Had problems taking pictures of the railways?

[ralphchadkirk]

What would be helpful is if someone could either create or find a photographic law factsheet, printable to be shown to authorities if any issues were to arise. I have looked, but perhaps not hard enough as I couldn't find anything. Can anyone help?

Yes, there are. I will link to it lower down.

Why should I have to waste time writing what the law says when I've been asking others on here to do the same thing to justify their misguided opinion?

Misguided? I think it is you that is misguided, or just misunderstood. Perhaps you would like to tell Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip. L.P., LL.M how she is absolutely wrong on this, and you are correct as she states in her UK Photograpers Rights guide the following:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

The law surrounding invasion of privacy has developed rapidly in recent years. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights gives everyone the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. The Convention rights are taken into account by the UK courts in determining any cases that come before them. As this area of the law is changing and developing, it is hard to be certain about what will and what will not amount to an infringement of Article 8.
The use of long lens to take a photo of someone in a private place, such as their home, without their consent, is an invasion of privacy even though the photo is taken from a public place.
For images of people in public places, the key seems to be whether the place is one where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the courts have greatly extended the areas where this might be the case. A court has held that the right of privacy of a child might be infringed by the taking and publishing of a photograph of him with his parents in a public street.
[...]
Photographers are therefore advised to be careful when taking photographs intended for some kind of publication, even when the subject is in a public place. Photographs taken of people at public events are probably still permissible, at least for the present. The general advice is to get consent, and preferably written consent, wherever possible.

Clearly Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip. L.P., LL.M has made the whole thing up in some sort of conspiracy to stop photographers as Jon would no doubt believe :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't try and back paddle. This is exactly the reasons I said it depends on the circumstances and what your trying to photograph.

It was you that came out with the carte blanche statement of saying its ok to photograph anything private as long as its taken from a public place.

Perhaps you would like to post the law that supposedly says you can do it.

Unfortunately Jon is guilty of his own charge has he hasn't (unlike me) managed to back any of his posts up except with hearsay or opinion.

 

[jon0844]

I never suggested people should take photos into private property and I did ask for evidence which you've now posted. If you'd done that earlier...

I still don't see what taking a photograph of someone in their own home has to do with the taking of photos in public. Are all of the people who get harassed each and every day by security guards, rail staff, members of the public who take exception, PCSOs and police officers getting harassed because they were taking photos of someone in their bedroom? All of this started in a thread about taking photos on the railways, which has extended to other public areas.

I have never taken a photograph of someone in their bedroom. I have many, many times (for mystery shopping purposes) taken photos of shop fronts where staff (and members of the public inside) are visible. I've also taken photos on police raids, and agreed in advance to blank out faces (as a condition of being invited to go along with the police). However, that was always a courtesy and the police did acknowledge that we (the press) could take photos outside of the premises raided.

Even the quoted text above includes the word 'might' and so doesn't point to any specific legislation, but highlights that a photographer may have to waste time explaining his or her actions. What it does also do is bring up some things to be worried about, as in the gradual erosion of the rights to the point where one day it might become illegal to take photos on the street.

So, cut the rolling eyes and other put downs and admit you could have easily provided your 'evidence' earlier.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I never suggested people should take photos into private property and I did ask for evidence which you've now posted. If you'd done that earlier...

Sorry about having a life outside these forums and not being able to find (actually very easily found) evidence immediately just for you.

Even the quoted text above includes the word 'might' and so doesn't point to any specific legislation

As I did. I even capitalised it for you in my post at 11.15 today.

Of course, it's quite hypocritical of you to try and tell me to 'cut down on the put downs'. I actually apologised earlier for being a little too rude, yet in you next post wrote this:

Why should I have to waste time writing what the law says when I've been asking others on here to do the same thing to justify their misguided opinion?

 

[jon0844]

I took a while to write my post (as, funnily enough, I also have a lot of things to do too), so more than one reply appeared above my message come the time I'd come off a call and finished.

Not that I should have to explain every single action, but yes I accept your 'apology' about coming over as rude.

 

[GB]

I never suggested people should take photos into private property and I did ask for evidence which you've now posted. If you'd done that earlier...

The "evidence" was posted earlier except you decided to go off on a rant about the Human Rights Act.

I still don't see what taking a photograph of someone in their own home has to do with the taking of photos in public.

It hasn't, but you were the one that brought up the issue in your post about it.

Are all of the people who get harassed each and every day by security guards, rail staff, members of the public who take exception, PCSOs and police officers getting harassed because they were taking photos of someone in their bedroom? All of this started in a thread about taking photos on the railways, which has extended to other public areas.

You can thank yourself for that then.

Anyway, like you, I'm bowing out of this particular argument as clearly we are going round in circles.

Edit: Where I said exposed earlier, I was thinking along the lines of potentially being sued.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Thank you Jon, and I hope we can leave it at that (ignoring the implication in your acceptance).

 

[jon0844]

Edit: Where I said exposed earlier, I was thinking along the lines of potentially being sued.

People can sue anybody, but that doesn't mean the photographer did anything wrong or illegal.

I wouldn't encourage people to go around harassing people by taking photos of them (let alone the mention of taking a photo with a telephoto lens of someone in their bedroom), but nor do I think that anyone on this thread that has been harassed has been doing that.

I'd sooner accept that your definition of 'exposed' would refer to the increased chance of being assaulted, which IS an issue, than being sued. The people who take exception are unlikely to pursue a claim in court as they'd prefer to dish out their own justice - from attacking the photographer (as happens quite a lot) or damaging/destroying the camera.

I'm still unclear of how many people have, or would, take things to the ECHR - or if anyone has done so with a successful outcome. I'll admit it's not something I'd considered before, and doubt I would when doing my job (which isn't taking photos of people close-up, and rarely of people at all).

 

[alexdodds]

Reports today of it not being permitted to take photos at Marylebone due to the Olympics! Here we go again.....

I can tell you one of my friends was at Marylebone and got confronted by 2 security guards. It was all caught on his camera and he put it on youtube however if you got the chance to see the video I can tell you I felt sorry for the staff because I had never seen such appalling behaviour from an enthusiast because he was swearing and shouting at the staff even when the female station manager was present. It started by the guard asking him if he signed in and had permission but when he touched his camera it all kicked off. He took the video down because it was getting attention very quickly and Chiltern had seen it.

Then at Ealing Broadway he got approached again and this time the staff were giving him the opportunity to go and sign in straight away and carry on with his videoing but he kept refusing even though he was been asked kindly by FGW and the security guards and so the BTP were called. they then give him one more chance but still refused and so him and his mate got kicked off the station.

 

[jon0844]

That sounds like a case of an arrest for a public order offence.

 

[phil8715]

I was on Burnley bus station and my mate was taking photos of buses, he got told to put his camera away or he would get banned from the station. The security guard said the manager of the bus station has a camera linked to his home computer and if he see everything he can see if his security guards are doing their job properly.

Sent from my Lumia 710 using Board Express

 

[172212]

Yes, I have, I'm so glad someone brought this up.
I haven't had a problem per say, but I was taking footage at Coventry and a security guard came up to me and asked me what I was doing; I replied with taking pictures of the trains, he then told me to ask permission, as it was 'required', I told him that the guidelines stated that I didn't have to ask - but it was recommended.
The outcome was that he told me to ask a member of staff, who said I could anyway...
I usually just ask permission nowadays, just to be on the safe side + I've heard stories where people have been forced out of the station for taking photos and I don't really want to be one of those people.

 

[lifeboat1721]

Yes, I have, I'm so glad someone brought this up.
I haven't had a problem per say, but I was taking footage at Coventry and a security guard came up to me and asked me what I was doing; I replied with taking pictures of the trains, he then told me to ask permission, as it was 'required', I told him that the guidelines stated that I didn't have to ask - but it was recommended.
The outcome was that he told me to ask a member of staff, who said I could anyway...
I usually just ask permission nowadays, just to be on the safe side + I've heard stories where people have been forced out of the station for taking photos and I don't really want to be one of those people.

I used to get asked when I arrived at Lancaster would I go to the office and check if it was ok to take pics, I just used to stick my head round the door say I've just come to shoot the Steam special!! There reply was fine mate carry on... Now I don't even bother asking.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I once took a pic of a Police car driving down the Prom at Morecambe he then stopped and asked me if I'd taken a pic of him? I replied not of you just the car, he got back in and drove off..

 

[jon0844]

And if you had been taking a photo of the officer, what business of his was it?

 

[172212]

I used to get asked when I arrived at Lancaster would I go to the office and check if it was ok to take pics, I just used to stick my head round the door say I've just come to shoot the Steam special!! There reply was fine mate carry on... Now I don't even bother asking.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I once took a pic of a Police car driving down the Prom at Morecambe he then stopped and asked me if I'd taken a pic of him? I replied not of you just the car, he got back in and drove off..

Ha, I've had a couple of looks by conductors when taking pictures of the cab, but they don't even show up on the picture

 

[43167]

Yes, I have, I'm so glad someone brought this up.
I haven't had a problem per say, but I was taking footage at Coventry and a security guard came up to me and asked me what I was doing; I replied with taking pictures of the trains, he then told me to ask permission, as it was 'required', I told him that the guidelines stated that I didn't have to ask - but it was recommended.
The outcome was that he told me to ask a member of staff, who said I could anyway...
I usually just ask permission nowadays, just to be on the safe side + I've heard stories where people have been forced out of the station for taking photos and I don't really want to be one of those people.

Thats intresting with Coventry, because its a Virgin Station and at other Virgin stations there the well known posters openly welcoming enthuisasts. Rugby, Crewe, Preston and carlisle ive seen them.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I told him that the guidelines stated that I didn't have to ask - but it was recommended.

If you don't want to follow the guidelines, then don't expect staff to follow them either. After all, they are 'guidelines'.

 

[172212]

If you don't want to follow the guidelines, then don't expect staff to follow them either. After all, they are 'guidelines'.

But that's the point. I DID follow the guidelines. I was standing away from the yellow line and went to the end of the platform, as the guidelines say, it is RECOMMENDED that you ask for permission, but it's NOT required.

Rant over

 

[jon0844]

I am not sure you need to ask permission anyway, but rather just let someone know you're there.

To say you need to ask permission suggests that the person you ask can just say no, depending on what mood they're in.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I am not sure you need to ask permission anyway, but rather just let someone know you're there.

To say you need to ask permission suggests that the person you ask can just say no, depending on what mood they're in.

By the guidelines and the byelaws they can ask you to leave the station (it doesn't specify when they can ask, but overcrowding, safety issues etc etc). To remain would be an offence.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[ralphchadkirk]

But that's the point. I DID follow the guidelines. I was standing away from the yellow line and went to the end of the platform, as the guidelines say, it is RECOMMENDED that you ask for permission, but it's NOT required.

Rant over

That's funny, the guidelines don't even mention the word "recommended". It says "when you arrive at a station please let the staff at the Network Rail Reception Desk know that you are on the station". If you want to treat that as a request: fine, but don't expect staff to follow them. The only legitimate reason I can see for not letting staff know you are there is if you are literally passing through the station and are taking one or two photographs.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[172212]

That's funny, the guidelines don't even mention the word "recommended". It says "when you arrive at a station please let the staff at the Network Rail Reception Desk know that you are on the station". If you want to treat that as a request: fine, but don't expect staff to follow them. The only legitimate reason I can see for not letting staff know you are there is if you are literally passing through the station and are taking one or two photographs.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

It doesn't say ASK for permission, it says let them know you're there. Which is pointless if a staffed member can see what you're doing, if I had to ask for permission then why didn't I get stopped at Wolverhampton, New Street or Birmingham International

 

[jon0844]

By the guidelines and the byelaws they can ask you to leave the station (it doesn't specify when they can ask, but overcrowding, safety issues etc etc). To remain would be an offence.

And I bet they do that very rarely, most likely for people loitering around (like when people used to try and snag travelcards and re-sell them), being drunk etc.

Imagine if they just started picking on random people and chucking them out of the station? Luckily that doesn't happen (or the Daily Mail would be full of stories) and simply deciding you don't like someone taking photos - when NR has said it's okay, as long as you follow the guidelines - would land said person in a lot of trouble. Not legally necessarily, but certainly from a PR point of view.

I've seen BTP dealing with drunks at King's Cross at midnight and even they don't chuck people out, but do certainly do everything to get them on the last trains.

 

[172212]

Has anyone ever been kicked out of a train station for taking photos before?

 

[causton]

Ha, I've had a couple of looks by conductors when taking pictures of the cab, but they don't even show up on the picture

Exactly!

And this is what happens when you try to deliberately obscure your face...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/0causton0/7157943502

It makes it obvious, whereas her face would have not shown up because the glass was so reflective. :P

 

[Charlie2555]

I had a man at Clapham Junction poke his head out of a 456 at me and say "no cameras". He was invisible and wouldn't be in my picture (now deleted) if he hadn't stuck his head out. I'm not sure if "no cameras" meant he believed you weren't allowed to use them or whether he just didn't want to be in a picture.

 

[electra27000]

I had a man at Clapham Junction poke his head out of a 456 at me and say "no cameras". He was invisible and wouldn't be in my picture (now deleted) if he hadn't stuck his head out. I'm not sure if "no cameras" meant he believed you weren't allowed to use them or whether he just didn't want to be in a picture.

Did you delete it as a result of what he'd said?

 

[Temple Meads]

I had a man at Clapham Junction poke his head out of a 456 at me and say "no cameras". He was invisible and wouldn't be in my picture (now deleted) if he hadn't stuck his head out. I'm not sure if "no cameras" meant he believed you weren't allowed to use them or whether he just didn't want to be in a picture.

I see you use the term "a man", was this man staff or just a camera shy passenger?

 

[Charlie2555]

I did delete it because what he said and he was a Southern driver

 

[40fan]

I did delete it because what he said and he was a Southern driver

Why did you delete it? It is none of his business, not to mention the fact that he was lying when he said no cameras.

 

[electra27000]

I did delete it because what he said and he was a Southern driver

Have you used the card since?