It's just getting ridiculous ...

[jimmyosram]

Row over photo in shopping centre

[nick_gray]

I read the above story last night, but this morning there is good news Braehead shopping centre owner changes UK photographs policy

Regards

Nick

[jet_kit]

Here we go again!

If you are on public land (the road, the pavement, the park etc.) you can take as many pictures as you like and no-one (repeat NO-ONE) has the authority to stop you. If however someone who appears in your images asks you to delete them you must do so, also if someone asks you not to include them or their family in your images, again, you must comply.

In privately owned property (like shopping malls) the rules are different. You can be restricted from taking pictures and if challenged, you must stop. No member of a security company or the Police has the right to insist you delete images and you cannot have your equipment confiscated unless you ignore instructions to stop taking pictures. The Police may ASK you to delete some images, but only after they have inspected them and explained why they should be deleted. If you fail to do so you will be liable to arrest.

One final note of caution. On the pavement outside a building you will often find a row of brass studs, or a brass strip. This is the demarcation line and the building ownership extends to this point and you will be subject to the same rules as you would be inside the building.

99 times out of 100 if you have a friendly word with a security guard before you do anything most problems can be avoided. I once had a security guard escort me to the top of the Gherkin in London free-of-charge, and allowed me access to restricted areas to get better shots

[Cathus]

You say 'here we go again' but I'd say we've come on a bit since 2 or more years ago as I think there are less stories like this than there used to be.

Chris, I'm interested in why you say you must delete an image taken of someone without permission if requested, as there is no law of privacy in the UK and a picture taken of you in public means you have no control of it and no right to demand it be deleted, there being a difference between the courtesy of deleting it on request and the requirement to obey such a request.

Also, the police do not have any right to request a deletion of images this can only be done with a court order. You can only be arrested if you are suspected of having committed a criminal offence or are being dealt with as a suspect under the Terrorism Act. You can't be arrested merely for refusing to delete an image on request as there is no power to request such a deletion under any act.

The Metropolitan Police issued guidance to its officers in 2006 which was adopted by the Association of Chief Police Officers in 2007 (though it took quite some time to filter across to all police forces, the guidance is still current.

it said: "Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record. It is a matter for their editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police. Once images are recorded, we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain damaging or useful evidence.

If someone who is distressed or bereaved asks for police to intervene to prevent members of the media filming or photographing them, we may pass on their request but we have no power to prevent or restrict media activity. If they are trespassing on private property, the person who owns or controls the premises may eject them and may ask for your help in preventing a breach of the peace while they do so. The media have their own rules of conduct and complaints procedures if members of the public object."

For 'members of the media read 'members of the 'public' as it points out that members of the media are themselves members of the public.

If anyone hasn't seen this they may be interested in some guidance given by a media lawyer:

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/u...srights-v2.pdf

[nick_gray]

Just to add to Cathus excellent post. Further information on the Met Police Service website http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

[jet_kit]

Thanks for clearing that up Garry.

[Cathus]

It seems things might not have been as cut and dried as the complainant in the story said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-15290685

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by Cathus

It seems things might not have been as cut and dried as the complainant in the story said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-15290685

Are you saying he's not whiter than white?

[spin498]

I can't speak for the mall, or the specific ice cream store but I know a lot of similar establishments have concerns about photos taken in their premises, industrial espionage I suspect. I recall taking photos of my dog at a dog washing shop and the owner snapped on me. Still don't know why. It was the only store of it's kind in the area and I think the owner thought I was stealing his idea. Maybe he was point the phone at their store setup and they were suspicious.

[Jediboy]

Interesting......
Maybe its another example of reactions to a story getting ridiculous. Its funny how things can change when we hear the other side of the story.