SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So the other day I was stopped for taking photos outside Beetham Tower. You can read all about it on my website. Basically I'm trying to find the boundaries of public and private land in that area. The security guard couldn't tell me and kept dodging the subject. At one point he told me that all these buildings were private property to which I pointed out that we were standing on the pavement. Is the pavement private? I'd love to go back with legal documents showing these things just to shut him up.
 

·
800th birthday in 2007
Joined
·
4,192 Posts
So the other day I was stopped for taking photos outside Beetham Tower. You can read all about it on my website. Basically I'm trying to find the boundaries of public and private land in that area. The security guard couldn't tell me and kept dodging the subject. At one point he told me that all these buildings were private property to which I pointed out that we were standing on the pavement. Is the pavement private? I'd love to go back with legal documents showing these things just to shut him up.
I have witnessed the guard agitated and walking out of that building and look at me and pacing up and down, whilst taking photos, but i'm sure they have no right to stop you taking photos.

I did once stand right at the entrance/foyer to the Passport office while taking a shot of St Pauls, with the guard looking agitated but nothing hapenned, but i wouldn't be surprised to be told to stop or move on, and wouldn't feel offended in that instance, as you would expect that at Govt/Police/Hospital buildings etc.
 

·
likes beer
Cosmic chimp
Joined
·
12,726 Posts
So the other day I was stopped for taking photos outside Beetham Tower. You can read all about it on my website. Basically I'm trying to find the boundaries of public and private land in that area. The security guard couldn't tell me and kept dodging the subject. At one point he told me that all these buildings were private property to which I pointed out that we were standing on the pavement. Is the pavement private? I'd love to go back with legal documents showing these things just to shut him up.
Theres a bit about that in this article, it says you're in your rights to photograph anything on permanent public display if your on public property:- http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,286 Posts
Out of interest, how will these rules apply within Liverpool One, where the streets are no longer public property? Not that it would do them any favours in terms of lost free publicity and a bad reputation, but could Grosvenor ask you to stop taking photos and/or leave their land?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
34,890 Posts
yes grosvenor can do that. of course you can have fun and ask them where the signs are, where the demarcation between public and private is and so on.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
If you two have any issues between you, then keep them to yourselves... or at least off this forum?

The issue is an important one, and one that transcends problems in Liverpool. Ill thought out legislation, or even those deliberately structured to provide oppressive powers are being fowarded all the time. The nature of the 'New Labour' project is an ongoing flurry of legislation designed to control and curtail areas of life that the liberal left find offensive. Whilst this is percieved to be limited to racists, homophobes or mad mullahs then peolpe turn a blind eye, they even support these moves, they certainly do not tot up the cumulative impact on basic liberties (like nerds taking pictures of buildings).

Like all 'liberal left' projects the inkling to be authoritarian is part of the nature of those behind the dogmas, and yet it is so easy for me to be labelled as someone who 'bums right wingers' when I have raised similar issues. By such partisan or ignorant stances real loss of liberties are permitted.

Concern for liberty, personal freedom, individual, community and collective rights need to be properly considered the next time we go to the voting booths?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,521 Posts
If you two have any issues between you, then keep them to yourselves... or at least off this forum?

The issue is an important one, and one that transcends problems in Liverpool. Ill thought out legislation, or even those deliberately structured to provide oppressive powers are being fowarded all the time. The nature of the 'New Labour' project is an ongoing flurry of legislation designed to control and curtail areas of life that the liberal left find offensive. Whilst this is percieved to be limited to racists, homophobes or mad mullahs then peolpe turn a blind eye, they even support these moves, they certainly do not tot up the cumulative impact on basic liberties (like nerds taking pictures of buildings).

Like all 'liberal left' projects the inkling to be authoritarian is part of the nature of those behind the dogmas, and yet it is so easy for me to be labelled as someone who 'bums right wingers' when I have raised similar issues. By such partisan or ignorant stances real loss of liberties are permitted.

Concern for liberty, personal freedom, individual, community and collective rights need to be properly considered the next time we go to the voting booths?
That took some doing, Tony. This thread was about the practices of two private corporations (Beetham and Grosvenor Estates). You've ignored this completely and responded by attacking the (viewed in the ideological prism of your mind) left-wing extremist government. New Labour are authoritarian, yes, just as Thatcher's government was and very nearly as right wing.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
but where do you think the authority (or the assumption of authority) comes from? What has created this environment where low wage lackies can rightly do what their bosses tell them with regards to pictures, as they stil do not assume that they could tell you to cross the road do they!

You could have said my ramble was pompous, but innacurate it is not. Maybe it is your own ideological straighjacket that blinds you to the reasons why we NOW find ourselves in this absurdly restricted environment... and who is bleeding responsible for it? One thing's for sure, you could snap away at your hearts content in the bad old 80s' and no security guard or building manager would have imagined in a million years that they had some statutary right to enable them to stop you from the harmless action of taking pics from the public realm, not even those in 'sensitive' public institutions.

What happens today is not some over zealous implementation of long held laws on trespass, it is as a direct result of the government bringing in ream upon ream of this type of law. It is actually inderstood by these people (employers and petty enforcers) that they have the right to assault you on the public realm, be hostile and even threaten you with punishment for doing what is still technically legal. As I said, it is the presumption rather than the specific law in this instance, but again, what got us to this position?

If enough petty officers BELIEVE they have the power of the SS then they start acting as though they are the SS. If enough of them, in sufficient areas, take on these 'rights to limit' then we're all fucked, almost as much as if there WAS a law.. in this instance to stop you taking pictures whilst in the public realm, don't you think? It actually affects lots of things, but it basically turns the whole notion that unless you know it is explicitly barred then you can assume that it is legal on its head... which is rather dangerous.
 

·
Liverpool, England.
Joined
·
12,595 Posts
I've only had two instances of being stopped taking photographs in recent years. One was a couple of years ago at the Airport when I was taking some photos of the terminal from the car park. I must have been picked up on the CCTV as a guy in a yellow jacket came out to have a word with me.

The ban was nothing to do with terrorism but because they thought I was taking photos of cars in the car park and was part of some gang stealing to order.

The second time was earlier this year when I was taking a photo of the Liverpool One Pelli apartments whilst standing in the area of the bus terminal. Apparently you are not allowed to take photographs on Merseytravel property. Havng said that, when I took a large number of photos on the Underground last year, I had no problem.

I have also seen a tourist being told off for taking photos in Lime Street Station.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
I was stopped taking pics in Limes St station when they where repairing the roof. They said this was for reasons of commercial confidentiality! As I said below, they now think they have the right to stop you as long as they give some blag notion of a reason... and then sometimes no reason other than they don't want you there or simply that they can!

I have also been stopped taking pictures of James St entrance, Huyton bus terminus, on Princes Dock, Kings dock and Clayton effin square, as if anyone would bother blowing that shithole up!
 

·
★★★
Joined
·
12,611 Posts
I'd like this discussion to continue.

I am increasingly finding that I feel uneasy getting my camera out these days... a quick roll call of contentious spaces in Liverpool would help everyone to be more aware, or at least prepare for a confrontation.

There's also a thread discussing this subject in general here >

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=590777
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
Luckily, yet to experience this difficulty yet but i'm probably not as active in those areas as you guys.

I did take a pic in Limey though, stood right next to a copper just to see his reaction - none. (oh, and it was a nice Virgin train anyhow)

If I was propositioned with 'Do you have permission to take photographs here?' I would retort with 'Do you have legal permission to prevent me?'

Unless it was patently obvious, if they couldn't point out the public and private boundary to me, they could go and whistle.
 

·
★★★
Joined
·
12,611 Posts
If I was propositioned with 'Do you have permission to take photographs here?' I would retort with 'Do you have legal permission to prevent me?'
I've yet to be approached but when I am on a job I wear a high visibility jacket... that sends two messages 1. I might be on business, and 2. I'm not being subversive. Normally I get a smile and a wave from local contractors.

Still, I am not about to provoke a confrontation, but if I end up in one - words like the ones you have above should be in everyones arsenal.

Have a look at that thread I posted a link to and look at the vid of the CPSO having a go at the video cameraman... it's very worrying that 'officials' are emboldened enough to confront perfectly innocent people.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
it's very worrying that 'officials' are emboldened enough to confront perfectly innocent people.

why my first post was actually quite relavent. They now assume that they have been empowered, nay, OBLIGED (edit, completely wrong word!) to be intefering and intrusive... and its not just about people taking snaps around town!
 

·
Liverpool, England.
Joined
·
12,595 Posts
I object to the idea of being told I can't take photographs of a building when standing in an area with legitimate public access. But, as always, I can the other side of this argument.

There are far more people going out nowadays taking photographs of all and sundry. When I took photographs round central Liverpool in the 70's, I was stared at as it was such an unusual thing to do. Now, whenever I go out, I see many other photographers and wonder which website their work will appear on.

It is also the case that every photo we take nowadays will be seen by perhaps hundreds, or even thousands of people thanks to the internet. That is a completely new phenomenon.

Taking pictures of buildings or bridges is normally a fairly innocent activity but I have often wondered if it is right to take photographs of kids splashing about in the fountain in Williamson Square as I have done in the past. I think the answer to that is a qualified yes. As the fountain is in a public space where anyone who turns up can see this sort of activity, there should be no problem with photographs being posted on an internet site - any more than taking pictures of an ordinary street scene. It would depend, of course, on how the photographs were used. Parents seeing a photographer taking a special interest in their young children might be forgiven for thinking that the pictures would end up on some paedophile website.

One other issue is these 'yellow jacket' photographers. People have a right to wear whatever colour jacket they want but if you are using a yellow jacket to impersonate a construction worker and trespass on building sites then you are endangering your own safety and committing a civil offence (criminal if you trespass on railway land).

I have seen a number of photographs on the Liverpool forum recently that were obviously taken within site boundaries and I have wondered if the photographer got permission to come onto the site (unlikely in the modern construction environment) or has just taken a chance.

If that sort of thing continues, there is the problem that more people will be encouraged to do it and relations between ourselves and the construction industry will be soured. I have reason to feel personally aggrieved by this. Some time ago, a group of us arranged a visit to West Tower late on in the construction process only to have it cancelled by Beetham at the very last minute. This was because another SSC forummer (not part of our group) had been trespassing in the building and his photographs had come to the attention of Beetham.

We don't want a police clampdown on this hobby of ours so we shouldn't indulge in activities that bring that about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,869 Posts
This was because another SSC forummer (not part of our group)
I agree with everything you've said Martin and your 70s pics are brill by the way.

What does this bit mean though, is there a group to be had within SSC?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,106 Posts
I have often wondered if it is right to take photographs of kids splashing about in the fountain in Williamson Square as I have done in the past. I think the answer to that is a qualified yes. As the fountain is in a public space where anyone who turns up can see this sort of activity, there should be no problem with photographs being posted on an internet site - any more than taking pictures of an ordinary street scene. It would depend, of course, on how the photographs were used. Parents seeing a photographer taking a special interest in their young children might be forgiven for thinking that the pictures would end up on some paedophile website..
I've always had a problem with this notion. Paedophile websites are going to be filled with images of grotesque acts performed on children, aren't they, rather than children innocently splashing about in a fountain? As you say, if you are taking photographs in a public space of a public activity, then I can't see a problem.

If some pervert is actually going to get off on pictures of children playing in public, then a) he is never going to be short of imagery to get off on in any holiday brochure, or the Early Learning catalogue ; b) he can see it all "live" in any public park, beach or playground.

(And I'm speaking as a parent of small children, incidentally. If that matters.)
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top