The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Taking photographs of private residence
On Cannock Chase there is a wooden chalet that was unoccupied. Recently work has been done there and huge steel fences now surround it.Today we saw that large notices had been attached to this fence saying photography was strictly forbidden.Is this enforceable in law?
Ironically there are CCTV cameras that film anyone passing the gate although they are walking on public paths! This seems a bit unfair!
I don't want to take photographs but would like to know the legal position of anyone who did want to.
Ironically there are CCTV cameras that film anyone passing the gate although they are walking on public paths! This seems a bit unfair!
I don't want to take photographs but would like to know the legal position of anyone who did want to.
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by TrciaT. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In general, anyone can take a photograph of whoever, or whatever, they like as long as the photographer is in a public place. (The fact that the person, or object, being photographed is on private land is irrelevant). So, for example, someone standing on a public footpath can take a picture of your house, of you standing in your front garden or even of you scantily clad in your living room.
There are a few exceptions to the general rule which are included in various bits of legislation, ranging from the Official Secrets Act to the Sexual Offences Act, but there's nothing in your post to suggest that a ban on photography is legally enforceable in the situation which you refer to.
Chris
There are a few exceptions to the general rule which are included in various bits of legislation, ranging from the Official Secrets Act to the Sexual Offences Act, but there's nothing in your post to suggest that a ban on photography is legally enforceable in the situation which you refer to.
Chris
Thanks Chris! I thought you might be the one to answer.You've helped me several times before.
This chalet is in the middle of woodland and the steel fences and ugly notices certainly ruin a lovely place.We have been speculating that some "celebrity"is going to live there!
I' m going to ask Cannock ChaseCouncil if they have approved these notices etc. Thanks again for your reply.
Pat
This chalet is in the middle of woodland and the steel fences and ugly notices certainly ruin a lovely place.We have been speculating that some "celebrity"is going to live there!
I' m going to ask Cannock ChaseCouncil if they have approved these notices etc. Thanks again for your reply.
Pat
Be careful, under civil law (Bearing in mind that if it is a big name star owning the house, they'll have the money, time and lawyers to sure) you can actually be liable for trespass without actually entering the grounds of the property, and no, I'm not talking about anti harrasment or infrigement of privacy laws, but simple trespass to land. As a starting point, have a look at Hickman v Maisey [1900] and Harrison v Duke of Rutland [1893], both interesting cases that rely on the proposition that 'every invasion of land, be it ever so minute, is a trespass' (Entick v Carrington). Further, another case using the basic proposition is Anchor Brewhouse v Berkley Home Developments [1987].
Re the video cameras, in an answer to an earlier question I believe it was stated that a video camera on a house taking pictures of people passing by was illegal. Maybe not strictly illegal, but the passer-by could argue that it was an invasion of his/her privacy.
So, if you were so minded, you could try arguing that the cameras should be removed or redirected.
So, if you were so minded, you could try arguing that the cameras should be removed or redirected.
Re. 'trespass without actually stepping on to the property' - the cases you quote concern people alledgedly doing more than just 'passing and repassing', which is all one is allowed to do on a public highway, plus anything reasonably ancilliary thereto! The cases you mentioned established that it is perfectly OK to stop for a reasonable amount of time to eat a packed lunch, take a few photographs and the like.
To re-iterate, it is perfectly legal, in England and Wales, for somebody to take photographs in a public place, even if the subject of the photographs is on neighbouring private property (i.e scantily clad on their own property)!
There are a few specific exceptions to this e.g. Official Secrets Act and Sexual Offences Act.
Also, remember that the legal definition of a 'public place' is very broad, and can, in fact, include private property, it is:
Anywhere the public, or any section of the public, have access, whether upon payment or otherwise, as of right or with actual or implied permission.
So a high street shop, for example, is a public place, as the public can assume an implied right to enter (until they are told otherwise, whereupon they would be trespassing)!
To re-iterate, it is perfectly legal, in England and Wales, for somebody to take photographs in a public place, even if the subject of the photographs is on neighbouring private property (i.e scantily clad on their own property)!
There are a few specific exceptions to this e.g. Official Secrets Act and Sexual Offences Act.
Also, remember that the legal definition of a 'public place' is very broad, and can, in fact, include private property, it is:
Anywhere the public, or any section of the public, have access, whether upon payment or otherwise, as of right or with actual or implied permission.
So a high street shop, for example, is a public place, as the public can assume an implied right to enter (until they are told otherwise, whereupon they would be trespassing)!
1 to 7 of 7
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.