Photography In a Public Park

duckmusic

I’m not looking for legal advice but I’m interested in peoples thoughts on this. I was recently taking pictures of a friend in Stephens Green and was approached by the security there to tell me that I need to get a permit from OPW to take pictures in the park. I didn’t have a huge setup or anything, just a DSLR with a flash. We weren’t bothering anyone, just wandering around taking some portraits. He then told me that if I posted the pictures anywhere the OPW would “come after me”, which I assume is a threat of legal action. I was then walked out of the park.

Does anyone know the legality around this? As far as I’m aware I can take photos anywhere in public, and St. Stephens Green is a public park. And just to be clear it was me and a friend with a camera, not a crew of people with lighting rigs or anything like that.

I would be interested in hearing anyone’s thoughts on this.

MurmanskRun

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-recreation-culture-dublin-city-parks/commercial-activities-dublin-city-parks

"In accordance with Dublin City Council - Parks & Open Spaces Bye-laws 2002, written permission is required from the City Council to engage in any commercial activity in any park or open space managed by the Council. Permits are required for the following activities: filming, photography, photo calls, fashion shoots, product launches, fit classes, boot camps, and running classes."

Any chance he mistook your photography as a "commercial" enterprise?

Edit: The last paragraph in that link throws some ambiguity into the mix.

Victor

Contact OPW and see what their policies are.

MurmanskRun wrote: »

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-recreation-culture-dublin-city-parks/commercial-activities-dublin-city-parks

"In accordance with Dublin City Council - Parks & Open Spaces Bye-laws 2002, written permission is required from the City Council to engage in any commercial activity in any park or open space managed by the Council. Permits are required for the following activities: filming, photography, photo calls, fashion shoots, product launches, fit classes, boot camps, and running classes."

Any chance he mistook your photography as a "commercial" enterprise?

Edit: The last paragraph in that link throws some ambiguity into the mix.

Dublin City Council doesn't operate the park, the OPW do.

seamus

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1962/si/175/made/en/print

Pretty wide bye-laws;

4. No person shall, within the Green—

(v) without the permission of the Commissioners, engage or take part in any dancing, theatrical or musical performance or operate any radio, cinema, television or gramophone apparatus;

This is probably the part which empowers the OPW to demand a licence for taking photos.

In practice, they probably focus on people using it for actual photoshoots - be that professionals getting paid or amateurs building a portfolio - and leave people alone if they're just taking a couple of photos of themselves.

The size of your equipment is somewhat irrelevant; if you were there taking "portraits", then you were using the park as a backdrop and weren't just taking incidental photos for private use. Which, to me, would qualify as the kind of photography that would need a permit.

There's always going to be a line between, "I'm taking a photo of our nice day out", and "let's go into the park and get some nice photos", and the rangers have to make a judgment call on it.

drunkmonkey

Just on this theme, let's say duckmusic comes up and takes a photo/video of you or your kids/family etc without your permission and when asked to stop he just takes more what can you do legally?

El Tarangu

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Just on this theme, let's say duckmusic comes up and takes a photo/video of you or your kids/family etc without your permission and when asked to stop he just takes more what can you do legally?

I think if they were to do on repeated occasions you could maybe make a case for harassment. But in general if you are in a public place, people can take photos without the express permission of the subjects.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1962/si/175/made/en/print

Pretty wide bye-laws;

This is probably the part which empowers the OPW to demand a licence for taking photos . . .

I'd fight that one. A still camera is not "radio, cinema, television or gramophone apparatus", and having your picture taken is not as a "dancing, theatrical or musical performance".

ichabod

Would it not be the the case that this was just a jobsworth with his own interpretation of the rules ? A pettifogging twerp living for his job in an otherwise empty life ? The rules that are there are to prevent the Green being swamped with film crews, not to prevent ordinary people taking pics of their day out. If this was policy or " law " and enforced rigidly, then there would be a tsunami of people including tourists flowing from the Green every day.

I do have a question for the OP. Why was he " walked " from the Green ?

rock22

I last lived in Dublin about 7 yrs ago. I have hundreds of photographs taken in St .Stephen's green, including of birds in the ponds and of the statues.

It seems very strange. Although I have heard of OPW contacting photographers re photographs posted online of Skellig Michael( a bit different to St .Stephens green, I know). Perhaps OPW are flexing their muscles.

Riskymove

duckmusic wrote: »

Does anyone know the legality around this? As far as I’m aware I can take photos anywhere in public, and St. Stephens Green is a public park. And just to be clear it was me and a friend with a camera, not a crew of people with lighting rigs or anything like that.

I would be interested in hearing anyone’s thoughts on this.

http://ststephensgreenpark.ie/event-and-photography-permits/

I know that people getting wedding photos for example in Green need permission from OPW

They may have felt you were doing something more professional or commercial

I doubt they ask tourists taking selfies or pics on phone to leave for example

Carawaystick

How would the OPW know if you were just using the viewfinder or taking photographs with the camera?

sparksfly

If I was walked from the Green for taking personal photos I would get to the bottom of the rules pretty fast. I would then take appropriate action to "educate" the official involved if I found that he had acted the maggot.

meathstevie

If you want to become really technical about it you can't use a mobile phone in the Green either according to those bye-laws since they're essentially little two way radios and most are equipped with camera and video capabilities.

dalalada

Victor wrote: »

Contact OPW and see what their policies are.Dublin City Council doesn't operate the park, the OPW do.

Who owns the park? The Irish people! who manages it? opw. Its Irish constitutional law thats above what ever "policy" is in place. Polices are suggestions, the very same as the no cameras allowed signs in public owned buildings, and can be met head on with the law of the land. I can put a policy in my shop saying no clothes allowed...

You can take pictures as much as you like once you are . I wish I was there with the op. I would tell security to F off

coylemj

dalalada wrote: »

I would tell security to F off and ring the guards. then educate the guards on the law.

And you'd start by reminding the Garda that (according to you) the by-laws are just 'suggestions'. I bet the Gardai love being called out so that they can be educated on the law by people like you. You'd wonder why they even bother teaching them law in Templemore!

There is a separate thread for Freeman nonsense.

elperello

Bit harsh there.
The real issue at hand is whether taking an informal personal photograph in St Stephen's Green Park is forbidden.
I can see nothing in the bye-laws that indicate that it is. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1962/si/175/made/en/print

dalalada

coylemj wrote: »

And you'd start by reminding the Garda that (according to you) the by-laws are just 'suggestions'. I bet the Gardai love being called out so that they can be educated on the law by people like you. You'd wonder why they even bother teaching them law in Templemore!

There is a separate thread for Freeman nonsense.

According to the Irish constitution. "people like me"? what's your problem? People standing up against tyranny make you fear? They teach them law...I drop the mic

Peregrinus

dalalada wrote: »

According to the Irish constitution. "people like me"? what's your problem? People standing up against tyranny make you fear? They teach them law...I drop the mic

Far be it from me to call you a Freeman, dalalada, but I admit I am a bit puzzled by your claim that, under the Irish constitution, by-laws are just "suggestions". If I've misunderstood your claim, I apologise. But, if I haven't, then can you explain it?

dalalada

Peregrinus wrote: »

Far be it from me to call you a Freeman, dalalada, but I admit I am a bit puzzled by your claim that, under the Irish constitution, by-laws are just "suggestions". If I've misunderstood your claim, I apologise. But, if I haven't, then can you explain it?

I've just dropped Mic. but just for you. The ECHR super seeds any thing else. If a security guard is telling anyone they can't take non commerical pictures on public land because the maintainers say so then I'm puzzled by you. Have you anything to add to this thread to help the op?

Peregrinus

dalalada wrote: »

I've just dropped Mic. but just for you. The ECHR super seeds any thing else. If a security guard is telling anyone they can't take non commerical pictures on public land because the maintainers say so then I'm puzzled by you. Have you anything to add to this thread to help the op?

I posted in this thread five months ago to argue that the bye-laws do not, in fact, forbid the taking of photographs. Check out post #7.

But you raise a different question, which is whether there's any authority to make laws governing behaviour in the park at all, on the basis that the park is "public land".

If we can have a law prohibiting urination in the street, then obviously there can be laws regulating behaviour on public land. So the only question is, who has the legal authority to make laws of that kind for Stephen's Green? Public access to Stephen's Green is guaranteed by the St. Stephen's Green (Dublin) Act 1877 and, although I've never read the Act, it would not amaze me to discover that, as well as making the Office of Public Works responsible for the upkeep of the park, it also gives them a power to make bye-laws regulating the use of, and behaviour in, the park. That'd be a fairly normal arrangement, and cedrtainly not contrary to the Constitution.

dalalada

The worst part of all this is that he GOT threatened "they will come after you" and then GOT WALKED OFF THE PARK! I didn't see that until now! That's a disgrace. OP should have filmed it and disgraced that guard on YouTube. defo gone viral. Tyrant security guard.

elperello

There is no doubt that it is in the interests of both the managers and users of public parks that there should be bye-laws designed to assist in their management.

Again, the question at hand is, do the park staff have the power under the bye-laws to prevent the taking of personal photographs and remove people from the park who do not comply?

I'm going out on a limb here and agreeing with Peregrinus and saying they don't have such power.

The remedy to this is to go through the proper channels by lodging a complaint with the authorities.

Dial Hard

dalalada wrote: »

The worst part of all this is that he GOT threatened "they will come after you" and then GOT WALKED OFF THE PARK! I didn't see that until now! That's a disgrace. OP should have filmed it and disgraced that guard on YouTube. defo gone viral. Tyrant security guard.

Given it happened five months ago I'm sure he's over it by now.

dalalada

Dial Hard wrote: »

Given it happened five months ago I'm sure he's over it by now.

You shouldn't talk. Making a joke of someone's rights being violated by a tyrant. how dare you.

sheesh

dalalada wrote: »

You shouldn't talk. Making a joke of someone's rights being violated by a tyrant. how dare you.

maybe the security guard was only doing their job. It is clear from the from the bye laws quoted that commercial activity is not allowed the park without a permit. If the OP had a dslr with battery pack and a fancy flash unit with a soft box and the friend looked like a model it would be quiet reasonable to assume that they were doing a shoot for portfolio or promotional work which would require a permit.

you normally don't need a flash to shoot outdoors so it was hardly taking a few snaps of a lovely visit to Stephens green.

dalalada

Someone can use what ever type of camera they want without harassment and being physically walked off public property. If others for commercial use it's the security guards job to articulate what law he broke. not become a legislator and take law into his own hands and throw someone out. it's a sick culture in this country.

nuac

Mod
Dalalada
Pls moderate your posting style when on this forum

GM228

dalalada wrote: »

The ECHR super seeds any thing else.

Apart from that statement being incorrect what has the ECHR got to do with being allowed to take photographs?

runawaybishop

dalalada wrote: »

Someone can use what ever type of camera they want without harassment and being physically walked off public property. If others for commercial use it's the security guards job to articulate what law he broke. not become a legislator and take law into his own hands and throw someone out. it's a sick culture in this country.

Just because property is public does not mean you can do what you want in it.

It is completely allowed to forbid recording in public offices, for example.

sheesh

dalalada wrote: »

Someone can use what ever type of camera they want without harassment and being physically walked off public property. If others for commercial use it's the security guards job to articulate what law he broke. not become a legislator and take law into his own hands and throw someone out. it's a sick culture in this country.

You are not allowed to take photographs for commercial use in the park without a permit similarly in New York you are not allowed do commercial photography with out a permit any where in the City police will stop you and ask you for your permit this.

The maintenance of the park cost money if you are making money from it the park needs to get its cut you are free to take as many pictures as you want outside the park.

Open to the public and public lands are 2 different things. Stephens green is closed at night.

Not everything is a facist conspiracy.

Do you not think there has to be some controls on recreational areas at the centre of the city so they can be enjoyed by more people?

THe alternative is drunk people, druggies and dogsh1t

dalalada

GM228 wrote: »

Apart from that statement being incorrect what has the ECHR got to do with being allowed to take photographs?

freedom of the press for 1

BuzzMcdonnell

dalalada wrote: »

freedom of the press for 1

What does the have to do with echr?

dalalada

runawaybishop wrote: »

Just because property is public does not mean you can do what you want in it.

It is completely allowed to forbid recording in public offices, for example.

negative. you're so misguided. It's a policy which can be challenged as I have done multiple times in city hall and different public offices. as long as I don't go in secured areas of the office or interfere with other costumers business. It's policy not law.

BuzzMcdonnell

To be fair I think it’s fairly reasonable for the security to think the photos were for commercial purposes, provided it was a professional camera and it looked like a photo shoot.

As far as I’m aware, the security guard doesn’t have to prove that the photos were actually for commercial purposes, he just has to prove that he genuinely thought they were.

Similar to door security, you don’t have to prove that somebody was intoxicated to justify refusing entry, you just have to prove that you genuinely thought they were intoxicated.

dalalada

BuzzMcdonnell wrote: »

To be fair I think it’s fairly reasonable for the security to think the photos were for commercial purposes, provided it was a professional camera and it looked like a photo shoot.

As far as I’m aware, the security guard doesn’t have to prove that the photos were actually for commercial purposes, he just has to prove that he genuinely thought they were.

Similar to door security, you don’t have to prove that somebody was intoxicated to justify refusing entry, you just have to prove that you genuinely thought they were intoxicated.

negative. you're way off. innocent until proven guilty. a door man is a terrible example as that's a PRIVATE place not public your have to abide by their rules.

dalalada

sheesh wrote: »

dalalada wrote: »

Someone can use what ever type of camera they want without harassment and being physically walked off public property. If others for commercial use it's the security guards job to articulate what law he broke. not become a legislator and take law into his own hands and throw someone out. it's a sick culture in this country.

You are not allowed to take photographs for commercial use in the park without a permit similarly in New York you are not allowed do commercial photography with out a permit any where in the City police will stop you and ask you for your permit this.

The maintenance of the park cost money if you are making money from it the park needs to get its cut you are free to take as many pictures as you want outside the park.

Open to the public and public lands are 2 different things. Stephens green is closed at night.

Not everything is a facist conspiracy.

Do you not think there has to be some controls on recreational areas at the centre of the city so they can be enjoyed by more people?

THe alternative is drunk people, druggies and dogsh1t

I agree with you based on all of that she. we speak about commercial but we are not. The OP was taking Personal pics on public land. so you're way off. it's a shame no one here seems to know or want to stand up for their rights.

dalalada

sheesh wrote: »

dalalada wrote: »

Someone can use what ever type of camera they want without harassment and being physically walked off public property. If others for commercial use it's the security guards job to articulate what law he broke. not become a legislator and take law into his own hands and throw someone out. it's a sick culture in this country.

You are not allowed to take photographs for commercial use in the park without a permit similarly in New York you are not allowed do commercial photography with out a permit any where in the City police will stop you and ask you for your permit this.

The maintenance of the park cost money if you are making money from it the park needs to get its cut you are free to take as many pictures as you want outside the park.

Open to the public and public lands are 2 different things. Stephens green is closed at night.

Not everything is a facist conspiracy.

Do you not think there has to be some controls on recreational areas at the centre of the city so they can be enjoyed by more people?

THe alternative is drunk people, druggies and dogsh1t

I agree with you based on all of that if we speak about commercial but we are not. The OP was taking Personal pics on public land. so you're way off. it's a shame no one here seems to know or want to stand up for their rights.

coylemj

sheesh wrote: »

.... similarly in New York you are not allowed do commercial photography with out a permit any where in the City police will stop you and ask you for your permit this.

Even on public streets? That can't be true. What about news photographers? They are 'commercial' in every sense since the are being paid to take photographs and ther employers will potentially sell reproduction rights.

BuzzMcdonnell

coylemj wrote: »

Even on public streets? That can't be true. What about news photographers? They are 'commercial' in every sense since the are being paid to take photographs and ther employers will potentially sell reproduction rights.

I presume it doesn’t apply to news photographers as it is “in the interest of the general public” or something along those lines.

dalalada

This thread is v worrying for an English speaking first world country. Having lived abroad for many years I'm sorry if my tone is harsh but come on guys ye are clueless. Is anyone here an actual legal human rights solictor or barrister?

dalalada

I think this has gone way off the OP post. OP you should have recorded the interaction between you and the guard on video. That way a proper legal team could take it to court and submit complaints etc. If it was me and I was taking Personal pics (no matter the camera I had) I would have told the guard to F off and call the proper law enforcement if he has an issue and stop harrassing me. end of. If gardai come then record that as well on video because if they don't protect your rights then you sue and educate in courts.

coylemj

BuzzMcdonnell wrote: »

I presume it doesn’t apply to news photographers as it is “in the interest of the general public” or something along those lines.

What about the papparazzi? I don't think the cops on NY streets can make instant decisions about what type of photography is going on.

The First Amendment (freedom of the press) would protect just about any kind of photography in public places. Anyone can claim to be a journalist or doing freelance work for the local newspaper.

coylemj

dalalada wrote: »

.... I would have told the guard to F off and call the proper law enforcement if he has an issue and stop harrassing me. end of.

Who or what is this mythical 'proper law enforcement'?

Ben Gilroy and his thugs?

BuzzMcdonnell

coylemj wrote: »

What about the papparazzi? I don't think the cops on NY streets can make instant decisions about what type of photography is going on.

The First Amendment (freedom of the press) would protect just about any kind of photography in public places. Anyone can claim to be a journalist or doing freelance work for the local newspaper.

You very well may be right. I’m only speculating.

dalalada

coylemj wrote: »

dalalada wrote: »

.... I would have told the guard to F off and call the proper law enforcement if he has an issue and stop harrassing me. end of.

Who or what is this mythical 'proper law enforcement'?

Ben Gilroy and his thugs?

The Gardaí. the security guard was the thug.

dalalada

coylemj wrote: »

BuzzMcdonnell wrote: »

I presume it doesn’t apply to news photographers as it is “in the interest of the general public” or something along those lines.

What about the papparazzi? I don't think the cops on NY streets can make instant decisions about what type of photography is going on.

The First Amendment (freedom of the press) would protect just about any kind of photography in public places. Anyone can claim to be a journalist or doing freelance work for the local newspaper.

CORRECT 100% thank you sir an educated person at last! I was losing hope. In the states if the was carrying he could legally defend himself from the guard violating first amendment rights. I feel sorry for the op and it happens too much in this country. tyrants

dalalada

coylemj wrote: »

BuzzMcdonnell wrote: »

I presume it doesn’t apply to news photographers as it is “in the interest of the general public” or something along those lines.

What about the papparazzi? I don't think the cops on NY streets can make instant decisions about what type of photography is going on.

The First Amendment (freedom of the press) would protect just about any kind of photography in public places. Anyone can claim to be a journalist or doing freelance work for the local newspaper.

CORRECT 100% thank you sir an educated person at last! I was losing hope. In the states if the was carrying he could legally defend himself from the guard violating first amendment rights. I feel sorry for the op and it happens too much in this country. tyrants

Mebuntu

To the OP. That security guard must have been a fake or else you were the victim of a "candid camera" episode.

Non-commercial photos and videos are allowed not just in Stephen's Green but all public parks. For Stephen's Green click on this link and scroll down towards bottom right "Photography/Video".

http://ststephensgreenpark.ie/plan-a-visit/

BuzzMcdonnell

dalalada wrote: »

CORRECT 100% thank you sir an educated person at last! I was losing hope. In the states if the was carrying he could legally defend himself from the guard violating first amendment rights. I feel sorry for the op and it happens too much in this country. tyrants

Are you not the same person who wasn’t aware of gdpr and thought freedom of information applied to private security guards?

I recommend you educate yourself a bit more before implying that others aren’t educated.

nuac

dalalada
Warning: I consider your posting style here to be rude and aggressive.
If you want to continue posting here pls be polite

elperello

Mebuntu wrote: »

To the OP. That security guard must have been a fake or else you were the victim of a "candid camera" episode.

Non-commercial photos and videos are allowed not just in Stephen's Green but all public parks. For Stephen's Green click on this link and scroll down towards bottom right "Photography/Video".

http://ststephensgreenpark.ie/plan-a-visit/

Thank you for that link.
It appears to be clearly established that non-commercial photography is allowed in St Stephen's Green.
My guess is that based on their interaction with the OP the security guard became over zealous.
What we need now is a bit more info. from the OP.