FUMING!...... APOPLECTIC! ......ANGRY! ....in COVENTRY

[FUJI]

This morning, my good lady and myself decided to pop into Coventry, mainly to shop, to have a coffee, stroll around the market where, every week, we buy our meat.....afterwards we planned to have lunch in a City Centre restaurant.

Remember, that just a few days ago, I spent money in Coventry City shop for a camera and lens, , we regularly visit the city, spending quite a bit of money as we do so.......NOT ANY MORE!

As you know, I am a big fan of street photography, not just people, but odd bits of architecture or detail......I have done this for many years now, including whilst carrying my large SONY A55 with long lens attached......hundreds of times with the little LX5 or FUJI compact around my neck.......anywhere and everywhere, in the Arcades, Indoor Market, Shopping Centres, and Cathedrals both old and new.....even inside the museum and art gallery and the nearby motor museum.

Totally absorbed in framing a shot if a busker ( after putting a quid into his hat) I was approached by a pair of security guards who told me that photography was forbidden .......I was quite taken aback, felt angry and a bit guilty.......but, when they said ....it was West Orchard's policy for security reasons.......I asked them to describe exactly what threat of security did I represent......they couldn't answer that......they just said, stop taking photographs here.

Bear in mind, that my mum was born and bred in Spon End, as we're her ancestors, my dad spent 6 years of his life fighting during WWII, my great grand parents were marred in Holy Trinity Church close to the Cathedral, we housed evacuees from Coventry ......and a pair tin-pot, badge wearing ( one foreign) Jobsworth's tell me what I can't do in my own country?

I agreed, that, if I was drunk, shoplifting, causing a breech of the peace or being a general nuisance, they could move me on.....but NOT for going about my normal business, and whilst enjoying my hobby.....at this, I walked off.......only to be quickly approached by a member of the Centre management team.....I gave him the same replies, requesting that they write to me in great detail, exactly what their reasons where for preventing photography......I walked off fuming....but still taking photographs.

COVENTRY, as far as I am concerned, will not receive my custom again.....they are quite happy for a visitor to spend money, in shops, cafes, restaurants etc, but prevent a 75 year old Englishman from enjoying a day out.

Very strange too, that when, for years, I have worn a compact camera ( never hidden) no one has bothered, even though it must have been obvious that I was taking photographs.....I have spent hours, just people watching in the city centre in the past......but, just because I was wearing my new GF1 micro 4/3rds camera with a sticky out lens on.....I get stopped.

It will be Leamington Spa and Stratford-Upon-Avon for me from now on......Coventry has had it.

A very angry

FUJI

[Leon]

I would copy paste this to the Mayor, the papers and generally get your voice heard, if you dont want to you should let someone else do it for you

 

I went to Glasgow the other week, walked round with my 300mm my neck as you did had no hassle, there were others I noticed shooting the Buskers (i was kind enough to donate a few pennies though)

 

I am actually quite looking forward to the first time this happens to me, I make a point of being difficult if I know I'm within my rights.

[Guest]

if you were in a building or shopping centre they are allowed to ban photography as its private property if you were in the street tell them to do one. Heather and I were thrown out ok MK centre for taking pictures of the art work when we complained to the management we were told the art work was the only thing we were allowed to photograph in there lol. Its sad that a few jobs worths have spoilt the hobby of photography 

[ChrisLumix]

I vaguely remembered an old discussion on a website I saw, a couple of years ago. This was it (sadly the main image isn't loading, I hope it's still there?):

 

http://photographernotaterrorist.org/bust-card/

 

There are so many ways to film in a concealed underhand covert way, these people should not be concerned about hobbyists who openly wear their equipment round their necks.

[DaveS]

This country is now a very different one, compared to the one you and I grew up in Fuji (I'm 71), and nowhere near as pleasant.

 

I don't pander to the stereo typical jobsworth, nor political correctness. I 'call a spade a spade' and always will do.

 

In this now oddball society in which we live, a genuine photographer can no longer take pictures in public areas where children might be present, without being seen as a paedophile. 

 

However, Richard is correct in that on private property, the owner has the right to not allow photography.

 

That said, they should display a notice(s) to inform the public that this is the case, and not leave it to the 'jobsworth' to tell people.

 

I think my daughter and family were daft to come back here after 5 years in Australia.

 

Dave

Edited August 31, 2013 by DaveS

[Ian]

As annoying as it is IF you was actually in the shopping centre, they have the right to stop you.

 

Like you though I would be livid and never give any of the shops in there any business, I may even print a notice explaining why and take it to every shop in the centre.

 

Out of interest is the camera shop inside the centre ? IF so then go there and ask them to let you test a new camera outside the shop, see if you get stopped again then blame the shop for letting you try the camera   if not then find security and ask for an explanation as to why they allowed it  

[Black Pearl]

Been said above but if you were in a shopping centre then they can set whatever rules they like (within reason) and you have to abide by them.

Out and about you can tell any security to go stuff themselves and even the Police need to have a very good reason to stop.

 

I may be tempted to ask the centre management for a copy of the rules and regulations - won't help but it will give you reason to put forward your feelings.

[FUJI]

Thank you folks...........I am still fuming, nothing will remove the bad taste in my mouth, or will remove the feeling of being suddenly approached by a pair of badge dangling radio controlled Jobsworth's.

Someone from another forum discovered this very weak set of rules for the West Orchards Shopping Centre online....see here..

http://westorchards.co.uk/photography-policy/

As you can see, they are weak and very ambigious, I guess I could have persuaded that busker that I was his cousin.......or I could have pleaded that as a human being, the whole ofthe human race are related somewhere along the line ;-)

There are no posters or signs banning photography in or around the Centre.

Had I a tripod, or was hassling shoppers, or causing an obstruction, I could understand, but, I was simply doing exactly the same as I have been doing there since I started taking digital photographs..... A camera goes where I go........I was taking photographs in the same Centre last Monday with my little LX5..... and again on Tuesday right after buying my GF1 .......plus many, many times previously with both my larger SONY or another compact, without a hint of bother.

I don't hide what I'm doing, I don't sneak up on people, in fact, many have a bit if fun and deliberately pose for me.......also, in the very same shopping centre, there are small booths, for promoting various businesses, very often staff from these will step out in a direct attempt to get your business, if anyone hassles they do on behalf of.....the Management!

Remember too, that the Centre Owners make their profit from the traders they rent premises to.....I will now, not be using any of the businesses there; instead I will go to towns where photography in public places is allowed.

The nazis attempted to obliterate Coventry during the 1940s......as I stated, My family have very deep roots in the City, my great grandparents were married in the church next to the Cathedral .......I remember, as a kid, the bombed out city centre and incinerated Cathedral ......then later, all the cellars being filled with water for fire fighting or emergency supplies.....my granddad, worked in the Daimler factory all through the war........that very same City Centre wasn't privately owned or run then........Until today, I had very strong feelings whenever I visited the City......today, those feeling were shattered, I made this very plain to both the first pair of security guards, and later to the manager, they sent running after me.......How I managed to keep my temper I'll never know.

They picked on the wrong person, I am determined to make sure word is spread far and wide......I am usually a very placid bod.......but not when riled to this extent.

Stuff their rules!

[Guest DaveW]

If somebody came into your garden to photograph your house Fuji you could stop and evict them. What you photograph from the public highway is a different matter (as with the paparazzi and telephoto lenses) but step on private property and different rules apply. A lot of people don't realise what they think are public thoroughfares in cities like shopping arcades may actually be private property, as well as this applying to council owned property off the public highway. Not everybody likes being photographed either overtly or covertly, regarding it as an intrusion into their privacy. Covert photography is likely to be considered more of an intrusion into a persons privacy by courts than overt photography in a public place.

 

"There are currently no general privacy laws under UK law, but the UK courts must take into account the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone the right to respect for their private and family life. As this is an area of law that has been developing rapidly over the last few years, it is hard to be certain what will constitute an infringement.

 

The key issue is whether the place the image is taken is one where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, it has been suggested that the right of privacy of a child could be infringed by publishing a photo of them with their parents in a public street.

 

It is therefore advisable to be careful when taking photos intended for publication, even where the subject matter is in a public place. Failure to obtain a model release for the use of an image will certainly make it harder to sell the picture to stock libraries"

 

I would have thought posting any on the Web would probably constitute publication, including this forum?

 

Re. being stopped by security guards from taking photographs:-

 

"Security guards can…

• Ask you to stop taking photographs if you’re standing on private land without permission or a permit.
• Use ‘reasonable force’ to remove you from private property if necessary.

 

You do need to make sure that you haven’t accidentally strayed onto private land owned by their employers, though. Even if you simply lean over a wall or a fence to take a photograph, this can be classed as trespass."

 

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/04/14/photographers-rights-the-ultimate-guide/

 

Even CCTV cameras have restrictions on the use of their images if the person is identifiable:-

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/aug/31/householders-cctv-public-highway-film

 

That's why I always stuck to bugs and flowers since you don't need a model release for them!

Edited September 1, 2013 by DaveW

[FUJI]

Dave......I know all that, but there are other good reasons or me to feel so aggrieved......there are no signs or notices up banning photography......every Tom Dick and Harry including children carry and use cameras to take still pictures and videos everywhere and anywhere.......the security Guards picked on me solely because, my tiny micro four thirds camera had an obvious lens fitted.

I have been taking photographs in that same shopping centre since I rekindled my interest in photography over ten years ago, my wife and I go there at least twice a month, my extended family have shopped in Coventry for at least a hundred years........, no one has ever challenged me before......because I had on my little Panasonic LX5 or my other compact both with RAW shooting capabilities, high quality shots, plus lots of zoom.

Another pertinent point, is that I was causing absolutely no obstruction, wasn't drunk, shoplifting, or hassling anyone, I was literally walking along with a camera hanging from its strap around my neck,,, just prior to being noticed,I had given a busker a quid, then asked if he minded me taking his portrait......he agreed, so I did.

Every so often in that shopping centre is a booth, gazebo or just a counter from which passers by are accosted, to Join Gym's, agree to change Power supplier, Make insurance claims, try cosmetics, have your mobile hacked, or toenails painted, yesterday there were those horribly over assertive charity collectors, paid to make aggressive direct approaches to passers by.

Today I wrote and posted a very strongly worded letter, putting he case for legitimate Street Photography, explaining exactly what it is, it's history complete with examples both from me and from the history of photography ......I also made it very clear that I won't be returning to spend any more money there.....they have received thousands from my myself and my family over the years.....I even purchased my new camera from a shop close by......My mother and her family originated in the famous historical watch making area of the City.....I had a very soft spot for the place......that was completely ruined by a couple of Jobsworth's yesterday.....they made me look and feel like a criminal in public.....I will continue to fight my corner, we are losing too many freedoms in this country.

Oh! Yes.....if you want to come and take photographs in my garden, you are very welcome.

Still bubbling.

FUJI

[NannyFerret]

I know how you feel. I had the same thing happen to me in the Mall in Birmingham a couple of years ago> I was only shooting the Christmas lights.

John asked them if they thought that I had a gun and I asked what possible harm was I doing and did I look like a terroist.
I waited for them to turn  corner and my camera went back yo my eye in defiance.
While they were lecturing me, a real terrorist could have planted a  bomb and caused many injuries and deaths.
 

[annie]

a similar question came up on the photography for beginners page on facebook the other day. I said that if it was a public place like a park or beach or high street, nobody could stop you taking photographs, unlike a private building like a shopping centre or such. some bloke replied that if he was in a park or such and I took a photo that may have caught him he would 'punch my lights out'....bit uncalled for I thought!

 

I find a lot of this is plain stupid, and get round it by having the cable release attached the my hs20, with the pull out swivel display screen they don't notice i am taking a nice pic of my gran kids sitting on a seat scoffing ice cream in their precious shopping centres...ha!

 

I was approached by two life guards in an out door public swimming pool while taking pictures of my two gran kids while they were sitting on the grass having a break from the pool, that turned into a right row, as they were only young and said in such loud voices that they did not allow people to wander in and take pictures of kids and if I persisted they would confiscate my camera,  i asked them to point out where was the sign that stated 'no photography' they couldn't....lol! then when they thought they was losing the argument and i said it was very wrong of them to accuse me of taking pictures of random kids regardless of their rules, they said camera's were not allowed in case they got broke and glass from the lens got in the pool, never mind the people sitting around with bottles of fizz...!

 

there are so many people using the camera on their phones, how do they police that one then?

[Korky]

Fooj - I've been swooped on by the jobsworths as well and so I know how frustrating it is, but.....

 

Is it really worth turning this into an issue? Why not put it down as a minor blip, ignore the shopping centre in future and just get on with enjoying life and the hobby you love so much?

 

I've learned much over the last months - and something I've come to realise is that life is far too short for getting wound up over minor things - I know you don't think this is minor, but look at it calmly and you'll realise it doesn't amount to much. You were asked not to take photographs, is that such a big deal? Shrug your shoulders and walk away.

 

I hope that doesn't push you further over the edge, Fooj - think of the blood pressure!

 

Korky

[NannyFerret]

It's a pity that we can't apply for some sort of permit with our names, ID, addresses etc. that we can show that we are bonafide hobbyists.

When going into a museum once, I was given a sticker to prove that I had signed in at the desk and agree that I wouldn't use any of the photo's for monetary gain.
I thought this wasa a good idea, so why not something like this to cover us when we take pics in places like shopping centres etc. in the UK.

[Guest DaveW]

What constitutes obstruction Fuji?

 

I remember the Esther Rantzen being told to move on by a policeman saying she was obstructing the pavement just standing there with a microphone in hand in full view of the TV cameras recording it and indicating there was plenty of room around her so asking the policeman "who am I obstructing?".  But for continuing not to move on he arrested her. All the influence of the BBC and even the film of the whole incident being shown on prime time TV did not get her off since the courts upheld the policeman's right to move her on, obstruction or not:-

 

"In 1981, Rantzen gained national media attention when, whilst filming interviews with the general public for That's Life! in London's North End Road, she attracted the attention of Police Constable A. Herbert, who felt that she was obstructing the pavement while handing out bat stew. After warning her to move on, the police officer arrested Rantzen for causing obstruction, and she was taken away in a police van. The entire incident was filmed and shown during the next episode of the series to delighted audience response. The case later went to court and Rantzen was convicted and fined £15.^"

 

^{If the police cannot use one law to do what they want they can always find some other archaic law they can make applicable, so it's best not to argue. Security men are a different matter, but by merely intervening they have achieved their purpose by disrupting your photography anyway.}

 

^{Most photo sites quote UK law for photographers, but nobody really knows yet how far the European Convention on Human Rights with it's rights to privacy will affect the situation since all European legislation automatically overrides any member nations own legislation it conflicts with.  That will take time with the matter being contested in courts by people (usually wealthy celebrities) who may resent being photographed in the street and taking a photographer to court as an invasion of their privacy. As my quote above regarding the European Convention on Human Rights says:-}

 

^{"As this is an area of law that has been developing rapidly over the last few years, it is hard to be certain what will constitute an infringement."}

[ChrisLumix]

Dave......I know all that, but there are other good reasons or me to feel so aggrieved......there are no signs or notices up banning photography......every Tom Dick and Harry including children carry and use cameras to take still pictures and videos everywhere and anywhere.......the security Guards picked on me solely because, my tiny micro four thirds camera had an obvious lens fitted.

 

 

Yes this seems the biggest irony. Everyone has a smartphone these days and can take unlimited snaps with them and upload them to their hundreds of "friends" on Facebook. Yet who gives a sh*t about that? It now seems that a 'proper' camera is regarded as 'serious and professional, so what are you doing matey?'. It's all wrong. Amateur photographers need some kind of protection against the Ass Law.

[FUJI]

Thanks again folks.....I will reply to your comments

Korky.....yes! At my age, I know exactly what you mean.......but when stopped by two heavies amongst crowds of shoppers, then being questioned at length about what I have been doing in Coventry for years, I had every right to bristle.....and bristle I did........It drew quite a crowd........I can't wait to see what reply I get to my ....Bristling Letter....to the ....management.

NEVER........ since I was a National Serviceman has ANYONE ( other than my wife) told me I couldn't do anything.

I was causing no obstruction whatsoever, at the time, I was simply walking alongside my wife chatting about the joint and sausages we were going to get from the market, just yards away......my camera was around my neck as always when I'm out and about.....I had taken a few ....Street Shots of.....City Life ...just like the classic Street Photographers like Vivien Maier.

nanny I don't think any photographer needs a permit.....yes.....permission if in a museum etc......but shopping centres are filled with hundreds or thousands of shoppers, 99% of them carrying mobile phones with camera and video capabilities.....it was just my camera and lens they focussed on ........for security reasons y know?

A friend of mine made a very pertinent point this morning....well worth remembering.........when you.....as a free member if this country are going about your business, those self Same shopping centres have you covered from every angle with THEIR...... CCTV CAMERAS.........so, how would it be if I wore a sign saying.......PRIVATE PERSON NO CCTV ALLOWED.....or that is my defense when challenged again?......it seems that these private companies can do what they like as long as you are there to SPEND MONEY to make profits for them.

OOOH! Me blood pressure;-)

FUJI

[Guest DaveW]

It does seem that the conventional camera or anything looking remotely professional is targeted. The same remark was made in the past about people getting stopped photographing so called sensitive sites with professional looking cameras whilst tourists were never bothered with their compact cameras, or nowadays smart phones. As though the "enemy" cannot make as much use of an image from a compact camera or smartphone as ever they did from that old "James Bond" traditional spy camera the Minox! 

 

The idiocy these days is if you go on the web you can find all the pictures you want posted of so called "sensitive" government sites or buildings for the UK, Russia and the USA, but they would stop or even arrest you from trying to take them yourself, a bit like locking the door after the horse has bolted! It's rather like maps, particularly now due to satellites.  If you buy the countries own maps probably all the sensitive areas are blanked out, but if you buy a map of that country produced by another country they are probably all in. Therefore if you buy maps of the USA from Russia the American sites will be in and maps of Russia from the US will include the Russian sensitive sites. I used to obtain S. American maps to trace where my plants grew and it was noticeable the local ones often had military areas blanked out, but obtain that countries map from publishers in the USA and they were all in and no doubt these days are on "Google Earth"!

 

Somebody once said Official Secrets Acts are not to stop the enemy knowing, but used by politicians and the military to stop their own taxpayers finding out just how they are wasting their money!  Khrushchev used to say copies of anything on the American Presidents desk in the morning would be on his desk in Russia by the afternoon!  The only ones that would not know is the man in the street who supposedly employed the politicians and paid their wages through their taxes.

 

However private property is private property and the owner through their employees has the right to determine who shall or shall not take photo's on their premises no matter how illogical it may seem, or who they allow and who they don't. It is not up to the owner to put up signs saying "No Photography Allowed", but rather in the absence of signs saying "Photography Allowed" on private property to seek the owners permission to do so and not simply presume you can. The public highway is a different matter.

Edited September 3, 2013 by DaveW

[NannyFerret]

I have also seen hundreds of people with mobile phones taking pics in Coventry.
I have a good mind to takee mine with the longest zoom fitted and see what happens lol.

In Stratford-upon- Avon there are hundreds of foreigners who come to the Uk as tourists and they and I have just about taken all over the town.
There are tourists in Coventry who would like to get records of their visits, so why not us?
They will drive people away from Coventry in the future and to be honest, every town needs the extra trade.
I take pictures of the lights and decorations in the Debinhams store in Coventry as loads of other people do.
I can understand being told not to take shots of children, but buildings. Tut!

[ChrisLumix]

They want you to go to Northampton instead, and take pictures there

 

(It's ironic, is it not, that the ill-fated Ricoh Arena is named after a brand of camera?)

Edited September 3, 2013 by ChrisLumix

[Guest DaveW]

Surely it was not Coventry stopping Fuji taking pictures, but the shopping centre when he was on their private land?

 

As to the public normally using it as a through road so claiming a right of way or route through, hence no longer private land but public highway and therefore being able to photograph there, I believe they used to shut such places at least one day a year to stop such claims (probably a Sunday) but I am no lawyer?:-

 

"Public use

 

To claim a new route based on public use it's necessary to show the proposed route has been used for 20 years or more without interruption, before the right to use it was questioned. Your right to use a route could be called into question by the appearance of new fences blocking the path, no entry signs, or by being told you cannot use it by the landowner.

 

It is possible for landowners to refute a claim for a new route if they can show that they didn’t intend to dedicate the land to the public and that they’d taken steps to stop public rights being established. This could be demonstrated by repeatedly putting up 'no right of way' signs for example, or signing a Statutory Declaration to show they do not plan to dedicate any rights of way across their land."

 

The public highway and private property are two different things when it comes to photography, don't mix them up. A landowner or their representatives can ban who they like taking photographs on their property whilst allowing others to do so if they wish, I don't think there is any legal requirement for them to be even handed in the matter. If your face does not fit they can just stop you if they wish whilst ignoring everybody else, just as you can decide who you want to take photographs in your house and garden and would be the first to moan if you could not.

[NannyFerret]

Dave, that shopping center wouldn't be there if it wasn't for people like my dad in the Home Guard, Defending Coventry and clearing up after being blitzed, bombed and machine gunned.
It is said that there are still bodies buried under the centre which couldn't be retrieved.

These people kept that shopping centre going as did many other Coventry people and now their descendants aren't allowed to take pictures of their City.

I don't see other races being stopped for taking pictures so why us that have all supported our city in one way or another.
The security guards have to be seen to be doing their job, but as I said, they pick on us oldies and not the suspicious looking charactors.
I have seen people with their faces covered taking photo's. Surely they pose more of a security risk than us.
After all, they could actually be shooting pics to find the best place to plant a bomb.
It has happened.