My son is head of security at a large out of town shopping centre (UK) He tells me that because there is unrestricted public acces it is public space (you don’t pay in & don’t need to ask fot entry). He often gets Youtubers taking video’s and generaly trying to upset security. They also have a full time police presence on site. They cannot stop people filming or taking pictures unless they are causing a nuisance.
3 Likes
This is interesting. I guess it still wouldn’t be worth getting into a standoff but worth confirming in case of problems. Thanks
I suspect allowing phones but not a hand held cameras would also be discrimination. People with phones & small videoing equipment regularly commercially blog with images & video. Interestingly on YouTube you can see bloggers taking video’s at police stations (from outside). They take video’s & pictures of cars, people, buildings, policemen and police women even through the surrounding fencing. Some police officers take offence, they let their ego get in the way of the law, invoking terrorism law to detain and search (they’ve paid out thousands in illegal arrest claims). You will notice the cameras everywhere which surveil us, even recognise us. The UK police authority is right now asking government for access to 50 million passport photographs for use in recognising us. Who would have thought a topic here on pixls would get political.
Hi, I agree. Also does a building have copyright protection? And of course copyright has a finite length of time. There are many facsimiles of the Eiffel Tower around the world. Re images in general, our own government, (UK), reduced the time period and diluted image copyright law. An image should be clearly marked as copyrighted, if not it could be free game. An example are images on the net, copyright is usually in the meta info (file info) of the image but many companies when publishing images to the net don’t realise said info is removed by the hosting company to reduce file size (data). The government says images not identified as copyright do not have copyright
(this is my understanding)
I think it’s the lights run by some company rather than the building (?) but reality is that it would have to be decided by a court (as someone probably already said above) and so it’s extremely unlikely that would happen and if it did that the court wouldn’t throw it out. Sorry, I can’t be bothered to find the sources of any of this info so consider it misinformation/BS, meantime
1 Like
Japan might be an interesting case because, as I understand it and after a little bit of direct experience, the police have enormous latitude and can lock you up for years without charge so you really don’t want to get on the wrong side of the lawman (I won’t even say the law because i don’t always think it’s a matter of strict legality). This American seller of vintage camera gear in Tokyo posted this unusual side rant/explanation on his YouTube channel about a live streamer being locked up that I think is a reasonably fair summing up. I found it interesting even though I’d never heard of the case
P.S. I’m not endorsing any views in this vid and certainly would oppose anything like Japan’s attitude to the rule of law in my own country.
The narrator does rightly bang on for quite a bit about the good things in Tokyo and Japan at the start but I think that’s partly because of the implicitly negative things (from a liberal democratic perspective) that he says about the criminal justice system later on. Aaaanyway
Recently we went to Las Vegas for a few days. I was pleasantly surprised that I was able to take photos anywhere without anybody harassing me. Including inside various casinos, though I made efforts to avoid recording gamblers.
1 Like
Taking account of the speed at which technology is developing, it won’t be too long before we’ll all have cameras built into our eyeballs; eyeryone will have to wear special 'photo-blocking ’ glasses whenever we go to the cinema, a public washroom, or Area 51. 