News1 min ago
Tri-pods in public places.
9 Answers
I've recently become very keen on HDR photography for which a tri-pod is absolutely essential.
I went to our beloved capital city yesterday and found out the easy way that the use of tri-pods is an issue. Sometimes it's for obvious reasons eg. you might trip some poor bugger up, but there also seem to be a few more insideous 'reasons' for not being able to use them.
I was stopped outside City Hall and told that I could not use my tri-pod because it constituted "professional photography" which they don't allow on their "private property" (the concourse along side the Thames near the London Eye). On the other hand, I asked a copper if it was ok to set my tri-pod up outside the houses of parliament and was told "yes as long as you're not causing an obstruction" so that was ok. Later on I stopped opposite Horseguards and checked with another copper who said no on the grounds that I would need a permit from Westminster City Council. Despite this, I took a whole load in Trafalgar Square and got away with it.
I also took photoes from most of the central London bridges, outside St Paul's, the grounds of Westminster Abbey, Southwark Cathedral, all round the London Eye, Piccadilly Circus and Buck House with no incident, though I was forever fretting that I might be breaking some other unforseen law and was expecting to be pounced upon.
Has anyone else come across this?
I went to our beloved capital city yesterday and found out the easy way that the use of tri-pods is an issue. Sometimes it's for obvious reasons eg. you might trip some poor bugger up, but there also seem to be a few more insideous 'reasons' for not being able to use them.
I was stopped outside City Hall and told that I could not use my tri-pod because it constituted "professional photography" which they don't allow on their "private property" (the concourse along side the Thames near the London Eye). On the other hand, I asked a copper if it was ok to set my tri-pod up outside the houses of parliament and was told "yes as long as you're not causing an obstruction" so that was ok. Later on I stopped opposite Horseguards and checked with another copper who said no on the grounds that I would need a permit from Westminster City Council. Despite this, I took a whole load in Trafalgar Square and got away with it.
I also took photoes from most of the central London bridges, outside St Paul's, the grounds of Westminster Abbey, Southwark Cathedral, all round the London Eye, Piccadilly Circus and Buck House with no incident, though I was forever fretting that I might be breaking some other unforseen law and was expecting to be pounced upon.
Has anyone else come across this?
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Answerprancer. 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.
City Hall: A correct (even if somewhat over-zealous) response. The area around City Hall is indeed private property (as, for example, many shopping centres are) and the owners of that property are within their rights to allow, prohibit or partially-restrict photography as they deem fit.
Houses of Parliament: A correct response. You were in a public place so (with only limited exceptions) you're free to photograph what you want and in the way that you want to (unless you cause an obstruction).
Horseguards: Utter b0ll0x. You don't need a permit.
Trafalgar Square: There are bye-laws in place which restrict professional photography (and the wardens are extremely quick to move in on anyone who seems to be, for example, setting up publicity shots for a new band or product). However the use of a tripod does not constitute professional photography.
A recent report of Westminster CIty Council's Citizens and Business Scrutiny Committee recently specifically recommended that, in its parks and open spaces, "the use of photographic equipment should not be restricted, save that fees should be paid by professional photographers . . . ":
http://www.westminste...rt_WEB-1276597709.pdf
All of the other places you've mentioned appear to be public places so, as long as you don't cause an obstruction, there should be no restrictions on your photography. The only exception might be that the area around the London Eye is (I believe), like most of the South Bank, private property.
Chris
Houses of Parliament: A correct response. You were in a public place so (with only limited exceptions) you're free to photograph what you want and in the way that you want to (unless you cause an obstruction).
Horseguards: Utter b0ll0x. You don't need a permit.
Trafalgar Square: There are bye-laws in place which restrict professional photography (and the wardens are extremely quick to move in on anyone who seems to be, for example, setting up publicity shots for a new band or product). However the use of a tripod does not constitute professional photography.
A recent report of Westminster CIty Council's Citizens and Business Scrutiny Committee recently specifically recommended that, in its parks and open spaces, "the use of photographic equipment should not be restricted, save that fees should be paid by professional photographers . . . ":
http://www.westminste...rt_WEB-1276597709.pdf
All of the other places you've mentioned appear to be public places so, as long as you don't cause an obstruction, there should be no restrictions on your photography. The only exception might be that the area around the London Eye is (I believe), like most of the South Bank, private property.
Chris
Oh, I see that you've changed 'City Hall' to 'County Hall'.
I'm not sure whether that area is private property or not. But all of the South Bank complex is (i.e. around the National Theatre, Royal Festival Hall and the associated shops and restaurants). I think that it's likely that the "private property with permitted public access" status probably extends as far as County Hall.
Chris
I'm not sure whether that area is private property or not. But all of the South Bank complex is (i.e. around the National Theatre, Royal Festival Hall and the associated shops and restaurants). I think that it's likely that the "private property with permitted public access" status probably extends as far as County Hall.
Chris
Thanks for all that info Chris, I'm intending to go back and get pics of the places I missed. It was a long day, 8 hours of slightly paranoid but otherwise very rewarding picture-taking. I also just went and visited a site called "I'm a photographer, not a terrorist" to gen up on the latest re. "section 44" so I can be armed (pardon the pun) with all the info I need for as much unfettered tri-pod usery as possible !
Thanks for the reply. Watch out for 'Section 76' as well!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm
Chris
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm
Chris
Wow !
Section 76 looks like a potential loophole for stopping people from photographing potential acts of undeserved police/security guard assaults on the public.
I wonder if there will be a section something-else soon that disallows people from recording *conversations* between police/security guards and the public.
Section 76 looks like a potential loophole for stopping people from photographing potential acts of undeserved police/security guard assaults on the public.
I wonder if there will be a section something-else soon that disallows people from recording *conversations* between police/security guards and the public.
1 to 9 of 9
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Will Blasphemy Laws Be Reintroduced?
News4 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
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.