Ban of photography in public places

[HowlinWolf]

As the title says, a ban on photography in public places. Now, I've only read about this on web sites, and Google-ing the subject brings up nothing. I'm just wondering if any one else on this forum has heard of this?
If this is the case, surely the ban would include the road outside your house to Dartmoor national park (and all points in between). A public place is, after all, a place that the public has access to (think about it).
There is a petition on the Downing Street web site that people can add their name to, if you so wish:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop proposed restrictions regarding photography in public places.

I sincerely hope that the government are not intending to implicate this. I'll look forward to any views on the matter.

HW

[Walwyn]

AFAIK its been discussed on at least 4 forums. On none of which is there any indication as to what these restrictions are, nor where any proposed restrictions can be found. There was one suggestion that it might be a child protection measure (no photograhing of kids in swimming pools).

Here is one such discussion:
Flickr: FlickrCentral

Here is another petition on the same site:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to nip round this weekend and give me a hand put me new windows in and paint the bog.

Not to say that there might not be something in it but I'd want to know what was actually being proposed before signing.

[HowlinWolf]

I doubt that signing the petition would influence the outcome, anyway. The recent petition re: Road Pricing had over a million names on it, but was rebuffed by a senior cabinet minister, claiming that it was from "an unrepresentative group of motorists". Besides, like voting, if it changed anything, they'd ban that as well.

HW

[Oy]

Originally Posted by Walwyn

Not to say that there might not be something in it but I'd want to know what was actually being proposed before signing.

I agree - I too have searched for details of these proposals and found nothing.

[Walwyn]

Originally Posted by HowlinWolf

Besides, like voting, if it changed anything, they'd ban that as well.

Cynic


No light shines brighter than that from a burning Government building.
Light up an Embassy!

[cherrybee]

Originally Posted by HowlinWolf

As the title says, a ban on photography in public places. Now, I've only read about this on web sites, and Google-ing the subject brings up nothing. I'm just wondering if any one else on this forum has heard of this?
If this is the case, surely the ban would include the road outside your house to Dartmoor national park (and all points in between). A public place is, after all, a place that the public has access to (think about it).
There is a petition on the Downing Street web site that people can add their name to, if you so wish:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop proposed restrictions regarding photography in public places.

I sincerely hope that the government are not intending to implicate this. I'll look forward to any views on the matter.

HW

How Stupid I have signed the petition just in case

[bloozeboy]

More info on this here:

Petition Information

[Blackdog]

There is already a thread running on this subject here: petition to stop government banning photography in public places

[Walwyn]

Originally Posted by bloozeboy

More info on this here:

Petition Information

Well I think that is all part and parcel of the current climate re taking pictures of children. Didn't some school ban video recordings of a nativity play on those grounds?

A sobering tale:
Flickr: FlickrCentral

[paulthomas]

Net-based hysterical rubbish.

[Boddie]

Originally Posted by paulthomas

Net-based hysterical rubbish.

This was exactly my thoughts.

There seems to be a glut of web based petitions at the moment, most of which are based on stories which are simply non-starters

[Oy]

Originally Posted by paulthomas

Net-based hysterical rubbish.

It would seem so!

[Twizzle]

Hi All

Yes this subject I have felt the force of. We have a reasonably new shopping centre and at night it is a great subject to photograph. So off i went with my colleague just before closing time to get the best of the shots without too many people in the way. Took about 4 shots when security arrived on teh scene and asked us to stop taking photos. We were questioned about what we were doing as if it wasn't obvious and told we were breaching security rules which were not posted anywhere to be seen. We complied with their wishes but was not asked to delete any of the shots we took. What stops the shopper. bomber or whoever doing the same thing descretely with a mobile phone. What is this world coming to. I guess soon we will all be classed as murderers, peadophiles, terrorists you name it until we prove otherwise. Happy photography guys and gals.

Malc

[eeyore]

mind you - a shopping centre isnt technically a public place , it is private property belonging to the operators so they can set what rules they like

[Walwyn]

I hear the TB says we're all guilty anyway, we just haven't been caught.

[flying red fox]

That does sound like another case of polictical correctness going even more insane!

When iam in the park or places when there are children and families, i always make sure they are not in the shot incase they think iam taking pics of them, also if iam close i say to them what iam taking pics of and they are ok with that so thats good.

The only place where iam likely to be questioned sometimes is when iam plane spotting at the airport which is understandable, all i have to do is fill in a form saying what iam doing lol! But Airports have a good excuse, banning pics in public places has not in my view.

[Famous_snail]

I got and E-mail about this from a friend. If there really is a ban being proposed will what will all the tourists think about it? They wouldn’t be able to take photos of there hols here. I think it’s all a bit silly. I believe there is already law that says you can’t take photos or film in a public place if you’re concealed behind something eg. Taking photos from behind a bush. Any how, if they are going to ban photography in public then they would have to ban filming too.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Famous_snail

I got and E-mail about this from a friend. If there really is a ban being proposed will what will all the tourists think about it? They wouldn’t be able to take photos of there hols here. I think it’s all a bit silly. I believe there is already law that says you can’t take photos or film in a public place if you’re concealed behind something eg. Taking photos from behind a bush. Any how, if they are going to ban photography in public then they would have to ban filming too.

at the moment there are no serious moves to ban photography in public - although some places that are in private ownership such as shopping centres have their own unilateral bans. the campaign against the supposed moves is as was noted above "net based hysterical paranoid rubbish"

however the "right" to photograph in public is not as absolute as the campaigners would have you believe anyway - there are no laws specifically forbidding it but laws which prohibit causing an obstruction , loitering, invading the privacy of other people, and in some cases harrasment law can all be used to move photographers on or ask them to stop photographing. It is also an offence to "obstruct a police officer in the course of his duty" which by its most agresive interpretation means that if a cop asks you to stop taking pictures and you refuse to comply you could be arrested.

finally (and probably of more relevance to WAB members) where a public right of way gives access accross private land this access is for walking only (or sometimes horse riding , cycling or driving depending on whether it is a footpath , bridlepath or byway) it does not confer the automatic right to take photos - this also applies to access land covered by the right to roam. In these circumstances most land owners wont care but if one does being on a public RoW will not make any difference - in the eyes of the law you are on private land and refusing to stop taking pictures or to leave could se you charged with aggravated trespass.

[Paul mabbott]

Yes, there are limits to what and how you can photograph - not all of which would apply in natural situations!
1 It is downright impolite to photograph people without their permission;
2 Photographing young children can look particularly suspicious;
3 Commercial use of photographs involving people can be interpreted as requiring payment for the "model";
4 However, most importantly, site owners have almost unlimited powers to require you to desist from photography and many landowners/managers avoid all other problems simply by placing a blanket ban on photography. Presumably the only way to get round this is by asking specific permission for a certain time - hardly conducive to spontaneous photography!

I had a problem myself - outside of nature photography - I'm the unofficial (i.e. unpaid) photographer for some bands (Sheffield City Council - Sheffield Youth Big Band ) where there is no problem with subject permission (it's in the band 'contract' - you will be photographed!) but at one concert at the Crucible I was severely told off by the organisers for taking photographs of 'children'. I don't think they could stop me other than by throwing me out ..... There is a history behind this with one council being sued for allowing a schoolchild to be photographed unwittingly to commercial ends so now most Councils just seem to ban all photography.