Photography ban...?

[Mayneway]

RE: Photography ban...?

(06/03/2016 22:33)Bevan Price Wrote:  I was once asked not to take photos in Wigan Bus Station, but told I could seek a permit to take photos on a prearranged fixed date. However there, and at many other bus stations, I find that the best location to take photos is from a public footpath outside the bus station. Bus stations themselves often have a lot of "clutter" that distracts from the bus photo. At Huyton, I prefer the public footpath between the car park & the bus station as a location for taking photos.

Technically, the operator of a bus (or railway) station can ask you not to take photos, and ask you to leave if you refuse - even if they do not actually own the land, they can be regarded as a tenant / custodian of the site, and can set rules for the site.

Note that at railway stations, you are breaking the law if you refuse to leave when asked by an authorised person. I am not sure of the legal status of bus stations, but they are probably covered by laws dealing with trespass, but it is probably wise to stop taking photos if requeated.

I was also once asked by a bus driver about taking photos - I think for some reason, he might have been concerned about being recognised. However, when I showed him that a driver inside a bus was barely visible, (in photos exposed to show the bus exterior), he became a bit more relaxed.

If your asked to leave a bus station/train station are whoever is asking you to leave not required to give you a reason why?
Legally you can only be moved on if your being anti social in some way ie drunk or being verbally aggressive, simply asking you to leave what is effectively a public space for taking photos isn't to me grounds to be kicked out of somewhere.

There's a post further up the thread where someone is told to move away by a police officer from outside a bus depot. Again they only do this if your being anti social in some way.
A friend of a friend was taking photos of coaches on a bridge over a major motorway a couple of years ago when he was approached by a traffic officer who enquired as to what he was doing. They had a good chat and the officer advised that he may be better off taking photos from the side as potencially he could be a distraction to drivers below.

As for drivers, I think most of the major companies have a zero tolerance to drivers being rude and aggressive to photographers I know of one driver who's as disaplined and sacked for calling a photographer a 'freak', but it seems the majority of drivers arnt bothered at all.

[Nicholas]

RE: Photography ban...?

(06/03/2016 19:43)Lynx Wrote:  Taking photographs in a public place is not a criminal offence and is not illegal/unlawful because it is not governed by common law or statute law. Taking photos on private land is again neither illegal or unlawful and the police have no jurisdiction to act in private matters unless common law is broken. A private land owner can however bring about a private prosecution, but this would cost many thousands of pounds.

Bus stations belonging to PTEs are public land as the money they are provided with comes from central government which therefore makes any bus station operated by them public ground.

Private security or staff working at PTE bus stations have absolutely no authority to prevent you from filming and as long as you do not become aggressive or violent, and they certainly do not have any right to remove you. The same applies to police officers, who up until the point that they suspect your actions are unlawful/illegal have no jurisdiction.

There is a difference though between public highway (or rather, public right of way), and private land that is open to the public. You could photo buses at Prescot bus station, as it is on a public road. You could photo buses at Leigh or Wigan bus stations, as long as you did it from the footpath opposite the end of the bus stands as they are off the bus station land.

[MX12CFE]

RE: Photography ban...?
I was told to stop taking photos in Liverpool One Bus Station when it first opened a few years back by a maintenance worker who was cleaning the windows.

[wirralbus]

RE: Photography ban...?
This is an old chestnut that keeps on regularly appearing on forums and yahoo groups .

You just hear the same things repeated in here on them groups as well , there just seems to be a mania towards security controls these days .

[Mayneway]

RE: Photography ban...?

(07/03/2016 12:47)wirralbus Wrote:  This is an old chestnut that keeps on regularly appearing on forums and yahoo groups .

You just hear the same things repeated in here on them groups as well , there just seems to be a mania towards security controls these days .

The ironical thing is that it seems every police force in he country following them for these tv documentarys and very often the suspects/villains will hold there hands out to push the camera away or they demand the filming stops yet the police always reply 'it's a public place they can film what they want'.

[Peterw]

RE: Photography ban...?

(07/03/2016 05:49)Mayneway Wrote:  If your asked to leave a bus station/train station are whoever is asking you to leave not required to give you a reason why?
Legally you can only be moved on if your being anti social in some way ie drunk or being verbally aggressive, simply asking you to leave what is effectively a public space for taking photos isn't to me grounds to be kicked out of somewhere.

There's a post further up the thread where someone is told to move away by a police officer from outside a bus depot. Again they only do this if your being anti social in some way.

You are wrong on your point about taking photos. Bus'rail stations, bus depots, retail parks are privately own places that are open to the public and the owner of the land can ask you to leave for any reason if they so wish and also make up their own rules about how their site is used. Things like the road traffic act also apply to places like supermarket car parks which are privately owned. An access road or forecourt to a depot could also be privately owned land.
One other thing to think about is that some people using a bus/rail stations may not want to be in your photo or may feel intimidated by someone pointing a camera in their direction.
Just find somewhere else to take photos, its quite simple.

[Lynx]

RE: Photography ban...?

(07/03/2016 16:47)Peterw Wrote:  You are wrong on your point about taking photos. Bus'rail stations, bus depots, retail parks are privately own places that are open to the public and the owner of the land can ask you to leave for any reason if they so wish and also make up their own rules about how their site is used. Things like the road traffic act also apply to places like supermarket car parks which are privately owned. An access road or forecourt to a depot could also be privately owned land.
One other thing to think about is that some people using a bus/rail stations may not want to be in your photo or may feel intimidated by someone pointing a camera in their direction.
Just find somewhere else to take photos, its quite simple.

Appointed people on private land can ask you to leave but until common law is broken a member of the public would not be under obligation to move until such a time that a private prosecution is brought about by the land owner. Aggravated trespass could be claimed but this is NOT common law, this is statute law and in theory you could choose to stand under common law jurisdiction in which case the police would still have no authority to act. In practice however the Police would almost certainly have arrested you as soon as allegations of trespass or aggravated trespass start getting thrown about.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say people would feel intimidated, every time you step out into public you are being watched by millions of cameras. One person with a 18MP camera really shouldn't present a issue.

[Bevan Price]

RE: Photography ban...?

(07/03/2016 16:47)Peterw Wrote:  One other thing to think about is that some people using a bus/rail stations may not want to be in your photo or may feel intimidated by someone pointing a camera in their direction.
Just find somewhere else to take photos, its quite simple.

And a few who don't want their photo taken may be afraid that the photo will identify them committing "benefit fraud"....

[LJ51 DDA]

RE: Photography ban...?
I quite frankly dont understand why this is even being debated.

[Mayneway]

RE: Photography ban...?

(08/03/2016 20:56)Dentonian Wrote:  Or other more obvious crimes. I had to cross the city to Salford Royal this morning, and whilst waiting in Shudehill, I saw a young woman smoking right next to the "No Smoking" sign undercover next to K stand. A few minutes later, an older woman lit up in the same place. Now, if I'd have taken a photo of either/both of them, who do you think was more likely to be arrested?

I think he's referring to drivers who will hold running boards or newspapers infront of their face - sometimes while driving, so avoid being snapped. Dosen't seem to be too much of a problem here in Manchester now the likes of UK North, Bluebird and JPT have gone.