I was taking photos in the car park of a local retail centre (of the buildings lights against the sky)

Security came over and asked me why I was taking photos and to stop as the company didn't like it. He then added I couldn't take photos as the land was private.

I do remember a previous thread but a quick search hasn't located it yet!

Any advice for future interactions with the charming security service.

Tell 'em to poke it.

They have little, if any, authority.

And then tell them to turn off all the security cameras because you don't want your picture being recorded by them…..

Were you taking photos while stood in their car park or were you on a public space?

If you were on their land, then I think they might be correct, but am not 100% sure on that. If you were on public space, then I agree that you should tell them to go, take a hike.

There are some buildings like court buildings where photography is restricted, but I am not sure of the legalities in full.
I know if you went into a shopping centre & started taking pics of stuff you might be asked to leave & you should get prior permission – same as with other privately owned buildings.

it's to do with ownership of the land you are standing on rather than what you are taking photos of. afaik.

if you are on their land (rented or owned) they can ask you not to take photos on it. If you are on public land you can take photos of what you wish

I hate this!

Technically yes they are correct, on private land, owners have the right to say no to photography.

I love the irony here, they fill there retail centre with security cameras that record us, but if we try and film there they get all upset.

Laws and Acts 😉

Might be worth looking at these guys 😉

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGA9ZUEa3ZY&feature=related

Copyright of all images lies with the person who took the images. In the UK there is no law of privacy so they could not stop you taking photos. Local bylaws could exist to stop you taking images of official public buildings or employees but this is not the case here I assume. They could however ask you to leave the premises if they are private. You could of course simply stand on the public rights of way around the building and continue to take photos. If the owners of the property have any issues with you taking photos they can seek to take you to court using laws of defamation. this would be a civil case of course and how the hell they'd demonstrate defamation by you taking photos is anyone's guess…

So in short.. they have no right to make you stop taking images. They have the right to ASK you to leave the premises.

how about if you jump so you're only in their airspace ?

i've been told to stop photographing in a shopping centre before, they were very helpful and suggested i just went to the security office and asked for permission

Err actually they do. It will be private land so they can ask you to leave it. You can still take photos when you're not on that land though, they can't really stop you.

In my experience it is always treated with a touch of suspicion when someones taking pictures of your store. People who need to generally ask the store manager first. But this is inside the building, where it's more obvious.

It is a good courtesy to ask beforehand if you are taking pictures whilst on the private land. I wouldn't have said no in my previous job if it was just the outside tbh.

Was stood in their car park whilst taking the photos so thought might be an issue there as that is probably private land.

If it's a private car park, they probably can tell you what to do, it isn't really a public place.

Joe

Technically yes they are correct, on private land, owners have the right to say no to photography.

To be absolutely clear… This is NOT true.

They cannot stop you taking pictures. They can ask you to leave the premises in the same way that any owner of any property can ask anyone to leave for any reason. They cannot stop you taking images. If they tried to physically stop you taking images by trying to grab your camera or in any way physically then they are potentially committing an offense. They can stand in your way however and try to prevent you taking images by blocking your shots as they are simply excersising their right to stand where they want on 'their' property.

So snap away at whatever you want but leave when asked to do so.

they cannot stop you taking pictures of anything you can see from a public vantage point, they can ask you to leave their land though. They don't need a reason to ask you to leave either, it's their land after all. If the car Park is owned by a third party and not owned or leased by them then they don't have the right to ask you to leave.

did you challenge not their rights, but their jobsworthyness? 'do you think i'm being unreasonable?' is a good way to turn things around – people don't like to admit that they are being unreasonable? (apart from security nazis at scouse airports)

Thanks guys, backs up what I remembered from previous thread ie I can take photos but they can ask me to leave private land eg car park.

Will be better informed next time, did tell security chap that I could take photos even if it was private land and he disagreed. Short exchange of opinion before I left as he was not going to change his opinion and I couldn't be bothered.

Cool photo, btw.

There seems to be such confusion over the right to take images in this country (EU) and yet it's really very simple. perhaps it's just because my job means I have to be aware of this sort of thing.

The light that reflects off an object cannot be protected by law simply because someone owns the object. Access to the object.. how the object is used can be protected and controlled by law but since a camera is simply recording ambient light reflected off an object there is no right in law to stop you capturing those photons. The light does NOT belong to anyone so you can record it as you see fit.

Where you stand at the time you capture these photons is subject to all the laws of property such as trespass (which is simply a civil case with sanctions based solely on reimbursement of demonstrated damages).

NOT A CRIME

Slightly random question then. If, for example, you took pics at a concert I understand they can tell you go get out, but if, after the show is over they tell you to delete your pictures, can you just refuse and walk out? Do they have any rights to stop you?

On where you stand isnt really clear cut. On a public footpath you might think you would be able to stand and take photographs but the right of access is actually to pass and re-pass. This was establihed when someone decided to sit on a public footpath and study the form of horses on a gallop and was taken to court for it. This doesnt mean you cant take photographs just you dont have the right to – poaching / cheeky trails with cameras if you like.

Its just got stupid about what you can and cant show in a photograph or on film. All the news stories these days with blured out people of legs walking by. If you cant show it why bother.

So what is publicly owned or privately owned land??

Clearly this will be obvious in many situations, but for example, many town / city centres have now been bought by property management companies….

OMG!

This doesnt mean you cant take photographs just you dont have the right to

NOOO!
Sorry.. but it's REALLY simple…

EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO PHOTOGRAPH ANYTHING! Subject to there not being any specific bylaws. To suggest you don;t have the right to photograph anything is to assign some kind of legal possession rights on the photons entering your camera. That's clearly ridiculous and that's why the EU at least has sensible attitudes to the laws surrounding photography.

Private landowners can build photography/filming clauses into a contract of use of the land. ie. They can say that you have a right to be on the premises for as long as you don't film or take photographs. As soon as you start filming or taking pictures you will have breached the terms of the contract and then…

They can ASK you to leave! The photos you have taken are yours. You had every right to take them but not take them AND be on the premises.

This is NOT saying you do not have a RIGHT to film or photograph anything just not the right to do those entirely lawful activities on their property.

You film it/photograph it. It's YOURS! Full stop. No one can tell you to delete it or not use it or any other made up jobsworth cobblers.

Take the pic. wait to be asked to leave. leave quietly and without fuss. Go post and enjoy your efforts. Simples!

This is a very handy reference:

UK Photographers Rights Guide
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

How does that work with people filiming in the cinema?

Ar they not breaking the law by then distributing the film for free (just like the OP is distributing pics of the building for free)?

Mark is right here and yes it actually does make sense for once!

However before you start why not just go and ask the landowner/shopkeeper first? He might welcome you doing it and if you look professional you might even be able to convince them to buy a picture off you. We could have done with sone nice pictures of my last store when we had events on and it would have been good to know a local photographer to take a few pics we could then have sent to our HO or to the paper.

Ar they not breaking the law by then distributing the film for free (just like the OP is distributing pics of the building for free)?

Are you on crack?

Ar they not breaking the law by then distributing the film for free (just like the OP is distributing pics of the building for free)?

Copyright law, not "real" law. 🙂

The building isn't copyright, the film is. Simples.

Why do people keep quoting copyright in these matters ??

Copyright, or more correctly Intellectual Property Rights, don't kick in until you actually do something with the images, so put that aside. It is absolutely correct to say that you own the images and anybody would be daft to disagree. If somebody took them and used them they would have breached your rights as owner. If you are a private individual it is assumed that you are taking the images for personal use (remember when life was simple before flikr and You Tube)

Taking the pictures, you need permission of the landowner.

If you broadcast/publish the images you have to have consent of any identifiable individuals under Data Protection to use the images for that purpose. This is why we can be CCTVd, as the images are not transmitted or broadcast, and can only be retained for 3 months unless a crime has been committed.

(members of the Press, which includes BBC news, have a different set of protocols, I am assuming you are not a journalist or you wouldnt be asking this question on an mtb website. The Police also have wider powers)

It's a complex business, and the law takes a while to catch up with technology.

I also deal with this kind of thing for my actual paid job.

Could I also add be wary of all advice !! You can find a lawyer to agree with any interpretation of any Act…

If you broadcast/publish the images you have to have consent of any identifiable individuals under Data Protection to use the images for that purpose.

Theoretically. This has not been tested in an actual case yet, according to the UKPR guide above.

Google certainly didn't attempt to get signed consent from everyone that appears in Google Street Maps – plenty of whom are perfectly recognisable.

Ah yes, but the test for identifiable is two things e.g. just a face would not suffice unless you are dead famous – so google kind of got away with it. Also, for a breach to happen under DPA somebody has to object, test for harm substantial prejudice blah blah etc

Watching this with interest as Info Commissioner has just been given much stronger powers of enforcement. (and I'm clearly quite sad)

P.S UKPR – not the most unbiased source ??

You don't need permission to use photos of people, if the photos were taken on land which the public have a general right of access, such as in a shopping centre. (Unless they are being used in advertising, IIRC.)

You don't need permission to take photos of people in a public place, there can be no expectation of privacy.

However if the person can be identified, (and the face alone is not normally enough and the Press has a by in this respect), then you do need permission to broadcast or publish. It's roundly ignored though as the channels are now so comprehensive that people rarely find out.

Having said that, if I was relaxing in a park minding my own business and somebody started filming me I would be showing them where they could place their right to film in a public place. I would also respect people's wishes if they asked not to be filmed or photographed.

It is also common practice to place notices at public events if filming is taking place.

Its just common courtesy as much as anything else, and respect for other people. The right to privacy is constantly eroded.

Buildings of course have no right to privacy and are not protected under DPA, to reference the OPs query.

Mark – I love the way you make these points and that you clearly know your onions. Would the same argument apply if you were photographing something sensitive, such as a power station or MI6 HQ? Surely if the police had enough of a reason to suspect the images were being used say in preparation for an act of terrorism, then they would have more than enough power to stop you,confiscate your equipment and arrest you.
I know that this is an extreme example, but it's the reason why the debate arose in the first place, which is to say that it's because of acts of terrorism that people are super sensitive about you photographing things like shopping malls, power stations etc.

Would the same argument apply if you were photographing something sensitive, such as a power station or MI6 HQ?

I've been involved in a photoshoot at Vauxhall Bridge. It took about 30 seconds of setting up tripods etc. before a rather burly man came out of MI6 to suggest that a)we might like to take the pictures on the other side of the road (which was fine for what we were doing), and b)we don't take any close ups of people passing by (who might be going into the MI6 building). It was very much asking us not telling us mind.

They were way less sensitive than many security guard types – were fine with us taking pictures as long as we weren't taking snaps of all the people who work for MI6.

Joe

You don't need permission to use photos of people

In the UK 😉

Getting out of my field here, but I think there is some stuff under the recently updated Prevention of Terrorism Act (along with increasing the length of time the Police can hold people without arresting them) regarding the filming of public buildings. Don't think it extends to shopping malls.

Would also advise that you don't do it wearing a beard and a rucksack.

I'm not terrorist expert, but it seems to me that a terrorist sleeper cell is somewhat unlikely to take its covert recon photos by setting up a big SLR and a tripod, when they could far more discretely use a compact or even a mobile phone camera.

I'm not a terrorist expert either but I'd say shopping malls are one of the highest threats for terrorist attacks, certainly favoured by the IRA.