Britain moves even further towards control of all people, all activities

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 22, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    MC Guest

    RichA wrote:

    >

    http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...nderground-set-for-outright-ban-update-friday

    It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
    they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
    shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
    buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
    photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
    However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
    "control" because it has always been the same and these
    companies/property owners are just being idiots.

    You sensationalise too much.

    MC
    MC, May 23, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Britain moves even further towards control of all people, allactivities

    On 5/22/2012 7:38 PM, MC wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    >
    >>

    > http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...nderground-set-for-outright-ban-update-friday
    >
    > It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
    > they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
    > shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
    > buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
    > photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
    > However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
    > "control" because it has always been the same and these
    > companies/property owners are just being idiots.


    Many times there is good reason. Why did Kodak ban photography on it's
    factory tours.


    >
    > You sensationalise too much.
    >


    The poor soul s bored.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 23, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    Re: Britain moves even further towards control of all people, allactivities

    On 23/05/2012 00:38, MC wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    >
    >>

    > http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...nderground-set-for-outright-ban-update-friday
    >
    > It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
    > they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
    > shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
    > buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
    > photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
    > However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
    > "control" because it has always been the same and these
    > companies/property owners are just being idiots.
    >
    > You sensationalise too much.


    He doesn't seem to be able to understand the difference between a
    private company enforcing *its* rights over what is done on its land and
    the UK government. Stupid twisted halfwit troll that he is.

    These landowners rights over what they permit have always existed
    although they are seldom enforced against private non-commercial
    photographers. For commercial use you do have to be very careful that
    you are not stood on the wrong side of brass studs in the pavement (US
    sidewalk) which denotes the public/private landowner boundary.

    A few high profile cases have rested on where the photographer was
    stood. See Refuge Assurance v King's College, Cambridge ca 1978 for
    instance where a whole ad campaign had to be shredded.

    The studs on pavement are actually quite common in major UK cities. A
    small notice on the wall or not-so-small in supermarkets and malls
    forbidding photography or imposing other rules on the private land may
    be displayed by the landowner or simply a "Private - Keep Out" sign.

    There are plenty of places where the public is allowed to walk through
    private land but is not given any public right of way. The route has to
    be barred at least once per year to prevent new rights of way forming.
    (usually Christmas Day but not always)

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, May 24, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On May 24, 5:17 am, Martin Brown <|||>
    wrote:
    > On 23/05/2012 00:38, MC wrote:
    >
    > > RichA wrote:

    >
    > >http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538755/photography-on...

    >
    > > It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
    > > they like.  It is the same with any privately owned properties,
    > > shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
    > > buildings.  They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
    > > photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
    > > However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
    > > "control" because it has always been the same and these
    > > companies/property owners are just being idiots.

    >
    > > You sensationalise too much.

    >
    > He doesn't seem to be able to understand the difference between a
    > private company enforcing *its* rights over what is done on its land and
    > the UK government. Stupid twisted halfwit troll that he is.
    >

    You queer little "company man."
    RichA, May 24, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Britain moves even further towards control of all people, allactivities

    On 5/24/2012 10:05 AM, RichA wrote:
    > On May 24, 5:17 am, Martin Brown<|||>
    > wrote:
    >> On 23/05/2012 00:38, MC wrote:
    >>
    >>> RichA wrote:

    >>
    >>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538755/photography-on...

    >>
    >>> It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
    >>> they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
    >>> shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
    >>> buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
    >>> photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
    >>> However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
    >>> "control" because it has always been the same and these
    >>> companies/property owners are just being idiots.

    >>
    >>> You sensationalise too much.

    >>
    >> He doesn't seem to be able to understand the difference between a
    >> private company enforcing *its* rights over what is done on its land and
    >> the UK government. Stupid twisted halfwit troll that he is.
    >>

    > You queer little "company man."



    I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
    whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 27, 2012
    #6
  7. On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:42:53 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >Many times there is good reason. Why did Kodak ban photography on it's
    >factory tours.


    Yeah, because Glasgow Underground is such a hotbed of design
    innovation and nothing short of a sheer patent factory - everybody
    know that and the industrial spies would be all over it if they could.

    <facepalm>

    Honestly, I've not read a bigger load of sheer shite on here for weeks
    and that's saying something.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, May 28, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Britain moves even further towards control of all people, allactivities

    On 5/28/2012 8:05 AM, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
    > On Wed, 23 May 2012 10:42:53 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Many times there is good reason. Why did Kodak ban photography on it's
    >> factory tours.

    >
    > Yeah, because Glasgow Underground is such a hotbed of design
    > innovation and nothing short of a sheer patent factory - everybody
    > know that and the industrial spies would be all over it if they could.
    >
    > <facepalm>
    >
    > Honestly, I've not read a bigger load of sheer shite on here for weeks
    > and that's saying something.



    Please read my comment. "Many times" has a specific meaning.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 28, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Britain moves even further towards control of all people, allactivities

    On 5/28/2012 11:23 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > PeterN writes:
    >
    >> Please read my comment. "Many times" has a specific meaning.

    >
    > To which specific number does it correspond?


    Troll question not worthy of answer.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, May 28, 2012
    #9
  10. On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
    >whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.


    From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
    any permission, as none is needed.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, May 29, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    JeffWorsnop Guest

    On Wednesday, 23 May 2012 15:42:53 UTC+1, PeterN wrote:
    > On 5/22/2012 7:38 PM, MC wrote:
    > > RichA wrote:
    > >
    > >>

    > > http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...nderground-set-for-outright-ban-update-friday
    > >
    > > It is technically private property so the "owners" can dictate what
    > > they like. It is the same with any privately owned properties,
    > > shopping malls, restaurants, office blocks, other public transport
    > > buildings. They can all make whatever rules they like with regards
    > > photography and quite often do, whereever you may be in the world.
    > > However, this does not mean these countries are moving towards further
    > > "control" because it has always been the same and these
    > > companies/property owners are just being idiots.

    >
    > Many times there is good reason. Why did Kodak ban photography on it's
    > factory tours.
    >
    >
    > >
    > > You sensationalise too much.
    > >

    >
    > The poor soul s bored.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    It's actually private property rather than technically private. The owners have the same rights to control photography on their property that you have on yours.
    JeffWorsnop, Jun 1, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    JeffWorsnop Guest

    On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:50:14 UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
    > >whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.

    >
    > From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
    > any permission, as none is needed.


    Quite

    On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:50:14 UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
    > >whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.

    >
    > From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
    > any permission, as none is needed.


    Quite so. The public highway is not private land. You can, of course, photograph what you like from the highway.
    JeffWorsnop, Jun 1, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Britain moves even further towards control of all people, allactivities

    On 6/1/2012 3:28 PM, JeffWorsnop wrote:
    > On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:50:14 UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
    >> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
    >>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
    >>> whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.

    >>
    >> From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
    >> any permission, as none is needed.

    >
    > Quite
    >
    > On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:50:14 UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
    >> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
    >>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
    >>> whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.

    >>
    >> From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
    >> any permission, as none is needed.

    >
    > Quite so. The public highway is not private land. You can, of course, photograph what you like from the highway.
    >

    Which was my pint.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Jun 2, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Britain moves even further towards control of all people, allactivities

    On 6/1/2012 3:43 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
    > JeffWorsnop writes:
    >
    >> Quite so. The public highway is not private land. You can, of
    >> course, photograph what you like from the highway.

    >
    > Just to complicate things, sometimes the public highway is an easement onto
    > private property. But you can still photograph what you want from it.


    Not in all jurisdictions. In some States, including NY, an easement may
    be granted for a limited purpose. An access easement might not allow an
    individual to stop and take photographs of my house.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Jun 2, 2012
    #14
  15. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    Re: Britain moves even further towards control of all people, allactivities

    On 01/06/2012 20:28, JeffWorsnop wrote:
    > On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:50:14 UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
    >> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
    >>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
    >>> whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.

    >>
    >> From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
    >> any permission, as none is needed.

    >
    > Quite


    Pavement as in American usage for public road - yes. But in UK usage
    pavement is sidewalk and it is not uncommon to have brass studs in it
    demarking the boundary of privately owned land. Stand provably on the
    wrong side of it to take a commercially valuable image and expect all
    hell to break out if the landowner is sufficiently rich and litigious.
    And most that bother to put brass studs into the pavement are.
    >
    > On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 20:50:14 UTC+1, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
    >> On Sun, 27 May 2012 16:54:03 -0400, PeterN
    >>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I guess that means any of us can go to your house and photograph
    >>> whatever we want, at any time of the day or night.

    >>
    >> From the pavement, certainly. Welcome. Fecking Google did it without
    >> any permission, as none is needed.

    >
    > Quite so. The public highway is not private land. You can, of course, photograph what you like from the highway.


    There are still some private and unadopted roads still in the UK where
    this is not the case. They are not public highways but privately owned.
    The new BBC centre in Salford is one such newly created zone.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Jun 3, 2012
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. S. O'Brien

    OT: mindless activities

    S. O'Brien, Nov 11, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    501
    CurseMeLoveMe
    Nov 11, 2003
  2. Ingeborg

    How can I hide Net activities during work

    Ingeborg, Aug 23, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    2,613
    Duane Arnold
    Aug 25, 2004
  3. unbroken
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    816
    Luke Hague
    Jan 19, 2004
  4. Collector»NZ

    Gmail moves up further in my estimation

    Collector»NZ, Nov 17, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    777
    Patrick Dunford
    Nov 28, 2004
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    175
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Dec 7, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page