PCthug:

You are correct, you are on their property. However, a public place is somewhere where the public have right of access either by payment or free of charge. A shopping mall is a public place but is owned by someone. A night club is a public place, but is owned my someone. The same as a cinema. the list goes on and on.

You misunderstand the nature of 'public' and 'private' property. A shopping centre (lets not use 'mall', far too american ) is normally private property. The fact that the doors are open and you can just wander in during business hours does not mean that you have a RIGHT to enter, it means that you have an implied permission which is very different as permission can be withdrawn. Same with cinemas, night clubs and the rest.

Interestingly, onee of the shopping centres in Nottingham has a public footpath that runs through it so the centre has to keep that corridor open 24/7. They mesh it off and a couple of security chaps have the dubious pleasure of watching over it overnight. This one part of it could be said to be 'public'.

Theft moves on to burglary when the person trespasses in order to steal. If you go into a shop when its open you are not trespassing because you have the implied permission to be there, hence its only theft.

It is very much on topic the discussion about public and private spaces as a lot of myths do grow up around it and as photographers we need to know where we can go to take pics without upsetting people. One that I've seen about the place is some town centres are supposedly now 'privately owned' so the owners can stop photographers if they wish to. Birmingham is one where I've herad this said. However, the town centres still have the same public highways as they always have done and that is public space (don't cause an obstruction with that tripod mind ). The shops and shopping centres are private so the same issues around permission apply.

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

This ensuing debate exemplifies why there is an independent judicial system. The police are there to enforce the laws, but the determination of guilt -- whether the crime occurred -- is determined by, ostensibly, a more objective institution. Unfortunately society rapidly attributes guilt to anyone who's associated with a police enquiry or inquisition (depends on whether your the one being interviewed as to how you see it). And then there's just the harrassment aspect, "I only came here to take some photos and I spent 3 hours detained by the security officers".

The politicians can write a law, but this two-tone rule (guilt/innocence) must be applied to grey area scenarios, and the chosen/best(?) method for this is on a case by case basis. This is the reason we will always have lawyers/solicitors/barristers.

PCThug's description of trying to attribute a crime to a scenario is reasonable. If you are going to assess the situation that your placed in, first you compare it against the known rules and find which is the most appropriate for the situation. Then (and this is the hard part) you have to decide whether the circumstances really fit the crime and then determine what is the appropriate action to the level of seriousness: arrest, officially warn, warn, or mediate and defuse the situation (She stole my lolly!, She stole my Iphone!). I can imagine it's not an easy job, and not always fully appreciated by the public.

At least in the UK the police are still provided with an element of self initiative in determining the procedure. In the US, instead of a warning for inappropriately crossing the road, the officers are required to issue a ticket for jay walking.

Just to go a bit further off topic - the one law I've always considered unfair is the shoplifting law. If a thief lifts an apple from Tesco's, he can be prosecuted for shoplifting/detained by their security guards, etc. If however, I've just purchase the apple and someone nicks if from me 3 seconds later, it's a considerably less serious crime. Sorry mate, but what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. While legally there may be no distinction (or they may be, I don't really know) between these two scenarios, the manner in which they are prosecuted is considerably different. Could one of our resident coppers comment on this? I'd be interested in their take/experiences.

BTW, the Shakespearean quote, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers...", is not intended as revenge, or to simplify society (remove the evil content, or what you're own interpretation is), but is instead the first part of the recipe for instigating a revolution. The intent is to remove those that stand in the way (like in Pakistan last year with the judges). Knowing this, though, still doesn't make me want to NOT  perform scientific experiments on them.

H.

---

My Gallery.

flickr gallery

veggiesosage:

You misunderstand the nature of 'public' and 'private' property. A shopping centre (lets not use 'mall', far too american) is normally private property. The fact that the doors are open and you can just wander in during business hours does not mean that you have a RIGHT to enter, it means that you have an implied permission which is very different as permission can be withdrawn. Same with cinemas, night clubs and the rest.

That is why i wrote a public 'place' and not public property. A shopping centre IS (and always will be) private property, however when its doors are open it is a public place. A public place (not to be confused with public property) is just somewhere where the public are allowed (have permission) to go, whether indoors or outdoors, free or for payment. You are in this shopping center as a guest of the owner. If you are barred from this shopping centre for what ever reason, then go in and steal something, then you are commiting burglary, as you are now a tresspasser.

Public place/property is something that the upkeep of which is carried out at public expense. Private is something that the upkeep of which is by private monies expense. Private places/property can still be a public place if the general public have lawfull access to it. Parks are another one. They  maybe privately owned, but are open to the public.

hevans:

Just to go a bit further off topic - the one law I've always considered unfair is the shoplifting law. If a thief lifts an apple from Tesco's, he can be prosecuted for shoplifting/detained by their security guards, etc. If however, I've just purchase the apple and someone nicks if from me 3 seconds later, it's a considerably less serious crime. Sorry mate, but what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. While legally there may be no distinction (or they may be, I don't really know) between these two scenarios, the manner in which they are prosecuted is considerably different. Could one of our resident coppers comment on this? I'd be interested in their take/experiences.
H.

Theft is theft. It carries a maximum of 7 years imprisonment. It doesnt matter if the person steals from Tesco or from you. It is NOT a less or more serious crime. I cant think how you may have come to this conclusion, to try and explain it any better.

In fact, in my experience, i would say that they courts take theft from person more serious than theft from stores. The same as they do burglary dwelling and burglary other.

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread. You've raised some important issues. Without giving too much away we intend to have these answered by an expert.

Any more questions please post them here or email me at rachael.dcruze@futurenet.co.uk

If anyone has asked a question but doesn't want their name to appear in Digital Camera please email me.

Thanks! Rach

DCmag Team:

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this thread. You've raised some important issues. Without giving too much away we intend to have these answered by an expert.

Any more questions please post them here or email me at rachael.dcruze@futurenet.co.uk

If anyone has asked a question but doesn't want their name to appear in Digital Camera please email me.

Thanks! Rach

Thanks for reading this thread, and taking notice of the concerns raised.

---

SK
The Best Photographer in the world 4th November - 5th November 2006 & 17th-18 November 2007
Oldboy’s Gallery

Just after you decided to end the thread, I start reading it! I have one more question which I don´t think has been answered yet.

As I understand it, a property release is required for photographs of some buildings but not others. One´s where the architect has taken out copyright, such as the Gerkin and Eifel Towers lightshow, i think, require a release. However how do you know which ones do and which building do not require property releases.

Secondly, If it does require a property release, The general consensus seems to be ´íf in doubt, get one´, ...how? Particularly in foreign countries when dealing with public buildings. Who do you approach, certainly the employees do not seem to know:

I have some lovely shots of the City of Arts and Sciences in Valencia, designed by Santiago Calatrava. I suspect I need permission to publish them, but have absolutely no idea who to approach. Anyone any ideas??

Pete

help save the rainforests, http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-the-destruction-of-the-rainforests.html

 

---

Do something good today, help save the rainforests at http://www.gopetition.com/online/17255.html

While I know DCM is a UK publication, it'd be very interesting to know the laws in other countries (NL for instance ).

Also, as many of the readership will be going on holiday, how about a run down for various popular holiday destinations (Spain, Portugal, France, Greece, Holland)? We wouldn't like a revisitation of that episode with photography near a Greek military base, would we?

H.

---

My Gallery.

flickr gallery

hevans:

While I know DCM is a UK publication, it'd be very interesting to know the laws in other countries (NL for instance ).

Also, as many of the readership will be going on holiday, how about a run down for various popular holiday destinations (Spain, Portugal, France, Greece, Holland)? We wouldn't like a revisitation of that episode with photography near a Greek military base, would we?

H.

It wasn't a military base, but military planes based at a civilian airport, if memory is correct.

---

SK
The Best Photographer in the world 4th November - 5th November 2006 & 17th-18 November 2007
Oldboy’s Gallery

OldBoy:

It wasn't a military base, but military planes based at a civilian airport, if memory is correct.

It was a military base and whilst the UK and some European countries have no problem with photography of aircraft certain countries do not have the same understanding or tolerance.

I photograph at several military bases in the UK during normal daily operations (Not airshows) but would always check before visiting any overseas base. If you ask first and act in a polite manner a positive response is the usual outcome.

What's even worse is that it was at a military air display

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/12/newsid_2518000/2518385.stm

Cheers, Peter.

Thanks for the extra questions guys, please keep them coming! Rach

I smell a book or an organiser that could be updated with a yearly membership...

If only i had what it took to research the info!

Andrew

---

Never going to be the best photographer in the world, but as long as i enjoy it...

Just a note to say how helpful and polite the police were yesterday. I attended the anti Dalai Lama  Buddhist demo at the Albert Hall , only for the photo-opportunity I might add. All well behaved protesters but noisy and controlled by about 20-30 officers. Smiling at the demonstrators talking to them about their grievances and asking them to wave placards and wave their arms about built up a good rapport with them. Mind you I understand that the Buddhist faith is built on peace and tranquility.

 On several occasions the odd copper would move away to let me get a viewpoint that I wanted, and on one occasion one asked if he was in my way!

So it would seem as has been stressed on this thread more than once, it's all about building relationships with the people you are photographing and using commonsense and people skills.

---

FACES,STREET,PROTEST & CANDID
A BLOG
My Flickr

Its very refreshing to hear this Abers - glad it was a good experience.

I wander if people will jump on the bandwagon with positve and good news stories as opposed to the doom and gloom.

As it happens I got 4 tickets through the post today for the Renault World Series at Silvertsone. It states on the back of the ticket;

'It is a condition of admission to these premises that photography (video etc...)of the event or any part or parts of them or any (non - private) use including copies of the recording/reproduction causing it to be seen or heard in public , broadcasting, difffusing, selling, renting, exchange, lending, use for gain or otherwise dealing with it in whole or part is strictly prohibited. Furthermore Silverstone Circuits Limited reserve the right to confiscate and retain possession of photographs or films made in breach of this condition and without express conesnt in writing.'

I intend to take photos for my own private use - so think I should be ok. Its not exactly clear, at least not to me.

---

My DCM Gallery

It seems that professionals are sufferering more at the hands of the establishment that we are.. http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=41307&c=1

---

EyeWest Photography