Is a 'public footpath' a public place? (UK)

I have been looking for information regarding this specific question, but I can't really find anything definitive.

The question concerns photographing local beauty spots in my part of the world, a lot of which are owned by organizations such as the National Trust.

The National Trust and various other land owners are actively preventing photographers selling images taken at these privately-owned locations, which I suppose is fair enough, but these locations are often crossed with public footpaths.

So, my question is that if the law permits you photograph private property from a public place, does a public footpath constitute a public place, therefore allowing you to photograph legally from these footpaths?

Thanks very much,

Mike

not sure about the uk, but in the usa you are able too sell whatever you like as long as you are on public property and it doesnt violate anyones privacy (ie inside their home, hospital, school etc).

Yes, it's the same here, but I don't know if a public footpath (or 'public right of way') through private land constitutes a public place. I presume it does, but I don't know for sure.

Here are some definitions of the types of Rights of Way I'm referring to: http://www.naturenet.n​et/row/rowdefinitions.​html

If these rights of way are public places then surely the National Trust (or whoever happens to be making a fuss about it) can't stop photographers selling photographs of National Trust (or other privately-owned) property taken from public footpaths.

Mike

I think I've found something now. From Urban75:

'Street shots

If you're on a public right of way - such as a public pavement, footpath or public highway - you're free to take photographs for personal and commercial use so long as you're not causing an obstruction to other users or falling foul of anti-Terrorism laws or even the Official Secrets Act.'

Here's the link: http://www.urban75.org …s-rights-and-the-law.html

So, it appears that a public right of way is a public place with regard to your right to photograph from it.

Does anyone know otherwise?

Mike

I haven't looked at this for a while but there may be info here: http://www.sirimo.co.u​k/ukpr.php

I think that public footpaths are public spaces as it suggests, and as such you should be free to photograph from them. However, I would be surprised if there is a National Trust property where the footpaths around the site are not owned by the National Trust and are not public in the true sense of the word.

Thank you both.

There are plenty of public footpaths running through National Trust properties down my way, such as Golden Cap, Corfe Castle and Lambert's Castle. Also, places like Durdle Door and Lulworth Cove, owned by Lulworth Estate, have footpaths running through them, such as the South West Coast Path.

I have heard of problems with photographers apparently not being allowed to photograph at Durdle Door, but the only non-public paths are the steps down to the beach, which are permissive paths. The South West Coast Path runs along the top of the cliffs and once you are on the beach, the area between the high and low tide line is owned by The Crown, so that is a public place - as is the case with the rest of the country.

Mike

Interested to hear if you resolve this question. According to this the NT themselves state that their policy does not apply to public paths.

I too doubt whether the paths running through the grounds of many of their properties are truly public (otherwise they wouldn't be able to charge for entry?) but I'd think that outdoor locations where there is a public right of way are fair game.

Yes, I'm referring to the outdoor locations, some of which I mentioned above

I haven't had any problems with anyone telling me I can't photograph anywhere, but I'm just getting my facts straight so that I know what I can and can't do.

Mike

Here in the US, especially for a home with land and sidewalk. If you own the the land, pedestrians and the city can legally come in 10feet into property line. A sidewalk is considered public land that must be maintained by the home or land owner. Same for business in the city.

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #7858050
The National Trust and various other land owners are actively preventing photographers selling images taken at these privately-owned locations, which I suppose is fair enough, but...

If you think it's fair enough, why are you trying to undermine them? If you think you can take better photos than the ones they're selling themselves, then offer them a mutually-beneficial business arrangement. Otherwise, get your own building/garden to the state where you want to photograph it....

Cheers, Tony

Take a look HERE

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Schedule 2. Restrictions to be observed by persons exercising right of access.

(1[t]) engages in any activity which is organised or undertaken (whether by him or another) for any commercial purpose.

This might get you (if you admit it's business related) but I can't see any other restrictions which might apply.

tonydee wrote in post #7874092
If you think it's fair enough, why are you trying to undermine them? If you think you can take better photos than the ones they're selling themselves, then offer them a mutually-beneficial business arrangement. Otherwise, get your own building/garden to the state where you want to photograph it....

Cheers, Tony

how is he trying to undermine them?

Looks to me like he's simply trying to make 100% sure of what he can and cant do legally; why do you take issue with him doing this?

tonydee wrote in post #7874092
If you think it's fair enough, why are you trying to undermine them? If you think you can take better photos than the ones they're selling themselves, then offer them a mutually-beneficial business arrangement. Otherwise, get your own building/garden to the state where you want to photograph it....

Cheers, Tony

I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that I'm trying to undermine them. My question concerns what constitutes a 'public place' in these areas, in order to establish when I can and can't photograph legally.

That is the extent of it. I made no reference to any plans to sell my own images of these areas, nor did I make any reference to the quality of my images compared with the ones that they are selling.

It's fair enough because they have jurisdiction over their own property. What isn't fair enough is if they try to impose their will in an area that they have no jurisdiction over, which appears to be happening in some cases.

I do appreciate your excellent piece of advice about converting my house into an Iron Age hill fort though. I might give that a try.

Mike

Skonk wrote in post #7874434
how is he trying to undermine them?

Looks to me like he's simply trying to make 100% sure of what he can and cant do legally; why do you take issue with him doing this?

Exactly, thank you.

I thought Tony must have got out of bed on the wrong side or something.

Mike