# Do I need permission to take photos in London?



## starfish2000 (Jun 7, 2010)

Im doing a model test shoot in a few weeks, if Im just out and about without a tripod and using minimal gear, do I need permission to take photo's?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 7, 2010)

Taking pictures in public is not a crime - you do not need permission. However, if you're shooting in The City (which has a separate police force to the rest of London), you may get trouble, as their policy for security guards can be paraphrased as "hassle photographers and call the police for further assistance and abuse of the Terrorism Act".


----------



## editor (Jun 7, 2010)

If you're shooting in a public park you may need permission. If you're shooting in the street you may be asked to move on as you could be causing an obstruction, although you are free to photograph what you like in most circumstances. 



> If you're on a public right of way - such as a public pavement, footpath or public highway - you're free to take photographs for personal and commercial use so long as you're not causing an obstruction to other users or falling foul of anti-Terrorism laws or even the Official Secrets Act (frankly, this one is unlikely).
> 
> DPP -v- Jones (1999): The Court recognised that the public may enjoy a public highway for any reasonable purpose, provided it does not amount to public or private nuisance or obstruct the highway "by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and re-pass: within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway."



All the facts you could possibly want: 
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 7, 2010)

like what editor says...some places that are apparently "public" are in fact areas where the public is allowed to frequent but are not necessarily not Private.

jus go for it, go with the flow & move on without fuss if requested to.... "I'm jus taking some pickees of me gurlfriend for her Facebook occifer.." etc


----------



## starfish2000 (Jun 7, 2010)

Many Thanks Editor


----------



## cybertect (Jun 7, 2010)

Avoid Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square.

You need a (paid for) permit from the Mayor's Office (Boris) to take photos commercially there.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 7, 2010)

Talking of Boris, the area around City Hall up to Tower Bridge is private property as well (as cybertect knows) -- owned by More estates -- so they could ask you to move on. Annoying...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 7, 2010)

Paul Russell said:


> Talking of Boris, the area around City Hall up to Tower Bridge is private property as well (as cybertect knows) -- owned by More estates -- so they could ask you to move on. Annoying...



That is probably why they can get away with banning people taking photographs beneath the London Eye.

I didn't know that there was a ban on commercial photography in Trafalgar Square until I was challenged by one of the security guards. I was photographing a pair of musicians pretending to be playing a violin and guitar. It was for a CD cover.

Luckily I managed to persuade the security guy that I was not doing it for payment (which was true although I did get lunch and a pint or two). I pointed out that I was using a compact camera at the same time as mentioning that there were dozens of people also taking pictures of their friends in the same location. He then let me be but told me to be quick about it because he could be in trouble himself.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 7, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> That is probably why they can get away with banning people taking photographs beneath the London Eye.



The More estate thing doesn't stretch that far, as far as I know.

http://www.morelondon.com/master.html

The London Eye thing must be another company??? Do they own the land next to it, or just the copyright on the wheel?


----------



## cybertect (Jun 7, 2010)

Paul Russell said:


> The More estate thing doesn't stretch that far, as far as I know.



You'r right, it doesn't. 



Paul Russell said:


> The London Eye thing must be another company??? Do they own the land next to it, or just the copyright on the wheel?




The London Eye is operated by the Merlin Entertainments Group (Legoland, Alton Towers, Tussauds, etc.). They also own the London Aquarium inside County Hall.

ISTR that County Hall was initially sold to a Japanese hotel group for its redevelopment after the GLC were turfed out. I imagine the legal arrangement with Merlin is a lease of the land.

Seems like this is the case (http://www.mediatewithcornes.co.uk/shirayama2.htm or was in 2004). Probably a sub-lease from Cadogan Entertainment Investments Ltd who in their turn lease it from the Japanese.

The Wheel itself is trademarked.


----------



## editor (Jun 7, 2010)

cybertect said:


> The Wheel itself is trademarked.


You can still photograph it is as much as you like:



> It is not an infringement of copyright to take photographs of buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently situated in a public place or in premises that are open to the public.



http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/


----------



## cybertect (Jun 7, 2010)

That's copyright, not trademark. A different branch of intellectual property.

London Eye have trademarked the design and image of the wheel.

This does not prevent you taking photographs of it, but it will restrict the uses to which your photograph may be put if it is the main subject of the photograph, especially in a commercial context.

The upshot is that if you attempt to use an image of the London Eye in the advertising for your hotel without their permission, for example, you should not be surprised to find their lawyers on your back (this was, I believe the specific reason why they took out their trademark on the Eye).

There are a number of buildings so protected in London, including the London Eye, 30 St. Mary Axe (_The Gherkin_) and London Underground stations.

You'll find a number of stock photo sites restrict which licenses (i.e. Editorial Use Only) you can apply to photographs of certain subjects for this reason.

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/protected-property.html

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/image-licences.asp (click on _Subjects which should never be Royalty Free_)


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 7, 2010)

starfish2000 said:


> Im doing a model test shoot in a few weeks, if Im just out and about without a tripod and using minimal gear, do I need permission to take photo's?



BTW, in case you're getting discouraged by this (interesting) discussion, the chances of you running into any trouble on a given day are just about zero! Have fun...


----------



## 19sixtysix (Jun 7, 2010)

editor said:


> You can still photograph it is as much as you like:
> 
> http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/



I wondered if this extended to videos from houses overlooking sporting venues.


----------



## Oula (Jun 8, 2010)

The land around the London Eye is owned by the London Eye. I have successfully got permission to take groups of students there to shoot with tripods several times over the years by calling up their media office and being nice. It is ok as long as they are not for commercial purposes. They often tell other people using tripods without prior permission to move on. 

The security around there are pretty on the ball. When I have had permission to shoot at the London Eye and my students have strayed a little on to City Hall territory they have known about it fairly quickly!

Tried to get similar permission to take students to shoot around the South Bank and they didn't even reply!


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 8, 2010)

Sad the way city centres are being carved up by private developers.


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2010)

Paul Russell said:


> BTW, in case you're getting discouraged by this (interesting) discussion, the chances of you running into any trouble on a given day are just about zero! Have fun...


I shot wedding photos on the weekend without permission in a local park. You rarely get hassle unless there's some jobsworth private security twerp around (e.g. canary Wharf).


----------



## Blunders500 (Jul 5, 2010)

*Broadgate*

I've been told off by The Security at Broadgate before which I must admit I knew was private.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Jul 6, 2010)

Apparently there's a free "Know Your Rights" lens cloth with this month's Amateur Photographer.

Must say I've only skimmed the surface of this whole issue but it seems bloody confusing


----------



## starfish2000 (Jul 15, 2010)

The shoot went great

Im doing another next week

THis time I wanna do a few in the Greenwich tunnel, I hear photography is banned, but as its a public highway, Im uncertain if this is enforceable.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jul 15, 2010)

A lot of places that people think are 'public' aren't necessarily, for example railway stations and shopping centres.  Just because there are members of the public there, doesn't necessarily mean they are public places.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jul 15, 2010)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> A lot of places that people think are 'public' aren't necessarily, for example railway stations and shopping centres.  Just because there are members of the public there, doesn't necessarily mean they are public places.



Looks like Regent Street might be next...


----------



## cybertect (Jul 15, 2010)

Paul Russell said:


> Looks like Regent Street might be next...



any particular reason?


----------

