New signs appear to ban phones from Temple Quay | Hacker News Reader

New signs appear to ban phones from Temple Quay

bristol247.com

66 pointsedward104 comments

I am relatively sure that it is not legal to restrict photographs like this in a public place; the UK has a relatively broad freedom of panorama (buildings have no right to a copyright of themselves), and quoting from the relevant Wikipedia article [1]:

"In the United Kingdom there are no laws forbidding photography of private property from a public place. Photography is not restricted on land if the landowner has given permission to be on the land or the photographer has legal right to access, for example Byways Open to All Traffic or a public right of way or an area of open access land. "

At the very least Temple Quay has an easement permitting a right of access. As long as you don't sit with a telephoto lens taking pictures through windows -- invading an individual's right to privacy or potentially coming under harassment law -- I think you should be fine (and frankly I'd like to see signs like this challenged).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#United...

It's not a public place. The signs clearly say that.

But if there is a right of way, it might not matter.

Good question, I suspect that's unlikely .. but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

UK Right of Way is a strong public right but essentially rests on a history of use and established transit from somewhere to somewhere.

Temple Quay in Bristol is reclaimed rail and dockyards, it's private, has a history of commercial operation (no public, only owners and workers) and a chuck of the real estate used to be wet where ships parked up (ie not a lot of historic walking on water just there).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_way_in_England_and_W...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Quay

Have at it - caveat: IANAL .. I'm not even in the UK (at present).

Pubs are owned privately, they are still public places where there is no expectation of privacy.

The Chihuahua is commonly regarded as the smallest dog breed in the world.

But I fear we've strayed from the question of whether the open areas in Temple Quay have a public right of way or are the private property of the manamgement agency that followed after Castlemore Securities Ltd/SWERDA developed the area.

It's extremely relevant, it doesn't matter who owns it or if it's a public right of way or not. Ultimately in the UK you can walk wherever you like whether the property is private or not. This is clearly a public area, right of way or not, where there is no expectation of privacy and therefore, legally, you can photograph anything you like, nobody can enforce otherwise.

What are we talking about here? There's a difference between what you can do and what you have a right to do. You can walk across any land you can gain physical access to. But in England and Wales you almost certainly don't have a right to walk across said land. In Scotland you do but you are mistaken if you think England and Wales are like Scotland in this regard (sadly).

yes they are private but that allows them to ban parts of the public and actions of the public e.g. banning people, throwing peopl out for misbehaviour - and that latter could inclde taking photos if the owner wanted.

I lived in Stratford (London) for ~8 years until last week. There has been so much development there over the time I've been there. It's now effectively impossible to not use private land to get around the area. Even areas that look like a public road sometimes have signs up somewhere discreet saying that it's actually private land that the landowner typically allows transit through.

More of the UK is going this way, especially as new housing developments are not being adopted by local councils, and remain private land and effectively private roads in perpetuity.

In my opinion this is a bad change that should be resisted, and I would protest this in the form of trespass for the reasonable public use I feel is warranted.

New development cannot generally remove public rights of way. They may divert them, but even this is difficult, subject to public consultation, and should be scrutinised by local councils. It's very difficult to remove a public right of way completely in the UK. It does happen occasionally, but it's very unlikely that's what's happening in London.

What's more likely is you are taking advantage of new access opened up by developments that were previously dockyards or something that could never be traversed by the public. Landowners are very careful to make it clear they are not public rights of way lest they actually do become public rights of way, which could have an impact on the value of the land.

As a member of the public, you should campaign for these de facto ways to get made into public rights of way. That is something that can, and should, happen.

The parent comment never used the phrase "right of way" so your comment does not contradict them, though to me it seems to have a tone of disagreement.

"It's now effectively impossible to not use private land to get around the area."

That implies public rights of way were removed. I fail to see any other interpretation of this. If there were never public rights of way then it was always impossible to get around the area.

Unless they mean they themselves live on one of these developments and must therefore traverse private land to get back on to a public highway. If so, ability to access the public highway is protected and living on such a development should always grant rights (and responsibilities) over use of the land (any decent solicitor would flag this up if not).

I think their meaning was something closer to your last paragraph - there was nothing interesting there before so it didn't matter that there was no public right of way.

But now there are things on private land that they are interested in. If you're thrown off a private road on your way to a pizza restaurant that's on it, you wouldn't have the same rights you're talking about for owners (or leaseholders) of properties on the private estate.

On the contrary it is a public place, the sign admits that. 'Access is permitted by the owner' - there is not a right of privacy or expectation of privacy in this place, so it's legal to take whatever photo's you like.

"Photography is not restricted on land if the landowner has given permission to be on the land"

"The landowner may, as a condition of granting entry to the private property, choose to place conditions or restrictions on photography, but the only consequence of failure to comply with these conditions is the photographer being required to leave."

I think the original comment's point is that would violate the presumed easement permitting a right of access.

The permitted right of access is without rights to photograph on said property.

Unless the easement specifically says so, I don't see how that applies.

An easement granting public access to some land cannot possibly list all the rights that are usually allowed in public access that are retained in that case. If the easement doesn't explicitly say what clothes users of the land must wear, is the landowner allowed to exclude those not wearing a blue jumper? That would clearly be a violation of the right of access. How about excluding those that refuse to hop through on one leg? You could think of any number of other silly or more serious conditions that a landowner could arbitrarily impose. Why would saying that access is conditional on not taking photos, a right that is usually allowed on public and even private land (subject to being thrown off of it), not fall into that category?

[Edit: of course we have not seen the wording of the easement or even know for sure that it exists so this is all speculation.]

It says it on the sign.

We're discussing whether the owners have the right to do what the sign says. Saying the sign says so is circular.

I lol’ed at “photo taken without permission by Martin Booth”. That caption made clear to me how ridiculous this is in ways that somehow the article didn’t.

I used to work there until April - all I can say is good luck enforcing it, they've got no chance. One of the few things I miss about living down south is Bristolians who will not miss an opportunity to poke the bear on this.

Blighty's a weird ol' place.

About a decade ago I was living across the river from Greenwich (the important one). I'd wander the area frequently as it has some lovely old buildings bracketed by large green lawns - the area makes frequent appearances in films, especially the Queen's House Colonnade.

Outside the National Maritime Museum (free access) on a grassy area about 200m x 100m, with precious few people around, I set up my aging DSLR on top a feeble little tripod - I think to experiment with some ND filters either to reduce the skyline contrast, or run some longer shots to try to remove people.

Perhaps five minutes in some lass rushes over and insists this isn't allowed.

She couldn't explain why, precisely, it wasn't allowed - just that it very definitely wasn't.

I was free, I suppose, to move about 30 metres away - to stand on the footpath and compose a very similar shot through the wrought iron fence.

Tripod users will find they're not welcome in a lot of places where it's otherwise ok to take photos. This isn't a British thing, I've seen it in touristy areas around the world.

Yes, I've been to plenty of touristy places with weird - and inconsistently enforced - rules.

I totally appreciate that in a crowded space, protracted tripod fiddling inconveniences other tourists, and I'd avoid doing that on principle anyway. In this instance, as noted, big empty space, not a thoroughfare, very few people in sight, etc.

I recall at the Mosque-Cathedral in Cordoba (edit - I had misremembered as the Alhambra) they maintained it very dimly lit, low-key lighting - I sat cross-legged on the floor, way out of anyone's way, and used my gorillapod (about 30cm diameter, 30cm high) to try to get a non-blurry, non-flash shot of the ceiling. I was quickly advised this was not allowed. Meanwhile, world+dog was flashing their phones / cameras, ruining everyone's experience as your eyes had no chance to adjust to the lighting. (And also, I suspect, producing quite awful photos they'd soon delete.)

This will be a call-to-action for sub-250g drone flyers, wait and see.

Please remove your sunglasses madam https://www.ray-ban.com/uk/ray-ban-meta-smart-glasses

You’re still not allowed to fly your sub-250g drone over private property in the UK.

I did my basic CAA drone training a while back and was left somewhat unclear where you can fly, but very clear where you can’t. Typically prohibitively British.

I would clarify that with your trainer, because it frankly isn't correct. The Land Owner doesn't own the Air above them.

Double check the Air Navigation Order, or for a more readable interpretation read: https://register-drones.caa.co.uk/drone-code/where-you-can-f... (specifically section 6)

The significance of being below 250g is that it is considered a "toy", and you can even fly within 50m of people (and even over them), but you must not fly over crowds of people. The issue is, in the context of UAV a crowd isn't well defined, the best we have from the CAA is, "A crowd is any group of people who cannot move away quickly because of the number of other people around them".

However, you must NEVER put people in danger (which is subjective), and any drone class is subject to. However, i'd say flying perpendicular to the venue and maintaining a minima of 50m horizontal distance from people, vehicles, vessels and structures (unless taking off or landing) is a reasonable safety distance for a sub-250g drone, unless you have their consent but context is everything.

Not familiar with the local laws, but I've noticed that in some jurisdictions "toy" means just that: toy.

If it has a camera it's a drone and gets drone treatment even under 250g.

This was research for a very specific area (Cinque Terre) of Italy that has 4 layers (!!) of drone laws on it, so I can't really point to a particular set...

Are they going to ban "smart glasses" as well? What about drones? Electric cars? 2FA devices with cameras? Laptops? Trucks? Cars with backup cameras?

Cameras are ubiquitous, they are part of an ever increasing array of equipment and are getting better all the time. Banning cameras is a loosing proposition whether you like it or not.

Public-private "partnerships".

More like the commodification of public commons by unelected corporate fiefdoms. The politicians gave away the public commonwealth pandering to the rich to exclude the public until there is nowhere left to go without demanding rent by continuous transaction.

There won't be anywhere left.

Wow my first instincts based on the title and my first reaction to the comments here we're wrong.

I thought people were making fun of a non-native English speaking country's temple asking visitors not to take pictures.

Nope. It's public ground in the UK. Definitely warranted.

Not quite. The important point here is it is NOT public ground.

It is private that allows most people in but the oweners have the right to do things

That seems to be disputed. It's owned by a public organization, no?

I'm going to guess that management of the site has been contracted out to the private sector, and somebody at this management company has put the signs up without really understanding that this may not be technically right.

However, it'll probably take some sort of arrest/court case to get some clarity on this, so chances are it'll just be like this for years without ever being properly challenged.

It's a Privately Owned Public Space, there's far too many of these.

https://thebristolcable.org/2023/04/temple-island-latest-cre... https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseu...

It seems to be a bit complicated in this location -- because the "private" owner is actually a public body. I do also wonder about existing public rights of way in the area, as I don't believe property owners can restrict photography on public rights of way, unless it's violating their privacy.

It's important to realize that this is "public ground" by pretty much any common definition. As in: it's a street, with footpaths and cycle-paths and whatnot, a Wetherspoons and other shops, etc.

In particular, it's NOT some sort of semi-enclosed space that also happens to be accessible by the public. That would be quite a different scenario.

No it is private in that it is owned by something not the Crown.

Not banning phones, but banning cameras (including those on phones). If you switch the phone off, you are permitted. Sure, one could argue that nearly all phones have cameras, but that's not the point, neither intent.

I feel like we didn't really need you to explain that to us.

Pardon my french but I kinda dont care what you need. When I see headlines "ban phones", I think to myself "surely not", and look for more information in HN comments first. I couldnt find any info supporting/refuting this, so I had to actually go to the article and read it: something I am glad if I can avoid.

If someone else would posted information in my comment before me, he would save me time and I would upvote his post.

What can the organisation putting the signs up legally do in terms of enforcement?

They can ask you to leave, while you continue to take photos.

They can have you removed by security and if you refuse to go you're trespassing and will face criminal charges.

Here's quite an illuminating read: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseu...

It's a private company, they cannot impose criminal charges. They might be able to sue you in civil court, but it's the (UK equivalent of) a DA that decides whether to press criminal charges.

That's what I was thinking too.

What is Temple Quay?

This looks like it has some good information, probably best to read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Quay

It's a quay, named directly or indirectly for the Knights Templar

Ugly sign with poor typography, unbalanced spacing and low standard of English. Why not take pride in your work?

In the UK, taking pride in your work is for "boffs".

Almost all graphic design in England is appalling. It was one of the first things I noticed when I moved there.

Eh? Our road signage is top drawer and leagues better than anywhere else i've been.

Yes and the TfL design standard is a real work of art: https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/suppliers-and-contractors/design...

Road signage and TFL are the exception. Most commercial ads are really bad.

What are you comparing it to? Compared to the US any many European countries, I've always thought graphic design in the UK tended to be quite tasteful and restrained.

Comparing it to my favourite countries in Europe. Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy. All have more innovative and interesting visual design (for the most part).

Hmm, I certainly can't agree in the case of Spain. Spanish ads feel quite dated to me. There's obviously a subjective component here, so probably not much to discuss.

Maybe take a look at Spanish Behance https://www.behance.net/search/projects?country=ES

There's such a wealth of illustration and color. Of course this is all very personal.

Sorry, I'm not sure how I am supposed to draw any conclusions from this.

Comparing countries in Behance is a good way to see what is the best graphic design produced in that country.

Virtually all graphic designers, at least in Europe use Behance as a portfolio.

So by switching between countries you can get a decent idea of what kind of graphic design is being produced.

The gov.uk web stuff is pretty good graphic design. They mostly managed to resist “flourishes” and made something functional that gives vibes of “you’re here to get something done, I won’t get in your way” while still keeping a pleasant aesthetic.

Gov.Uk, TFL and road and tube Signage being the exception. There are exceptions.

Bad to terrible: Commercial work in graphic design (Ad posters in the tube), flyers, small shop signage in high streets, information and calendars. All pretty bad to awful.

Absolute crap

I’ve posted above justifying what I said. In the commercial world all the top performing/talk of the town visual work in the Uk is very often done by foreign designers and Creative Directors and artists. I work in this so I would have some idea.

Builders Club, the top agency right now is headed by a Swiss Creative Director. Panoply, whose 3D artists and directors were once the top talent at ManVsMachine, are Swedes I believe.

The Uk quite simply does not have a strong graphic design tradition. They are strong in product design, fashion and engineering. They import good design.

> Uk is very often done by foreign designers and Creative Directors and artists. I work in this so I would have some idea.

So now it's not the UK but British designers that are terrible. Make your mind up.

Im not sure where you got the impression that I was talking about British vs UK designers.

I didn’t say British designers were terrible either. The work that’s produced might not be as interesting, sometimes due to client preference as well.

As I’ve explained in other comments, countries have traditions of quality and that matters. The UK is excellent at engineering, product design, and they had one of the most successful fashion designers of the century in Alexander McQueen.

You just said UK design is crap and only the good design here comes from foreign designers. Therefore...

so if I happened to say that Turkey isn't producing significant AI talent, then pointed to Hinton and Demis working in Canada/UK and point how well their students / associated schools are doing, would you respond in the same manner?

Do you actually believe education quality and teacher cohort is meaningless?

Examples? It could be I'm blind to it because I live here, but I'd like to see.

Commercial work in graphic design (Ad posters in the tube), flyers from museums and galleries, small shop signage in high streets, information posters and calendars. All pretty bad to awful in the Uk.

There are exceptions like others have pointed out - public signage in Tube and roads, Gov.UK, TFL (TFL has the most consistent good design of any institution or company I’ve ever seen in the UK).

Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal all have far stronger graphic design traditions. Germany and Switzerland too but different styles. (I much prefer the Barcelona/Brazil style myself). You can see this by looking up any individual country on Behance.

Another piece of proof is looking up some senior designers on some of the top agencies in the UK. They are very very often from abroad - usually from the countries I’ve listed above. Most people who work in creative advertising know this (like me). The top agency in London right now - Builders Club - has a Swiss Creative Director. A top 3D studio - Panoply - is headed by Swedes I believe. The only school in the UK that consistently makes top visual designers is Central St Martins.

This is not so much an insult to the country btw - each country has its own strengths. The Uk is incredibly strong in product design and fashion design, and in engineering. But graphic design is just not part of its core strengths I’d say. I’ve been told that kids these days don’t even necessarily receive arts education in public schools - is that true?

> Senior designers [from top agencies in the UK] are very very often from abroad

This is unsurprising in itself. About 40% of London residents are foreign born, and in any international industry, the chance of top talent being from the same country as the hiring company is low for obvious statistical reasons. You can see a similar effect in e.g. academia.

Thats true.

I do get the sense that I don't know of any major agency however, that employs top UK talent in visual design.

Ok, yeah, I think you've got a point with the over-seat posters in the tube. Thanks.

Did you move here from Helvetica?

Portugal.

Spain, Greece, Italy, southern Europe has overall superior graphic design tradition. You ca verify this by going on Behance and scrolling through the works of individual countries. The UK is one the worse performers in graphic design, but it has very good product design and engineering. UK architecture is also almost uniformly terrible.

Hmm, I don't agree, many countries over the decades have contributed to the field, to use geography to judge an arts field that manifests as a product of global contributions is flawed.

It's not geography that determines the outcome, but a combination of the education system and what's valued and well paid.

I've been told that kids these days receive almost no arts education in the UK in the government funded education. How do you expect them to compete with countries like Portugal and Greece with visual and music education is much stronger?

Same thing about Germany. There is a non-trivial amount of Bauhaus books that are only available in German. Given how crucial that movement is for modern design, it's understandable that you see stronger pupils coming out of Germany since they might have had access to seminal texts that aren't even available in other languages.

It would be the equivalent of Andrew Ng teaching only in Turkish. You'd likely see a good amount of Turkish AI engineers coming out of that with better training than their Western counterparts? At least until the contents were translated, which in the case of Bauhaus, they never were.

Well done, one of the least accurate statements I've ever read on HN.

Have you ever lived in the UK?

> “This is private land, access is permitted by the owner and may be withdrawn at anytime.”

I’m not a native speaker of English, but shouldn’t that be “at any time”?

Could have used anywhen to freak people out.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anytime

>First Known Use

>1822, in the meaning defined above

While it certainly looks wrong, it is correct.

"anytime" means "at any time". Saying "at anytime" would be like saying "at at any time"

Yes. Anytime cannot be used with “at”

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/anytime-any-time/

I also suspect that most would always write “any time”

I am a native speaker (of south-west English English, no less) and it does look a bit odd to me too – but apparently both are normal.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anytime

No, the dictionary lists ‘anytime’ as an adverb. Here it is used as a misspelling of ‘any’ followed by the noun ‘time’. There’s also a difference in emphasis in the pronunciation (first syllable is stressed for the adverb).

What the dictionary is saying is that 'any time' and 'anytime' are both acceptable spellings of the adverb. But 'anytime' is never an acceptable spelling of the noun phrase 'any time'.

Ah, I see, thanks.

Good point and yet another indication that the sign was created by a numbskull.

It should, and the whole thing is a run-on sentence anyway. Par for the course from the British school system.

Private grounds, private laws.

I still don't get what benefits it brings not to have photos made and spread.

Edit *In the end, it's all ads.

The article suggests that this land is owned by a public organization.

Navy boats are owned by a public organization, but I don't get to borrow them for a weekend in Ibiza.

The Navy doesn't extract profits from public areas the government tossed to them, cannibalizing and selling off the commonwealth to private interests.

Navy boats are not typically open to the public.

But still. It's a ground of someone and that someone doesn't want photos to be taken - so, I have to accept that.

One shouldn't get angry just because it's not allowed. Instead, one should search for reasons why like that and not the other way around.

> I have to accept that.

This is very much what the opaque private companies gobbling up land and services and slapping contract law all over it want you to think.

Yes. But that's the law. The law can be changed. There just needs to be a supportive majority for that. Them(TM) opaque private companies also have to obey the same laws as me and me as whatever can force them to accept certain things. Even though Them don't want it.

They're just excel their granted rights. Sometimes more than that. Then, sometimes get fined or worse. I also can do my right flipping and creative money laundering as well. I have more to lose, I guess, is the reason I don't.

But I'm pretty aware of my rights :)

So I have to accept that and insist on that this has to be accepted haha

No such thing about private laws but there can be bylaws/rules that visitors implicitly agree to when they visit but these cannot conflict or invalidate the law of the land. E.g. they are requesting that people not take photos but they cannot physically stop anyone taking photos, they cannot seize equipment, nor demand that any photos taken are deleted or not used, nor take any action due to photographs been taken as long as the photographs don't break any laws. All they can do is use their legally given right to ask people to leave the property as that's what's proscribed as allowable under the law of the land.

Thank you for pointing that out. I used the wrong words. And way to less of them, too.

I mean the same, basically. They can define some rules and you can play after the rules or go with the fools.

Enforcement and such is, of course, a thing of the executive. And that is good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com