside the UK as having the highest freedoms within the act when I was researching the UK act of parliament. But you're right of course, many people believe that they know best and have a right to demand things. Just as you did, I find the best course of action to just walk away......profanities and all haha
I’d love another video on the National Trust I’m having real problems with knowing what I can and can’t do with regards to their land!
I've recently photographed two NT properties here in Cambridgeshire, and both times the staff have watched me and said nothing other than to remind me not to use flash.
These are Wimpole Hall and Anglesey Abbey.
I'd not been using a tripod or flash in either case.
There is a wealth of information about photography on NT property - just look at their website and do a bit of Googling. Rules do vary between property often because not all items inside buildings are NT property, some parts of estates are still privately owned and occupied. As others have said flash and tripods are not allowed inside although I have used a tripod without comment outside where it does not block a thoroughafare.
Good guide , but a couple of comments .
While , in general , you can photograph or film anything you can see from a public place , there are a few exceptions .
The first and most obvious one is military installations : army , navy or air force bases ; other places with connections to security services , and indeed places like prisons can be 'sensitive' about people taking pictures around them ; having said that , I've taken pictures and video inside prisons by prior arrangement , and usually escorted by a member of staff just to guide me what I can and cannot photograph ; similarly on board an active Royal Navy Warship , I had an escort .
Some airports can also be quite sensitive about photography on their premises , but if you're just taking pictures of aircraft from a distance it isn't a problem . In general photography in railway stations is fine , as long as you don't get in anyone's way , and it's usually polite to just ask any staff on duty before you go ahead .
One notable addition is concerns about privacy ; it ought to be common sense that photography in places like public lavatories or swimming pool changing areas is absolutely forbidden ; but less obvious is photos of people in and around their homes ; while you can absolutely take pictures of someone in an open front garden , which is readily visible from the street , it is NOT ok to photograph someone , for example , sunbathing in an enclosed back garden , where there IS a reasonable expectation of privacy , even if you are in an elevated position with a view over a high wall ; similarly , it is illegal to point cameras into peoples windows and photograph them within their homes , again that is a private place where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy .
Finally , and related to that , you cannot take identifiable photos of people inside a private motor vehicle , even when it is on a public road ; that is why a PRIVATE car is called that , and that is why speed cameras are only permitted to take general photos from behind ; if your photos show individuals who can be identified from your photos , then it is illegal because it is a breach of privacy , people do and are entitled to have an expectation of privacy when inside their private cars , even if is just so they can pick their noses at the traffic lights ! I'm surprised none of the vigilantes who go around photographing people using phones inside cars haven't yet been prosecuted for this . Vehicles CAN be photographed from the front for traffic violations , but the recording should only show the number plate along with speed and time data , and should not directly identify the occupants , faces would need to be blurred if otherwise captured ; again this goes back to privacy laws where , for example , a married man who was photographed out in his car with someone else's wife and the photograph resulted in a divorce , could sue the photographer or agency for invasion of privacy .
Have you got references for the 'private vehicle' legislation. Cars are classed as public places as far as a search for, eg, knives or guns is concerned - having a knife or a gun in a public place without good reason?
-
Basically the same in the US. However, those interfering with a photographer who is well within their rights to photograph is a criminal act in certain instances.
A 100% worthwhile video covering what has remained in the gray area for too long.
What I don't understand is, why it has 156 thumbs down? Could this be the selfy flock?
Awesome video, and thank you for the research and effort behind it. I’ve been out of the UK for almost a decade now, but only got into photography while away. Planning to finally get back later this year and have been wondering about these exact issues. I suppose a thank you to the algorithm for suggesting your video too!
Spotted a suspicious looking character filming The Ivy in this film Dave 😂😂 Very interesting stuff and well worth doing your own research especially when out and about in other countries as the rules vary so much ! The NT is a very interesting one especially re Drone flying which appears to be a no no at all the sites I’ve visited so far and another film on this topic would be welcomed from me anyway. All good informative stuff and see you soon for a catch up in town 👍🏻👍🏻
I'd forgotten that piece of footage was in here, when I read your comment I had to skim through to see who it was haha....it's you! There is actually a test case that can be used in relation to the NT and drone flying. I'm checking into it further but I'm at the point where I believe the NT have no grounds to have that rule in place and it doesn't seem to be enforceable.....as long as certain criteria is followed. Interesting to read their page on Drone Flying and their reasoning for their blanket ban, they're using lines from the drone code and then giving 'how they translate' backup to the ban, imo some definite overreach in action there. Looking forward to it mate.
@@LetsClickPhotography Yes, it's pretty clear that the NT does not own the airspace over their properties. Of course, you don't have permission to fly from NT land, but if you fly from outside their boundaries using a 249g drone and don't breach the rules on flying that drone, they really have no legal means of preventing you from taking aerial photographs that could include their properties.
@@RexxSchneider Surprisingly, this covers theme parks too. Due to the recent overhauls (and new rollercoaster) at Thorpe Park and Alton Towers, people have been flying drones over the parks taking photos. As you say, as long as you aren't taking off from their land, you're fine. They don't own the airspace.
Thanks for the advice. Very much appreciated as I am visiting the UK later this year. Especially the National Trust info was very new to me.
Glad it was helpful Ralf, hope you have a great visit
Great video, thanks.
I've been approached while in a public area by building security in London, who asked if I had a permit to photograph the buildings. I said I was a tourist like all the other people around here, just taking personal photos. He said my gear was clearly professional and that I needed to apply to the council for a permit and said I couldn't continue taking pictures. I wasn't up for an argument as I was just out for fun, so I left.
While shooting at a local bike park, a rider broke his leg, and paramedics came to take him to hospital. I took some shots of him being stretchered off, and all the paramedics said I wasn't allowed to take photographs and that I had to show them that I had deleted any containing them doing their job. Most lads at the park, when they have any incident, always ask if there are any shots so they can post on instagram. But they wouldn't progress until I deleted my shots.
Paramedics going way beyond their remit
Most of the city of London, including pathways (sidewalks for yanks) and the little parks /open spaces are privately owned. Train stations are another, also different local councils have different rules regarding filming and permits needed. ( not photographing). Some councils say that a tripod is professional equipment thus requiring a permit, particularly if it’s on a path. It’s nothing to do with the footage obtained, but it’s because it can be seen as obstruction and someone could trip over it. To get a permit you need to provide proof of insurance thus taking liability away from the council. That’s all it is.
This is very good. I personally think that these laws need tyding up and simplifying here in the UK. Thank you.
Great information mate! And after reading through the comments, seems to be quite a few gray areas, just like over here. We have similar "laws"... absolutely no drone flying from within national parks, some state parks, and even some country and city parks. I know Jim Fisher did a couple videos on the on again, off again enforcement within the parks. Its all a bit of a mess if you ask me. I've had a couple of minor run-ins here while photographing some of these old buildings around here (local business owners)... paranoid that I'm from the city doing code enforcement or something 😂 Always a great learning mate, nice work! Have a great weekend pal, chat soon!
Thanks mate, yeah it's a hot topic about the National Trust over here, much the same as the National Parks over there. A lot of the 'rules' here are over reaching , using ambiguous language to scare photographers (and drone flyers) into submission. If you know your stuff though the UK laws are pretty much on the side of photographers......and we have a little more leeway when it comes to private land trespass over here (I would be being far more aware stateside of the repercussions of that). Funny thing is our National Parks are the result of (in part) a mass organised trespass in 1932 in what would become the Peak District. At that time most land was fenced off from the public by private landowners and this was one of the things that got the issue being discussed in parliament - 17 years later the PD became the first National Park.
@@LetsClickPhotography holy smokes mate, you've hit the "views" jackpot on this one! Congratulations! And a massive congratulations on moving way past the 3K sub mark! The last time I checked you were just shy of it and now you've blown past it!
I’ve had no problems taking personal photos on NT property or in their buildings. However I always ask their policy on entry. Usually it is OK if you ensure there is no flash - which could affect old fabrics and art works etc. if there is a special exhibition of art work or historical items, you may be told you can’t take photos of the objects. I would prefer stricter rules in art galleries where people stand in front of an art work to take selfies though!! Asking is always the safest option!
The no flash rule is from historical times. 50 years ago like. Now a days with LED flash the light is not as bright as it was with old style flash.
But surely a flash disturbs the visiting experience of others. It’s as bad as phones or iPads being used during a theatre performance!
@@bobdear5160 True. If the room was dark. I get annoyed by people not turning off their flash when they use their phones in bright sunlight.
Selfies at all locations, inside or outside, should be illegal!!
When I have tried to take landscape vista photographs at Australian tourist spot there are hordes of tourists each taking selfies of each other blocking views.
You could always photoshop them out …. Just make a better job than Mrs Windsor’s family photo….
A saying I've heard in the cycling world is relevant here - knowing you had right of way doesn't mean much when you're underneath a car. Knowing your legal rights as a photographer is great and all, but if someone is going to beat the living crap out of you if you don't delete a photo then sometimes it's better to back down.
You can always delete then take the card out and use recovery software when you get home to get the pictures back. Everybody is happy.
My camera has duel card slots. Just record an image on both, then when someone complains, simply delete one copy and leave the other intact. (Of course if there is a reasonable excuse to ask you to delete a picture of someone, then on a human level I think you should delete it completely. It’s only a photograph).
Just found your channel - very useful and well explained info and,yes,i have subscribed ! One thing that always seems to cause confusion and i'm not sure if you mentioned it is if you are on public land taking photos that's on private land, not people but perhaps an old private building. I'd always thought that was permissible but i'd appreciate some comments on that situation.
It is absolutely permissible - this is called the freedom of panorama and in the UK we have the widest freedoms under this bill.
Basically privately owned spaces that are open to the public have certain conditions which must be observed to continue to be allowed access. - such as no skateboarding, no photography etc etc. it should however be noted somewhere what the restrictions are though I don’t believe it’s required by law. so technically the security can ask you to stop doing the thing, on the grounds of if you don’t, you forfeit your right to be there. It’s also worth noting that although tresspass is a civil matter, if you continue to ignore the request to leave, knowing that you are now committing tresspass, it then becomes aggravated tresspass which is a criminal offense.
personally if I take a shot and a car is in it I will always blur the plate of the car, if people are in the shot its almost always a crowd so I tend to keep faces in but when it comes to license plates I always blur them
📸 Absolutely stunning! 🇬🇧 Love learning about photography laws in the UK. 📷 Such valuable info presented in a captivating way! 👏 Keep up the fantastic work! 🌟
I travelled to Battersea Power Station (Station) to photograph the new station, whilst there I thought it would be an opportunity to photograph the actual new site/previous Power Station. Which is an outside space open to the public, soon got approached by security, they took offence to the professional equipment I was using, and I could be taking shots into apartments (16-35mm f2.8 😂), they suggested I when to the management suite to seek permission and a permit (didn’t bother) but the site has lots of signs advising people they might be photographed (that’s mad)
Myself and a number of others I know have had issues with Security at Deansgate Square recently
I did a shoot for Chit and Chaat restaurant in Deansgate Square a couple months back and actually saw a photographer being hassled by security through the window. Most security guards I've ever had to speak to have no idea of the laws whatsoever, just a blanket belief that they're in the right :(
As a former bbc cameraman I had problems with man United. If you would like to know an interesting fact about access to their perceived property please get back to me. Also areas called precincts of the court.
Thank you, great information. I was approached by station staff at a local railway station and told I couldn't photograph buildings or trains from the station, and if I did he would call the police and report me under terrorism laws!
They can call the police, and the police can come and talk to you, but unless you are behaving in a suspicious manner, they cant do anything else. (And they can't just say that in their opinion you are behaving suspiciously, they have to have some evidence that you are - they are not above the laws they are there to enforce).
I have taken photos at over 150 stations in the South East (SWR area) in the last 2 years. At many smaller ones, they're either unstaffed, or there's just one or two staff members there and mostly they either didn't say anything or they came over and said hi and asked what I was doing. My stock answers was "I'm just a train enthusiast taking photos of trains", which was more or less true (although I did want to get photos of the station architecture too). Most were satisfied by my explanation and said ok carry on. Some said "ok but don't take any photos of signals and CCTV cameras and stay behind the yellow line". At the bigger stations I had a few staff members shout at me and say "oi, what are you doing!?". To which I gave them my standard answer and they mostly just said the same things. At a few of the busiest ones, I was asked to go and sign in at the station managers office, and a couple of times I even got a lanyard (in particular at Waterloo). Once I'd done this, nobody bothered me. Basically, as long as you act calm and pleasant and just say you're photographing trains, they will leave you alone.
That's particularly odd, as Network Rail does not prohibit photography on train stations, unless it's commercial photography, or if you're taking photos of security related equipment, such as CCTV. Otherwise, they're quite happy with photography, especially if you see suspicious or unusual things. So technically, you have already obtained permission to take photos in the station. There's an article about it on the Network Rail website.
@@DaedalusYoung Staff on the ground don't always know their own rules in reality, or they use the excuses of safety and security to be more heavy handed than they should.
@@DaedalusYoungYou should speak with the staff in the information office to what you are doing as this should clarify what you can and cannot do whilst in the station. Remember that stations can be subject to laws and byelaws which is why you should inform staff before filming.
Dude! I have! A policeman allowed a member of the public to take possession and review my images!
Thank you for a genuinely useful video.
Thank you so much for that video. I often have bern stopped by security people. Good to have some ground knowledgr 😊
Interested in a National Trust, English Heritage and Forrestry Commission piece. Notably the Forrestry Commission has a site at Grizedale with artwork on their forrest trails.
These are mostly issues with the law of England and Wales. Scotland has its own legal system. For example, there is no law of trespass in Scotland. You can go anywhere you like, as long as you are not impacting anyone's privacy. And while the National Trust get a bit uppity about commercial photography on their properties, there are no such issues with the National Trust of Scotland, who actively encourage it.
2:27 - Is that Sale Town Hall? I'm from Sale! 😃
Yes it is - howdy from down the road
Very helpful I am in the US planning a vacation to the UK. Would like to know more about laws around street photography and Public Trust buildings.
Im not sure what you mean by Public Trust buildings,basically in this country providing you are on public land you can take a photo of anything you want, there are some exceptions though
In London, the open areas around the South Bank, and around Canary Wharf for example, are private but with public access, so they can ask you to stop. There was a scene with children hardly identifiable, playing in the fountains. I was asked by an official (not parents) to stop as I confirmed I was not a relation. It seems they assume you are a paedophile unless you can prove you are not. You can take pictures of children on public land, although if a parent requests you dont, it would be moral and polite to stop. Bert Hardy took iconic press photos of kids on the street in his day.
Brilliant advice. I have worked in publishing for several decades and didn’t realise that photographs of architecture in the UK don’t infringe the IP of the architects (as is the case in many countries). Does this apply throughout the UK or just in the law of England and Wales?
Yes this is the full Uk & NI
Excellent overview. Thank you. Would love to know more about UK laws wrt to street photography.
Recently visited Lancaster castle everything was going fine until going through the main gates and was swarmed by a couple of security people who advised me that it was fine to take photographs but if I put the camera on my tripod then there would be a £600 fee to pay for the privalage.
That'll be £200 for a mono-pod then. 🤨
@@johnbuckley683At £200 per leg 😲
Stand on one leg?
I can see their point - photographers messing around with tripods at busy tourist spots can cause obstruction and 'safety' issues. There is also the view that a photographer wanting to use a tripod is a little more than happy snapper and could well be aiming to make money from their photographs of the location so the location owners want their cut.
@@barrieshepherd7694I have never seen the place crowded with tourist and the security people asked me if I was an amateur or professional. I am certainly an amateur at the time equipped with a Canon bridge camera and a £30 tripod which I bought to take reference pics for paintings. However I see your what you are saying.
Worth noting Trespass law in the UK is in most cases a civil law, security guards can threaten to call the police but even if the police come they can’t remove you because you aren’t committing a crime. You don’t even have to leave when the security ask you to, pointless staying if the security is blocking your shot, but worth knowing they can’t intimidate you and they certainly can’t touch you.
Many many years ago I was taking pictures at an RAF airfield where Vulcan bombers were active (yes that long ago) I had my telephoto lens poked through the fence at the side of the runway - a smart member of the Military Police came over and told me - quite sternly - that I could only take pictures if my camera was outside of the fence and I was stood on the footpath not the grass between the fence and the footpath. I retreated and he smiled and mouthed 'Sorry'. Not sure if the Military Police would be that understanding these days!
But when you refuse to leave knowing you’re committing tresspass it then becomes aggravated tresspass which is a criminal offense.
Interesting, Some good examples of security getting heavy handed is with Drone 'Auditers' a couple af good ones are DJ Audits and ACE Audits, they mainly do industrial estates and can give a real life view from both the security overeach on these sites and the results if ever the police are called in these situations. (basically police can do naff all if filmed from public land)
It's really interesting how many security wrongly think they know the law and just because they or the company may not like the practice of filming or drones often doesn't mean it's illegal and there are times when standing up to security bullies is required.
Ace and DJ are brilliant. Must never forget to mention the king of auditing. Auditing Britain.
'Good ones'
There's no such thing as a good frauditor.
Auditors set out to cause trouble. The more trouble that they cause the more clicks they get.
@@tonysutton6559 A very valid point and maybe if they were left to do a legal activity instead of overeaching security rising to the bait and trying to lay down their own view of the law many auditors or 'frauditiors' maybe be out of a job.
like them or not they are doing a legal activity and highlighting how security often think the worst and use their limited powers to seemingly create their own legal framework. I'm not against security btw, we need them, just they think often they are the law.
Re taking pictures in galleries..... They are NOT a public space. It is a private space that people are permitted to enter under certain conditions. (See the National Trust fiasco) The same applies to shopping malls and the like. They are private spaces that permit the public access.
What about private critically secure areas, like airports?
I feel that if you can see it from public land, you should be free to photograph it. The view is freely available to anyone.
You are correct - that is the basis of the Law - but that does not mean you can photograph from private land. The border between public and private is not always obvious.
9:07 if you haven't done it, could you do one on bylaws?
Yes please to an extra video on the National Trust 😃
When it comes to people, it is necessary to consider the law on breach of confidence as it has developed in light of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 10 (right of free expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The law on misuse of private information might be relevant but this is perhaps unlikely to be relevant to photographers unless they are photographing something they know is private and confidential. Another important area to consider is the law on harassment.
One area where you cannot take photographs is in a court - doing so is contempt of court and has led to the photographer being sent to prison.
Hey just to be clear, I’m not advocating that everything everywhere is there for a photographers gratification. As I stated in the video my opinion is that we should be using good moral judgement in our decisions as photographers.
This vid isn’t there to promote terrible photography practice’s, but to state the facts on the ground.
Article 8 (and 10) are directly concerned with state rather than individuals though aren’t they? I may be wrong on that but from loose knowledge I thought that was the case.
The Human Rights Act protects the people from the state and organisations. So the right to privacy is about keeping people's private lives and affairs away from the government and all it's arms including the police. It is not about keeping private or confidential information from other people, especially in a public situation. That's why lots of photographers say the "there is no right to privacy in a public place" as a response to people claiming privacy.
What does come into play is more about societal norms. So recording a conversation between two people sitting on a park bench is wrong. Looking over someone's shoulder at an ATM is definitely not allowed. But not a crime. But recording a video of people walking down the street is perfectly acceptable.
@@LetsClickPhotographyThe European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is relevant to the individual because of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires the courts to interpret the law in line with ECHR as far as possible. The consequence of s. 6 HRA 1998 is that ECHR does affect how the law applies to private individuals and other private organisations such as companies.
Perhaps the leading case with respect to photography, breach of confidence and ECHR is Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2004] UKHL 22, which I studied in the human rights and tort elements of my law studies at university. However, Campbell was decided before the European Court of Human Rights' ruling in the Von Hannover case, which could potentially change the courts' views of the balance between ECHR rights.
Murray v Big Pictures [2008] EWCA Civ 446 is interesting because it shows that sometimes photographs taken in a public place can infringe Article 8 ECHR rights.
Like most of the press freedom cases, the focus in Campbell and Murray was on the harm caused by publication, not least because legal action is expensive and most people are not prepared to invest those resources if they do not foresee widespread dissemination of a photograph via publication.
What I am unclear about is whether there has been a test case examining drone photography and videography. It is perfectly possible to send up a drone from public land which remains over public land, but which gives a view into private land that would not otherwise be possible. That said, I doubt that such a case is needed because I think the answer is clear from cases involving surreptitiously taken photographs using long telephoto lenses. If photographic equipment is used in such a way that it infringes the reasonable expectation of privacy on private land, especially by going far beyond the unaided view you could obtain from public land, then you are likely to be in breach of confidence and therefore on the wrong side of the law.
Whilst I have a broad appreciation of the law in this area, media law is not my specialist area and, in any event, I am not a regulated legal professional. I am explaining the law as I understand it, not giving legal advice.
As you say, a good policy is to let sound moral judgment (or you could say, don't be a d*ck) govern our actions. Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.
I’ve always thought that a photograph (image) is some taken in a still camera,a frame of a film or a frame of a digital video.
Video is just lots of photographs taken many times a second. Then some audio tacked on. 😃
I used to work in TV. We were working in Nottingham. We were informed by the local Council that they owned the copyright to the image of Nottingham Castle and that they would sue our company if we took or used any images of the castle without purchasing a (very expensive) license from them, even if the image was taken from outside the castle grounds. Clearly the creators of the castle are long dead so there's no valid claim there. How do the Council get away with claiming this? Is this some local bylaw they've passed?
Nottingham City Council are bankrupt so they will try anything to extract money. IANAL but I think they would be laughed out of court if you 'accidently' caught an image of the Castle while taking photographs from another vantage point. Try Sydney and the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (Opera house, Circular Quay, Bridge and Barangaroo park) - their 'commercial terms' are mind blowing.
They may have AN image with copyright of the castle, but they cannot, surely, have a copyright of all photographs or video of the castle from a public space. Maybe the commercial use of the castle image is relevant.
Left my comments on the other vid mate - just popping this one here for the algorithm!
Really interesting and informative video. There seems to be a bit of a grey area to me. For example the NT does not permit commercial photography on their land, which is fair enough, but if I took an image for my own use and posted it on social media and someone took a liking to it and wanted to buy the rights to it for whatever future purpose, then has that image become commercial and, therefore, illegal in the eyes of the NT? No such luck this ever happened to me but presumably it would be the user of the image to seek permissions rather than the original photographer? Just me speculating on totally hypothetical situations instead of doing something useful or sleeping :)
This is something I’m going to talk about in the more in depth NT video coming soon.
The byelaws only extend to behaviour upon their land though and speculative photography is personal photography!
I've had exactly the same issue/concern. I can't see the point of getting a licence on the basis that I might get a stunning image from open NT coastline or land, on any given trip, and so if someone were to purchase a print, I suppose I'd have to pay for retrospective commercial permission if that is even possible. Given the vast swathes of coastline and open land that the NT own, I find it rather immoral that they can charge for 'commercial' photos, if get lucky with stunning weather conditions. 😞
@@LetsClickPhotography Thanks for this video. Glad I found it, am new to your channel. Would love to hear your thoughts about potential sale of photos from NT land, if I hadn't gone out with that aim. I have researched NT's policy, which seems to assume you are a shooting commercially, or its personal use.
Very useful information. Many thanks.👍👍
What about when your in a public space but the land is privately owned, maybe a market place or a shopping precinct?
Fine until you're told otherwise, after which point you become a trespasser.
I have a question if I am out walking and I see a water mill or some other feature in a garden, can I take a photo of it, or do I have to ask the landowner's permission? Thank you very much for this article, it has answered many questions for me.
If the photo is taken from public highway or public right of way, then yes, you can unless it's a breach of privacy (such as if a person is in the photograph eg)
You need to get a nice and compact MFT camera and lens, that way nobody will notice 🙂
Thank you, it’s very informative.
Thanks a lot❤
That’s very helpful and believe me if you are an activist and photographer you see yourself dealing with police and gear confiscation quite often 😅
Photographing something does not infringe on any copyright. Publishing or displaying the photograph may infringe depending on whether the photo is derivative or a completely separate work of art. At least this is how it works in the EU. I also wouldn’t trust that map shown, it needs a ton of asterisks to explain what the rules actually mean in each country.
I had two plain clothes officers turn up at my place of work after I'd been stopped and given a notice by a police beat officer, for photographing a building in Woking. I told them why I'd taken the photo and they laughed and apologised for wasting my time.
“UK law” is a broad stroke, England have wildly different laws from those that are in Scotland. Some are shared but others are not and would do your due diligence before you head off wildly photographing things but common sense should prevail.
I’m not a photographer, but great video 👍
Had a touch of mither from Media City security a couple of years ago but nothing too serious.
More bothered about tripods being used.
Great watch and you even included Sale Town Hall where we got married a couple of years ago! Nice one, Richard
Thanks for joining Richard. I've heard a few stories from Media City but never had a problem with security there myself.....the scallys on the other hand!!! And hey, small world, Sale Town Hall is right around the corner from me, I've covered a few weddings there :) Top Stuff, Dave
This is brilliant- thank you - are photographers allowed to film and photograph on public transport?
Is it allowed to take pictures inside a railway station? I was a couple of years ago in a small town north of Birmingham and inside a railway station a woman told me to stop photographing. I was not taking any picture of her but of the architectural construction.
I was shooting the full moon rising through Tower Bridge. I was on the Southbank surrounded by 100's of people taking photos. Security came over to say I could not use my tripod. They were ok with me having it, just not using it.
Quite a lot of private land there on the south bank, just be aware of causing an obstruction with the tripod as you could be fined or moved on.
I'm curious about an incident I experienced. I was in a clothing store (in England) that had a complete wall dedicated to a display of sewing machines, which I started photographing. Security asked me to stop, which I did...... but were they withing their rights to insist that I not take photographs?
Were you inside the store? If so they could ask you to leave or stop - your choice. If you were outside no power to even engage with you.
Could have sworn I heard you say "National Trust.... photographers and drunks problem."
Well, makes sense to me.
Haha I probably did 📷🍻
A national trust video would be good!
Yes National trust info please.
I left the National Trust because i found that i did not agree with their current attitude, especially towards volunteers.
Great stuff Dave & thank you....
Thanks very much Phil, appreciate it.
One way round things is to use a mobile phone every other person around has one in their hand😀
absolutely, I had this with a security guard last year. He considered me, in the middle of a public square on a tripod with a really conspicuous camera and lens in full view of all, to potentially be up to no good. I pointed out that the square was littered with people filming and photographing completely discreetly and hidden on their phones. 'Which is more likely to be untoward?' I asked. He shrugged and walked off.
Only this week I was told I was embarrassing* for photographing things with an actual camera. I stuck it in my pocket, pulled out my phone, and kept going.
* Good thing that's the worst that happened. 😅
If it’s on google earth, I’ll film it.
When you are fined or sent to prison, you may regret that action 😂
You still have to follow the law whilst out photographing things, and its up to you to understand what you can or cannot do and to also understand any laws that could affect you.
There's a lot of b-roll footage in this taken from within a mile of where I live in Manchester - are you local? lol
Yes I am - howdy from down the road
@@LetsClickPhotography hey hey
Clarification: police can seize cameras if/when they are in the form of a drone - even if the drone has never flown in the area
Have you a source for that?
@@barrieshepherd7694 yes indeed.
YT doesn't allow including external links so I request searching for "Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill".
Met Police:
"Police powers:
If we think a drone could be connected to an offence, we can: make you land your drone. stop and search people or vehicles to find drones or drone equipment. confiscate and keep drones or drone equipment found during a search."
Thanks for This I'd be interested in More National trust Info.
James Hogg
I have noticed that some shopping malls in the uk have a notice that state that photography isn’t allowed, not sure what the legal right is?
They're usually private land, so within their rights to make that request - you're in their building, not in a public space.
Thank god I am a wildlife photographer.
😂 So much of you photography is in England's City Centres then 😎
As long as you not photographing wildlife on National Trust land! I dislike the NT for several reason - they are a very well off charity but have these very unreasonable attitude towards photographers. They own such vast amounts of land all over the UK. I would never dream of becoming a member. The RSPB, despite their faults, don't seem to mind people photographing birds in their reserves as far as i know, even at a professional level.
Great video, Dave. I've been lucky as I've never been stopped whilst doing street photography.
The National Trust is an interesting one. I have seen many photographers selling prints of National Trust monuments. I'm guessing that it isn't something that they actively try and prevent. I'd love to know if you have found any legal cases where they have prosecuted photographers in the past. As smart phones get better and better, this is going to be a rule that is going to be very hard to police.
I do know of many drone pilots who fly close to Penshaw monument for example. The National Trust don't allow flying from their land, so the drone pilots take off from outside the NT land and fly over it as airspace is governed by the CAA not the Trust. It would be interesting to know if there was any prosecutions brought by the Trust.
I'd be interested in a further video on the subject.
Thanks a bunch mate, I'm glad you've said that as I'm halfway through recording it! haha. Found some really interesting stuff about their byelaws and (in my opinion) the overreach they use to try and scare photographers and, yes, drone pilots too. You're spot on about the CAA and in relation to their rules on drones, there is actually a reference case that would suggest they wouldn't have a hope of a prosecution, if following a few simple rules - TOAL spots, height of flight. Coming up soon I guess :)
Fabulous video Dave, thank you. Always an area that has been somewhat ‘grey’ for me, so this really helped affirm a few points, and clarify others. I see from the comments that you’re already doing the NT video, I think that would be very useful too.
@@martingoff-jones2184thanks Martin. Yes it’s already in the works - well in fact I’ve recorded it twice already….but in each one I managed to go off on a tangent of personal outrage haha
what about train stations, shopping malls, etc? are those classed as public?
Pretty sure Network Rail have Bylaws about photography which interpret as personal photography without tripods and flash are Ok but commercial photography or use of lighting and tripods requires an approach for permission - primarily to ensure that obstruction is not caused or in the case of lighting no possibility of interfering with the signal lights or dazzling drivers. In general I have always found station staff relaxed by photography so long as it does not gather a crowd or block station and platform access. Maybe I have been lucky!
I was under the impression that a place like Canary Wharf and some areas of the docklands in London were out of bounds for any kind of photography?
No. You do not need to respect "laws" that are against official law.
BTW: what means "no photography allowed"? Can they proof that you've made a photo?
@@henrykg They can request that you leave the area though - and ban you from returning.
I believe even on privat land that is publically accessible they can not ask you to,leave because you are just taking pictures, ken livingstone did a couple of videos on this at Canary warf and pretty much told security and police to do one.and he did know the rules as he helped draft them.
Think practiacl photography did a couple as wel, woth the police who had an officer very rehearsed in photography laws.