Taking photos on London Underground?

I think you'll find that permission/a permit is required for set-piece photography (with two weeks notice), but not for ad-hoc tourist style stuff.

I agree with this. I've often taken photos at Underground, and mainline, stations and have never had any problem.

David

How about asking them yourself.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/media/lufilmoffice/

You can use a small hand held camera without a permit. (depends on your definition) But probably best top be overt and smile while you do and stand by to ask questions.

Link to district dave who updated July this year.

Dunno who he is but the advice looks snap happy.

Let's not normalise asking permission for things which ought to be reasonable things to do. We're far too ready to comply with petty little rules in the uk. Look at the guy in Strathclyde who asked permission to take pictures in the park, only for some lazy risk averse jobsworth to tell him he couldn't.

(As Alan Partridge would deploringly say 'this country...')

I wanted to do a shoot on the LU for an A level project and wanted access and time to set up things properly. It took a few minutes to get a proposal together and send off with a photo and I thought £25 (fee at the time) was good value for money. Unfortunately other things got in the way but instead of furtively pulling out a DLUX3 I could have spent time to set up the shots properly.

You don't need permission to use a small camera so you don't need to ask permission but if you want to hang about and carry lots of kit and wield a serious looking camera, asking first doesn't seem an issue to me. Better that all and sundry know what you're doing then being constantly bothered by ignoramuses.

On the street however or in a park or on publicly owned property!!!

If you want decent photos with an unobtrusive camera then a black MX/ME Super and 40mm pancake lens are hard to beat. Will fit in a shoulder bag that looks nothing like a camera case, plus to the casual observer it looks like a compact.

Asking permission to be present in a public place*, simply because one happens to be a photographer, is bad enough but to be charged a £35 fee is (IMHO at least) unacceptable. It's fair enough if someone is taking a crew/equipment on stands/etc. that could obstruct the normal use of the station. The permits also apparently don't include a "Licence" to publish the photographs in any way, including on the internet. I can't figure out what they're on about to be honest - since they don't own the copyright to photographs taken by anyone other than their own employees.

*Public place, not public property: I'm aware of the difference

I think the point is that if you are working you are expected to comply with the T&Cs and H&S. The permits are just a method of control.

Taking the odd snap with a camera fine. If you can with a DSLR OK. I guess the assumption is that you want the quality for "exhibiting" i.e. work. Its fair enough for them to want to control their image rights. As for licencing images I have no idea about the whys and wherefores of that.

The iconic tube map is copyright, I'd imagine the logo is copyright. beyond that how can you licence the image of a tunnel?? Aren't you the legal beagle?

I'm no LU apologist but I can see they don't want 300 budding reality DV crews turning up at rush hour. Or a bunch of numpties wanting to shoot their own Bourne End Supremacy, with fake blood and caps. Imagine the ensuing stampede down an escalator.

Between the "small" camera and the full on film crew there is a line and they are the ones doing the line drawing.

But if I wanted to hang about on a platform for a few hours without hassle for a fee? Not a problem to me. Above ground in a park? Different kettle of fish.

Slightly 'off topic ' but not by much

Spotted this this morning


link

Point taken, but the OP talked about taking pictures while he happened to be taking a tube journey, rather than arranging an extended photo shoot.

Therefore I think he should just do it - being considerate, but open about it when he's taking a few pictures. I think furtiveness will make people more uncomfortable - and why should he feel he has to be furtive, presuming he's not one of those evildoers!

Worst that can happen is he'll be asked to stop, unless he decides to start quoting back the European Convention on Human Rights etc Lol

perhaps this might come in handy.

It wasn't any problem. Only took a few, will post any 1/2 way decent ones here.

The map is copyrighted, the logo is likely both copyrighted and trademarked. In fact given its iconic status they may well have trademarked the map as well!

However, AFAIK this doesn't make photographing either illegal, unless the purpose is to interfere with the trademark in some way. For example, despite McDonalds' famous 'arches' logo being trademarked (and McDonalds being very litigious), nobody has been sued for taking a photograph of a McDonalds despite such photographs including the trademarked logo. So taking a photograph of a London Underground station possibly doesn't infringe the trademark, but selling that photo on a tshirt would.

Of course I'm not a lawyer, and know very little about trademarks (and less than nothing about how English contract law treats conditions of entry to premises) so the above has about the same chance of being right as I have of being the next Archbishop of Canterbury

Heard a radio story a couple of days back about people being charged to use images of houses/properties on greetings cards and calendars. I can't remember the programme or the organisation but will do some sniffing. Hope this triggers somebody else's memory.

Could have been stonehenge and the programme included the info that other people had been asked to pay for using images of other heritage sites/homes etc.

It might come back to me. I've listened to an awful lot of radio at work in the last 7 days!!!!

It was PM on the 21st LINK. 41 minutes in.

Also the day after correspondence. LINK. About 54 mins in.

It still doesn't clear the matter up to my satisfaction. The argument seems to be that in order to take the picture you had to be on their property, which then gives them some control over the image. I can see I need permission to be on their property, however I don't see how they can restrict the image use taken off the property.

Paying a fee/ticket probably creates a contract and the terms of which include your agreeing to their image rights demands. Hence the issue with LU, you need to be there to take the images. To be able to set up a particular shot without getting hassled is probably worth the fee. But the restrictions on image use then curtail your freedoms.

The trade off is the on the hoof photo with light equipment unlikely to attract a employee may not allow the artistic set up you want. But I don't see how any contract is formed unless it is buried deep in the T&C of carriage.

Stuff English Heritage's fee.
Travel light on the LU and don't include (too much) of the map or the logo.

Seems to be the order of the day.

(I don't know why I listen to PM as Eddie Mair's attitude inevitably winds me up)