Since recording this, I've found a much better resource than the council websites which covers the whole UK rather than just local council areas: findmystreet.co.uk/map

Whilst on public land I was taking photos around Sullom Voe in the Shetland Isles when I was accosted by oil terminal security staff. We had a perfectly amicable chat, apart from the chap threatening to inform the police if I didn’t give them my name. That went no further when I invited him to do so. This took place at the RAF Sullom Voe memorial. The following day I had a phone call from the local police. A complaint had been made so the police were obliged to investigate. This wasn’t the first time they’d been informed and they did enough to satisfy the instruction but didn’t take it seriously. The copper came out to meet me as it was better than sitting in the office dealing with a stack of paperwork. Apparently it had been suggested to the terminal owners that they put up signs prohibiting photography and/or to buy the road leading to the terminal gate, it serves no other property. They’ve refused to do either of those. The copper had only recently moved from Glasgow and was still in “tourist mode”. Our chat ended with him giving me tips on places to visit.

The one thing you missed at 1:52 is that many 2D works of art are _out of copyright_ simply because the term of their copyright has expired. There clearly cannot be an infringement of a copyright that no longer exists, so you cannot be restricted from photography on grounds of copyright under those circumstances. Photography may be restricted for other reasons, of course, but not for copyright infringement in the UK, for example with a painting whose composer died over 70 years ago.

Some years ago I was commissioned to photograph all the gate signs of defence establishments in the south east of England - as seen from the road. I arrived at many of them, set up my camera, and watched startled guards turn out, fuss around and generally take their time to react to what they perceived to be a potential threat! I duly took my photos and gave them all enough time to confront me. None did! A week later I had a call from my local police, and the military police, asking if I had been present at a range of military sites as my car numberplate had been noted there. I confirmed that I had. They then said that they were coming round to confiscate ALL my camera equipment, office equipment and computers. I just laughed at them, which put them on the back foot a little! They asked what I was doing and they told me in no uncertain manner that it was ‘illegal’ to photograph MoD sites, even from the public highway. I informed them that it was quite legal to do that but they ignored me, asking me if I was commissioned to take the shots, even though that really had no bearing on the matter. They said that they would be round to my office to close me down within 30 minutes, citing a breach of the Official Secrets Act as their reason! I gave them a phone number to call and then asked them to call me back. My commissioning officer worked at the Ministry of Defence and the shots were simply to illustrate the different range of signage used at defence sites! Naturally nothing more was ever heard from the police! Even if I was shooting the images as a private individual, anything photographed from a public highway is legal. Never allow yourself to be bullied by those who think that their authoritative position allows them to ride roughshod over your rights! Great, informative video 👍🏼

I took one photo of the outside of a shopping centre, then as I walked in with the lens cap over my DSLR, but hanging from its strap, 3 security guards congregated around me and told me no photos or videos allowed of the place as it was private property. They didn’t seem bothered when I pointed out loads of other people filming with their phones, and even showed them lens cap was on, yet dozens make TikTok videos in the centre, so just me.

Back in the early 2000s, I took a photo of a cute young woman aged around twenty leaning on the balustrade at Trafalgar Square. She caught my eye because she was wearing a rainbow-coloured hat with brightly coloured earphones, and she had a pretty face to match, though the photo was taken at an angle so you couldn't see it completely. I uploaded the photo onto Flickr with a Creative Commons Attribution licence. Some years later she commented on the photo and seemed surprised that I'd taken it. She had been told of its existence by her aunt, I seem to recall. Even more years went by and, probably when she was in her early thirties, an online magazine used my photo under the CC-A licence as the lead image on an article about drug use. I had no idea this had happened until the lady was told about the article by someone else. Understandably, she was really upset and she asked me to take the photo down, which I did willingly. I'm really against this kind of misuse of anyone's photos. I replaced her photo with a black image with an explanation as to why I'd taken the original down. I emailed the magazine and told them in no uncertain terms what they'd done wrong and that they were never to ever use any of my images again. I explained to the woman in the photo how I'd tried to put things right and she seemed less upset, though there's always the possibility that the image and article might have been republished elsewhere. If she had told me that she wanted to sue the magazine company for every penny she could get, I'd have willingly stood in court and testified on her behalf. But she was Italian, over here at the time studying, I believe. She almost certainly didn't know our laws, or how they differ from Italy's. And I doubt that she could testify without having to spend a lot of money.

Great well presented information. Some years ago I went to my local shopping mall wishing to photograph a model……..Although the mall was full of public I aired on the side of caution and went to see the mall manager and politely asked for permission which he granted me. He instructed his security to afford any help I might need and were so polite and helpful. The problem today has been the rise in Terrorism and acts of………so this has caused concern with security guards trying to keep us all safe.

The only time I've been challenged when I was taking photographs was when I was approached by two security guards at Media City, Salford. They asked if I had a permit from the land owners. I was approached because I was using a camera on a tripod because I was using slow shutter speeds. I explained that what I was doing was no different from all the people who were taking images using their phones. They wouldn't have it because I had a 'professional camera'. I explained that I was not a professional photographer doing professional work. They radioed a supervisor then asked me if my pictures were for personal use (which I'd already explained) and I confirmed that. The supervisor confirmed I was fine do do what I was doing. The conversation with security was friendly enough and I stayed reasonable and calm throughout. Some people might start getting arsey and argumentative when challenged which, in the end, helps no one. Attitude, on both sides, is key. A really good, informative video.

I only ever had one instance where I was questioned by a police officer regarding the use of my camera. He was really angry and unnecessarily threatening but I stood my ground and kept asking what law I’d broken. In the end, perhaps because several witnesses that had gathered due to his agitation, he backed down and scuttled off. One of his colleagues came and explained, politely, the nature of the incident and asked, respectfully, if I would consider deleting the images I had taken. Given the reasonable approach and explanation, I was more than happy to comply. Attitude is everything.

One thing to note is that on the Underground you can do photography freely however you will be asked to stop if you setup a tripod and get spotted and Flashes are strictly prohibited.

Please note that when referring to the law in the UK you have to recognise that Scotland had a separate legal system so referring to the whole of UK as a single unit is incorrect. For instance the law of trespass is very different in Scotland with the right to roam laws in effect.

I was thrown out of the National Portrait Gallery in London, for photographing an artist making a sketch of a statue, even though she gave me permission to make her photo. In my defence, I stated that there was no public expectation of privacy in an art gallery. They showed me a document which declared their policy and regulations, which forbade the photography of people in the gallery. Ironic, as the gallery is full of photos. Haven’t been back there since and most of my photography is now in remote parts of the world. I now have no interest in photographing London or people on it’s streets.

The law is one thing, common sense is another. It annoys me when photographers set out to deliberately antagonize people.

So i went to film school in the US and a prof once told us "even if the cops can't take your footage it doesnt mean they wont try and that they wont make your life hell if you try to stop them. The best thing to do is to always have a dumpy sd card on hand that the camera guy or producer can palm to act like you are taking it out of the camera and give it to the cops. It also helps for street photography when someone gets on your case because they dont understand how sidewalks work." He also told us it always helps to have a extra person on set when you are shooting somewhere you are not supposed to to keep watch. when they see security or the cops coming you have them walk to the cops instead of them walking to you and try and fast talk them. that way you keep shooting. that way the extra person can try and be like "look, we are almost done, can we just finish this shot?" make sure they say they are in charge or like a producer or something so the cops think they are talking to someone important

I had an amazing thing happen about 15 years ago in France. I got off a train at my local station and took a photo of the engine at the front. It was a 30 year-old electric of which there were more than 300 in service. Every single detail about them can be found in books and magazines. An employee came out and told me I couldn't take photos of it. Because the EU had opened up the network to private companies, the SNCF (national rail company) was afraid of "industrial espionage". A bit like banning photos of "Flying Scotsman". I couldn't stop laughing. On another occasion, in Belgium, I was told by police that I couldn't photograph engines from the carpark as it was a "strategic location" but I could take photos on the platform.

Awesome video, and thank you for the research and effort behind it. I’ve been out of the UK for almost a decade now, but only got into photography while away. Planning to finally get back later this year and have been wondering about these exact issues. I suppose a thank you to the algorithm for suggesting your video too!

Solid, common-sensical advice - Thank you.

A few weeks ago, I was taking some pictures of the St Martin Church in Birmingham which is next to the Bullring shopping center.There is a hill which divides between the 2 wings of the shopping center. The top of the hill is a great view of the church. I took a few shots, angling towards the church and this security woman approached me asking if I had a permit. I said no. It turns out i am standing on private property (the hill between the 2 wings entrances of the bullring shopping mall). Even though I wasn't taking pictures of the mall at all, without a permit I wasn't even able to stand there with my camera since its considered a professional camera. I asked how is this any different to a professional photographer/videographer who uses a smartphone entirely to do the same thing but just on their phone. She just couldn't seem to answer this to me, and told me I had walk a few meters after the hill where it becomes public footpath if I wish to use my camera. I did not wish to argue and just walked along. Later that same day, at the same spot, when night fall, I was walking through and there's a northern light display at the same spot where I was taking pictures of the church. And they were many other photographers taking pictures with their camera of the Northern Lights with obviously the common folks with their smartphone. I highly doubt that those photographers have a permit as well.

I was asked in the 1990's by security to not take photos, I was on a pavement outside a factory, however they said if I stood on the opposite side of the road I was OK to continue doing so. In India many museums and historic sites have charges for photography and video. Many museums here in UK have signs about photography.

I once visited Liverpool and as I just arrived at the Lime Street Train Station, I was photographing pigeons in the ceiling of the building and a security guard approached me to ask me what I was doing. He was reassured by my explanations and didn't ask a delete or to leave. But I had an analogous "problem" while photographing pigeons in a street park in Rouen (France), as behind the pigeons were a small groups of thugs/small drug dealers sitting on a bench - one of them came to "ask" what I just had photographed and "asked" (="forced") me to delete the photos they were on (in the background...).

Very informative video buddy, thanks for the upload. The overreach on behalf of security, police etc is always an issue. It's made more problematic by certain people stating that they're not covered by GDPR, that they're private individuals blah, blah, blah, then go on to state that they make money from their videography on youtube. I think for the most part, common sense prevails. I live in a semi rural environment now, most folk understand what I'm doing as a photographer, but if push comes to shove, they don't like what I'm doing then I'll respect their wishes. Saves on arguments. It seems the more you gravitate towards urban environments, bigger cities, that the issue becomes such a great problem.

Thanks for the advice. Very much appreciated as I am visiting the UK later this year. Especially the National Trust info was very new to me.

📸 Absolutely stunning! 🇬🇧 Love learning about photography laws in the UK. 📷 Such valuable info presented in a captivating way! 👏 Keep up the fantastic work! 🌟

What an excellent video…full of facts and information. I’ve never fallen foul of any of the laws in this video. I’m on long term vacation in Mindanao Philippines and many people, when they see my camera, have stopped me in the street and asked me to take their photo which I’m happy to do. I’ve even known motorcyclists to stop in the middle of the road and ask for a photo.

In Australia there was a high profile case where a well known photographer was not shooting commercially for some family friends with the opera house in background . it was not commercial and received a fine , it went to court , its also amazing how they determine your commercial if you use a tripod which is stupid. so on the other foot its not allowed on sydneys foreshore to shoot without a permit , but there are thousands of tourists around , some with tripods! but its ok for the council during the event called vivid to get everyone to tag the event on social media platforms and get free advertising.

Thank you, it’s very informative. Thanks a lot❤

Times they are a changing! Just this summer had my first run-in with someone while out hiking with Otis and demanded to see my camera and footage as she was convinced that I had been filming her...I politely declined and we made our way with the air being filled with her obscenities. A friend who does street scenes was told that he was not allowed to take images of a building from his vantage point on public property even here in Nova Scotia. Even though people have not rights to deny such instances, some think that they have the right to do whatever they wish. Such great information and I am sure that every one who takes pictures of any kind have stories to tell.

Excellent overview. Thank you. Would love to know more about UK laws wrt to street photography.

Very interesting topic, good presentation! :) Data privacy laws, especially GDPR are often used as an excuse for not allowing this or that even though they don't even apply there.

Thank you for a genuinely useful video.

Very useful information. Many thanks.👍👍

This is very good. I personally think that these laws need tyding up and simplifying here in the UK. Thank you.

Great video, thanks. I've been approached while in a public area by building security in London, who asked if I had a permit to photograph the buildings. I said I was a tourist like all the other people around here, just taking personal photos. He said my gear was clearly professional and that I needed to apply to the council for a permit and said I couldn't continue taking pictures. I wasn't up for an argument as I was just out for fun, so I left. While shooting at a local bike park, a rider broke his leg, and paramedics came to take him to hospital. I took some shots of him being stretchered off, and all the paramedics said I wasn't allowed to take photographs and that I had to show them that I had deleted any containing them doing their job. Most lads at the park, when they have any incident, always ask if there are any shots so they can post on instagram. But they wouldn't progress until I deleted my shots.

Good guide , but a couple of comments . While , in general , you can photograph or film anything you can see from a public place , there are a few exceptions . The first and most obvious one is military installations : army , navy or air force bases ; other places with connections to security services , and indeed places like prisons can be 'sensitive' about people taking pictures around them ; having said that , I've taken pictures and video inside prisons by prior arrangement , and usually escorted by a member of staff just to guide me what I can and cannot photograph ; similarly on board an active Royal Navy Warship , I had an escort . Some airports can also be quite sensitive about photography on their premises , but if you're just taking pictures of aircraft from a distance it isn't a problem . In general photography in railway stations is fine , as long as you don't get in anyone's way , and it's usually polite to just ask any staff on duty before you go ahead . One notable addition is concerns about privacy ; it ought to be common sense that photography in places like public lavatories or swimming pool changing areas is absolutely forbidden ; but less obvious is photos of people in and around their homes ; while you can absolutely take pictures of someone in an open front garden , which is readily visible from the street , it is NOT ok to photograph someone , for example , sunbathing in an enclosed back garden , where there IS a reasonable expectation of privacy , even if you are in an elevated position with a view over a high wall ; similarly , it is illegal to point cameras into peoples windows and photograph them within their homes , again that is a private place where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy . Finally , and related to that , you cannot take identifiable photos of people inside a private motor vehicle , even when it is on a public road ; that is why a PRIVATE car is called that , and that is why speed cameras are only permitted to take general photos from behind ; if your photos show individuals who can be identified from your photos , then it is illegal because it is a breach of privacy , people do and are entitled to have an expectation of privacy when inside their private cars , even if is just so they can pick their noses at the traffic lights ! I'm surprised none of the vigilantes who go around photographing people using phones inside cars haven't yet been prosecuted for this . Vehicles CAN be photographed from the front for traffic violations , but the recording should only show the number plate along with speed and time data , and should not directly identify the occupants , faces would need to be blurred if otherwise captured ; again this goes back to privacy laws where , for example , a married man who was photographed out in his car with someone else's wife and the photograph resulted in a divorce , could sue the photographer or agency for invasion of privacy .

A 100% worthwhile video covering what has remained in the gray area for too long. What I don't understand is, why it has 156 thumbs down? Could this be the selfy flock?

Thank you for such an informative video. It is increasingly common for security guards to stop photographers from taking photos, especially inside a shopping centre. I have been stopped and questioned because I was carrying a camera. However, when I asked if I can take photos and videos with my mobile phone like the women sitting behind me, they said yes! So, guess what. I continued taking photos with my phone inside the Bull Ring!

I’d love another video on the National Trust I’m having real problems with knowing what I can and can’t do with regards to their land!

Just found your channel - very useful and well explained info and,yes,i have subscribed ! One thing that always seems to cause confusion and i'm not sure if you mentioned it is if you are on public land taking photos that's on private land, not people but perhaps an old private building. I'd always thought that was permissible but i'd appreciate some comments on that situation.

Great stuff Dave & thank you....

Spotted a suspicious looking character filming The Ivy in this film Dave 😂😂 Very interesting stuff and well worth doing your own research especially when out and about in other countries as the rules vary so much ! The NT is a very interesting one especially re Drone flying which appears to be a no no at all the sites I’ve visited so far and another film on this topic would be welcomed from me anyway. All good informative stuff and see you soon for a catch up in town 👍🏻👍🏻

Thank you so much for that video. I often have bern stopped by security people. Good to have some ground knowledgr 😊

Great information mate! And after reading through the comments, seems to be quite a few gray areas, just like over here. We have similar "laws"... absolutely no drone flying from within national parks, some state parks, and even some country and city parks. I know Jim Fisher did a couple videos on the on again, off again enforcement within the parks. Its all a bit of a mess if you ask me. I've had a couple of minor run-ins here while photographing some of these old buildings around here (local business owners)... paranoid that I'm from the city doing code enforcement or something 😂 Always a great learning mate, nice work! Have a great weekend pal, chat soon!

Most of the city of London, including pathways (sidewalks for yanks) and the little parks /open spaces are privately owned. Train stations are another, also different local councils have different rules regarding filming and permits needed. ( not photographing). Some councils say that a tripod is professional equipment thus requiring a permit, particularly if it’s on a path. It’s nothing to do with the footage obtained, but it’s because it can be seen as obstruction and someone could trip over it. To get a permit you need to provide proof of insurance thus taking liability away from the council. That’s all it is.

Basically the same in the US. However, those interfering with a photographer who is well within their rights to photograph is a criminal act in certain instances.

A saying I've heard in the cycling world is relevant here - knowing you had right of way doesn't mean much when you're underneath a car. Knowing your legal rights as a photographer is great and all, but if someone is going to beat the living crap out of you if you don't delete a photo then sometimes it's better to back down.

I’ve had no problems taking personal photos on NT property or in their buildings. However I always ask their policy on entry. Usually it is OK if you ensure there is no flash - which could affect old fabrics and art works etc. if there is a special exhibition of art work or historical items, you may be told you can’t take photos of the objects. I would prefer stricter rules in art galleries where people stand in front of an art work to take selfies though!! Asking is always the safest option!

Interested in a National Trust, English Heritage and Forrestry Commission piece. Notably the Forrestry Commission has a site at Grizedale with artwork on their forrest trails.

Brilliant advice. I have worked in publishing for several decades and didn’t realise that photographs of architecture in the UK don’t infringe the IP of the architects (as is the case in many countries). Does this apply throughout the UK or just in the law of England and Wales?

Valuable info.

Left my comments on the other vid mate - just popping this one here for the algorithm!

I have a question if I am out walking and I see a water mill or some other feature in a garden, can I take a photo of it, or do I have to ask the landowner's permission? Thank you very much for this article, it has answered many questions for me.

Myself and a number of others I know have had issues with Security at Deansgate Square recently

Very helpful I am in the US planning a vacation to the UK. Would like to know more about laws around street photography and Public Trust buildings.

Basically privately owned spaces that are open to the public have certain conditions which must be observed to continue to be allowed access. - such as no skateboarding, no photography etc etc. it should however be noted somewhere what the restrictions are though I don’t believe it’s required by law. so technically the security can ask you to stop doing the thing, on the grounds of if you don’t, you forfeit your right to be there. It’s also worth noting that although tresspass is a civil matter, if you continue to ignore the request to leave, knowing that you are now committing tresspass, it then becomes aggravated tresspass which is a criminal offense.

As a former bbc cameraman I had problems with man United. If you would like to know an interesting fact about access to their perceived property please get back to me. Also areas called precincts of the court.

Dude! I have! A policeman allowed a member of the public to take possession and review my images!

Thank you, great information. I was approached by station staff at a local railway station and told I couldn't photograph buildings or trains from the station, and if I did he would call the police and report me under terrorism laws!

This is brilliant- thank you - are photographers allowed to film and photograph on public transport?

Yes please to an extra video on the National Trust 😃

Is it allowed to take pictures inside a railway station? I was a couple of years ago in a small town north of Birmingham and inside a railway station a woman told me to stop photographing. I was not taking any picture of her but of the architectural construction.

Regarding the deletion of images, what happens if you're using a film camera?

These are mostly issues with the law of England and Wales. Scotland has its own legal system. For example, there is no law of trespass in Scotland. You can go anywhere you like, as long as you are not impacting anyone's privacy. And while the National Trust get a bit uppity about commercial photography on their properties, there are no such issues with the National Trust of Scotland, who actively encourage it.

What about when your in a public space but the land is privately owned, maybe a market place or a shopping precinct?

I’ve always thought that a photograph (image) is some taken in a still camera,a frame of a film or a frame of a digital video.

what about train stations, shopping malls, etc? are those classed as public?

I have noticed that some shopping malls in the uk have a notice that state that photography isn’t allowed, not sure what the legal right is?

In London, the open areas around the South Bank, and around Canary Wharf for example, are private but with public access, so they can ask you to stop. There was a scene with children hardly identifiable, playing in the fountains. I was asked by an official (not parents) to stop as I confirmed I was not a relation. It seems they assume you are a paedophile unless you can prove you are not. You can take pictures of children on public land, although if a parent requests you dont, it would be moral and polite to stop. Bert Hardy took iconic press photos of kids on the street in his day.

2:27 - Is that Sale Town Hall? I'm from Sale! 😃

9:07 if you haven't done it, could you do one on bylaws?

What about private critically secure areas, like airports?

Re taking pictures in galleries..... They are NOT a public space. It is a private space that people are permitted to enter under certain conditions. (See the National Trust fiasco) The same applies to shopping malls and the like. They are private spaces that permit the public access.

I used to work in TV. We were working in Nottingham. We were informed by the local Council that they owned the copyright to the image of Nottingham Castle and that they would sue our company if we took or used any images of the castle without purchasing a (very expensive) license from them, even if the image was taken from outside the castle grounds. Clearly the creators of the castle are long dead so there's no valid claim there. How do the Council get away with claiming this? Is this some local bylaw they've passed?

Interesting, Some good examples of security getting heavy handed is with Drone 'Auditers' a couple af good ones are DJ Audits and ACE Audits, they mainly do industrial estates and can give a real life view from both the security overeach on these sites and the results if ever the police are called in these situations. (basically police can do naff all if filmed from public land) It's really interesting how many security wrongly think they know the law and just because they or the company may not like the practice of filming or drones often doesn't mean it's illegal and there are times when standing up to security bullies is required.

Thanks for This I'd be interested in More National trust Info. James Hogg

I feel that if you can see it from public land, you should be free to photograph it. The view is freely available to anyone.

You need to get a nice and compact MFT camera and lens, that way nobody will notice 🙂

Recently visited Lancaster castle everything was going fine until going through the main gates and was swarmed by a couple of security people who advised me that it was fine to take photographs but if I put the camera on my tripod then there would be a £600 fee to pay for the privalage.

“UK law” is a broad stroke, England have wildly different laws from those that are in Scotland. Some are shared but others are not and would do your due diligence before you head off wildly photographing things but common sense should prevail.

That’s very helpful and believe me if you are an activist and photographer you see yourself dealing with police and gear confiscation quite often 😅

A national trust video would be good!

I'm curious about an incident I experienced. I was in a clothing store (in England) that had a complete wall dedicated to a display of sewing machines, which I started photographing. Security asked me to stop, which I did...... but were they withing their rights to insist that I not take photographs?

When it comes to people, it is necessary to consider the law on breach of confidence as it has developed in light of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 10 (right of free expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The law on misuse of private information might be relevant but this is perhaps unlikely to be relevant to photographers unless they are photographing something they know is private and confidential. Another important area to consider is the law on harassment. One area where you cannot take photographs is in a court - doing so is contempt of court and has led to the photographer being sent to prison.

A lot of the new housing estates that have been and are being built are on private land (and yes that includes the roads), you can tell the road on these estates is private if there are private parking enforcement signs, as it is open to public access what are your rights to photograph on these roads?

Really interesting and informative video. There seems to be a bit of a grey area to me. For example the NT does not permit commercial photography on their land, which is fair enough, but if I took an image for my own use and posted it on social media and someone took a liking to it and wanted to buy the rights to it for whatever future purpose, then has that image become commercial and, therefore, illegal in the eyes of the NT? No such luck this ever happened to me but presumably it would be the user of the image to seek permissions rather than the original photographer? Just me speculating on totally hypothetical situations instead of doing something useful or sleeping :)

I had two plain clothes officers turn up at my place of work after I'd been stopped and given a notice by a police beat officer, for photographing a building in Woking. I told them why I'd taken the photo and they laughed and apologised for wasting my time.

I’m not a photographer, but great video 👍

Yes National trust info please.

A very difficult subject to address but you certainly did a good job here, couple of things i was not aware of such as the Freedom of Panorama. National Trust certainly overreach most occasions. I also became aware of the Criminal Justice act 1972 section 33. As we all no as photographers we can take images from public land well this is one i would like a Lawyer to rule on. Section 33 states and land that public are given access to, whether paid for or otherwise becomes Public Land ! My question would be does this supersede any byelaw or visa versa ? Interesting topic , one i would like to explore further. Good advise there mate, generally i avoid confrontation wherever possible but like you said , its good to know your rights .

Could have sworn I heard you say "National Trust.... photographers and drunks problem." Well, makes sense to me.

Very interesting video. I found a mall in London which framed St Paul’s cathedral so I got my camera out and took a picture. A very officious security guard came up to me and told me not to take photos and would I move on. There was a woman next to me that had a mobile. And he said it was ok for her to take one of St Paul’s. I told him politely to get a policeman if he thought I was trespassing on private land. He kept saying where I was was on private property. But as people had to walk on the pathway to get to shops then surely everyone else was trespassing too? What are the rules here please?

I was shooting the full moon rising through Tower Bridge. I was on the Southbank surrounded by 100's of people taking photos. Security came over to say I could not use my tripod. They were ok with me having it, just not using it.

Worth noting Trespass law in the UK is in most cases a civil law, security guards can threaten to call the police but even if the police come they can’t remove you because you aren’t committing a crime. You don’t even have to leave when the security ask you to, pointless staying if the security is blocking your shot, but worth knowing they can’t intimidate you and they certainly can’t touch you.

Yes details on NT bylaws vid would be good inc drones. What if a security guard tries to stop you going down a 'closed for an event ' public pavement. If I ignore them to get a photo what then? Can the police arrest me for civil disturbance etc? Happened to me but didn't want to push it.

Great video, Dave. I've been lucky as I've never been stopped whilst doing street photography. The National Trust is an interesting one. I have seen many photographers selling prints of National Trust monuments. I'm guessing that it isn't something that they actively try and prevent. I'd love to know if you have found any legal cases where they have prosecuted photographers in the past. As smart phones get better and better, this is going to be a rule that is going to be very hard to police. I do know of many drone pilots who fly close to Penshaw monument for example. The National Trust don't allow flying from their land, so the drone pilots take off from outside the NT land and fly over it as airspace is governed by the CAA not the Trust. It would be interesting to know if there was any prosecutions brought by the Trust. I'd be interested in a further video on the subject.

What about tripods and public places? I've been stopped by security in Canary Wharfs streets and Bankside in central London for using a tripod without a permit

Photographing something does not infringe on any copyright. Publishing or displaying the photograph may infringe depending on whether the photo is derivative or a completely separate work of art. At least this is how it works in the EU. I also wouldn’t trust that map shown, it needs a ton of asterisks to explain what the rules actually mean in each country.

Thank god I am a wildlife photographer.

I was under the impression that a place like Canary Wharf and some areas of the docklands in London were out of bounds for any kind of photography?

If it’s on google earth, I’ll film it.

I left the National Trust because i found that i did not agree with their current attitude, especially towards volunteers.