Photography forbidden

P.S.

The  only  place  that  I  have  not  been  allowed  to  use  my  camera  was  in  Durham  Cathedral  several  years  ago.

I  was  told  I  could  have  a  Permit  to  photograph  only  if

1)  it  was  for  educational  purposes

2)  it  was  not  for  any  commercial  activity

3)  I  must  obtain  permission  from  the  parents  of  any  child  in  the  picture. **

4)  It  would  cost  me  £50  per  day.

** There  was  a  schools  choir  competion  taking  place  &  rehearsals  were  in  full  swing.  So  I  would  have  needed  to  contact  the  parents ( plural  !!)  of  about  120  kiddies !!  Try  enforcing  that  in  these  days  of  photo capable  mobile  phones  .**

I'm not sure that a church or Cathedral is a public space, more likely privately owned building to which the public generally have access. In which case if you want to take photographs you need permission of the owner (or their representative. God might be a bit busy for you to ask ).

Too  True  W  !!   I've  never  had  a  refusal  before  tho!  Canterbury,  Wells,  Ely,  York,  Carlisle,  Norwich  etc  etc  none  of  them  ever  complained  --  they  just  requested  a  donation  of  between  £2  &  £5  which  I  normally  doubled  anyway &  they  then  give  you  a  sticker  for  the  camera  strap.  But  Durham  could  not / would  not   even  produce  a  slide  or  picture  of  their  own

Did a camera course in Norwich Cathedral, used all their facilities.  Many cathedrals do ask for a donation or even require a permit

At the end of the day, Chester is a place which attracts tourists and if Boodles don't like having photos done of their shop because its within the Rows, then they should move to a back street where tourists don't go.  Simples

Another place that I have seen some “no pictures to be taken” signs was outside some of the shops in Camden Town Lock market. Probably not just for security but in case of copyright protection.

They  can  put  the  signs  up  as large  &  as  obvious  as  they  like,  but  unless  you  have  knowingly  entered  private  property  which  is  clearly  marked  as  such,  they  would  be  unable  to  legally  enforce  it  I  think.  Its  rather  like  those  carefully  placed  "No  Parking"  signs  on  rough  land  which  people  use  as  free  car  parks.  Many  of  them  have  gone  to  court  to  enforce  them  and  lost.

As others have said, you were perfectly within your rights taking photographs in a public place. As Cornersteady has stated no one can ask or force you to delete a photo, you would actually be destroying evidence.

I remember reading articles about his subject in photo magazines some years ago, they had legal advice and sought the opinion of Austin Mitchell, an M.P. and keen photographer. In a nut shell the article confirmed you could stand on a public pavement outside a private house and take photographs of the inside of the house with a telephoto lens and not be committing any offence. It only becomes an offence under the harassment law if you repeatedly took photos of the house interior.

WOW  Brians  filing  system  has  proved  it's  worth  !!

I  found  the  article  in  Amateur  Photographer  dated  27  March  2010  reporting  the  meeting  on  9th  March  2010  between  Minister  of  State  for Crime  &  Policing,  David  Hanson  M.P. Austin  Mitchell  M.P.  &  representatives  of  Met  Police,   &  A.C.P.O. along  with  Editor  &  News  Editor  of  A. P.  &  reps  from  Royal Photographic  Society,  Bureau  of  Freelance  Photographers  and  others !

Nett  result  was  that  the  Police  were  reminded  of  their  duties  &  responsibilities  Especially  with  regard  to  Anti-terror  Regulations  which  they  must  NOT  use  in  these  circumstances  without  obvious  signs  of  such  behaviour  by  the  camera  people !

Carry  on  Clicking  Folks     !!

Brian

As others have said, you were perfectly within your rights taking photographs in a public place. As Cornersteady has stated no one can ask or force you to delete a photo, you would actually be destroying evidence.

I remember reading articles about his subject in photo magazines some years ago, they had legal advice and sought the opinion of Austin Mitchell, an M.P. and keen photographer. In a nut shell the article confirmed you could stand on a public pavement outside a private house and take photographs of the inside of the house with a telephoto lens and not be committing any offence. It only becomes an offence under the harassment law if you repeatedly took photos of the house interior.

WOW  Brians  filing  system  has  proved  it's  worth  !!

I  found  the  article  in  Amateur  Photographer  dated  27  March  2010  reporting  the  meeting  on  9th  March  2010  between  Minister  of  State  for Crime  &  Policing,  David  Hanson  M.P. Austin  Mitchell  M.P.  &  representatives  of  Met  Police,   &  A.C.P.O. along  with  Editor  &  News  Editor  of  A. P.  &  reps  from  Royal Photographic  Society,  Bureau  of  Freelance  Photographers  and  others !

Nett  result  was  that  the  Police  were  reminded  of  their  duties  &  responsibilities  Especially  with  regard  to  Anti-terror  Regulations  which  they  must  NOT  use  in  these  circumstances  without  obvious  signs  of  such  behaviour  by  the  camera  people !

Carry  on  Clicking  Folks     !!

Brian

yes I seem to remeber that they said that having a camera, or taking photos (by itself) was not a basis for using the anti terror laws, or using them to ask individuals to account for their actions while taking photos. Taking photos would not be grounds for reasonable suspicion

Just to add a little to this.

After the incident, we went to look around Chester town hall. And what a contrast in attitude. We naturally asked if it was OK to take photos, and were told that we were welcome to do this. In fact, the pleasant young chap at reception insisted in getting us to pose on the stairs whilst he took a picture using my wifes phone.

I mentioned the Boodles business to him, and he was already aware of their position on photography, so it couldn't have been an isolated incident.

Daft thing is, if I'd had my proper camera with me, I could have stood on the opposite side of the street and zoomed right in on the window display, out of range of jobsworth chap.