Use the Law to protect your rights

You should never allow anyone to delete your images especially Police and Security guards because of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Your images are actually evidence of what you were doing and when you were doing it, therefore if a police officer asks you to delete an image he is actually breaking the Law because he is asking you to destroy evidence.

Also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, each photograph is a piece of your art and is also therefore protected by this act.

Over reaction..

We've all got stories of over zealous guardians of law. My crime was to photograph a school sign for a property development brochure. It was part of a long list of area shots to do in one morning. The sign nothing more than an entrance board to a private school situated a further quarter of a mile up a long gravelled drive. I stopped the car, got out on the opposite side of the public road, took the shot and then went on to my next venue.
I live in a Cul de Sac. When I turned into my road a police car was waiting. Another police car boxed me in from behind, both now with blue lights. I was ordered out of the car and told to stand with my hands on the bonnet. My car was then searched after which I was asked to explain what exactly I was doing outside a school with a camera. I then had to show on the back of the camera the shots I had taken and only after 10 minutes of grilling was I allowed to return to my car and drive the final 20 yards to my home. All this was in full view of all of my neighbours.
Yes this is a little outside of the 'security guard' scenario but the end game was the same. Humiliation caused by this stupid, stupid country's increasing hostility and suspicion of anyone holding a camera.

What about councils?

I remember being approached by a council man near a fountain in Sheffield. He said that public photography was not allowed because of the children playing. I said they were actually my kids and I was photographing them. He still wasn't happy and told me i couldn't take photos there.

I hope the Home Office Memo goes out to all councils too as they are often the worst.

Different approaches

About seven years ago whilst taking shots of the new London Assembly building (using a tripod – it was after dark) I was approached by a security guard to be told I needed a permit to take photos of the building. I responded that since I was in a public place I did not and he beetled off. A couple of minutes later he returned and was given the same reply. This exchange was repeated at intervals until I’d finished.

Earlier on the same day I had been in King Charles Street with a tripod and a longish lens photographing the carvings along the top of the archway at the end of the street. A security guard emerged from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and very politely said that unfortunately where I was standing was FCO property and photography was not permitted, but if I moved three feet or so to my left I would be back on the public pavement and all would be well. What a contrast!

Earlier on the same day I had been in King Charles Street with a tripod and a longish lens photographing the carvings along the top of the archway at the end of the street. A security guard emerged from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who very politely said that unfortunately where I was standing was FCO property and photography was not permitted, but if I moved three feet or so to my left I would be back on the public pavement and all would be well. What a contrast!

About time

It's about time that the govt and security agents have come to their senses, although it's still going to take a while to filter down i think, but it looks like we are on the right road.

BSIA guidlines on photography

The cover of the document which you invite us to download and print has a copyright notice saying that reproduction is prohibited without permission. Does that mean I will get charged with breach of copyright or is permission from the BJP sufficient?

London Assembly

Actually, I believe the section of the Thames pathway that goes past the London Assembly building is private land, and that their security officials are entitled to prevent photography if they want to (much though that I think it stinks that they have done exactly that in the past). I'm sure that's come up in previous discussions, but I'd be happy to be corrected if anyone knows otherwise.

Great Move Forward - Backlash to be Expected on Private Land with Public Access

Great news! and this statement is sweet music to my ears. "Security guards have no right to prevent street photography," says Home Office

However, I think that security guards may become tougher on Private Estates which have public access. There is still a right to stop photography if the individual does not have a permit to photograph. Many 'public' areas in London are private estates.

The temptation to stop photographers will be strong. After the video 'Photographers Stand Your Ground' was released I noticed and experienced a tougher stance from Security while photographing in private estates (which have public access).

Still - moving forward and standing our ground. Rightly so!

Bigger Matters

That's good news. It's been my experience that security guards have some of the least training when it comes to the rights of photographers.

Re: "Large cameras, lenses and tripods should therefore not be viewed as being more suspicious than other types of equipment."

This is sort of funny. Shouldn't it be the small, hidden and inconspicuous technology that we should be concerned about? Bigger only mattered with the bomb and in bed.

Use the right camera to stand your ground

Further to my earlier comment about hitting someone in the face with your camera, you need to use one that is appropriate for the task:
I thoroughly recommend any of the following film cameras, all readily available from Ffordes of Inverness:
Nikon F, Nikkormat (any model, Canon F1, any model of Zenith and
the Leica M3.

Size matters

I recently had a run-in with some bored security guards while photographing buildings in one of these private estate with public access areas, and it was the size and apparently professional appearance of my camera that seemed to trouble them (Freud?). However, there was no suggestion that they saw me as a terrorist threat. Their objection turned out to be the risk that I might be able to scratch a living taking such photographs without cutting them in. So while I welcome this intervention from the Home Office, I think the route of the problem is more and more public land falling into the hands of private owners, and the profit-motive that inevitably goes with it. Like everything else, in other words, it's the Tories' fault.

A question of Law.

I can now count myself as one of the number who have been collared by a Security Guard, however the outcome was not as expected by the Guard, as he was sent away with his tail between his legs muttering about not stopping us from working out of sheer spite. According to this individual the criteria for stopping someone from working was if they were a professional. That was his problem as I retorted by pushing my Club ID straight in his face and stating I was a " Club Photographer " This did not go down to well and to add to this creatures problems he was advised that I was not alone, another senior club member was woring only yards away from me and was wearing his Club ID. Most Guards are used to dealing with individuals as they are easy to handle but when the numbers start to increase and they are made aware that they are dealing with an organisation on top of all that it will make them stop and re-think tactics.

If private land owners wish to restrict photography they should place adequate signage to that effect and it should be clearly visible at all times.

It is a criminal offence to stop a person working, so if you ask a road worker directions you are breaking the Law by stopping him from his work interesting, and by the same token a security Guard is breaking the Law in stopping you working if he does not have adequate reason to do so, remember to ask where the sinage is to restrict Photography.

No one can be certain as to whether or not your work is commercial, and the process of capturing an image is not a criminal offence under normal circumstances so in theory you cannot be stopped from working, and it is not until you seek to publish an image for reward that you are classed as a professional photographer, so the pretext used that that you may be a professional is a very weak one to try and stop you.

If you really want to be safe get yourself into a really good club, and one that knows what they are doing.

Regards,

Aidie,

Restrictions at Southbank London

I have read this article long time ago. I knew my rights thanks to this article and i was photographing at Southbank, London last weekend. I got stopped by the security guard who did not allow me take photographs of the sunset. I have written a detailed article about this and made a blog. Take a look if you are interested reading it. Feel free to contact me for any questions you might have.

http://inanaksoy.com/blog/photography-restrictions-at-southbank-london

Nothing is likely to change

Hopefully the police will learn quickly that they need to change their attitude. However I suspect nothing is likely to change with regards to private security guards. In my experience these people are usually poorly educated and sometimes do not even speak much English making any explanation of what you are doing pointless. What is worse is that the Police usually back these hired thugs up even when they are breaking the law themselves.