Government Public Photography Petition

Nothing remotely 'socialist' about the company who hired the thugs who duffed me up.

Regular enforcers of profit they were, and defenders of their master's corporate image. Apparently. So much so that they seem to claim to own not only The Elephant & Castle shopping centre, but all visual images of it.

I call that monopoly capitalism gone mad.

My guess would be that you were on the private property taking pictures;that can be controlled as a property right.

If you were on public property taking pix of the shopping center, they shouldn't have been able to stop you.
 
They can stop you from taking photos in a shopping centre. A well-known Photographic Society in Edinburgh assumed they could just "turn up" and snap away were very quickly removed from the said shopping centre. The reason was for security and images could have been to would-be burglars????
The world is ruled by jobsworths.
 
They can stop you from taking photos in a shopping centre. A well-known Photographic Society in Edinburgh assumed they could just "turn up" and snap away were very quickly removed from the said shopping centre. The reason was for security and images could have been to would-be burglars????
The world is ruled by jobsworths.

That may be the casual reason that sprang to the lips of the security guards but there is a general liability concern that all property holders share. Think of all the bad reasons that people can take photogrpahs and these are the reasons that property owners don't want to be accused of being negligent and allowing.

So if a child molester stalks children and takes pictures of potential targets in a mall the parents could include the mall owners in a suit for negligence because they allowed this monster to stalk on their territory.

A robber photographs bank operations through the windows of the mall entrance and uses this info to rob the bank. The bank etc........

Property owners are risk managing. Just like every smart home owner requires all tradesman to carry licenses and their own insurance.
 
I was in a large store a few years ago with a 35mm camera that I was carrying by the strap over my shoulder. I wasn't making photographs. I was just carrying the camera. As I was approaching the checkout with my purchase, an employee told me cameras were not allowed in the store (which sold cameras, by the way.) I put my intended purchase on the floor and walked out - never to return again. Really lousy customer care.
 
Good for you fmw!

Something very similar happened to me a couple times. I spoke with the manager of the store and made my case that they allow cell phones with cameras. I then walked out stating that my camera is far more important than doing business there.
 
Apparently. So much so that they seem to claim to own not only The Elephant & Castle shopping centre, but all visual images of it.

next time I am in London I will try to make it there and try to enter with my camera with my largest lens on ...
 
I can not find on any web publication HOW they will introduce this, also HOW to get a permit/licence also HOW they will enforce it....

Take every camera away at customs when people enter the country

What about Mobile Phones ( cameras on them )

The only people who will suffer is the CAMERA LOVER

People like US
 
I will add that the common phedophile will not take photo's of a child where he may get caught, he will use the Internet for his drug.

Its a sick world out there but they prosicute the WRONG

We want to enjoy our Hobbies / Jobs / Interests

Also Please Remember This

ITS THE GOVERNMENT WHO REHOUSE THESE PEOPLE NEAR TO SCHOOLS IN COMUNITIES
 
AFAIK the British government is not attempting to pass a law requiring the carrying of ID cards for the purposes of photography...

"I have NOT said that a bill is in preparation, or that legislation is being prepared..."

AKA = Much Ado About Nothing?


1. A shopping center, store or business is not a public place or building. You
can not take pictures, on premise, without the owners permission.


2. You can stand on public property and take all the pictures you want, including of businesses, shopping centers, people, whatever. However you can't sell those pictures if the design is protected. The often used example is Sidney Opera House. You would need a release. Same for people, logos, and trademarks.

It's not taking the picture that's illegal, it's what you do with it.

gardenshed said:
As someone who has been assaulted on the street by security guards...

If you were on PUBLIC property, they have no right to stop you from taking a picture of a building. Maybe the law is different in GB, but in the US you would win in court with assault charges against them.

Photographers have many rights, we just don't have unlimited rights.

Why anyone wants to sign a petition against something that doesn't exist, is beyond me. Knowing politicians, they will see this, do a study, and maybe the whole protest project will backfire when some dud thinks, "these photo licenses sound like a good idea to raise more tax money."

Let sleeping dogs lie.
 
Yeah that was why I quoted him on that, the way the petition is worded seemed misleading and fairly disingenuous. I do understand and sympathise with the broader issue of people being overly suspicious of photographers and unaware of rights, but the answer is not to start a petition about this specific non-issue.
 
My guess would be that you were on the private property taking pictures;that can be controlled as a property right.

If you were on public property taking pix of the shopping center, they shouldn't have been able to stop you.


I was on the street, next to the traffic lights.
There were five or six of them.

And even if I had been inside taking photographs to my heart's content, all they could do within the law would be to escort me out of the building.

They would not be entitled to try and steal my camera, or restrain me in any way, let alone try to drag me inside and place me in some kind of cowboy custody.
All they are intitled to do is escort you, by force if necessary, safely OUT of the building. Restraint is the preserve of the police. Security guards are not police. Much as they like to think they are living in an LAPD World.
 
I was on the street, next to the traffic lights.
There were five or six of them.

And even if I had been inside taking photographs to my heart's content, all they could do within the law would be to escort me out of the building.

They would not be entitled to try and steal my camera, or restrain me in any way, let alone try to drag me inside and place me in some kind of cowboy custody.
All they are intitled to do is escort you, by force if necessary, safely OUT of the building. Restraint is the preserve of the police. Security guards are not police. Much as they like to think they are living in an LAPD World.

I guees you are true, as far as i know, people are not even allowed to take your camera from you if you took images on private grounds, and they are not allowed to make you erase images or do it themselves. Those people are NOT the police. Their only right is to escort you out and call the police.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top