Public vs Private property - what's the law?

PaulStat · 15 Jun 2010 at 08:58

So I was taking a look at this shot

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bristol_bound/4674527850/

And read his tale of security guards hassling him. Now I've had this once before but I was stood in the middle of the inside bit of Cabot Circus (new fancy shopping centre in Bristol). I didn't know what the situation was with my rights so I moved on.

But I have also had security guards follow me around when they see my camera dangling around my neck outside on the street, again near Cabot Circus (the fountains near Raymond Blancs restaurant for anyone who knows it)

So what is the law? What is public and what is private land? And why do private land owners want to stop you taking pictures?

lazer46 · 15 Jun 2010 at 09:00

I think it is all to do with security mate. Hightened because of the danger of terrorism etc.

PaulStat · 15 Jun 2010 at 09:01

that's a pretty poor reason in my opinion

fowler002 · 15 Jun 2010 at 09:08

my granddad had security guards telling him he can't film(he was using a camcorder not a camera), first outside by the fountains then in the other mall(not Cabot circus. don't think he was asked to stop filming when we were in Cabot circus).

I got told that photography wasn't allowed in eldon(sp?) square mall in Newcastle.

The_TailGunner · 15 Jun 2010 at 09:54

shopping malls/centres are, generally, private property afaik. owned and operated by a company that collects rent from the shops/car parking etc

anything that constitutes part of the same development (environs and so on) would quite possibly be private property also.

simply put, if they tell you you cant film/photograph, then they are pretty much within their rights to do so and you should probably comply with their wishes.

if you are out on the street, then that would be a public place. anything visible from a public place is pretty much fair game (not peoples front rooms using a telephoto

). security guards can be told (politely) to bog off

Cosimo · 15 Jun 2010 at 10:56

Take a look at UK Photographers Rights Guide v2, the PDF guide is available as a download.

ichabod crane · 15 Jun 2010 at 11:17

With regard to places like cabot circus, these are usually developments that are privately owned and so they are able to employ private security firms that can control the public use of the area.
The public spaces that they create around these developments are really just for the aesthetic look to help with renting out the office or retail spaces.

I was in Brindley place Birmingham shooting the urban spaces when I was asked *very politely* by a security guard to not take pictures. As he was a nice guy I took the opportunity to ask him about it; and he was very forth coming explaining that one of the reasons the owners of the site do not want people taking pictures was it may upset the tenants who occupied the offices surrounding the public urban space.

VirtualAdept · 15 Jun 2010 at 11:49

The_TailGunner said:
shopping malls/centres are, generally, private property afaik. owned and operated by a company that collects rent from the shops/car parking etc

Yeah, thats one of the rules at the centre I work at, though we're much more concerned with those with a P&S and nothing to actually photograph. No problem taking pictures/video of your kids/grandkids etc, but shots of the actual centre are a no no.

simply put, if they tell you you cant film/photograph, then they are pretty much within their rights to do so and you should probably comply with their wishes.

if you are out on the street, then that would be a public place. anything visible from a public place is pretty much fair game (not peoples front rooms using a telephoto ). security guards can be told (politely) to bog off

There was a woman took a shot of our roofing system a few months ago, which is quite a nice looking arrangement when the suns out. I did my bit and informed her that we dont allow photography etc, then gave her a nudge and a wink and said "and you deleted that, didn't you?" for no other reason than to be able to tell my boss I'd said to.
Being quite a keen photographer myself I can see both sides of this particular argument and try where I can to come up with a fair solution, and I'm slowly but surely informing the other guards of what photographers can do, like the point above about public land.
We've finally managed to instigate rule 7 with regards to photography now.

Amp34 · 15 Jun 2010 at 12:39

What you need to make sure of when on what you think is public property is that it is actually public property. The best known one is the street/avenue leading up to the London Eye, it looks public but in fact that whole area is owned by the company that own the London Eye. Another one is Docklands, which again a large amount of that area is private.

One suggestion to get round this is to take shots from the road if it has been turned over to the local council... Whether that is actually true is another matter...

The_TailGunner · 15 Jun 2010 at 14:33

Amp34 said:
What you need to make sure of when on what you think is public property is that it is actually public property. The best known one is the street/avenue leading up to the London Eye, it looks public but in fact that whole area is owned by the company that own the London Eye. Another one is Docklands, which again a large amount of that area is private.

good point there! thats kind of what i meant when i said 'environs'. a lot of pedestrianised areas around the ouside of shopping malls may be private property.

also be careful of industrial/retail/business estates as these are often privately owned. ive had (friendly) run-ins with security around the industrial estate/business campus my old office was in when taking pictures of some of the buildings in the area. even the roads were private property!

growse · 15 Jun 2010 at 16:03

Amp34 said:
What you need to make sure of when on what you think is public property is that it is actually public property. The best known one is the street/avenue leading up to the London Eye, it looks public but in fact that whole area is owned by the company that own the London Eye. Another one is Docklands, which again a large amount of that area is private.

One suggestion to get round this is to take shots from the road if it has been turned over to the local council... Whether that is actually true is another matter...

This is my biggest gripe with the whole situation. It's not clear what is public, and what is private.

If you go to Canary Wharf, the roads look like council roads, the signs look like council signs, everything looks like public land. But it isn't. And no-where (certainly not from the tube or DLR) is it obviously signposted that you're entering private property.

Wasn't there a case in the US where a private landowner (shopping center, or railway station, or something) had to give up some of their rights over how the land was used by the public, simply because it was deemed to be a 'public throughfare'? Seems like a reasonable compromise to me: If you own a piece of land that people necessarily have to use in the course of every day life (going to work, getting on the train etc.) you should perhaps give up some of your rights over that land?

robmiller · 15 Jun 2010 at 23:55

growse said:
Wasn't there a case in the US where a private landowner (shopping center, or railway station, or something) had to give up some of their rights over how the land was used by the public, simply because it was deemed to be a 'public throughfare'? Seems like a reasonable compromise to me: If you own a piece of land that people necessarily have to use in the course of every day life (going to work, getting on the train etc.) you should perhaps give up some of your rights over that land?

Err, IANAL, but wouldn't this just be a public easement—of which there are several gazillion in the UK?