Quote (Tramwajooo, 25.08.2024): > there are signs with prohibiting photography
Indeed, I saw a sign on the administrative building with blinded windows. Of course, I did not photograph that sign. Otherwise and to my knowledge, I didn't break any law by photographing an old tram depot with an almost equally old tram - from the street and without entering the private grounds. I can also put such a sign in front of my house. Question is what I can do if someone would take a picture, from that sign or my house...
Generally the Western 'school of law' (and most certainly the English 'school of law') attributes permissiveness of photography with where the photo is taken from, e.g. whether the photographer is standing on a 'free' public ground, or on a private ground where access rights or conditions of conduct can be restricted by that private party. Thus photography permissiveness is not associated with the subject of photography itself. That is, if a photo of a nuclear submarine is taken through a hole in a fence of a military base, while the photographer was standing on public land outside the fence - it is perfectly legal.
Some question such approach, but it is definitely the clearest and most obvious way to sort out legal issues related to photography. For one thing, it is not possible to post the 'no photo' signs on all objects where photos are unwanted. Thus often confusion and misunderstanding exists in the 'East' (pardon my generalization), where photography rights are associated with the subject / object of the photo, when some obscure rules about photography exist, but there is no way the photographer can know about them. You often find out about the rules when the militia or security approach you, and it is already too late :( While in the 'West' the laws are immediately clear through land attribution of the ground the photo was taken from.
And yes, I also remember that strange sign in Grudziądz :)
链接