Photos in Public Places

[BEDROCK]

Individuals have to mitigate their own actions i.e if I go to a football match is it likely someone maybe taking photographs, if it's reasonable to assume this will happen then I forfeit the right of having a strop/tantrum if someone takes an image of me as I ready know there is a likely hood of this occurring if I seriously object to this then my option is stay at home.

 

As said before, public places are fair game, if someone wants to take photos of me in a park then feel free but if they trolled me round a shopping mall then they should accept my wrath !!!

[dosxuk]

As said before, public places are fair game, if someone wants to take photos of me in a park then feel free but if they trolled me round a shopping mall then they should accept my wrath !!!

 

A shopping mall is a public place, you should have no reasonable expectation of privacy there. Just because it's private property doesn't mean it's not in public.

 

Harassment is another thing entirely.

[Alien52]

A shopping mall is a public place, you should have no reasonable expectation of privacy there. Just because it's private property doesn't mean it's not in public.

 

Harassment is another thing entirely.

 

Now that is garbage.

Go try that out at Meadowhall.

[dosxuk]

Now that is garbage.

Go try that out at Meadowhall.

 

Why would Meadowhall have a problem with me taking a photo there? I've done it a handful of times, and there is constantly people taking selfies and the like all around the place.

 

And even if they did have a problem, it wouldn't be because I was taking photos which might have a member of the public in and I hadn't asked permission from them.

 

Taking photos in a shopping mall is no different to any other privately owned public place, like football stadiums, train stations or cafés.

[Obelix]

Now that is garbage.

Go try that out at Meadowhall.

 

If I take a photo at Meadowhall I'm perfectly entitled to do so. If they then ask me to leave that is their entitlement.

 

The photos I have already taken are not illegal and they cannot ask me to remove them or excercise any control over them. If I were to continue to take photos, then they can remove me, or have the police remove me but the phots are still not illegal and they are still my copyright and my property.

[BEDROCK]

What about kids then, schools and even sports days you need permission and rightly so.

 

But should that extend to public parks / kids areas in which anyone can take photos?

 

This could also extend to museums, exhibitions, events, parties, where do you cross the line?

[Obelix]

What about kids then, schools and even sports days you need permission and rightly so.

 

No you don't. There is nothing special about under 16's. I've got an entire scout troop to look after, there is nothing I could do, even if I wanted to, to stop someone taking a picture of them in public.

[cgksheff]

What about kids then, schools and even sports days you need permission and rightly so.

...............

 

No you don't.

 

For heavens sake, read what people are trying to tell you. Repeatedly.

[CPC464]

Now that is garbage.

Go try that out at Meadowhall.

 

Just because they ask you not to (although why would they - have you never taken a photo in shop before?) - doesn't make it ILLEGAL!

 

This is the point - you can tell or ask people not to take pictures on private property, doesn't make it a crime if you carry on!

 

---------- Post added 03-07-2014 at 05:57 ----------

 

No you don't.

 

For heavens sake, read what people are trying to tell you. Repeatedly.

 

I think we are fighting losing battle here - some people choose to ignorantly believe that it's illegal to take pictures in public / of strangers / at school despite the clear evidence that it's not.

 

There is obviously some confusion - some schools do ask for consent forms or that you don't post images to social media sites - but of course this doesn't make it a crime if you choose to do it.

 

I suspect that most people are happy to agree to these rules - and it would be a surprise if someone deliberately defied them if reasonably asked - but again - not a crime.

 

 

It's not helped by repeated police bungling of the issue - arresting tourists, people on protests, journalists and claiming they are in breach of anti terrorist legislation - and always completely wrong.

[Cyclone]

Now that is garbage.

Go try that out at Meadowhall.

 

The management (or more likely security) can ask you to leave.

 

But Bedrock has no comeback.

 

Hell, get a photo of Bedrock in his front room, take it from the street. Tough luck for Bedrock.

 

---------- Post added 03-07-2014 at 07:31 ----------

 

What about kids then, schools and even sports days you need permission and rightly so.

 

But should that extend to public parks / kids areas in which anyone can take photos?

 

This could also extend to museums, exhibitions, events, parties, where do you cross the line?

 

Schools are not 'public places' generally open to the public, they are, like meadowhall, private spaces that you might have access to.

 

That said, they can't stop you taking a photo, they can only ask you to leave.

And if you take a photo from the street, there's nothing they can do.

 

You can take photos of anyone, anywhere, basically.

There are restrictions, go and take a photo of GCHQ and you will find yourself answering some pointed questions. But in general, you can photograph most things, places and people.