Did you know that photography is prohibited in the IFSC?

leche solara · 27-05-2009 10:02PM #1

Recently read with interest the thread on the photography ban by the British National Trust. Well they're catching up here.

I was walking through the IFSC today during my lunch break. I noticed that there was a circus being set up in the dock beside the CHQ building. I took a couple of photographs and walked on. I was about to take another from a different position when I was approached by a person on a Segway who said to me "I believe one of my colleagues has already spoken to you" "About what?" I replied. (My first thought was that he must be selling something) "About photography not being allowed" he said. I told him that no one had spoken to me, and asked him where exactly was photography not allowed. He replied that photography was not allowed in the "whole IFSC area, as it was private property" and further told me that I had been followed on CCTV as I walked through the area. I asked him where I could take photographs and he said anywhere I liked outside the "area", pointing towards the quays.

I didn't see any signs saying that photography is not allowed and I am completely mystified as to why its not allowed and to how the IFSC is classed as private property. As far as I was aware I was on a public street. Can I be accused of trespassing the next time I go there? Also how is it that any time there is an event on in the IFSC that there are always pictures in the Metro, Herald AM etc? I'm sure CCTV could be more gainfully employed than following people who happen to have a camera around their neck.

Maybe we should organise a photowalk to the IFSC to see how many Segways they have and drive them mad!

This is the offending picture:

challengemaster · 27-05-2009 10:17PM

If there's no signs up saying it's prohibited, there's nothing to stop you until someone actually says it to you.

And if you really wanted to piss them off, walk outside and take pictures with a telephoto lens. You're legally allowed to photography any private property which is visible from public areas

Burnt · 27-05-2009 10:18PM

Leche Solara,

the topic has been dicussed here at lenght; the are numerous place posing as public space, town centre etc... but they are all private property,
thus can prohibit the taking of photos if they should wish. However I don't sweat it to much, once the photo is taken the isn't much there can
be done, I move along when asked and be polite.

dakar · 27-05-2009 10:20PM

Is it just me or is there something horribly Orwellian about the Segway?

I presume that it is private property owned by the DDA but I find it difficult to believe that you pose a threat as a dangerous subversive. I fear that the ludicrous criminalisation of photography that's happening in the UK will leach over here.

And I (foolishly) thought we as a country had some common sense, although the revelations of the last few days in a different sphere are eroding that notion.

unreggd · 27-05-2009 10:30PM

Shoulda takin yer man's picture!

sineadw · 27-05-2009 10:35PM

Yeah IFSC have been like that for a long time. I seem to remember there was something about the banks and security and robbery? I dunno... Bloody ridiculous anyway.

rahtkennades · 27-05-2009 10:40PM

Seriously, I think it's only right to laugh at anybody on a Segway. I mean, how could you expect to be taken seriously driving a wheeled version of the Mekon's chair.

Anyway, can't you see why they chased you away? It looks like the performers for the circus are going to come out of the AIB centre! :pac:

Masada · 27-05-2009 11:10PM

the way i see it, if theres no signs to tell you that its not allowed and the area is publically accessable with no clear indication you are on private property, then snap away all you like. you don't have to take his word for it that its not allowed, sure he's only a lacky and if you were to take this as fact then he could say pretty much anything he likes and have it accepted as law.
I've been down there taking pics on a load of occasions with no hassle but i noticed there was one guy eyeballing me once but after asking what he wanted, he walked away.
I certainly wouldn't put my camera away and apologise. we don't live in a big brother society and if they are so concerned by people taking photographs then they can invest in proper signage to prevent people from "breaking the law" unknowingly.

Rojo · 27-05-2009 11:37PM

I got thrown out of here because I persisted to take photos... I'm a bold boy! Lets make a giant flash mob of photographers.... :-)

Thirdfox · 27-05-2009 11:41PM

The law may be on his side but all parties can still be polite about it.

If a particular private area (shopping centre etc.) doesn't allow photography then you can vote with your feet and not go there. However contrary to what Masada says once they inform you of their rules you do have to stop taking photos - otherwise you become a trespasser on the land (at which point proprietors do have the right to forcibly remove you from the premises - whether a security worker on very little pay is willing to have a tussle with you is anyone's guess). Harming the worker would land you into the technical term of criminal trespasser...at which point they can call the gardai and seek an arrest...

All of the above is the worst case scenario - when two big egos clash. Hopefully photographers practise their hobby/profession in a responsible and legal manner and security workers are courteous when informing people who may not be aware of the rules of any prohibitions on photography. But the law is the law (we can lobby our local representative to get it changed of course

).

Even more dangerous is when you go on holidays - people generally are not familiar with the rules in regards to photography (did you know you can't photograph some public bridges in the US due to terrorism concerns? Perhaps a stupid law but that is the law as it stands.)

I knew that the IFSC was private land and security can stop me from taking photographs, I'm much more concerned about people trying to legally limit photography in absolutely public spaces.

Masada · 28-05-2009 12:01AM

Thirdfox wrote: »

The law may be on his side but all parties can still be polite about it.

If a particular private area (shopping centre etc.) doesn't allow photography then you can vote with your feet and not go there. However contrary to what Masada says once they inform you of their rules you do have to stop taking photos - otherwise you become a trespasser on the land (at which point proprietors do have the right to forcibly remove you from the premises - whether a security worker on very little pay is willing to have a tussle with you is anyone's guess). Harming the worker would land you into the technical term of criminal trespasser...at which point they can call the gardai and seek an arrest...

When comparing it with a shoping centre there are obvious differences. most notibly the fact that you are no longer on a publicly accessible street when your standing in the middle of the jervis...
Most people, myself included would not have known that the whole IFSC area is private property as there is no indication whatsoever.

It should also be noted that under no circumstances do they have the power to "forcibly" do anything such thing. that is the work of the gardai and they, the security, only obtain the right of detention/psychical restraint if they have reasonable cause to believe you are committing a crime with the intention of evading the gardai.

Im not saying everyone should go out and argue with the security staff but if they are giving you hassle which you would class as unreasonable, then dont stand for it. if the DDC want to enforce a "no photos" rule then they have to make it perfectly clear to anyone who might not be aware of the current situation since as i standes it is quite easy to ind yourself confronted by security without ever having meant any harm.

Thirdfox · 28-05-2009 12:28AM

I agree with pretty much everything that you say... except the use of force part - they can't force you to stay in the private premises (false imprisonment) but they can forcibly eject you from the premises (look at a nightclub on Friday night). Hence people who shoplift often are "persuaded" to stay inside the store rather than physically restrained - since if they cannot prove a crime was being commited the shop will be in serious legal trouble in regards to false imprisonment.

Anyone who has outstayed their welcome will be asked to leave. If they do not, by law they are allowed to use "reasonable force" to eject you.

Now tort/land law may have changed since I last studied it (or maybe I wasn't paying enough attention) but this is what I remember to be the case. Very open to correction though.

edit: although I would guess that if any photographer is forcibly ejected from a premises for being uncooperative they would be able to find a lawyer willing to argue that security used unreasonable force for a fee

leche solara · 28-05-2009 08:46AM

Thanks for all the comments.

As I said, I was totally unaware that taking photos was not allowed in the IFSC, having done it before, and my first impression when Segway man approached me was that he was selling something. I just don't get how certain streets in Dublin can be deemed private property while others are public. While your man tried to usher me towards the quays to take pictures, could I not have just stepped back a bit to Mayor Street, which I assume is Dublin City Council property, and therefore public property, and zoomed a bit more, as Challengemaster suggests.

pieye · 28-05-2009 09:01AM

The number of times I have been stopped for just having camera is ridiculous... and security has gone way to far, like on the trains, have you seen those guards they've hired, am I the only one who think the last thing the dart line needs is a slightly empowered imbecile in combat gear.

CabanSail · 28-05-2009 09:11AM

I may be completely wrong here, but I think that in Australia when this issue was discussed it was different. IIRC then, over there, if you allow Private Property to be Publicly Accessable then the rights you have in Public Space extend to that property. Now this was from a Radio Show where these sort of issues were being discussed with a Lawyer.

The discussion was more focussed on matters such as "If you break it you own it" policies in shops, which was not legally enforcable unless it was considered criminal damage. The Shop has a choice to exclude the Public from parts of the premisis & then supply goods for inspection at request or they can allow the public access to roam & accept the risks involved. The subject of Photography came up & it was along the same lines that unless there were accepted conditions of entry, which would require some sort of agreement, so a ticket or some such, then it would be allowed unless there was criminal intent. Even a sign up saying "No Photography" would not be sufficient. As i say this was a while ago & from memory only, things may have changed.

Tallon · 28-05-2009 09:32AM

Im going down to the IFSC for the Maratime festival, as I do most years, and i'm taking hundreds of photos, as I do most years.

If I see a guy on a Segway, i'm taking pictures of him like theres no tomorrow, the whole time shouting, "yeah thats it, work it for me big boy. Show me what that baby can do"

(or something along those lines)

CabanSail · 28-05-2009 09:55AM

I did not realise quite how large an area the IFSC occupied.

The map from their site shows how big it is.

Smokeyskelton · 28-05-2009 09:56AM

Good God!

Please don't encourage these IFSC idiots to put up signs prohibiting photography. The city is ugly enough as it is without more unecessary signs being put up everywhere.

On the road where I live there is an obscene number of signs visible, which really spoil the cityscape. The list is more or less as follows:
6 Pay and display signs
1 Pay and display machine
2 If your dog does a poo pick it up signs
2 Right turn only signs
2 Don't drive straight ahead signs
1 Don't drop litter sign
1 Clearway sign

Some of the signs were put on existing lamposts, but the majority merited their own poles according to the powers that be.

Bottom line, in my opinion the proliferation of ugly signage is really spoiling the cityscape. Even if you are allowed "the privilege" of taking a photo in the city it may well be liberally sprinkled with distracting signs.

Rant over (for now).

Smokey

CabanSail · 28-05-2009 10:05AM

Smokeyskelton wrote: »

Even if you are allowed "the privilege" of taking a photo in the city it may well be liberally sprinkled with distracting signs.

Taking photographs in public is not a Privilege (unless you live under a some kind of oppressive regime) It is a part of our Freedom of Expression, which is a basic human right.

Tallon · 28-05-2009 10:11AM

CabanSail wrote: »

I did not realise quite how large an area the IFSC occupied.

The map from their site shows how big it is.

Poor aul, 42. Out on his own like that

paulusdu · 28-05-2009 10:38AM

Spare a thought for those of us in number 9 who have to listen to some choce conversations from Sherrif Street when we work late :-)

So with the Maritime festival being on this weekend, legally we are not allowed to take photographs ? or have the Docklands Authority hired out part of the IFSC where they have put up the slide. I was looking forward to taking some photo's

I wandered around at the christmas festival with my camera and never got challenged

Cameraman · 28-05-2009 01:10PM

I checked with the DDDA - as I have often taken photos there myself with no problems. This is their response :

Thank you for your email regarding taking photographs in the Docklands. If a photographer wishes to take images in the Docklands on behalf of a media organization they must apply for a license and pay a fee.

If an amateur photographer takes photos for own interest or study, this is acceptable and you should not have been stopped from doing so. The management company that controls the area for us has hired a new security company and I can only think that they have not been briefed correctly.

We encourage people such as yourself to enjoy the area and the events that we hold. I hope that you come and enjoy the Maritime Festival this weekend and get an opportunity to take some photos of the ships.

I have let the management company know what has happened to make sure this doesn’t occur again.

Tallon · 28-05-2009 01:13PM

Fair play for that Cameraman

Fajitas! · 28-05-2009 01:13PM

Cheers Cameraman.

I might give them an email myself, just for clarification if I've any hassles down there. A friend of mine was 'forcibly ejected' for sketching the architecture down there. She wouldn't be a terribly aggressive person either.

Masada · 28-05-2009 01:19PM

Thats greeat news. fair play, Cameraman,

I'm gonna print that out and leave it in my camera bag.

shrapnel222 · 28-05-2009 01:35PM

aren't the docklands and the IFSC two different entities?

Tallon · 28-05-2009 01:43PM

shrapnel222 wrote: »

aren't the docklands and the IFSC two different entities?

Email on the way...

CabanSail · 28-05-2009 01:48PM

I have just been on the phone to DDA myself. I have been asked to phone back after lunchtime to speak with the appropriate person. I will still make that call.

Cameraman · 28-05-2009 01:52PM

shrapnel222 wrote: »

aren't the docklands and the IFSC two different entities?

Sort of (this is just my understanding though).

The IFSC is located in docklands. The IFSC is a designated area and has special legislation for it covering business and tax matters. Docklands overall is controlled by the DDDA who manage, among other things, planning and development there.

See their website on http://www.dublindocklands.ie/

leche solara · 28-05-2009 02:37PM

After my incident with Segway man yesterday I sent an email to ifsconline.ie through their contact us page. They responded that I should contact the property company and gave me a phone number to ring. Good to see that you've cleared this up.

And now here's an interesting twist...
It seems the Segway can only be used on private property in Ireland. If my mate on the Segway followed me on to Mayor St (Public Street?) would he rather than me be breaking the law? Thirdfox, what do you think.

Link here: http://www.segway.ie/?id=46

coylemj · 28-05-2009 03:23PM

There is a subtle difference between private and public property as defined in the Road Traffic Act 1961. Under the RTA a 'public place' is any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge.

What this means is that even if the property is private (e.g. a shopping centre, hotel car park etc.), if the public have access at a given time with vehicles then it is a public place and the RTA applies.

This means that a Garda can arrest you for drink driving on what is private property like the places mentioned above or even in a multi story car park (it makes no difference if you have to pay to get in) and similarly the requirement to have a driving licence and 3rd party insurance applies so if you were on a road in the IFSC which was open to the public and their cars then the guy on the Segway should have displayed a registration number, tax disc and insurance disc and he should have had a driving licence.

The stuff quoted on the Segway Ireland website concerns the Finance Act 2007 which is concerned only with whether you have to pay for a tax disc or not, it has nothing to do with driving licences and registration plates which are dealt with under different legislation.

Did you know that photography is prohibited in the IFSC?

Comments