Filming in London: Trafalgar Square
The Really Mobile team were kicked out of Trafalgar Square on Sunday. By a 'Heritage Warden'. It is, it seems, managed by the GLA and there are specific bye-laws relating to filming or taking pictures there:
5. Unless acting in accordance with permission given in writing by (a) the Mayor, or (b) any person authorised by the Mayor under section 380 of the Act to give such permission, no person shall within the Squares:
(11) take photographs or any other recordings of visual images for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate;
So, without much hope, I fired off a query to the contacts address provided on their website:
Dear Sir / Madam,
On Sunday 6th September I was prevented from making a video recording of two friends visiting Trafalgar Square using a small hand-held camera and a hand-held microphone at Trafalgar Square by a Heritage Warden. The Warden told us that using microphone 'looked professional' and when told it was not for business or commercial purposes, stated that we may not continue and gave no other reason.
I've now read the bye-laws and costs associated with obtaining written permission and under normal circumstances they appear to require a payment of £500 per hour for any activity described as "recordings of visual images for the purpose of or in connection with [commercial activities] or any activity carried on by a person or body of persons". Without the benefit of legal advice, this appears to me to describe any tourist in the square filming friends or family.
Is my interpretation correct and if so why was this rule not enforced uniformly? I was the only person prevented filming and the bye-law makes no provision for Heritage Wardens to determine when, to whom and to which equipment it should be applied.
Ben Smith
My question was answered by Paul Cavanagh from the Facilities & Squares Management Team:
Dear Mr Smith
The Greater London Authority (GLA) is responsible for Trafalgar Square and assesses permissions for photography and filming in the square. One of the GLA's primary concerns is public safety and it is responsible for ensuring that activities on the square are managed and assessed in relation to public safety. Photography and filming are permitted, but there are guidelines in place for commercial use.
Amateur and tourist photography or filming is permitted in Trafalgar Square. As it may be difficult to assess whether a photographer is planning to take images for commercial use, the Heritage Wardens will approach individuals if they have particularly large, expensive equipment, including larger tripods and lighting, or if models and props are present. Photographers and filmmakers not identified as professionals and using standard equipment will not be approached and will normally be permitted to take photographs.
The Heritage Wardens also try to ensure that filming or photographs taken on the Square will not be used commercially. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to determine a tourist or visitor as opposed to a professional photographer is by looking at the type of equipment they use. Whilst we realise that this may sometimes mean that a keen amateur photographer or filmmaker is prevented in taking photographs for his or her own use, it is often the only way that we can prevent commercial mis-use of the Square.
It appears from your description below that by conducting an interview with a microphone that this could have been construed as professional activity and the Wardens did act correctly within the guidance. Even though you stated that the filming was not for commercial use this statement by itself is not a clear indicator that the filming was for personal use only.
Yours sincerely
Paul Cavanagh
Facilities & Squares Management Team
A clear and detailed response, but it didn't really address the problem that Heritage Wardens aren't able to judge what activities are for commercial use. So...
Paul
Thankyou for this response.
Please could you clarify how 'keen amateurs' such as myself may use our video equipment in GLA-managed squares. Simply assuring the Heritage Warden that we were not filming for commercial use was not sufficient and we were harassed out of the square on the basis of using a £20 microphone from a high-street electronics store. Oddly other people around us were shooting static imagery with very high-end DSLR cameras and were not disturbed
Ben Smith
And the response...
Dear Ben
If you wish to conduct any further filming on the square can you email trafalgar.square@london.gov.uk with a request detailing what the filming is for with a contact number and we will look at the request for you.
Yours sincerely
Paul Cavanagh
I can't fault Paul for the speed if his responses or the constructive answers - he is not the policy maker - but I am left feeling disastisfied that - effectively - security guards are able to determine if you can take pictures or recordings around one of London's most famous landmarks. I'm also grateful for the offer of help with any future request, but taking rights away and offering them back on request isn't a good solution.
So long as the other rules about obstructions and safety are observed (which would require permission for anything more than a single handheld camera) the GLA should be oblidged to clearly demonstrate filming is for commercial purposes before ejecting people (as they would have had to had we refused to leave). This might allow a smal number more dishonest people to film for commercial use, but that price is worth paying to allow fair access for everyone else.
...and who would lose out? All you need to do to take commercial use images at the moment is to disguise your gear enough to fool someone with no knowledge of what professional equipment looks like.
60 comments
Once again, a little knowledge (on the part of the wardens) is a dangerous thing.
- Neil.
are really good post and one that will resonate with a lot of people. The GLA along with other councils, control a lot of the iconic public places in London. Filming in them not only requires a permit but public liability insurance. The term "commercial" gain is wide open to interpretation.
Does an amateur film maker count, they may not be getting paid for that project but they are hoping it will lead to more profitable work as a result!
You are right, disguise your gear, use a radio mike cleverly concealed and act like a bunch of tourists and you probably wont be disturbed. However if you footage is then posted on a website and the GLA deem that to be of a commercial nature will they then apply charges and sanctions retrospectively?
Basically filming in the capital is getting increasingly complicated, increasingly expensive and increasingly prohibitive.
Thanks for a good post
Gordon
This is like a clamp being put on your car for parking on a public road with no signs or visible markings to show it's a no-parking area.
Oh to live in London, what a city :o)
Great post
The problem here is there's a vanishing line between "commercial" and "non-commercial". Anyone can start a blog or YouTube channel and start making money from it. They are amateurs - but they're earning money.
This bye-law, I assume, is to stop big professional crews filming in the square, disrupting everyone else. A reasonable law when you had to pay thousands for a decent camera, lighting, microphones. Keep the professionals out unless they pay a fee to compensate the city for the disruption.
If they didn't, I can easily imagine touristy areas of London being ruined by tons of inconsiderate film crews blocking access.
So, is The Really Mobile Project non-commercial? I don't see any adverts on the site - but how do I know that you're not making millions off it through paid placements or something similar? (I mean, I know *you're* not - but how can I just tell?)
We're hitting an era where amateur/professional and commercial/non-commercial are closer than ever.
If we assume we need to restrict commercial usage of community assets (see tragedy of the commons) how do we ensure that amateurs have cheap access for their (arguably) commercial use?
http://www.willems.ca/blog/?p=911
Oh... waitaminute... we do pay for it, don't we? My bad.
Seriously: I can't see anything in the bye-law which gives the GLA the right to stop someone filming in the absence of evidence of commercial purpose. I've not looked at this in detail (read: This Is Not Legal Advice), but on usual interpretational principles the words "any activity carried on by a person or body of persons" will be limited by the previous words in the list, so only apply to commercial activities.
The bye-law says you can't film (etc.) for commercial purposes - an objective standard - not that you can't film unless you've emailed the authorities first to satisfy them that your purposes are non-commercial.
Where you're screwed is under bye-law 3(6), which states that "no person shall ... fail to comply with a reasonable direction given by an authorised person to
leave the Squares". So the "Heritage Wardens" can basically chuck you off the Square anyway if you try to insist on your rights.
Of course blocking sidewalks is not allowed. There's perfectly reasonable old laws against obstruction for that. Don't need wardens to check microphone cost.
If you turned Really Mobile into a bollocks looking MySpace shitpage, then I reckon you could probably get permission to film easily in future without having to pay.
It's just another erosion of civil liberties. Back when we were doing the MIR Show, I read somewhere that to film on the street in London, you were perfectly fine with a team of 3 or less. Any more people and woosh, it's automatically construed as commercial filming. I think that makes a ton of sense. But, from memory, that only applies to the public parts of London, not the private-public areas like Traf Sq.
Watch out people. Absorbing photons for profit harms squares.
Seriously, these un-Police could reasonably use presence of a crew of multiple people, or equipment that might trip people up as a discriminating factor if public safety is the genuine concern.
I must say that you have me utterly fooled.
Your slick professional looking website ( supported by Audioboo no less ). Your content is presented in a professional and classy fashion that belies the production costs. Your Suits ( Ben ) reflect a professional approach and your demeanour and attitude reflect those.
I will hence forth make the clear effort to refer to "The Really Mobile Project" as a bunch of amateurs messing about with their mates having a laugh with a mobile phone and camera.
Yours with much love and tongue firmly in cheek
Loudmouthman ( who no one mistakes for a professional )
"we don't believe you"
..be translated into:
"Even though you stated that the filming was not for commercial use this statement by itself is not a clear indicator that the filming was for personal use only."
Officious officials, indeed!
I'd argue (given the other restrictions for health and safety) the presumption should be to allow the filming to continue until the situation is clear. Both sides are open to abuse, but IMO the loss of 'rights' is a far greater cost than the potential loss of income for the Authority.
They really did not like being told the law surrounding Photography in a public place, one more than one occasion I was sternly told to 'change my attitude'
Just a minute I remarked, I was sat here minding my own business taking action photographs, in public, and you decide because you don't like having your picture taken to come over and harass me.
I point blank refused to give any of my details as I had not committed any recordable offence, at which point I was told to delete the images I had taken of them because they hadn't given their permission, I again corrected them that I did not need anyones permission to take their photograph in a public place, and deleting the images would mean I would be able to claim damages for assault from the local constabulary, seeing this confrontation was not going the way they had first perceived, they decided to drive off with their tales between their legs.
Knowledge is power, not a uniform and radio, if you know your rights, you can enforce them vigorously enough not to be intimidated by uneducated 'upholder's of the Law' or those mistakenly given a little bit of power..
This would simply be a discussion item rather than a problem, if wasn't for our national fervour for restricting access. It's not new - it's part of our culture that doors are locked by default, access is limited by default, information is secret by default. All that's happened is that the combination of fear and technology has given Jobsworth a much bigger paying field. To our loss as individuals and as a society.
And very sadly so. I guess in the UK you need to put up with it. People like me just stay away. That can't be good.
Now: is this policy designed to "prevent commercial mis-use of the Square", as the gentleman's email states, or to "[ensure] that activities on the square are managed and assessed in relation to public safety" as the gentleman's email states?
Once upon a time, I visited London quite frequently. Now, I avoid it at all costs, precisely due to my innate disgust at hare-brained idiocy like this. I guess avoiding "commercial mis-use of the Square" more than makes up for my lost tourist Euros.
Good to hear there are other reasonable people out here, btw. Pity they appear to be outnumbered in the UK by people who believe the nonsensical "security" rhetoric.
My guess is that if there are more than 5 people taking videos/pictures the officials are out-numbered, and will leave you alone.
London is gradually becoming more and more nightmarish to shoot in (see: http://www.willpearson.co.uk/studio_blog/panoramic/photography/tripod-terrorist.html for yet another recent example). I'm really glad to see you publicising this, thank-you - the more people that complain the better!
England seems to have jumped on the "everything not mandatory is forbidden" bandwagon, and needs to jump off in a hurry....
Lest England be called "The Mother Country" for the wrong reasons.
Come on, The Really Mobile Project falls under that description, even if you guys aren't making money directly off it. If you go to a mobile event you will want to be treated as professionals. Don't claim to be amateurs here. And I say this with profound admiration; I was a big fan of what you did at MIR and I'm a big fan of what you do now.
The real issue here is not if the law applies to you. It's if the law is wrong in the first place (which it is in my opinion).
...and I agree with you about the rules.
Lets all get the largest cameras possible and start filming/shooting one another.. then when stopped produce our ID stating we are amateurs.
If nothing else we could edit together 25 different angles of a Heritage Warden Kung Fu-ing a blogger Matrix style.. ;)
leave the Squares"."
If their direction is not reasonable then you don't have to go. If the ask you to leave because you "look too professional" that's no different to asking you to leave because you "have an annoying face" or "are black and we don't like your sort". It's an irrelevant value judgement on their part and not reasonable. If they asked for your name and you produced a business card identifying you as a "photographer" that would be reasonable.
If you had refused to leave they would have needed a police officer to forcibly remove you, or a PCSO to detain you whilst they waited for a police officer. You could still refuse to go and it would be up to the police officer whether to arrest you. If they did it would be a wrongful arrest, assuming it was not reasonable to conclude that you were there as a commercial photographer. That's another crucial point: a commercial photographer is perfectly entitled under that bye-law to take pictures in the Square as long as they are not for commercial use. You could be a commercial photographer on holiday! Remember that the burden of proof is on them, not you.
This is my favourite sentence of the week.
Then, the Really Mobile Project (and/or anyone else) can take that material and use it for commercial purposes (perhaps provided that they credit you for the original material).
You didn't take the material for commercial use, but you allowed someone else (a third party not bound by the by-laws) to use it for commercial use in an arms-length arrangement.
It is entirely reasonable for you to choose whether to enforce your intellectual property rights, to choose where to store your material, and arguably (IANAL), you have no obligation to ensure that third parties comply with the by-laws.
even the city of london has the right idea.
the Trafalgar square thing is such rubbish. and they can all get stuffed.
paul
I also fancy doing something that demonstrates that the 'Heritage Wardens' prefer to harass bloggers over preventing tourists climbing over a national monument.
The question, if anything, should be what I do with the photos. Even that is questionable. Public squares and public spaces are public. If we are going to restrict photography to just your own back yard, I suggest that is very much a slippery slope, and not one we should want to go down.
The question, if anything, should be what I do with the photos. Even that is questionable. Public squares and public spaces are public. If we are going to restrict photography to just your own back yard, I suggest that is very much a slippery slope, and not one we should want to go down.
Anyway just thought I'd add that to the tirade.
If this were considered as 'for commercial gain' then so would walking down the street (I see adverts which firms are being paid to display) and taking tourist pictures (I paid a camera company for my point-n-shoot and may pay someone else to print a few up for me).
As with everything there's a fair-sized grey area in the middle, but the established approach seems to work here.
Details: http://post.ly/8bOF
The superviser said what are you going to do with that? I said take pictures, after a sharp intake of breath he said go on then.
I'm not argumentative but if someone asks me a stupid question I'll give them a stupid answer. For info, I had a D80 with a 18-55 lens for taking pictures of my son. Too many jobsworths blindly following stupid orders. Rant over.
To: mayor@london.gov.uk
Cc: trafalgar.square@london.gov.uk
To - The Mayor of London
cc Squares Management team, Post Point 23, GLA, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, More London, London SE1 2AA
Dear Sirs,
I am an amateur photographer and do not take photographs or any other recordings of visual images for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate. I do however have photogrphic equipment that may be considered professional - even though I am not and do not and have no intentions to sell photos.
My photographic hobby involves me standing still for a few moments, putting a camera to my eye and pressing a button. This does not in my view expose either myself or any other member of the public to any risk.
It is my understanding that I have to obtain permission in writing by either (a) the Mayor, or (b) any person authorised by the Mayor under section 380 of the Act to give such permission, to take photos of friends and family or anthying else that catches my eye in the properties (including the squares) under the direct authority of the Greater London Authority.
I wish therefore to apply for permission to take photos on and about the squares with my camera equipment, including but not limited to "NIkon D3X and various lenses", for my own use - ie not for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate.
Since, I work near in an office on the Strand and reqularly walk through London, I wish such permission to apply to all public open spaces manged/controlled by the GLA and to apply on a perpetual basis to the end of my and my family's residence in London (which is currently only 100 years, but who is counting).
Your failthfully
