9 ms·
New signs appear to ban phones from Temple Quay
- skrebbel 3y agoI 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.
- MaxikCZ 3y agoNot 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.
- chrisstu 3y agoI feel like we didn't really need you to explain that to us.
- MaxikCZ 3y agoPardon 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.
- eterevsky 3y agoWhat is Temple Quay?
- Daviey 3y agoThis looks like it has some good information, probably best to read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Quay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Quay
- walthamstow 3y agoIt's a quay, named directly or indirectly for the Knights Templar
- rogual 3y agoUgly sign with poor typography, unbalanced spacing and low standard of English. Why not take pride in your work?
- adhesive_wombat 3y agoIn the UK, taking pride in your work is for "boffs".
- kranke155 3y agoAlmost all graphic design in England is appalling. It was one of the first things I noticed when I moved there.
- buggeryorkshire 3y agoEh? Our road signage is top drawer and leagues better than anywhere else i've been.
- Daviey 3y agoThis will be a call-to-action for sub-250g drone flyers, wait and see.
- mojo74 3y agoPlease remove your sunglasses madam https://www.ray-ban.com/uk/ray-ban-meta-smart-glasses https://www.ray-ban.com/uk/ray-ban-meta-smart-glasses
- danw1979 3y agoYou’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.
- Daviey 3y agoI 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-fly 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.
- literalAardvark 3y agoNot 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...
- theGeatZhopa 3y agoPrivate 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.
- eterevsky 3y agoThe article suggests that this land is owned by a public organization.
- shapefrog 3y agoNavy boats are owned by a public organization, but I don't get to borrow them for a weekend in Ibiza.
- 1letterunixname 3y agoThe Navy doesn't extract profits from public areas the government tossed to them, cannibalizing and selling off the commonwealth to private interests.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gpderetta 3y agoNavy boats are not typically open to the public.
- theGeatZhopa 3y agoBut 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.
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago> 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.
- junon 3y agoWow 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.
- pasc1878 3y agoNot 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
- junon 3y agoThat seems to be disputed. It's owned by a public organization, no?
- cesaref 3y agoI'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.
- tobylane 3y agoIt's a Privately Owned Public Space, there's far too many of these. https://thebristolcable.org/2023/04/temple-island-latest-creep-pseudo-public-space-across-bristol/ https://thebristolcable.org/2023/04/temple-island-latest-cre... https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseu...
- jwestbury 3y agoIt 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.
- lwhi 3y agoWhat can the organisation putting the signs up legally do in terms of enforcement?
- CrzyLngPwd 3y agoThey can ask you to leave, while you continue to take photos.
- CaptainZapp 3y agoThey 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-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseu...
- WirelessGigabit 3y agoIt'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.
- lwhi 3y agoThat's what I was thinking too.
- azalemeth 3y agoI 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_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#United...
- globular-toast 3y agoIt's not a public place. The signs clearly say that.
- gpderetta 3y agoBut if there is a right of way, it might not matter.
- defrost 3y agoGood 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_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_way_in_England_and_W... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Quay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Quay Have at it - caveat: IANAL .. I'm not even in the UK (at present).
- buggeryorkshire 3y agoI 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.
- bjornsing 3y ago> “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”?
- CrzyLngPwd 3y agoCould have used anywhen to freak people out.
- Dalewyn 3y agohttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anytime https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anytime >First Known Use >1822, in the meaning defined above While it certainly looks wrong, it is correct.
- vasdae 3y ago"anytime" means "at any time". Saying "at anytime" would be like saying "at at any time"
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- geraldwhen 3y agoYes. Anytime cannot be used with “at” https://www.grammarly.com/blog/anytime-any-time/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/anytime-any-time/ I also suspect that most would always write “any time”
- dwb 3y agoI 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 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anytime
- foldr 3y agoNo, 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'.
- Jedd 3y agoBlighty'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.
- dataengineer56 3y agoTripod 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.
- Jedd 3y agoYes, 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.)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 1letterunixname 3y agoPublic-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.
- the_third_wave 3y agoAre 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.