Jansos

Photography on NHS property

Recommended Posts

Anyone know what the state of play is when taking photos from car parks, roads and public footpaths on NHS land (all external to the hospital). I did not have a licence or permission to take photos but there was no signage on display suggesting it was necessary. Is the onus on me to find out? Anyway, I have been asked by the NHS Trust to remove such photos, mostly of Carillion signage, as I do not have permission. Fair request? What do people think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been on NHS property quite a bit recently I have noticed quite a few signs forbidding photography. All indoors however and probably designed to protect patients privacy etc which seems fair to me. as for outdoors... Discretion and Caution spring to mind:)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If taken on NHS land and you have been approached directly, then I'd probably err on the side of caution. Even though the images sound pretty innocuous, patient confidentiality is - quite rightly - a huge issue for them, so they are sweeping with a rather broad brush to make a point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was once approached by an official while photographing on NHS property. I explained to this person that I was after shots of the buildings for stock and he appeared happy with that. I guess that the view taken may vary  between individuals, unless there has been a policy decision to prevent photography generally. Some of my photos do include people, but they were taken from a distance as a part of the overall scene.

 

I wouldn't try to take shots of patients or staff  within the buildings, but many such photos exist. As has been mentioned, hospitals generally display no photography signs within the wards.

 

If approached directly to remove the photos I would comply, for the returns involved it's not worth the risk of possible legal action. Unfortunate as the papers use this kind of photo on a regular basis. I was once asked to remove a photo of a church that I had  shot on what turned out to be private land, thought that a tad heavy handed, but complied nevertheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief.

If they are indeed public rights of way, you are perfectly entitled to take photographs from them. Check the Ordnance Survey map or possibly the local authority definitive map.

Edit: I've just had a look at street view. The road and pavement are rights of way so they can't tell you what to do there. You have entered lawfully by the signed pedestrian entrance and there are no prohibitions so I would be inclined to say that. Add that the subject of the photographs is a matter of legitimate public interest. They may go over your head to Alamy who will probably then take them down, but I think we all have a responsibility to defend our livelihoods against dubious interference.

For everyone's information, there are no people in the images. They show nothing not visible from the street.

Edited by spacecadet
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years back I was taking external photos of a hospital, signage and car parks of a local hospital when I was approached by a member of staff and told it was not allowed without permission of the press office but he was happy for me to keep the shots that I had. Recently I contacted the press office to see if I could attend the hospital to increase my stock of the hospital without including any people but my request was turned down. If its NHS land then they make the rules

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, KWheal said:

 If its NHS land then they make the rules

Sure, but here it's a public authority making it up as they go along to try to whitewash its reputation and avoid the embarrassment of being associated with a dodgy PFI deal and a dodgy company.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jansos, your collection seems  to include rather a lot of signage so I'm surprised you haven't worked out a strategy for this kind of objection. Surely it comes up regularly? Personally, my blood would hit boiling point sharpish at any attempt to block anything to do with Carillion. Do you ever get challenged by any jobsworths while shooting? Outside of a few areas of London, walking along normally accessed foot paths you should be OK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was challenged when taking photos of a local hospital and told to contact the press office. I was on a public footpath and the person didn't say I must delete any images.

 

Similarly, I was challenged taking photos of bet365 HQ offices. I was on their property and agreed not to use those shots, but simply took very similar ones from the highway/public footpath and there wasn't anything that they could do about those.

 

In both cases being friendly and showing a business card to 'prove' who I was and explaining what I wanted the images for and that I had nothing to hide diffused the situation .

 

John.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stokie said:

I was on a public footpath and the person didn't say I must delete any images.

 

 

 

Important to note that (in the UK) no-one, including the police, can force you to delete any photographs without a court order - even if they had been taken on private property without permission.  There are some exceptions of course - military etc.

 

http://www.techradar.com/how-to/photography-video-capture/cameras/photographers-rights-the-ultimate-guide-1320949

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vincent Lowe said:

 

Important to note that (in the UK) no-one, including the police, can force you to delete any photographs without a court order - even if they had been taken on private property without permission.  There are some exceptions of course - military etc.

 

http://www.techradar.com/how-to/photography-video-capture/cameras/photographers-rights-the-ultimate-guide-1320949

 

 

 

True, I wouldn't have deleted them if asked.

 

John.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stokie said:

 

True, I wouldn't have deleted them if asked.

 

John.

Wonder what SD cards taste like.... no chance of swallowing a CF.:blink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Stokie said:

 

True, I wouldn't have deleted them if asked.

 

John.

 

Mind you, if like mine, your camera has dual card slots you could go through the motions of deleting them, knowing you still have them on the second card..... :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/02/2018 at 07:39, Bryan said:

I was once approached by an official while photographing on NHS property. I explained to this person that I was after shots of the buildings for stock and he appeared happy with that. I guess that the view taken may vary  between individuals, unless there has been a policy decision to prevent photography generally. Some of my photos do include people, but they were taken from a distance as a part of the overall scene.

 

I wouldn't try to take shots of patients or staff  within the buildings, but many such photos exist. As has been mentioned, hospitals generally display no photography signs within the wards.

 

If approached directly to remove the photos I would comply, for the returns involved it's not worth the risk of possible legal action. Unfortunate as the papers use this kind of photo on a regular basis. I was once asked to remove a photo of a church that I had  shot on what turned out to be private land, thought that a tad heavy handed, but complied nevertheless.

Hi Bryan and everyone, Thanks for all your feedback. Very good advice. I did as you did and removed the items as the cost of legal action is just not worth it. However,  couldn't really see what the problem was as: 1) they were all taken outside of the hospital 2) there were no signs forbidding photography 3) at no time did anyone tell me to stop (I was there for a while and, I think, observed by security) 4) didn't break any confidentiality by featuring identifiable patients 5) they did not bring the name or reputation of the hospital into disrepute.

Frustrating but one of those things we just have to live with. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/02/2018 at 08:22, spacecadet said:

Good grief.

If they are indeed public rights of way, you are perfectly entitled to take photographs from them. Check the Ordnance Survey map or possibly the local authority definitive map.

Edit: I've just had a look at street view. The road and pavement are rights of way so they can't tell you what to do there. You have entered lawfully by the signed pedestrian entrance and there are no prohibitions so I would be inclined to say that. Add that the subject of the photographs is a matter of legitimate public interest. They may go over your head to Alamy who will probably then take them down, but I think we all have a responsibility to defend our livelihoods against dubious interference.

For everyone's information, there are no people in the images. They show nothing not visible from the street.

spacecadet - I think you are absolutely correct but the chances of 'winning' are remote and the costs of having to fight a case would be exorbitant but those were my very sentiments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/02/2018 at 11:47, Robert M Estall said:

Jansos, your collection seems  to include rather a lot of signage so I'm surprised you haven't worked out a strategy for this kind of objection. Surely it comes up regularly? Personally, my blood would hit boiling point sharpish at any attempt to block anything to do with Carillion. Do you ever get challenged by any jobsworths while shooting? Outside of a few areas of London, walking along normally accessed foot paths you should be OK

That's what I thought - Carillion management deserves all the contempt it deserves but apparently they have struck some sort of deal with this particular hospital that guarantees that the outstanding jobs will be completed. Perhaps it was too close for too much public scrutiny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now