Inadvertently photographing a naval establishment

I was in a market town, walking down the main public street, camera in hand, when I saw an interesting historical building from the 18th century, so took some photographs. There was a modern building within the same grounds next to it, but I passed that and photographed a little more of the water feature, bridge and old building on the other side when a van crossed the bridge and stopped to observe me.

A nearby man on the street stopped me, and politely told me it was a naval base, and I can’t photograph it. I thanked him for informing me, and said I was surprised, as I didn’t know its purpose and was just on the public street, photographing, which in most countries is perfectly permissible.

The man in the van caught me up a minute or so later, and again was polite but asked to see my photographs and requested I delete them. I figured it wasn’t worth the hassle of trying to refuse, so I politely showed him what I’d taken and he watched as I deleted them and we parted ways.

Photographs of this part of the naval base from the public road are all over the internet, even on wikipedia, so I think it was a little paranoid. I didn’t know it was a naval facility at the time, otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered photographing anything.

I’m assuming France is different to other countries like the UK or USA, where you more or less have the legal right to photograph whatever you want if it’s from a public place. My photographs were purely personal, I had no intention of sharing them or commercialising them. I was just curious as to the legality in France, as I recall my wife got caught out in Paris once, when she accidentally photographed an embassy building and security weren’t at all happy.

Paranoid!

A friend took some photos of the submarines in a scottish lock. Back then it was film and a rather firm naval chap took the film out of the camera. My mate said as tax payer I own a bit of that, he got a very short reply :joy:

What ID did the guy show?

Article 79 of the criminal code prohibits photography of any military thing. Often people can be quite relaxed about this, however right now things are more tense. France is on a higher level of alert so the powers that be are a bit twitchy. Which is understandable.

« L’ensemble du territoire national est maintenu au niveau “Urgence attentat” pour faire face à l’élévation globale de la menace terroriste depuis le début de l’année 2024. »

1 Like

Through the keyhole?

No from his boat.

I’d certainly have asked to see some ID - anonymous third parties can’t just tell you to delete stuff.

Wonder what he’d have done if you’d refused?

Assume it wasn’t a white van otherwise he’d have been going too fast to notice you…

I feel it is reasonable to request the public respect the privacy of armed forces personnel, buildings and movements. A little of this would go far in better protecting people in the UK services. It is a restriction that already applies in many other countries, even if tourists are not aware.

Why do some members of the public feel they have an individual right to photograph everything and anything they choose? Quite correctly in France, no one is permitted to take images of another person or their property without express permission.

Military forces are currently under threat from both internal insurgents and external organisations. If they do not want photos taken and exposed wherever, that is a matter of security. A military base is not a freely accessible building for obvious reasons, so the restriction of photographing appropriately applies.

1 Like

The guy came from inside the establishment, and for the sake of a few photos, I wasn’t going to try and defend my position, especially as I don’t know quite how it works in France.

I will add that my camera has no telescopic lens at all - I can only photograph what is seen with my own eyes, from the public high street where hundreds of people walk past daily. There was literally a large outdoor market just outside the base. Had I wanted, I could have taken a powerful telescopic lens, and set myself in the adjacent park and photographed in great detail without anybody being any the wiser, but I was just interested in the old historical 18th century building, I wasn’t trying to be covert in taking my pictures, and there was nothing to suggest it was a naval base from the direction I had been walking in.

I photograph all the time when I am out. I have a particular interest in the old architecture, towns, villages, hamlets… I will sometimes snap people’s homes and interesting buildings. It’s perfectly permissible. I won’t do it if there is somebody in the garden, and I’m not zooming in (I have no zoom), I merely have an interest in the architecture and history.

Sort of - there are exceptions for news gathering, or if photographing in a public place or at a public event, or where you are basically photographing a crowd and not individual people.

My understanding is that the restriction applies to the dissemination of the image, not to actually taking it - i.e. posting it online or otherwise publishing it - the taking of the photo itself is not illegal, it’s what you do with it that may require permission.

In the UK restrictions are a little looser but are based on the “expectation of privacy” - photograph someone sunbathing in their back garden and you are clearly in the wrong, but general street photography or photographing people at a public concert or sports event is fine.

Usually however the dividing line here is commercial use - publications and photography stock libraries won’t accept an image of a recognizable person without a signed model release, except as mentioned for images that fall into the category of “news”, or where the primary subject of the image is a crowd rather than individuals.

As for buildings and artistic works in public places the “law of panorama” allows photography of general street scenes and of buildings. Again, for commercial use a stock photo library will expect to be supplied with a property release before they will accept an image of a recognisable individual building.

Copyright also comes into play here - you can’t make commercial use of photos of the Eiffel Tower when it’s lit up at night, because the lighting display is a copyrighted work. The Tower itself in the daytime - no problem.

Somewhat annoyingly I’ve had Adobe Stock reject images of a typical British High Street because of all the shopfront signs, which they said were copyright.

On a practical note, of course I would avoid photographing anything sensitive such as a military base or an airport, and if a person I’d photographed in a public place asked me to delete an image I would of course comply - it’s no big deal. Or of course ask first - if you thought the image was so good that you did want to publish it then you could get them to sign a model release, perhaps in exchange for emailing them a copy or sending them a print - you don’t necessarily have to pay them.

There are as you would expect model release apps available for both iPhone and Android!

4 Likes

That is all well and good for general photography, but all military things come under specific security laws (referenced anove). Personally right at this moment I would not mess with them, would smile as sweetly as I could and hand over my camera.

One can argue the rights and wrongs of this approach, but I would do so later with my friends in a bar!

2 Likes

Thanks ChrisMann, clearly stated, and it’s my basic understanding of photography too… I don’t do it commercially, it’s either solely for my own interest, or used as reference material (again purely personal).
I knew about the Eiffel Tower at night, although if it’s a general shot with the Eiffel Tower playing a smaller background role, then it becomes much more of a grey area. I know there are a few buildings that carry special rights, but nothing that would affect personal photography. I’m also aware of a 2004 legal case in France that allows anyone to photograph a person’s property (as long as they’re not trespassing or causing a nuisance of course!)

In California I believe there’s even a tree that has special copyright protection against commercial photography!

In the UK it’s the whole of the bloody National Trust - you can’t take any kind of photo for commercial use at any of their properties unless it’s authorised and then sold through them!

Yes of course - although in this case it seems that the military nature of the site wasn’t particularly obvious.

Better safe than sorry, indeed, though you would expect military establishments to have signs up notifying you of that fact!

Sometimes the best place to hide a tree is in a forest :wink:

2 Likes

I wouldn’t hand over my camera, they don’t have the authority for that, I could have just walked off before he approached me if I’d wanted. I figured what was happening as he came towards me, so I waited for him to arrive, politely smiled, offered to show him what I’d taken from the screen, and told him I’d delete them in his presence. He wasn’t rude, or overly demanding. I was with my wife and kids, and we were stood at the main entrance of the base looking in, trying to a answer a terraventura question on the phone. As the question was about the base (I hadn’t known it was a naval base prior to this, and bear in mind it’s hours from the coast), they must be used to tourists peering into the base every day.

The same scenes from the photographs I took (and deleted) are all over the internet, it’s even on the wikipedia page.

Wouldn’t disagree with that, but so-called ‘malevolent actors’ will probably have already taken far more detailed photographs of significant military installations whether with a long lens, drone or satellite, so these days, I don’t think amateur street-level photography should be a cause for concern.

1 Like

Sounds like a good money spinner!
They couldn’t stop somebody photographing NT buildings or land from a public accessible road, footpath or field though.

1 Like

No it shouldn’t, but sometimes you have to contend with bored jobsworths seeking to enliven their day with a bit of casual harassment.

One time I was showing an American photographer friend around the City of London and we got chased away by a Man in a Hi-Vis from outside a very ordinary office building, who took great delight in telling us “you can’t take photos 'ere mate”.

Paternoster Square by St. Paul’s Cathedral is another haven of jobsworths. The whole area is private property owned by some faceless corporation, and they ban all professional photography - including family portrait sessions or pictures of wedding couples. Ditto Somerset House in the Strand.

And now I’m on my soapbox, if you want to have your photo taken by a professional in lone of London’s Royal Parks (Hyde Park, Green Park, Regent’s Park etc), you will need to apply for a one hour photo permit several weeks in advance, and it will cost you £120 plus VAT. And no refunds if it rains and you have to cancel the session… :face_with_symbols_over_mouth: :face_with_symbols_over_mouth: