Told to remove camera from tripod
Discussion
On Monday night I was showing a friend the benefits of night photography outside a popular arena in London. About 2 hours into our 'shoot' a security guard appeared from the arena and asked us to take the camera off the tripod if we wanted to continue taking photos on private property.
When I challenged this, the security guard said the tripod makes it a professional photo shoot, so we can carry on what we are doing but without using the tripod. FWIW we were taking photos of the interesting street furniture around the building and at the time the camera wasn't even pointing at the arena.
I just wondered if this was a bored security guard giving us hassle or someone with a valid point? The local Police drove merrily past us at one point.
When I challenged this, the security guard said the tripod makes it a professional photo shoot, so we can carry on what we are doing but without using the tripod. FWIW we were taking photos of the interesting street furniture around the building and at the time the camera wasn't even pointing at the arena.
I just wondered if this was a bored security guard giving us hassle or someone with a valid point? The local Police drove merrily past us at one point.
andburg said:
I'd say its just a security guard bored or paid to do something he doesn't understand.
I wouldn't say a tripod was a professional piece of equiptment, had you shown up with a van full of lighting maybe...but a tripod is an essential for low light photography at any level really
This is what puzzled me, he said we can carry on taking photos if we stop using the tripod. I would have preferred a 'get off our land' than a load of twaddle. I wouldn't say a tripod was a professional piece of equiptment, had you shown up with a van full of lighting maybe...but a tripod is an essential for low light photography at any level really
(I can't figure out how to reply to you all in 1 post, sorry)
If you were on private property (as you sate in the OP) then their rules apply. They would have been within their rights to ask you to leave.
He wasn't a jobsworth, he was doing his job. Assuming you aren't a pro photographer you probably don't have third party insurance. I know it's unlikely but if someone had, say, tripped over your tripod and injured themselves the repercussions would be a nightmare. My third party cover was hitting over £75/month when I stopped trading a couple of years back...
He wasn't a jobsworth, he was doing his job. Assuming you aren't a pro photographer you probably don't have third party insurance. I know it's unlikely but if someone had, say, tripped over your tripod and injured themselves the repercussions would be a nightmare. My third party cover was hitting over £75/month when I stopped trading a couple of years back...
Squawk1066 said:
Jasandjules said:
Were you on their land?
Between the arena and the tube station. Edited by Squawk1066 on Thursday 4th December 12:22
King 
said:
said: If you were on private property (as you sate in the OP) then their rules apply. They would have been within their rights to ask you to leave.
He wasn't a jobsworth, he was doing his job. Assuming you aren't a pro photographer you probably don't have third party insurance. I know it's unlikely but if someone had, say, tripped over your tripod and injured themselves the repercussions would be a nightmare. My third party cover was hitting over £75/month when I stopped trading a couple of years back...
Your reason makes sense and clears it up. Thanks. TBH The person doing the tripping would have to get past the street furniture first, and me. He wasn't a jobsworth, he was doing his job. Assuming you aren't a pro photographer you probably don't have third party insurance. I know it's unlikely but if someone had, say, tripped over your tripod and injured themselves the repercussions would be a nightmare. My third party cover was hitting over £75/month when I stopped trading a couple of years back...
HTP99 said:
Squawk1066 said:
Jasandjules said:
Were you on their land?
Between the arena and the tube station. Edited by Squawk1066 on Thursday 4th December 12:22
Squawk1066 said:
Your reason makes sense and clears it up. Thanks. TBH The person doing the tripping would have to get past the street furniture first, and me.
You'd be amazed, as a profession pro photographers are very accident prone - it's something to do with going that extra yard to get the perfect shot. I've lost count how many times I've fallen, tripped or knocked something over. The last time was during a music gig a couple of years back. I was shooting the band from a ladder in the wings when someone bashed the ladder... I went flying across the stage and the band stopped playing to see if I was alright. When I got to my feet I received the biggest ovation of the evening! I think people trying to take photos get so much grief, from being viewed as anything from terrorists to paedophiles!
The law is pretty clear, that in public you can take photos of anyone and anything without explicit permission (bar a few exceptions like some MOD buildings where even if you are on public property outside you cannot photograph, but these are usually signed). You can take photos of people in public and they do not have to give permission, as there can be no expectation of privacy in public. Personally if I'm taking a photo where a person will be clearly identifiable, I will try and ask them if they mind first. If it's a candid shot then that's not always possible. Obviously following someone down the street taking their photo when they have asked you to stop could fall foul of harassment laws.
If you are on private property, they can have certain rules. They can ask you to stop taking photos, and can ask you to leave for any reason, but they legally cannot ask you to delete any photos you have taken: they are your property.
So if you were on private property they were within their rights to ask you to stop, no matter how silly the rule is. If on public property, you could have told them to get lost.
The law is pretty clear, that in public you can take photos of anyone and anything without explicit permission (bar a few exceptions like some MOD buildings where even if you are on public property outside you cannot photograph, but these are usually signed). You can take photos of people in public and they do not have to give permission, as there can be no expectation of privacy in public. Personally if I'm taking a photo where a person will be clearly identifiable, I will try and ask them if they mind first. If it's a candid shot then that's not always possible. Obviously following someone down the street taking their photo when they have asked you to stop could fall foul of harassment laws.
If you are on private property, they can have certain rules. They can ask you to stop taking photos, and can ask you to leave for any reason, but they legally cannot ask you to delete any photos you have taken: they are your property.
So if you were on private property they were within their rights to ask you to stop, no matter how silly the rule is. If on public property, you could have told them to get lost.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff