Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Ken Livingstone Standing Up For Photographers' Rights |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Ken Livingstone Standing Up For Photographers' Rights
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
steve I wont thank you for the link ,things like this drive me mad .just to say if it was me or you it would have had a different outcome.my system is to keep my head down and hope for the best, saying that I took some photos of my son and his wife and my new grandson coming out of hospital when I got to my car a security guard came up to me and said I cannot use a camera on hospital grounds when I ask why he said I could be a terrorist ,I had to laugh ,an old git photographing his new grandson a terrorist .most of it is BS ..I must say as I don't go to London much anymore I don't have any trouble taking photos
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I thought that some years ago( I can't give an exact date) the police were reminded by the head of the Metropolitan Police and backed by the Home Secretary of exactly what the law was on taking photographs on a public thoroughfare
It would seem at least two have forgotten. A bit worrying that neither seemed to recognise Ken Livingstone so they could instantly dismiss any idea of "terrorist/criminal activity and seemed to feel they had an obligation to enforce on behalf of a private company its wishes which are just that its wishes and not its right Hopefully this kind of publicity will prevent matters getting out of hand - at least until the next time! Mike |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Stuff like this makes me angry. What would've happened if he was someone not as well-versed in law?
I once ran into an argument in Vienna. I was on the sidewalk - public area, you're allowed to photograph whatever you like from there in my country - and I wanted to take a picture of scene involving a shop window (in the background). Suddenly someone popped out, telling me I was not allowed to take pictures (which I was) and to move on or they would call the police. I did not have time and the shot wasn't worth dealing with that sort of people, but this would've made for a very interesting talk and probably would've set them straight in the end. I think they were a bit nervous because the shop display included a few designer handbags at lower than usual prices and they were probably thinking I was a private detective of sorts. Beware when you're out there, it's a crazy world...
__________________
may the light be with you! FB/Twitter/flickr @maltklaus Last edited by maltklaus; 7th November 2016 at 08:46 PM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Point of law
If that shopping precinct is private property and prior permission to film/photograph has not been obtained then the security has a perfect right to ask the persons involved to leave.
If they refuse to do so which is apparent in this case, the security can ask for police assistance to remove the persons. The same principal applies to any private premises. If you start to misbehave in say a cinema they can do likewise, or a pub, or anywhere else where you have gained admission on payment or not. The through road is almost certainly not a Highway (Defined as a place that persons can pass and repass without hindrance). It may still be a public place, but have restrictions such as the owners/tennants or anyone who has overall responsibility, can close or refuse entry to anyone or everyone at any time. The police are usually called to "Prevent a breach of the Peace". The do seem to be acting within their remit Not a good advert for the company but there you are. As Ken Livingstone made a statement which seemed to suggest that the roadway was a Public Highway, once it is leased of to the company which owns or operates the shopping centre this ceases to be a "highway" The KEYWORD here is PUBLIC and as I said it is almost certainly not a public place per se. Railway stations, which almost everyone thinks as a public place in fact are not. They are owned or operated by the various railway companies or Network Rail. There is a specific offence of "Tresspass and Refuse to quit". ....Railway Regulation Act 1840 (S16). This offence is triable in Magistrates Court only, but has quite a heavy penalty of up to £200. There are also Railway Byelaws which also cover the same points, but these are entirely seperate from tresspassing on the actual railway lines. However I get the feeling that this situation was 'set up' by Mr Livingstone for the benefit of the camera and nothing else. Last edited by John King; 8th November 2016 at 08:43 AM. |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Getting prints rights... | Lozkins | Monochrome printing techniques | 18 | 9th November 2011 05:02 PM |
Last Folk Standing? | Phil | Photography in general | 23 | 29th June 2011 06:14 PM |
Photographers rights at an end? | Trevor Crone | Photography in general | 22 | 1st March 2010 02:44 PM |
our rights | brianrbird | Photography in general | 3 | 14th February 2009 01:58 AM |
A Photographers rights UK Law | kennethcooke | Photography in general | 15 | 13th February 2009 04:00 PM |