Ignorance from Trafalgar Square Heritage Wardens

http://bishopsimeontrust.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/snow-forecast/

Won't do much to make anyone want to visit London.

I have read about similar things in AP, but the fact that this was a Charity Fundraising Event makes it all the more depressing. I realise we have to have rules, but why (in this country) are we so obsessed with following them so inflexibly and insensitively?

As far as I can tell the wardens were just doing their job as non tourist photography in Trafalgar square without a permit is illegal.

Where I work the owners have banned photography (and even taking cameras onto land/premisses) without a permit, so when I wanted to take picture of the Peregrin Chicks last year, I asked for (and got) a photography permit - without that permit I would have been breaking the law.
The photographer broke the rules and got caught, so they are take a cheep shot at the heritage wardens.

The UK Photographers Rights document has been linked to many times from this forum (and specificaly mentions Trafalger Square).Its been updated to version 2 so I've linked to it again.

That said we cann't be expected to know property owners restrictions for everywhere we go (and I have been caught out) but if told by the property owners representatives that we cannot take photographs at a particular location, then we just have try to take our pictures whilst on property owned by someone else (e.g. take a non-tourist picture of Nelson's Coloumn from just outside of Trafalgar Square), or get permission, or move on to a different subject/location.

Just doing their job, exactly. Sensible people use their discretion. Trafalgar Square is one of the most photographed places in Britain, and although it is technically private property, forms part of the 'public realm' of London. I bet if 'Public Squares' came up on Family Fortunes, Trafalgar Square would be the top answer!

Therefore to single out these people, and continue to prevent them taking pictures even after hearing their explanation about the charity bike ride, is overly officious IMO.

When it comes to photographing Peregrin chicks I have a lot more sympathy for upholding the rules and regulations. It should be illegal to knowingly approach the nest without a permit, let alone take photographs.

Tourists are not mentioned in the byelaw. It says you must not:

"take photographs or any other recordings of visual images for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate;"

Activity could mean anything, and no one, including tourists, are allowed to photograph anything in this location, if you are interpreting the byelaw strictly. Or would that be a shame? Yes, just as it is shameful to prevent someone taking a photo of a group of charity fund raisers.

Letter to the Mayor from the participant:

http://lizzydripping.livejournal.com/17448.html

In Trafalger Square discretion = letting tourists take pictures, even if the exact letter of the law would deny them that privilege in that location.

Photographers need to understand their rights AND the rights of the owners of the property on/in which they are taking pictures.

In this case the photoshoot moved from a location in which they had permission to one at which they did not have permission and their sensible action on being told they could not take pictures would have been to move back to where they had permission - end of confrontation no issue.

Perhaps I was not clear with regard to my Peregrin pictures, I did not need a permit to take pictures of the peregrins but needed a permit to use a camera on the company property. With out that permit I would have been committing an offense (Criminal Tresspass) and could have been asked to desist and/or leave premises (company disapplinary / loss of job could hve followed too). With regard to approaching the nest I actualy had to position my self further from the nest than the walkway where hundreds of people walk from office to canteen every day and on the other side of on site road (lots of traffic) and next to the railway line, so there was no issue about approaching the nest or causing disturbance.

There also seems to be confussion about what the term 'public place' means. A Public Place is a place where people are allowed to go e.g. Tescos car park, Theater, Museum, Church, Public footpath, the road outside your house, M6 motorway. A puplic place is not a place where the public can decide what is or is not permissable.

All public places are owned by someone - even the road out side your house - and that someone can put whatever access restrictions (within the law) on that public place they wish. In a council owned public park, if the council puts up a "don't walk on the grass sign" then if you walk on the grass that's a criminal trespass and you can be asked/told to leave the park.

If there's an expressed wish of the owner saying "no photography" and you take a picture then its a crimminal trespass. If you take a dog to a place where dogs are not permitted then its a criminal tresspass and you can be asked to leave. No difference except we want to take photographs.

I notice in the letter to the mayor they say their pictures were taken from them - yes that is an offence of assult against the photographers. The police (et al) have no right a seize pictures unless an offence has been committed.

We don't have the RIGHT to take a picture anywhere (except within property that you own) its just one of the things that property owners are often happy for the public coming onto their property to do. I think a lot of complaints of the nature of 'I was harassed while taking a picture at X' are simply sour grapes because its 'me' being told 'I' cannot do what I would like to do.

We just have to face up to the FACT that we do not have the RIGHT to take a picture, but the building or land owner does have the right to insist that we do not, and can ask us to leave if we persist.

The above is certainly an abreviation of the UK law and avoids issues of tennants (basicaly same rights as owner) and national security. I have tried to be objective and correct, if any one is more familiar with the UK (England)
legal position and I've got something wrong please speak up!

I thought it said that "their pictures were taken" by which I think she meant that they in their turn were photographed.

If their images had been physically taken away then they couldn't have posted them on the website. It would indeed have been an offence to take their images away from them.

I think it may have been a bit of sloppy letter writing there.

Of course the law applies to our actions when in a public place, its just we have become accustomed over the centuries to being able to perform social and recreational activities within the public realm [and I am talking specifically about places like Trafalgar Square created specifically for the informal recreational use of the general public] with a reasonable degree of freedom, coupled with a consensual sense of duty to the freedom and enjoyment of others, without the necessity of intrusion by long arm of the law.

I think for many of us, this sort of thing [not being allowed to take photographs because of a perceived terrorist threat] is just depressingly symptomatic of how we are no longer trusted to work out for ourselves how to behave in a responsible way and are under suspicion by default, and how every single possible risk, no matter how minor or unlikely, must be eliminated at all cost no matter how our sense of freedom and independence are infringed.

As something of an aside I thought private property could also be a public place and that one was allowed to take photographs in a public place. Isn't that why there was a bye law specifically banning commercial activity in the square? There is also the issue of the ill thought through anti terror legislation.

I have some sympathy for the wardens who felt this group looked commercial but none for the way they handled it.

As for Bob's comment that his employers banned cameras and so taking them on site would be breaking the law I think that depends who the employer is. Wouldn't one be guilty of some for of trespass which is purely civil unless his employer is some branch of government?

Mike

Mike

Photography from a publicly accessible area is allowed, unless something specifically stops it. Trafalgar Square may well be a special case, with its own bye-laws, but that sort of thing is still very rare.

The English Heritage Images of England Photographers' Manual spelled that out.

It's always a good idea not to be confrontational though. Being right is OK, but we still need to be reasonable to avoid pointless conflict.

Well put and applicable in a number of areas today .

We seem to have the communal grumps on today don't we?

Mike

Hmmm... how very... reasonable! It would just be lovely if reasonableness was a more common attribute of the Heritage Police, given the details of this case. A polite request to wrap things up in five minutes might have been all that was needed.

There is doubt over whether or not the byelaws apply in this case, but the wardens did not act properly anyway.

The conflict is not going to be pointless if the wardens get better educated as a result, and therefore photographers in future getting better treatment.

The wardens need to know exactly what and whom the byelaws apply to so that they can advise people properly, and they need to know that they do not have the right to demand names and addresses in any case.