# UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

*"Oh you! You can't take that picture...."*

So, I'm walking along Avemaria Lane (near St Pauls) minding my own business. It's quiet and there's barely anyone around. 

Passing a car park, I take a snap from the pavement and am about to walk on when I hear a loud shouting:

"Oy! Oy! You! You with the camera!"

me: "'Scuse me?"

"Yes you - you can't take pictures"

me: "Err, yes, I can actually"

"Don't give me attitude. If I say you can't take pictures you can't"

me: "You're wrong, actually. I'm on a public highway and I am perfectly entitled to take pictures of anything I like thanks. That's UK law."

"Go on then, Take try and take another picture" 

me: "I've already got the picture thanks"

(aggressively pointing his walkie talkie in my face) "Go on. Take another picture"

me: "are you threatening me?"

(louder and more aggressively) "Go on. Try and take a picture again. Go on"

me: "OK, if you insist." (takes another picture). 
<pause>

(security man puts walkie talkie to mouth)
"Get me the flying squad"

*editor bursts into laughter and leaves.


----------



## zenie (Feb 10, 2007)

Security in the city smoking crack again or something??   

Did he not follow you?


----------



## e19896 (Feb 10, 2007)

oh i love people like this can we said image that created so much anger?


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

It's a pretty crap picture - I'll post it up later. 

It's bad enough with there being so many privatised public spaces where arseholes in reflective jackets can legally stop you taking pictures without some tossing jobsworth trying to breach my rights in public areas.


----------



## maomao (Feb 10, 2007)

What were you taking a photo of? It's just Stationers Hall and the backs of some buildings on Ave Maria Lane. Or were you further up Warwick Lane? There's some snotty legal companies up there.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

Here it is:


----------



## mhendo (Feb 10, 2007)

You know, it's easy to laugh at morons like that, but i think that what photographers really need to do in situations like this is make a point of going to his superiors at the security company, and to the owners of the property, and telling them that they have a security employee threatening members of the public who are engaging in lawful activity.

It's possible that this guy is a wanker who just loves pushing people around, and that his actions aren't condoned by his bosses or the property owners. In that case, you give them a chance to discipline or fire him.

It also possible, however, that he's been told that he can, in fact, legally prevent people from taking photos, and that he has been ordered to try and stop picture-taking. In that case, you can make clear to the security company and/or the property owners that they are in breach of the law, and that you'll report them next time it happens.


----------



## e19896 (Feb 10, 2007)




----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

mhendo said:
			
		

> It's possible that this guy is a wanker who just loves pushing people around, and that his actions aren't condoned by his bosses or the property owners. In that case, you give them a chance to discipline or fire him.


Thing is he was getting so riled up - especially after I burst into laughter after his "call in the Flying Squad" radio message that I considered it prudent to retire.

And then there's the thought that although the guy was a complete tosser, he's probably on a shit wage so who am I to try and get him sacked? 

The fact that I stood my ground so firmly and was insistent that I was correct under UK law might just have sunk into his head and he won't be so quick to start on the next photographer.

Afterwards (as is always the case) I realised that I failed to employ my killer weapon during the argument - my valid UK press card!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 10, 2007)

Have they still got a 'Flying Squad'?  I wonder what the person on the other end of the radio conversation thought.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 10, 2007)

Is that him in the distance ?


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> Is that him in the distance ?


No, that was his mate. The guy was standing 5 metres to my right and started giving it the big "Yo! Yo!" treatment as I was taking the shot.


----------



## maomao (Feb 10, 2007)

Saturday shift in a loading bay in the city. Was probably the only thing that had 'happened' all day. I'm trying to work out what that's the back entrance to. I know I've been in there.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> Saturday shift in a loading bay in the city. Was probably the only thing that had 'happened' all day. I'm trying to work out what that's the back entrance to. I know I've been in there.


It was a short way up from Amen corner and just a little way down from Cutlers Hall (on the opposite side).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 10, 2007)

With the stupid number of cameras in the City taking pictures of everything and everyone, the very idea that "you can't take a picture"... what, there's a law somewhere that says you have to be a landowner to take pictures?

"Get me the flying squad" is class


----------



## mhendo (Feb 10, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Thing is he was getting so riled up - especially after I burst into laughter after his "call in the Flying Squad" radio message that I considered it prudent to retire.


That's completely understandable. You definitely don't want to risk physical harm. I was talking more about going back later, or contacting his employers by phone or letter or email.



			
				editor said:
			
		

> And then there's the thought that although the guy was a complete tosser, he's probably on a shit wage so who am I to try and get him sacked?


I understand this train of thought too, because i am always very reluctant to complain about a low-wage employee. A waiter would probably have to spit in my food right in front of me before i would try to have him fired. Shitty jobs can make people rude sometimes, and i try to cut them some slack.

That said, i really draw the line at physical intimidation and violence. I don't care if you're on a crappy wage, you don't get to threaten me for carrying out lawful activity in a public place. Thugs are thugs, and their income level isn't an excuse, IMO.






			
				editor said:
			
		

> The fact that I stood my ground so firmly and was insistent that I was correct under UK law might just have sunk into his head and he won't be so quick to start on the next photographer.
> 
> Afterwards (as is always the case) I realised that I failed to employ my killer weapon during the argument - my valid UK press card!


I hope you're right that he's learned a lesson, but i'm not holding my breath. The press card would have been a lovely touch; shame you didn't think of it.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

mhendo said:
			
		

> he press card would have been a lovely touch; shame you didn't think of it.


Like all my best lines, they're thought up about five minutes after the moment has passed. Doh!


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> "Get me the flying squad" is class


Up until that point it was getting a little hairy. I was determined to stand my ground and he clearly wasn't going to back down, but as soon as he delivered that ridiculous line I pissed myself laughing and thought it the perfect point to leave.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 10, 2007)

I couldn't have taken it seriously after that either 

Heh, this has inspired me to take a few more pictures around where I work, I'm just near the Old Bailey and there are some terrific buildings there. (Camera's screen is knackered but it still takes pictures.)


----------



## Firky (Feb 10, 2007)

Sounds like my experience at Canary Wharf. Went to see tp on her lunch break and thought I'd take a few photos. Got a right bollocking. I think I posted about that too. Turns out they're right... Canary Wharf is a big slice of private American owned land in London, still it was funny watching all the CCTV cameras tracking me as I chain smoked my way around their pristine enviroment.


----------



## toggle (Feb 10, 2007)

mhendo said:
			
		

> You know, it's easy to laugh at morons like that, but i think that what photographers really need to do in situations like this is make a point of going to his superiors at the security company, and to the owners of the property, and telling them that they have a security employee threatening members of the public who are engaging in lawful activity.
> 
> It's possible that this guy is a wanker who just loves pushing people around, and that his actions aren't condoned by his bosses or the property owners. In that case, you give them a chance to discipline or fire him.



knowing the way in which security companies flout the law in many areas, I seriously doubt they would give a shit. 

It is also possible that the 'arseholes in reflective jackets' has been told that he will be sacked if he doesn't stop people doing something that they are legally allowed to do. my partner has worked enough as a arseholes in reflective jacket and that is about the least of the illegalities that his employers have tried. 

The arsehole is probably on 12 hour shifts, minimum wage and a shift pattern that makes a lot of them ill. 

get me the flying squad' is complete fuckwittery though. I'll have to see if himself will try that line on someone and see how they react.


----------



## Firky (Feb 10, 2007)

You should return with a muckle big telephoto lens and tripod.


----------



## aurora green (Feb 10, 2007)

^





			
				FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> With the stupid number of cameras in the City taking pictures of everything and everyone, the very idea that "you can't take a picture"...




It is indeed a funny old state of affairs, where we are photographed everywhere incessantly, and yet it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to take photos...


----------



## BlackSpecs (Feb 10, 2007)

when i went to Camberwell-College of Arts  there where always countless stories from people going to Brixton to take some "edgy" images and returning without film or a smashed camera because they happened to include the local drug dealer in their pictures !


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 10, 2007)

Is it ok to take pictures of the Barbican car park (that's what it looks like if it's not) by law if they ask you not to?

edited to add that this is a serious question re private property. I don't know the law.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

BlackSpecs said:
			
		

> when i went to Camberwell-College of Arts  there where always countless stories from people going to Brixton to take some "edgy" images and returning without film or a smashed camera because they happened to include the local drug dealer in their pictures !


Well, showing some respect for the people you're photographing and being a bit street wise is a different matter.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

nonamenopackdrill said:
			
		

> Is it ok to take pictures of the Barbican car park (that's what it looks like if it's not) by law if they ask you not to?


If you're standing on a public highway, sure. The law is basically, "you can photographs whatever the fuck you like so long as you're not on someone else's private property."


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 10, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> If you're standing on a public highway, sure. The law is basically, "you can photographs whatever the fuck you like so long as you're not on someone else's private property."



You can't though. You can't photograph children, for example (I don't think) and you certainly can't display such photos.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

nonamenopackdrill said:
			
		

> Is that what you are?


When I'm taking pictures, I try to be, and I'm sure most other photographers here try to be the same too. 

That's why this site has got over 500+ pictures of Brixton street scenes and I've never returned home with a broken camera.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

nonamenopackdrill said:
			
		

> You can't though. You can't photograph children, for example (I don't think) and you certainly can't display such photos.


Yes, you can, so long as it doesn't break any other laws.

Or do you think they filter out all the children passing by in news pieces, for example?


----------



## exosculate (Feb 10, 2007)

Its weird when you get bad reactions. I took one of a bloke in a cafe and he went mental. This clearly was not a public space. But I chatted with him for a while about photography what I do it for and all that. He calmed right down. By the end of it he was saying really warm goodbyes. 

The photos were crap though. Win some lose some.


----------



## toggle (Feb 10, 2007)

Right, himself says:

there are buildings in that area that you can be prohibited from photographing under the official secrets act. The security would inform you of the reason why you can't take photos of that building, not try and threaten you of 'consequences' and challenge you to take another photo. 

To him, it sounds like either an idiot of a guard, or an idiot of a manager has heard of this and is trying to use the official grounds for not photographing some buildings, and is trying to copy this to make claims that you can't photograph them either. 

The situation in which they would call in the police to stop a photographer would be if there had been specific threats against that building, or a recent armed robbery or other serious crime of that sort. In that case, the first thing you would have known about would be the police talking to you. Security guards aren't supposed to stop epople in that situation.


----------



## girasol (Feb 10, 2007)

on a serious note, is it ok to take photos of private property if you're standing on public property?


----------



## exosculate (Feb 10, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Yes, you can, so long as it doesn't break any other laws.
> 
> Or do you think they filter out all the children passing by in news pieces, for example?




Have to say, I thought the photographing of children was a grey area. I don't do it much anyway, but occasionally I see good shots that I don't take because of this.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

Iemanja said:
			
		

> on a serious note, is it ok to take photos of private property if you're standing on public property?


Yes, so long as you're not breaking any other laws (so you can take pictures of Buckingham Palace from the street but you can't walk into their land and start snapping).

Just think about the photos that shite celeb mags like Heat publish.


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> It isn't!! Honestly, go to Portsmouth. Take a shot of the battle ships and the triangular looking one in dock and see how far you get before the red caps swoop on your arse.


It was the same for Telecom Tower:



> Curious fact! Despite the BT Tower being one of most recognisable and conspicuous buildings in London, it was classed as an 'official secret' until fairly recently, and taking or possessing photos of the BT/Post Office Tower was technically an offence under the Official Secrets Act!
> 
> This rather begs the question: why wasn't Noel Edmonds locked up for broadcasting live Christmas Day programmes there in the seventies?!
> 
> ...


----------



## Poot (Feb 10, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Yes, so long as you're not breaking any other laws (so you can take pictures of Buckingham Palace from the street but you can't walk into their land and start snapping).
> 
> *Just think about the photos that shite celeb mags like Heat publish*.



It does seem a little strange that you can publish photos of Britney Spears's bits for the world to see but you can't take a piccy of a car park.


----------



## toggle (Feb 10, 2007)

it is bizarre.

(feels ignored here)


----------



## Firky (Feb 10, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> It was the same for Telecom Tower:



Nuts isn't it? This apparently does not exist, I took this quite hastly:





Despite it being huge, check out the scale with the lorry!


----------



## editor (Feb 10, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Nuts isn't it? This apparently does not exist, I took this quite hastly:


*reports firky to the law and waits for reward

Like I said, you can take pics anywhere in a public place unless you happen to be breaking other laws. 

Check out this guy getting it wrong:
http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0204nus.html


----------



## trashpony (Feb 10, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Nuts isn't it? This apparently does not exist, I took this quite hastly:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know what that pic is of. I can't see anything?


----------



## exosculate (Feb 10, 2007)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I don't know what that pic is of. I can't see anything?




Shudup its illegal.

*move along nothing to see here*


----------



## cesare (Feb 10, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> He can give his cleaner the day off tomorrow. Every cloud and all that......



Don't drag it down further exo  (happy birthday for t'other day btw x)


----------



## Kanda (Feb 10, 2007)

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf for reference, think it's current.


----------



## Firky (Feb 10, 2007)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I don't know what that pic is of. I can't see anything?



It is the HMS Invincible, one of the biggest ships in the Royal Navy. It is supposed to be being mothballed - depiste it still being manned and used activley. I'm sure the aussies were supposed to buy it after the first gulf war?


----------



## pk (Feb 11, 2007)

When I was a video cameraman full time I'd get this shit all the time, and ignore it, shoot first and ask permission later.


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 11, 2007)

I've only just caught up with this thread - the flying squad response would have probably made me piss myself too.

Since I got thrown out of a shopping centre I made a point of knowing exactly where we stand in english law with regards to photographing anything. Paul Russell put up a link in a thread a long time ago on a summary written by an english lawyer - i've found that useful with dispelling the myths when approached by anybody who doesn't know what they are talking about.

Just be polite but firm. Nice one ed.


----------



## Firky (Feb 11, 2007)

I was thrown off Gunwharf Quays, forgot about that. However they did not throw my flatmate off... could it be because she was a very attractive lass? Methinkso.

Bastards.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 11, 2007)

I saw a lad last week at Paddington railway station having his details taken by one of those pseudo-cops, community officer types - he was protesting his right to take pictures and, quite reasonably i thought, also pointing out the absence of an clear signage to state that what he was doing wasn't allowed. The fed wasn't interested and told him to be quiet or he would have him arrested and his camera nicked. I would have thought that a train station counted as a public place but apparently not.


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 11, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> I was thrown off Gunwharf Quays, forgot about that. However they did not throw my flatmate off... could it be because she was a very attractive lass? Methinkso.
> 
> Bastards.



you should have put a wig on


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 11, 2007)

In case the link hasn't already been posted, it's here.

pdf

I should read it myself!

I try not to hang around anywhere too long with security guards, because generally they are bored shitless with inactivity, and get very excited about getting the chance to do actually do something.





			
				Robster970 said:
			
		

> I've only just caught up with this thread - the flying squad response would have probably made me piss myself too.
> 
> Since I got thrown out of a shopping centre I made a point of knowing exactly where we stand in english law with regards to photographing anything. Paul Russell put up a link in a thread a long time ago on a summary written by an english lawyer - i've found that useful with dispelling the myths when approached by anybody who doesn't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Just be polite but firm. Nice one ed.


----------



## Kanda (Feb 11, 2007)

I posted it earlier in teh thread


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 11, 2007)

Sorry. I did skim through the thread. Must have missed it.





			
				Kanda said:
			
		

> I posted it earlier in teh thread


----------



## toggle (Feb 11, 2007)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> I try not to hang around anywhere too long with security guards, because generally they are bored shitless with inactivity, and get very excited about getting the chance to do actually do something.



definately.


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> I would have thought that a train station counted as a public place but apparently not.


Well, you'd like to think it was but it's sure to be owned by Inter Railtrack Metro FatCunt Directors PLC


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2007)

I'm going to add a page on this to my photography section as I reckon it'll be useful for other photographers to know their rights.


----------



## toggle (Feb 11, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Well, you'd like to think it was but it's sure to be owned by Inter Railtrack Metro FatCunt Directors PLC




it depends on your definition of public place. That can differ according to the legislation you are applying. From what I can gather, it is a public place enough for them to need to register to film you with CCTV, but not public for you to be able to take pics without their permission


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2007)

toggle said:
			
		

> it depends on your definition of public place.


Public as in on a public highway and not private land.  I was standing on the road when I was taking that picture and that was most certainly outside the security guard's jurisdiction.

Incidentally, you can't take 'professional' photos of, say, a mate's band in a park without permission.


----------



## nonamenopackdrill (Feb 11, 2007)

Incidentally, I've been googling stuff on taking pictures of students and can find nothing, but I know through my line of work that we need written permission to display students' images on the web or on walls in school, and that the Specialist Schools Trust, or the Shakespeare's schools festival, or the East London student voice forum, all ask for written permission if a photographer is going to be present and specifically exclude under 16s without such permission.


----------



## Errol's son (Feb 11, 2007)

In the UK, are we allowed to take photos of military places, Scotland Yard, MI6, airports etc or are some places (or parts of them) restricted?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 11, 2007)

In my line of work permission slips for photos are good practice because of _in loco parentis_. I don't think it's illegal to take photos that happen to have kids in them.


----------



## toggle (Feb 11, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Public as in on a public highway and not private land.  I was standing on the road when I was taking that picture and that was most certainly outside the security guard's jurisdiction.
> 
> Incidentally, you can't take 'professional' photos of, say, a band in a park without permission.




oh definately the bloke was being an arse in your original situation, if he had a leg to stand on, he would have been explaining the terms of the official secrets act, not weebling and trying to wind you up. the area in which you were photographing does contain some buildings that cannot be photographed (in the same wat firky's bloody great ship does not exist), but the behavior of the guard was laughable and shows that the building you where photographing was not one that you can't legally photograph

However, a shopping center, as an example, can be defined as a private space, that you cannot take your own pix in, but a public space, in that CCTV usage and operators have to be appropriately registered.


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 11, 2007)

There is so much paranoia about taking pictures of children that a sort of urban myth seems to be building up.

For example, a couple of kids saw me with a big camera recently:

Kid 1: "Woah. Can you take my picture, I'm gonna dive off this breakwater".

Me: "No".

Kid 2 to Kid 1: "Don't be stupid, that would be illegal".

That sort of thing.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 11, 2007)

Little fuckers are a nuisance. They should be banned from public places to faciliate photography.


----------



## Errol's son (Feb 11, 2007)

I woud expect to get stopped taking photos of big companies' HQs, airports, miltary bases, MI6, Downing St, parts of Westminster, the stock exchange etc.

In most countries you get in loads of crap for taking pictures of anyone or anything official.

In this day and age, you can't really expect the UK to be much different whether ou take a photo from a public road or from some private land.


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2007)

nonamenopackdrill said:
			
		

> Incidentally, I've been googling stuff on taking pictures of students and can find nothing, but I know through my line of work that we need written permission to display students' images on the web or on walls in school, and that the Specialist Schools Trust, or the Shakespeare's schools festival, or the East London student voice forum, all ask for written permission if a photographer is going to be present and specifically exclude under 16s without such permission.


Photographing schoolchildren and displaying identifiable photos on the web is quite a separate issue, especially if the photos are being taken on private property (i.e. a school). You need permission to do that.

But if the school was holding an event in a public place - say a street parade - then people would be free to photograph it (subject to other related laws, of course).


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2007)

Errol's son said:
			
		

> In this day and age, you can't really expect the UK to be much different whether ou take a photo from a public road or from some private land.


What? You think a "big corporate" should own the *air* around them and thus have the power to stop passers by taking pictures from the street?!!


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2007)

I should add that I was carrying around my cheapo looking Ricoh GR digital compact and not some pro camera set up at the time.


----------



## Errol's son (Feb 11, 2007)

No, I would be pissed off if I took a photo of GlaxoSmithKline from the A4/M4 whilst driving past on the flyover and got told off. But from their land, I can understand why they may not like it. But it is understandable that some companies get upset with people photographing them. I imagine HLS aren't too keen on it these days nor many of the City's investment banks. 

But I wouldn't be that annoyed if I was told to clear off from taking photos from roads around Heathrow whether they are publicly owned or owned by BAA.


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 11, 2007)

Good point.




			
				Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Little fuckers are a nuisance. They should be banned from public places to faciliate photography.


----------



## laptop (Feb 11, 2007)

Errol's son said:
			
		

> In the UK, are we allowed to take photos of military places, Scotland Yard, MI6, airports etc or are some places (or parts of them) restricted?



Nope. 




			
				Official Secrets Act 1911 said:
			
		

> 1.
> 
> (1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State
> 
> ...



The Post Office Tower (Telecom Tower) was notoriously a Prohibited Place until the early 1990s.


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2007)

Errol's son said:
			
		

> No, I would be pissed off if I took a photo of GlaxoSmithKline from the A4/M4 whilst driving past on the flyover and got told off. But from their land, I can understand why they may not like it.


Hang on - no one's saying that it's OK to take pictures if you're on their land because they're perfectly within their rights to tell you to fuck off.

But once you're back on the public highway, you can snap GlaxoSmithKline to your heart's content (with the caveat of committing harassment/obstruction etc).


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> The Post Office Tower (Telecom Tower) was notoriously a Prohibited Place until the early 1990s.


*nudges laptop in the direction of post 44


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 11, 2007)

Makes me want to take photos that aren't allowed just to piss them off.


----------



## laptop (Feb 11, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> *nudges laptop in the direction of post 44



And who dug up that quote in an earlier thread? Eh?


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> And who dug up that quote in an earlier thread? Eh?


And it was appreciated, but that's not enough to save you here fella! :d


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Makes me want to take photos that aren't allowed just to piss them off.


I'm almost tempted to go back next week with my longest lens and biggest camera and snap even more pictures and perhaps incorporate a panorama or two, just for fun.


----------



## samk (Feb 11, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Little fuckers are a nuisance. They should be banned from public places to faciliate photography.


Yes, it is a nuisance when they are fucking so taking a picture would make me a paedopornographer


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Feb 11, 2007)

Errol's son said:
			
		

> In the UK, are we allowed to take photos of military places, Scotland Yard, MI6, airports etc or are some places (or parts of them) restricted?


You will make any TA center or Army barracks take careful note of you and possibly get the MPs out to ask a few questions if you do hang around taking photos. It's almost certainly legal, but it would not be a good idea to have a load of photos of military buildings on your memory card when doing it.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 11, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm almost tempted to go back next week with my longest lens and biggest camera and snap even more pictures and perhaps incorporate a panorama or two, just for fun.



You should take a bunch of other photography enthusiasts along with you and hold a short lecture before letting them loose snapping the place.


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2007)

8ball said:
			
		

> You should take a bunch of other photography enthusiasts along with you and hold a short lecture before letting them loose snapping the place.


That's a nice idea. Perhaps they should keep walking up and down the stretch outside the car park while snapping so there'd be no chance of anyone being done for obstruction. Inviting a passing Critical Mass to join in the fun might add a little spice to proceedings too.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 11, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I'm almost tempted to go back next week with my longest lens and biggest camera and snap even more pictures and perhaps incorporate a panorama or two, just for fun.


 Go back with a brutally sharp macro lens in the portrait range and a fucking big flash and get him really angry by refusing to accept his aurthority (take a heavy tripod so you can brain him if he actually attacks you), take his picture looking like a raving loon. Then stick it up on your photo site.


----------



## trashpony (Feb 11, 2007)

They threatened to take my camera away when I was taking photos at Sellafield. When I asked why they wouldn't allow photos, the bloke didn't really seem to know. I suspect they've all seen too many films (and the power in those jobs is quite minimal so you've got to grab it where you can)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 11, 2007)

If it was Sellafield, their films come out all foggy anyhow due to random radioactivity.


----------



## laptop (Feb 11, 2007)

trashpony said:
			
		

> They threatened to take my camera away when I was taking photos at Sellafield.



Parts of it - specifically, at least, the plutonium stores - must be Prohibited Places within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act(s). 

Third anonymous shed from the left as you look from the coast, if I remember correctly


----------



## trashpony (Feb 11, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> Parts of it - specifically, at least, the plutonium stores - must be Prohibited Places within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act(s).
> 
> Third anonymous shed from the left as you look from the coast, if I remember correctly



I only took pictures of the big ball thing with my bf doing 'face of terror' in the foreground. I missed the shed


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2007)

Of course, the law gets a bit daft when you consider that there's Google Earth satellites floating overhead and peeps with colossal lens who can snap undetected from miles away.


----------



## toggle (Feb 11, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Of course, the law gets a bit daft when you consider that there's Google Earth satellites floating overhead and peeps with colossal lens who can snap undetected from miles away.




the fact they can tell you that the bt tower did not exist also shows it's bloody daft


----------



## exosculate (Feb 12, 2007)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> In case the link hasn't already been posted, it's here.
> 
> pdf
> 
> ...




Thats good that is.

As an aside - does anybody know how long copyright exists on old photographs?


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Thats good that is.
> 
> As an aside - does anybody know how long copyright exists on old photographs?





> Artistic works by known creators (such as paintings, drawings, prints, collages, sculpture, video art or photographs - including negatives and prints) = Lifetime of the artist + 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the artist died.


http://www.mda.org.uk/cbasics.htm


----------



## exosculate (Feb 12, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> http://www.mda.org.uk/cbasics.htm




Thanks for that, seems to correlate fairly well with copyright on novels.

So a photographic by someone who died in 1936 would be free of copyright.


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2007)

Check out this poor sod in NY getting grief for taking a photo:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Fsd0


----------



## laptop (Feb 12, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Thanks for that, seems to correlate fairly well with copyright on novels.



Since the 1988 Act it's been exactly the same. Words, images, musical _composition_: the same.




			
				exosculate said:
			
		

> So a photographic by someone who died in 1936 would be free of copyright.



No. 



> Lifetime of the artist + 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the artist *died*.


----------



## exosculate (Feb 12, 2007)

Isn't that 1936? Or maybe 1935ish?


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2007)

And here's a useful discussion about taking pics on the NY subway:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/newyorkers/discuss/72057594069761326


----------



## laptop (Feb 12, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Isn't that 1936? Or maybe 1935ish?



Only if the photographer *died* in 1936. 



Once upon a time a photographer said to me - and 60 other people in the room - "Look, if I could read I'd be a writer"


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2007)

And if anyone tries to stop you taking a picture of a building because they say it's 'copyrighted' slap them down with this (from the same site as the PDF doc)



> In the UK, s.62 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides, inter alia, that copyright in a building is not infringed by taking a photograph of it, nor by any distribution of any photograph of the building to the public (i.e. commercial use).


This bit deals with the issue of taking photos of kids:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide#c53


----------



## exosculate (Feb 12, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> Only if the photographer *died* in 1936.
> 
> 
> 
> Once upon a time a photographer said to me - and 60 other people in the room - "Look, if I could read I'd be a writer"




Thats exactly what I said - and you're accusing me of poor reading ability.

You make me laugh.


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2007)

I should have shoved this in the security guard's face:



> In the UK, the owner of a property does not also own image rights to the property. And it is not an infringement of copyright to take a photograph or make a film or video of a building. The owner of a property can place restrictions on photographs being taken from his land, but not from a public highway
> http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide#c5140


----------



## Firky (Feb 12, 2007)

There is a certain degree of respect to be had however. For instance, say if I lived in a lovely thatched cottage, beautiful and well - picturesque. I would not want people taking photographs of it. The odd one I don't mind but say if I was minding my own business, pimms in the garden with a fine English Rose, I would not want some dreadlocked hippy or some mouthy skinny geordie clicking away trying to get that quintessential english garden photograph. It is give and take I feel. Respect your subject and they'll respect you.


----------



## laptop (Feb 12, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Thats exactly what I said



So you do. I swear when I hit Reply it said "a photo taken in"... the common misconception...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 12, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> So, I'm walking along Avemaria Lane (near St Pauls) minding my own business. It's quiet and there's barely anyone around.
> 
> Passing a car park, I take a snap from the pavement and am about to walk on when I hear a loud shouting:
> 
> ...



There's nothing worse than officious twats with a smidgen of authority.


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> There is a certain degree of respect to be had however. For instance, say if I lived in a lovely thatched cottage, beautiful and well - picturesque. I would not want people taking photographs of it.


Then don't live in a "beautiful and well picturesque lovely thatched cottage" or put a load of trees around your house to cover it up. 

Asking people not to take a picture of a picturesque cottage in public view is like asking them not to take a picture of a pretty sunset.

We get loads of people taking pictures of my block because it's so ugly. Doesn't bother me.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 12, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Here it is:



Question: is that a public space?

It looks like the entrance to a loading zone/parking area, under a building.


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Question: is that a public space?
> .


No, but the picture was taken from the public pavement (or 'sidewalk' or whatever it is you lot call the bit that runs by the road).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 12, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> No, but the picture was taken from the public pavement (or 'sidewalk' or whatever it is you lot call the bit that runs by the road).



I suppose the reasoning is that if it's visible from a public place, then there's no reason not to allow a photo of it.

If the owner of a private space has reason to want his property to not be visible, then it's his/her responsibility to take steps to keep it from public view, with walls etc.


----------



## exosculate (Feb 12, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> So you do. I swear when I hit Reply it said "a photo taken in"... the common misconception...




Its OK i forgive your bluntness.


----------



## Firky (Feb 12, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Then don't live in a "beautiful and well picturesque lovely thatched cottage" or put a load of trees around your house to cover it up.
> 
> Asking people not to take a picture of a picturesque cottage in public view is like asking them not to take a picture of a pretty sunset.
> 
> We get loads of people taking pictures of my block because it's so ugly. Doesn't bother me.



What I mean is that you also have to respect people's right to not want to be photographed. I have often taken pictures at festivals and concerts and people have dodged out the way, not because tehy think they're going to spoil the shot, but because they don't want to be photographed. I think it is the same when it comes to people's property - hence the example of the cottage. However it is a different matter when it comes to public buildings or buildings that impose a prescence on the enviroment they're part of (like your manor). 

FWIW I quite like your manor, but I like that kind of architecture!

I have come across some beautiful customised bikes and cars in Brighton and not everyone was happy about having them photographed because it was there pride and joy. Although I don't really understand why because they drive in public and get more views than my photograph ever would, I respect their choice if you follow?

I'm talking a load of shite cos am stoned init?


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> What I mean is that you also have to respect people's right to not want to be photographed. I have often taken pictures at festivals and concerts and people have dodged out the way, not because tehy think they're going to spoil the shot, but because they don't want to be photographed.


Hold on - we weren't talking about photographing people which is an entirely different matter.

But if you you choose to live in a pretty house that's going to attract attention, you really can't complain when you get it.


----------



## Firky (Feb 12, 2007)

Hhmm.

I think it is because when I was a wee lad my parents used to live in a very pretty house near a river, in the middle of a woodland. Often we'd get people just staring at the garden and the house, and well us! A house is a place of privacy, solitude and sanctury. I wouldn't want people taking photos of my house. Nor would I take a photo in a glaringly obvious way of someone's house. 

Funny thing is I have no problems with sticking my camera in the face of strangers and police?


----------



## dlx1 (Feb 12, 2007)

tho it 2 days ago.



> "Don't give me attitude.


But ok for the Security Guard to   need to go on a people's Course.  

Some of the Security at canary wharf just ask why taking photos. But never rulde
Have seen then in the passed guards asking tourettes

how if the ed had a proper hear cut you would get greef 

edit: just read firky 10-02-2007, 08:41 PM post 
Were abouts was you taking photos ?


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 13, 2007)

I've learnt a lot about the rules and regs from reading this thread. I've taken shedloads of festival-specific pictures since about 1999. Thuis was done, very amateurishly really, without me knowing anything, but it's surely mostly a matter of common sense and basic respect. I've taken pix of Travellers and (mostly) their vehicles, big groups of alternative dreaded tatted pierced types, 'alternative families' (including kids) etc. and I've never had any real bother.  BUT I've always made a point (if it's not just a general crowd shot and if it included things in the way of portraits), of asking politely if it's OK. Usually it is.

And if it isn't I don't. (Or on about two occasions, I've apologised if not)


----------



## editor (Feb 13, 2007)

nonamenopackdrill said:
			
		

> fuck


From the FAQ:



> Users who make a stream of posts with no meaningful content and/or continually post up off topic material in inappropriate threads/forums will be banned...
> 
> Persistently disruptive posters will be banned.
> 
> Repeated efforts to derail the debate could result in forum access termination.


----------



## Firky (Feb 13, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> edit: just read firky 10-02-2007, 08:41 PM post
> Were abouts was you taking photos ?



eerr is it canada square? something square, next to the big fuck off statue in the middle


----------



## Jonti (Feb 14, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> I saw a lad last week at Paddington railway station having his details taken by one of those pseudo-cops, community officer types - he was protesting his right to take pictures and, quite reasonably i thought, also pointing out the absence of an clear signage to state that what he was doing wasn't allowed. The fed wasn't interested and told him to be quiet or he would have him arrested and his camera nicked. I would have thought that a train station counted as a public place but apparently not.


It's just silly, though, isn't it? Imaging and distribution technology just gets better and cheaper all the time.  Trivial example -- camera phones are everywhere, and are likely to become even more common.  And what about next year? There was a piece on the telly months ago about a guy that kitted himself out with wireless gear and a webcam. He was feeding the video and sound to a web site, so folks all over the world could, ahem, "share his experience".  Quite an interesting project technically, even if the content was well dull!

Yep, I reckon we'll soon be able to get live feeds from Ed's walkabouts, so we can enjoy all the sights and sounds, all the wit and repartee, from the comfort of our own homes


----------



## Ae589 (Feb 16, 2007)

I hope I'm not repeating anything already said on here but...

"There are a number of moves promoting the requirement of 'ID' cards to allow photographers to operate in a public place.

It is a fundamental right of a UK citizen to use a camera in a public place, indeed there is no right to privacy when in a public place.

These moves have developed from paranoia and only promote suspicion towards genuine people following their hobby or profession."

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/

But I can't find any news of proposals.


----------



## laptop (Feb 16, 2007)

Ae589 said:
			
		

> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/
> 
> But I can't find any news of proposals.



Me either.

And when photographers want to howl, they frequently do so in, er, the direction of people close to laptop.

I'll ask.


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 16, 2007)

I just saw news of this petition on another board.

I haven't heard anything about these "proposed restrictions".

Shirley if there were any they would be all over

http://www.epuk.org/

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/

etc. etc.

Hopefully the petition starter has just got the wrong end of the stick.





			
				laptop said:
			
		

> Me either.
> 
> And when photographers want to howl, they frequently do so in, er, the direction of people close to laptop.
> 
> I'll ask.


----------



## laptop (Feb 16, 2007)

It appears to be a misunderstanding of paranoia about photographing kids. 

More as soon as I have permission to quote emails.


----------



## Firky (Feb 16, 2007)

Its OK to have teenagers with their tits out on page 3 but heaven forbid we take a photo of some children playing.


----------



## portman (Feb 18, 2007)

I've only ever had the 'oi, you can't take that here!' treatment the oncve and that was in the Broadgate development right by Liverpool Street station in London. Simply because the whole lot is private property and the security at that place seem to be particularly zealous. I've taken a fair few images down at Canary Wharf, mainly in the area between the tube station and Heron Quays DLR and never had any hassle at all, even though as far as I know, that is all private property as well. Guess I have to put that one down to luck more than anything else!

Any other restrictions in what I take are simply me being respectful of other people's privacy, and to a certain extent, being aware of the suspicious social climate we live in. For instance, I never go down to Leigh-on-Sea with the camera, on my own, on a hot summer day when the crowds are out, simply because there is an assumption held by some people that a lone middle aged male with a camera by a beach full of kids is up to no good. A sad sign of the times but I'd rather avoid any unwanted hassle. However, when I'm out with the other half in such a situation, having a camera never seems to be a problem. It's not that I don't do the occasional candid - it's just that I'm careful about the who, when and where of it.


----------



## nick1181 (Feb 18, 2007)

Is this to do with paranoia over CCTV cameras? ie: If you take a picture of one, you're obviously a terrorist - if you even get a camera out when you could be at risk of photographing a CCTV camera you're a threat... 

and the UK is absolutely swarming with the fucking things. Have you seen the little coffee-selling kiosks at the big London railway stations? They have three CCTV cameras pointing at the person selling the coffee.

The ones in the Mall in Brighton get very excited if you take photos of them. Big Brother is very sensitive about people looking back.


----------



## Louloubelle (Feb 18, 2007)

I've walked all around Canary Wharf taking tons of photos, even films, and never  had any kind of trouble, whereas just about everyone else I know has been stopped from filiming / taking photos.  

I must look like the anti-terrorist.  Or something.


----------



## e19896 (Sep 24, 2007)

Alright here is something for us all to talk about… taking images of people i.e. gigs and events- what is right, what is wrong? see here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=220359  I posted some images of wimmin at a burlesque night in Sheffield, half undressed, having been asked on the night itself to take images. There was a bad vibe and there has been some e-mails and conversation following me posting the images (now removed) and I’ve had it before. So, in context one is feeling that taking images of people is not worth the fucking hassle. We, as in a circle of friends, think that no images of children shall ever be posted by us at least and we are coming to same thought about images of events and people in general. Some of us are of the thought that we shall not do photos of events or people again but instead stick to the abstract, urban & bucolic. Is this paranoia on my part? What are your thoughts?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 24, 2007)

I never publish work of recognisable people without at least verbal permission. It's only polite.

Interesting that you ask now. I've just been reading a thread on the BJP forum with a link to a Flickr thread about a girl who's family is apparently taking V Mobile to court because a CC rights image was taken from Flickr and used commercially without the models consent. It will be interesting to see who blames who and whether the amateur photographer gets in to trouble.

Most stuff about putting photographs on the web is only polite and respectful. But, it's always worth reading the T&C's of sites like Flickr completely and being sure you understand exactly what you're getting into.

Do you behave very differently in private situations compared to public domains?


----------



## blackadder (Sep 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I never publish work of recognisable people without at least verbal permission. It's only polite.




Interesting this, I take photos of football fans and they get published without permission or a blessing and for the most part the subjects are fully reconisable.

Often the pics include children.


----------



## e19896 (Sep 24, 2007)

blackadder said:
			
		

> Interesting this, I take photos of football fans and they get published without permission or a blessing and for the most part the subjects are fully reconisable.
> 
> Often the pics include children.




It is aint any the weather is doing wonderful things round here so one is going to take some images and ill come back wed read and add more thoughts.. keep it polite i need feedback as it has bugged me for a while this subject..


----------



## stdPikachu (Sep 24, 2007)

Legally, you're allowed to take pictures of anyone and anything in a public place, and you only need a model release if you intend to use the works commercially.

Of course, it's always good manners to secure everyones permission. There is also the possibility that you might be sued for defamation of character is you, for example, take a picture of someone snorting a line of charlie and then posting it all over the web without obscuring their face.




			
				Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Interesting that you ask now. I've just been reading a thread on the BJP forum with a link to a Flickr thread about a girl who's family is apparently taking V Mobile to court because a CC rights image was taken from Flickr and used commercially without the models consent. It will be interesting to see who blames who and whether the amateur photographer gets in to trouble.



The CC license in question doesn't stipulate that consent has been acquired, so the photographer is negligent for allowing this work to be attributed under a license that allowed commercial use when a model release was not secured.

However, Virgin are the ones most in the shit because they didn't call down to the legal dept. to ensure that a release was obtained. I don't really see how CC can have any blame in this, any more than if I invented a "everything this sticker is stuck to is FREE!" and some wag printed one out and stuck it to a Ferrari.


----------



## johey24 (Sep 24, 2007)

Hi Enumbers

Been having some thoughts about this meself as of late, esp as I tend to take a lot of photos of people on the streets around me. I am NOT a PC person (in fact, I detest the word and the ones spreading its gospel), so view my response from this tainted perspective.

_We ... think that no images of children shall ever be posted by us at least 
_ Not sure if I understand you correctly, but if I do , my immediate question is ... Why not? Children are lovely. Why should we not post photos of children. I have nothing to hide or to be ashamed of when I take a photo of a wee one. Gosh .... Because there are a few sick fucks in the world should all children be  denied something natural: the love and adoration of their community? In this regard China has a lot to teach the West. Really. These folks are awesome with their kids. 

_Some of us are of the thought that we shall not do photos of events or people again but instead stick to the abstract, urban & bucolic. Is this paranoia on my part?_ 
I think it is a bit paranoid, indeed. Even worse, it is bending to the myopic constraints and confines of the Politically Correct minority .... and it is BS. (Sorry, I feel strongly about this - no insult intended to you). If you wanna do something stupid / funny / even mildly interesting *in public* and I happen to be around with a camera, I will shoot away.  That photo then belongs to me as I was observant enough to catch you doing this something. I will do with this photo as I please. If you do not want me to take your pic, stick to the norms as accepted by the society in which you live. (Yeah, I know. That opens another can of worms ...)

However, if I bring my cam into the privacy of your home or into a closed group and I start shooting away, those pics should be taken with your permission. And definitely published only after you have agreed to such publication. 

_... having been asked on the night itself to take images ... 
_ OK, so if it is a compromising photo you are talking about ( I did not see it), the next question should be: has the subject given me permission to publish these on the web? 

PS: Good one stdPikachu.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 24, 2007)

Has all been said really but .. it is not the taking the picture that matters, it is what you do with the image after that that causes issues. 

For commercial publishing, if you want to be safe, you should have a model release from everyone recogniseable in the image.  

For publishing for fun on a web gallery I doubt that you would get into trouble with street shots without releases and if you would then a lot of people would be in trouble.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 24, 2007)

weltweit said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> For publishing for fun on a web gallery I doubt that you would get into trouble with street shots without releases and if you would then a lot of people would be in trouble.



But, it's hardly street shots that e numbers posted initially. It's a private venue possibly. Over 18's only maybe. Much as I hate rules... sometimes they're good.

Posting on the web for fun! Anyone with a computer on the net can see what you think is fun. Pretty sure I've been photographed at parties in all sorts of situations that were no doubt hilarious at the time. Explaining the shots a couple of weeks later to a line manager would probably be funny also. Then when the directors of the same company saw the image getting apparent worldwide exposure as an employee I'd probably not progress much further up the ladder. Possibly. And, possibly an extreme example.

I saw nothing wrong in the e numbers original, all good fun snaps. I would even argue that a show was being put on. People were entertaining others and inviting photographs. But, still without permission, I wouldn't put them on the web. Some people like it. Some people don't. It's just polite to ask first.

No PC bollocks. Just common respect.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 25, 2007)

stdPikachu said:
			
		

> Legally, you're allowed to take pictures of anyone and anything in a public place, and you only need a model release if you intend to use the works commercially.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



As my understanding runs, the last point is the most important in that particular case. It's the publisher who is responsible for ensuring that a model release was obtained for commercial use. They can't pass the blame on to the photographer unless they did ask and he told them that one existed.

Back to e-Numbers' question: yep, it's certainly something that enters my head when taking pictures on occasion. I'll take pictures of people at car shows to get a broader sense of atmosphere. Partly because I know the 'scene' and people know me, it's OK and I've never had a serious complaint (quite a few jokey ones though ).

I'm more wary of photographing people on the street. Getting permission from everybody concerned seems like a logistical nightmare. I worry especially about kids being anywhere near my viewfinder, lest I get tapped on the shoulder by a copper and asked to explain myself.

Then again, you're not even safe with architecture these days. I've also been questioned by the police for taking pictures of Tower Bridge...


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 25, 2007)

stdPikachu said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 
> The CC license in question doesn't stipulate that consent has been acquired, so the photographer is negligent for allowing this work to be attributed under a license that allowed commercial use when a model release was not secured.
> ...




I'm not to sure that a case couldn't be argued against the photographer in this instance. By agreeing to the terms and conditions and making the image available for 'any use' it could be argued that you have obtained all the permission you need to make it available for any use. Not a fair argument, but just because it wasn't stipulated that a model release had been signed doesn't mean it's not available for any use.


----------



## stdPikachu (Sep 25, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> They can't pass the blame on to the photographer unless they did ask and he told them that one existed.



They can pass blame onto the photographer for misattribution, but even if he'd told them one existed, they should have checked for a written one. "Cos he said so!" doesn't cut much ice in the legalosphere. <mark>This is the whole point of contract law!</mark>




			
				cybertect said:
			
		

> Then again, you're not even safe with architecture these days. I've also been questioned by the police for taking pictures of Tower Bridge...



Bleh, I've had single-digit-IQ rentacops threaten to confiscate my equipment/have me arrested whilst taking pictures of their employers' office building or whatever. Thankfully, pointing out that I'm legally entitled to take pictures of it is a voice that sounds like I know what I'm talking about usually works, along with thinly veiled threats of pressing suit for harassment. But I'm arsey like that, and I imagine if I tried it on cops I'd end up in chokey pretty sharpish...

Quite surprised at Tower Bridge though. I was there over the weekend, and there must have been a hundred tourists taking photos of it. Perhaps you should dress up as a fat american next time? 




			
				Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I'm not to sure that a case couldn't be argued against the photographer in this instance. By agreeing to the terms and conditions and making the image available for 'any use' it could be argued that you have obtained all the permission you need to make it available for any use. Not a fair argument, but just because it wasn't stipulated that a model release had been signed doesn't mean it's not available for any use.



You're quite right in that the photographer was completely in the wrong for putting this under a license that allowed commercial use, but as the publisher the legal responsibility for not properly checking this lies with Virgin.

Half of the work that lawyers end up with is solely due to people like the dude who acquired these photos thinking they know the law.


----------



## Louloubelle (Sep 25, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> Alright here is something for us all to talk about… taking images of people i.e. gigs and events- what is right, what is wrong? see here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=220359 *I posted some images of wimmin at a burlesque night in Sheffield, half undressed, having been asked on the night itself to take images. There was a bad vibe* and there has been some e-mails and conversation following me posting the images (now removed) and I’ve had it before. So, in context one is feeling that taking images of people is not worth the fucking hassle. We, as in a circle of friends, think that no images of children shall ever be posted by us at least and we are coming to same thought about images of events and people in general. Some of us are of the thought that we shall not do photos of events or people again but instead stick to the abstract, urban & bucolic. Is this paranoia on my part? What are your thoughts?



More information needed 

Did the half - undressed burlesque performers ask you to take their photos?  If not who did?

Even burlesque performers who are happy to have their photo taken while performing might be uncomfortable about being photographed while getting changed for example, especially by a male photographer they don't know. 

Also, even if the event organisers had asked you to take photos, it's only polite to ask semi-dressed women for their permission before taking photos of them, if possible chat with them first, tell then who you are and what you're doing and ask them to sign a release form too.   It's also polite to offer them  the non-commercial use of at least some of the photos for their website, which is only fair if you're taking photos of them


----------



## e19896 (Sep 25, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> More information needed
> 
> Did the half - undressed burlesque performers ask you to take their photos?  If not who did?
> 
> ...



Did the half - undressed burlesque performers ask you to take their photos?  If not who did?

The promoter of the night..

Also, even if the event organisers had asked you to take photos, it's only polite to ask semi-dressed women for their permission before taking photos of them, if possible chat with them first, tell then who you are and what you're doing and ask them to sign a release form too.   It's also polite to offer them  the non-commercial use of at least some of the photos for their website, which is only fair if you're taking photos of them..

agreed but as said i aint going down this road againe i have got a copy of this
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php and going to read and lamanate a copy to keep with me at all times..

i began this topic to get some feed back and there has been som posative feedback thanks people and you know Louloubelle all of what you said make sence along with the other comments given here thanks people that has helped.. you see i like urban 75 because you can get shit resolved..


----------



## Louloubelle (Sep 25, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> Did the half - undressed burlesque performers ask you to take their photos?  If not who did?
> 
> The promoter of the night..
> 
> ...



As a rule, if you want to take photos of naked / semi naked women, even if they are burlesque performers, you must ask first, even if the promoter of the night has told you to take photos.

Waving a piece of paper or laminated card with details about photographers' rights will not cut any mustard with naked / semi-naked women, in fact it may be seen as rude and disrespectful.

if you take photos without asking, introducing yourself and at least getting to know them a little bit, you will get a "bad vibe" and possibly worse.  Even if the promoter told you to take the photos.  

Always ask a promoter if the performers know that a photographer will be there and get him or her to introduce you to the performers personally.  This is important because all kinds of sleazy characters attempt to take photos of burlesque performers and claim that they are from this or that magazine or that they promoter asked them to do it, but they are just taking them for their own use.

Think about it. If you were a female burlesque performer would you be happy for men you didn't know to just turn up and take your photo without asking?  How would you feel if those same photos ended up being published on the internet without your express consent?

So, in conclusion, my advice is to forget about the laminated card, get yourself some business cards and start again. 

Good luck


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 10, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Interesting that you ask now. I've just been reading a thread on the BJP forum with a link to a Flickr thread about a girl who's family is apparently taking V Mobile to court because a CC rights image was taken from Flickr and used commercially without the models consent. It will be interesting to see who blames who and whether the amateur photographer gets in to trouble...




This is currently at court: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/technology/01link.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Creative Commons are named in the case with an argument that they need to be more succinct about their license use. Particularly the 'commercial use' part.

The photographer is named also. But, the main case seems to be about Virgin Mobile Australia abusing the subjects privacy. Fully understand where she's coming from, but suspect her and her film producing brother (who instigated the court case) are only in it for a big pay out.

If it wasn't for the internet none of this would be happening!


----------



## cybertect (Oct 10, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Creative Commons are named in the case with an argument that they need to be more succinct about their license use. Particularly the 'commercial use' part.



I don't know how much more succinct they can be.

The very first question they ask on their choose license page is "Allow commercial uses of your work? Yes/No"

The full text of the CC2.0 licence (under which the photo in question was published) states that no warranty is provided by the photographer for any use of the work.



> *5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer*
> 
> UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES IN WRITING, LICENSOR OFFERS THE WORK AS-IS AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MATERIALS, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR THE ABSENCE OF LATENT OR OTHER DEFECTS, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OF ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO SUCH EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
> 
> ...



In other words, Virgin Media have to to their legal homework before using the image for commercial use. "Commercial Use permitted" notwithstanding, the photographer is not going to warrant that it's suitable for that purpose, nor is he making any representations that it is suitable for use in a commercial context.

BTW, the CC1.0 licence had such a warranty



> By offering the Work for public release under this License, Licensor represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor's knowledge after reasonable inquiry:
> Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to grant the license rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise of the rights granted hereunder without You having any obligation to pay any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any other payments;
> The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark, publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of any third party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other tortious injury to any third party.



but it was removed in the CC2.0 Licence.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 10, 2007)

I think the point is that an average teenage snapper wouldn't understand a word of that gobbledegook. It needs to be more succinct. Although, ultimate legal obligation should be on advertising agency who used the image (assuming it wasn't done in-house by Virgin).

e2a;



> The very first question they ask on their choose license page is "Allow commercial uses of your work? Yes/No"



That's obviously to succinct


----------



## cybertect (Oct 10, 2007)

That is why the CC Licence is published additionally as a Commons Deed - a " user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath" (from the CC FAQ

Of course a legally binding document (the licence) has to be rendered into language that can be interpreted by lawyers and the courts and contains all the detail that will be necessary to resolve disputes, which is the full version of the licence. It's drafted in a way to provide reasonable protections to the person publishing material under that licence.

Virgin Media have access to resources to interpret the full version of the licence accurately and determine what they may or may not do with the work.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 10, 2007)

You mean argued by lawyers. Not interpreted


----------



## Paul Russell (Oct 10, 2007)

OK, I'll admit to not having read all the legal stuff above about CC licences.

But generally, for advertising, you need permission from the subject of the photograph, as they are being seen to endorse that product.

So, if there was any doubt/grey area *at all*, you would think that a huge company like Virgin, or the ad agency they used, would err on the side of caution, and contact the photographer to get permission from the person in the photo.

The fact that they ran a huge ad campaign with Flickr URLs all over it using a subject who hadn't given their permission seems bizarrely naive.

Possibly someone at Virgin, etc. has got a right telling off!


----------



## cybertect (Oct 10, 2007)

Virgin _may_ have been smarter than they seem at first

http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php



> Or so it would seem, except for one major problem — either by accident or design the people images were not taken in Australia and neither the photographers nor subjects were Australian citizens. Which put them beyond the jurisdictional scope of the TPA or any other Australian legislation! If the photographs were taken here, then the subjects would have a case. If they were taken overseas of Australian citizens, again people would have a legitimate complaint. But foreign persons + foreign photographers + foreign locations?…


----------



## free spirit (Oct 15, 2007)

re the OP

if you're doing event photo's then you really need to make sure there is either a section on the back of the ticket along these lines...

Photographs may be being taken at this event, by entering this event you agree to your photograph being taken and your image being published on the event website / photographers website / wherever.

something like that anyway.

If there are no tickets then signs should be put up by the entrance.

Another way that photographers from www.inthepicture.org do it (they go round loads of clubs taking pics of people every night) is to have business cards printed out that they give to everyone who has there pic taken, with the web address on it so they can check the photo's out and ask for any incriminating ones to be removed. This is also brilliant advertising for their website.

If you're taking pics of performers you really ought to get permission. We've only had one slight problem, funnily enough it was also at a burlesque night we were doing, when one of the girls who'd been doing the can can (mates, not professionals) didn't like having a video of the performance put online in case someone from work saw it. Backstage photo's though are almost always a nogo area unless you've got permission from everyone in each shot as backstage is supposed to be nonpublic, what happens backstage stays backstage etc.

bottom line really though is that if someone asks you to take a photo down, just take it down, no harm done, it's only polite isn't it.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2008)

*Photographers rights in the UK: discussion*

Of importance to all street photographers:



> Labour MP Austin Mitchell is planning to take a delegation of photographers to the Home Office to protest about the growing number of cases in which police officers and others try to stop professional and amateur photographers taking pictures in public places.
> 
> Mitchell, MP for Grimsby, has already tabled an Early Day Motion at the Commons which has been signed by 131 MPs, giving it wide cross-party support.
> 
> ...



Street snappers might also want to take a copy of this excellent PDF guide with them too: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

(I've managed to convert the copy into a text file so I can carry it on my phone, just in case)


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 14, 2008)

I fear that the police can turn anything around to suit them when they want particularly where 'obstruction' can be cited as reason to prevent someone taking a photograph also where 'evidence' needs to be collected (i.e. camera confiscated)


----------



## e19896 (Apr 14, 2008)

editor said:


> Of importance to all street photographers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that text file would be of use i have a laminated copy..


----------



## cybertect (Apr 14, 2008)

This kind of thing


----------



## lighterthief (Apr 14, 2008)

Is that guide current?  Genuine question, it just looks like it was posted in November 2004, wondered if it is still accurate.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 14, 2008)

cybertect said:


> This kind of thing




Quality pwnage of the PCSO. He looked like a right nob and now he's all over youtube. mwahaha.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 14, 2008)

lighterthief said:


> Is that guide current?  Genuine question, it just looks like it was posted in November 2004, wondered if it is still accurate.



yes very much so, and of use get yourself a printed copy laminate and keep with you. shit it has proven of use of late and before but then i get up to some of this:



> I go into empty abandoned buildings. most people ignore them as they are not something that bothers them. however some people don't ignore them and they are called urban explorers. we have been exploring the urban metropolis of Sheffield most of our life,s but have only recently (from 2000) started to take a camera with us, also sometimes you will find images of people and gigs. Urban exploration, urbex or UE, is the examination of the normally unseen or off-limits parts of human civilization. Urban exploration is also commonly referred to as Infiltration, although some people consider Infiltration to be more closely associated with the exploration of active or inhabited sites.


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2008)

cybertect said:


> This kind of thing


Top quality pwnage of that fucking moronic street wannabe cop..


----------



## Forkboy (Apr 14, 2008)

It is getting rather alarming.. the manhandling of photographers - and even those with press badges - at the Tibet protests/Olympic flame relay was shocking to say the least...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 14, 2008)

skyscraper101 said:


> I fear that the police can turn anything around to suit them when they want particularly where 'obstruction' can be cited as reason to prevent someone taking a photograph also where 'evidence' needs to be collected (i.e. camera confiscated)



Yeah, I've heard of worse cases than photographers being told not to take pictures. And once someone gets nicked for obstructing an officer it all too often comes down to the officer's word against the photographer. The worst part is that some defendants in these cases have been prevented from using the images/footage on their confiscated cameras in evidence.


----------



## boskysquelch (Apr 14, 2008)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2008)

Note: Update to this discussion here:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=247084


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2008)

And this cop ain't so keen on giving out his number either:


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 14, 2008)

editor said:


> And this cop ain't so keen on giving out his number either:



Scarily the armed police who arrive on the scene later also don't seem to know the law. I hope he took it to police complaints after all that.


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 14, 2008)

Austin Mitchell is a good bloke.

He actually has experience of this himself -- the Guardian gave him a digital camera to record his week a while back. He took some photos outside a Labour Party conference, and he was told to stop by a police officer, who then "accidently" deleted all the photos on his card.

And he's an MP! Lucky he wasn't one of those dodgy looking protesters, or he'd probably be detained down the local nick for questioning.


----------



## disco_dave_2000 (Apr 17, 2008)

Seems like some of the media is begin to run this as a story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm


----------



## editor (Apr 17, 2008)

I'm writing a feature on Photographers Rights now as I think it's important  - I'll post up a link as soon as it's up.


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 17, 2008)

disco_dave_2000 said:


> Seems like some of the media is begin to run this as a story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm



We now have a war on photography. I think this bit highlighted the stupidity of the situation.

" It's difficult because the more professional a photographer, paradoxically, the more likely they are to be stopped or questioned.

If people were using photos for terrorism purposes they would be using the smallest camera possible."  

Or just search the internet for some images and use google maps and earth to plan the attack as in this story. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/13/wgoogle13.xml

Because of this new anti photographer culture I have on occasion thought twice before using my camera.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 17, 2008)

This problem may be getting worse but it is not in itself a new thing. 

I arranged to print up business cards for all members of a club I was in, so we at least could look part of an organisation, affiliated with the RPS (or whatever). We carried them in our wallets in case we needed to look more official and they also permitted us to hand them out to promote the club.

We could have gone one step further and had our photos on the card, making them more like a photographers ID. I might try to get something like that in the future, could perhaps fend off some busybody.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 18, 2008)

In related news...(from the BBC)

Innocent photographer or terrorist? Misplaced fears about terror, privacy and child protection are preventing amateur photographers from enjoying their hobby, say campaigners.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm

(quite why anyone would want to get pictures of sharon from eastenders turning lights on in Ipswich is beyond me though  )


----------



## weltweit (Apr 18, 2008)

We had a letter from our childs school saying that photography would not be permitted at the school play. Some hint of reasons to do with child safety. I was looking forward to trying to get some snaps of my kid so I was quite dissapointed about this. 

The day of the school play arrived and I went leaving my camera behind. What did I find when the play started? all the other parents produced still cameras galore and video cams and started shooting away anyhow  .. power to the people. The head who was there and the other teachers said nothing and I was kicking myself for leaving my camera at home. Truth was that I had not wanted to be the only photographer there in case people thought I was a perv. Anyhow power to the people, these are our kids not the schools!!


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 18, 2008)

weltweit said:


> all the other parents produced still cameras galore and video cams and started shooting away anyhow  .. power to the people. The head who was there and the other teachers said nothing



Good for them, just ignore the cretins in authority and carry on as usual. I wonder what the actual risk to a child of  being filmed at school is compared to being abused at home or even by school staff? Are there any horror stories about photographers actually filming a school event and as a result a child has been  abused? What are the real odds - hundreds of millions to one!


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2008)

It's ridiculous - kids are being filmed on their way to school, in the shops, on the bus and often in the school itself thanks to CCTV, so why the fuck should The Man be the only one allowed to have footage?


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 18, 2008)

editor said:


> It's ridiculous - kids are being filmed on their way to school, in the shops, on the bus and often in the school itself thanks to CCTV, so why the fuck should The Man be the only one allowed to have footage?



The next step in this stupidity is for some child protection cretin to ban parents from photographing there own children in there own home.  However once a hair brained innitiative like this gets a foot in the door you never know what will happen next


----------



## weltweit (Apr 18, 2008)

stowpirate said:


> ... there has already been suggestions of CCTV cameras in rented accommodation and council property to combat domestic abuse - which is probably a good idea. ...



Does not sound like a good idea to me. 

It sounds right out of 1984. 

Is it intended that these unfortunate people know they are being filmed?


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 18, 2008)

weltweit said:


> Does not sound like a good idea to me.
> 
> It sounds right out of 1984.
> 
> Is it intended that these unfortunate people know they are being filmed?



I tried to cut that out of my original post as I realized it was going to take the thread off topic 

Unless anybody knows otherwise so far it has only  got as far as urging victims of domestic violence to conceal video cameras in their homes to collect evidence. Ken Livingstone is suggesting cameras on every street to combat the problem. A few months back it was suggested that there should be CCTV in the home to combat domestic violence and vandalism. I cannot find any links to relevant information but the idea was aimed at rented and council property.


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 18, 2008)

Here's a recent-ish piece about street photography and paranoia:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article3574763.ece


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2008)

Paul Russell said:


> Here's a recent-ish piece about street photography and paranoia:


Have you got a press card? Considering your style of photography it might be a worthwhile investment.


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 18, 2008)

editor said:


> Have you got a press card? Considering your style of photography it might be a worthwhile investment.



No. What are the eligibility criteria? As 90% of my meagre income come from freelance sub-editing, I'd sort of assumed that I wouldn't be, ahem, strictly eligible...


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 18, 2008)

I don't mean to be pedantic - I am just genuinely curious - but where is the "lobby of parliament" mentioned?


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> I don't mean to be pedantic - I am just genuinely curious - but where is the "lobby of parliament" mentioned?


Err...follow the link in the opening post?


Paul Russell said:


> No. What are the eligibility criteria? As 90% of my meagre income come from freelance sub-editing, I'd sort of assumed that I wouldn't be, ahem, strictly eligible...


Not really sure - check with (the poster)  laptop or your local NUJ branch.

I've now finished my Guide To Photographer's Rights - I'd welcome feedback/corrections from users (but note that it's intended as a general guide, not an in depth examination of all the sometimes quite-complex laws).

I'm going to look into doing a credit card sized 'Bust card' that can be printed out


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 18, 2008)

editor said:


> Err...follow the link in the opening post?



Er, I did follow it, and there is no lobby of parliament mentioned, other than in the title. 

Oh well, I guess the article's author didn't understand what a "lobby of parliament" was, or else they are trying to encourage someone to start one


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2008)

I'll change the title of the thread.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 18, 2008)

That's much better, IMHO


----------



## e19896 (Apr 18, 2008)

editor said:


> Err...follow the link in the opening post?
> Not really sure - check with (the poster)  laptop or your local NUJ branch.
> 
> I've now finished my Guide To Photographer's Rights - I'd welcome feedback/corrections from users (but note that it's intended as a general guide, not an in depth examination of all the sometimes quite-complex laws).
> ...



just read and useful, ill do a link. like the idea of bust cards very much if you get a donation or two from people (ill start and bung 30 pounds tell me where to) and can a load printed or we could self print from a download pdf file
and give a donation for each download, but i like the idea a lot.


----------



## untethered (Apr 18, 2008)

It might be worth adding to the guide that if your photography in a public place antagonises others, you could be arrested for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. The expected BOP would be the other people becoming violent towards you. I've no idea how often this actually happens.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2008)

untethered said:


> It might be worth adding to the guide that if your photography in a public place antagonises others, you could be arrested for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.


'Antagonising' others is not a criminal offence as such, and even if it was, surely it would come under the harassment laws covered in the article if you're simply photographing others? After all, look at what the paparazzi get away with.

I did mention breach of the peace further on in the article.


----------



## untethered (Apr 18, 2008)

editor said:


> 'Antagonising' others is not a criminal offence as such, and even if it was, surely it would come under the harassment laws covered in the article if you're simply photographing others? After all, look at what the paparazzi get away with.



BOP isn't a criminal offence. It's a common law complaint with a power of arrest.

In harassment, the behaviour has to be persistent and there is no requirement that the harassing behaviour is likely to lead to any specific response on the part of the victim. In behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, it is the reaction of people other than the person antagonising the situation that matters. It's not antagonism per se that matters but antagonism that provokes or is judged likely to provoke a violent response.



editor said:


> I did mention breach of the peace further on in the article.



Yes, but in the context where the photographer is breaching the peace, rather than provoking a situation in which others might.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2008)

untethered said:


> Yes, but in the context where the photographer is breaching the peace, rather than provoking a situation in which others might.


 I can't think of any examples of a successful 'breach of the peace' prosecution  against a photographer doing his job, although some clueless officers have tried it on in the past.

Maybe I'll add a line and link it to this page: http://www.epuk.org/News-snippets/719/police-sued-over-stolen-cameras


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2008)

Some research: 





> What is a breach of the peace? In R v Howell [1981] 3 All ER 383, Watkins LJ said "... we cannot accept that there can be breach of the peace unless here has been an act done or threatened to be done which actually harms a person or in his presence his property or is likely to cause such harm or which puts someone in fear of such harm being done."





> In DPP v Percy [1995] 3 All ER 124, the court clarified that conduct could be breach of the peace if there was a real risk that it would elicit violence from a third party. (The judgement relied heavily on R v Howell in general.) In that respect, if a photographer is hassling people in a way that creates a real risk that may might respond violently, or, for example, angers parents by photographing their children, there would be a possibility of a conviction for breach of the peace. Admittedly it is far less likely than the police would sometimes have photographers believe.


http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide#c53


----------



## untethered (Apr 18, 2008)

editor said:


> Some research:
> 
> http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide#c53



Which seems to support my argument. Admittedly it's more of a theoretical possibility than something that is likely to happen, but I do know of one (non-photographic) case of a successful conviction for BOP where no violence occurred but was decided on the likely reaction of others to a continuance of that behaviour.


----------



## editor (Apr 18, 2008)

untethered said:


> Which seems to support my argument.


Well, sort of, but I couldn't find any examples of as successful prosecution. 

But as it says at the beginning, it's supposed to be a _brief _guide and if I list every single legal possibility, it's going to become a very long and dull document.

I have however added this:



> Breach of the Peace
> Another legal catch-all sometimes employed by the police against photographers refusing to leave a scene when doing their job is, "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace."
> 
> We can't think of any successful prosecutions of press photographers under this law, but it has certainly been used on occasion.
> ...


Cheers for the input.

(Note: I've since tidied up the text a bit on the web page)


----------



## untethered (Apr 18, 2008)

My own brief (non-exhaustive guide is):

Permission - you don't need to ask or get it but sometimes it helps.
Trespass - if you're on private property expect to get kicked out.
Privacy - if your subjects are in a public place or easily visible from one they have no privacy rights.
Harassment - if you annoy other people you may be arrested, eventually.
Obstructing the highway - if the police ask you to move along, do so.
Obstructing the police - if the police ask you to move along, do so.
Pro or amateur - the law is the same though some situations may favour one or the other.


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 19, 2008)

Here's an interesting tale from one of my Flickr contacts from a couple of days ago.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/2420960125/

Edit: once again the police officer says it's "unlawful to photograph people in public". Do any police actually know the law on this?

Edit2: my computer doesn't want to install the latest version of Flash Player, so I can't see the accompanying video. Is it any good?!


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2008)

Paul Russell said:


> Here's an interesting tale from one of my Flickr contacts from a couple of days ago.


That's just the kind of ridiculous treatment photographers are suffering more and more regularly from moronic security tossers.

I'll add your link to my case examples. There's quite a list forming now.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 19, 2008)

What, technically, is the definition of a "public place"?


----------



## editor (Apr 19, 2008)

teuchter said:


> What, technically, is the definition of a "public place"?


Public thoroughfare, road, street, pavement, path, canal towpaths, public parks and play areas etc.


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 19, 2008)

editor said:


> Public thoroughfare, road, street, pavement, path, canal towpaths, public parks and play areas etc.



That's right of course.

But there is a worrying trend on the horizon towards the privatisation of previously public space. Canary Wharf is a current example, I think, but soon a large part of Liverpool city centre will effectively become private property. It will be a "mall without walls" and even in open-air streets security guards will be able to tell you to buzz off if they don't like the look of you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/29/communities

"the first privatisation of a city centre anywhere in England"


----------



## neonwilderness (Apr 19, 2008)

Paul Russell said:


> Edit2: my computer doesn't want to install the latest version of Flash Player, so I can't see the accompanying video. Is it any good?!



Shows the security guard talking bollocks and trying to push them about and detain them.  It cuts out when the other guards arrive.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 19, 2008)

editor said:


> Public thoroughfare, road, street, pavement, path, canal towpaths, public parks and play areas etc.



Not buildings in public ownership, then?


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 19, 2008)

neonwilderness said:


> Shows the security guard talking bollocks and trying to push them about and detain them.  It cuts out when the other guards arrive.



Thanks! Maybe it'll end up on youtube...


----------



## disco_dave_2000 (Apr 20, 2008)

editor said:


> I've now finished my Guide To Photographer's Rights - I'd welcome feedback/corrections from users (but note that it's intended as a general guide, not an in depth examination of all the sometimes quite-complex laws).



Very good section of information - thanks


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 20, 2008)

Thanks, yes, it's a good read.

So, reading the whole thing, am I right in understanding that there are no circumstances in which anyone (security staff, pcso, police) can demand that you delete images on the spot?

"Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) external link national police-press guidelines makes their rights clear:

"Members of the *media* ...

The guidelines also warn that any police officer who deletes a *photographer's* images could face criminal, civil or disciplinary action..."

And if the police delete an image they could face "face criminal, civil or disciplinary action", or does that just apply to images taken by press photographers, not amateurs?


----------



## editor (Apr 20, 2008)

Paul Russell said:


> So, reading the whole thing, am I right in understanding that there are no circumstances in which anyone (security staff, pcso, police) can demand that you delete images on the spot?


Security guards categorically can not make you delete your images under any circumstances.

From the sirimo website:



> Security guards do not have stop and search powers, nor do they have the right to delete images or confiscate film. The police may, in some circumstances, sieze film or memory cards, but they should never destroy film or delete images. If the photographer has committed an offence, the images are evidence, and if he/she has not, then the images are innocent. Either way, they should not be destroyed or deleted.


----------



## chooch (Apr 21, 2008)

editor said:


> I've now finished my Guide To Photographer's Rights..
> I'm going to look into doing a credit card sized 'Bust card' that can be printed out


That's very helpful, and the card would be great.
I wonder what the legal position is here in Spain. Might just go find out...


----------



## editor (Apr 21, 2008)

chooch said:


> That's very helpful, and the card would be great.
> I wonder what the legal position is here in Spain. Might just go find out...


Generally, they're much bigger on the right to privacy in Europe.


----------



## chooch (Apr 21, 2008)

editor said:


> Generally, they're much bigger on the right to privacy in Europe.


Not so sure here. I suspect the Guardia Civil wouldn't hesitate to break lens and face, but there may be some legal protection. Google ain't providing, so far...


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 21, 2008)

chooch said:


> Not so sure here. I suspect the Guardia Civil wouldn't hesitate to break lens and face, but there may be some legal protection. Google ain't providing, so far...




The only instance I've come across in Spain (of any police/security intervention) was here in Granada when a German tourist was asked to delete images after taking photographs of a military building in the centre of town. It's a decorative building with a beautiful courtyard - you wouldn't guess it was a military building.

Guardia Civil are always more than happy to let tourists poke there lenses through the doors of the court buildings. I suspect Granada being a very tourist oriented city is an exception and have absolutely no doubt you would get huge grief if you ever tried to photograph some of the very heavy handed dealings of demos and street parties by Policia Nacional in other parts of Spain.


----------



## untethered (Apr 21, 2008)

It's worth pointing out that while no-one should make you delete your pictures or do it for you, it's very easy to use file recovery tools to get them back.


----------



## editor (Apr 21, 2008)

untethered said:


> It's worth pointing out that while no-one should make you delete your pictures or do it for you, it's very easy to use file recovery tools to get them back.


Only if you don't take any more photos on the card which you might want to do if some twat's just forced you to delete what you've just taken.

If you're in area where you think you might get hassle, it's worth taking a stack of cards with you and regularly swapping them over and stashing the used cards somewhere hard to find.


----------



## Pie 1 (Apr 21, 2008)

Edited - my Q already answered in a post above.


----------



## chooch (Apr 22, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> absolutely no doubt you would get huge grief if you ever tried to photograph some of the very heavy handed dealings of demos and street parties by Policia Nacional in other parts of Spain.


Aye. I've never dared. Might ask my journalist contact whether he knows what's what.


----------



## neonwilderness (Apr 26, 2008)

Paul Russell said:


> Here's an interesting tale from one of my Flickr contacts from a couple of days ago.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/2420960125/
> 
> Edit: once again the police officer says it's "unlawful to photograph people in public". Do any police actually know the law on this?



It's made it into the local paper now.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/2442294717/


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 26, 2008)

This story was on Radio 4 this afternoon, along with an interview with Austin Mitchell, and mention of flickr... Anyone would think journalists read this forum!


----------



## disco_dave_2000 (May 13, 2008)

One week the Met want individuals to watch and shop photographers looking 'odd' - the next week they are asking for photographers to help solve a murder!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ould-hold-key-to-oxford-st-murder-827359.html


----------



## stowpirate (May 14, 2008)

disco_dave_2000 said:


> One week the Met want individuals to watch and shop photographers looking 'odd' - the next week they are asking for photographers to help solve a murder!
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ould-hold-key-to-oxford-st-murder-827359.html




It is tourists taking snaps not photographers that are UK citizens.

Interesting use of words by the Independent I wonder what was actually said at the press release


----------



## Paul Russell (Jul 2, 2008)

*Photography in public places -- confronting the jobsworths*

Quite funny little video of what happened when some traffic wardens told a group of photographers to stop taking pictures



The group was taking part in the 

"CCTV Camera Appreciation Outing, Worthing town centre. An invitation to bring your own camera to point at the lenses that have been pointing at us since 1996. Celebration of Big Brother's Birthday, combining 12th anniversary of Worthing's CCTV and George Orwell's birthday."


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jul 2, 2008)

Ace


----------



## Paul Russell (Jul 2, 2008)

Actually, slight correction, they are not traffic wardens but Worthing's

"new Town Centre Wardens were launched in the Town Centre on June 2nd 2008"

who knows what their powers are?!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 2, 2008)

Much as I hate to link to....


e2a; Yay! Link didn't even work. The angels are looking after me 


http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=801977

Booh!


----------



## onthebrightside (Jul 2, 2008)

Good work.

(regarding the OP)


----------



## Paul Russell (Jul 2, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Much as I hate to link to....
> 
> 
> e2a; Yay! Link didn't even work. The angels are looking after me
> ...



"However, the Home Secretary adds that local restrictions might be enforced. 'Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation.

'It is for the local Chief Constable, in the case of your letter the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force, to decide how his or her Officers and employees should best balance the rights to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the need for public protection.' 

i.e. local Chief Constables can make up some laws if they feel like it.


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2008)

Delightful pwnage of the jobsworth, but the BJP article is very worrying.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Delightful pwnage of the jobsworth, but the BJP article is very worrying.



Possibly. But, Chief Constables are being given far more jurisdiction over such things.


I'm currently trying to dig up the original press release for my 321 Spaces project. Doesn't seem that long ago, but much has changed legally.


e2a; Should ad that the fact that the question came down to the local chief constable was the deal back then. Always has been. Lots of other stuff has changed mind.


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2008)

Just in case anyone's not seen it, here's my guide to Photographer's Rights:
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 2, 2008)

Hmmmm...


I seem to remember much more focus on the CCTV v civil photography issue. Need to unearth an old hard drive to get the original, or scan a few old art mags.

http://www.zoom-in.org/photography-...on-archive/press releases/john-colley-pr.html


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Just in case anyone's not seen it, here's my guide to Photographer's Rights:
> http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html



In addition, a very useful pdf guide to UK photographer's rights you can download, print off and carry around with you to hand to any jobsworths in the future.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 2, 2008)

Paul Russell said:


> "However, the Home Secretary adds that local restrictions might be enforced. 'Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation.
> 
> 'It is for the local Chief Constable, in the case of your letter the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force, to decide how his or her Officers and employees should best balance the rights to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the need for public protection.'
> 
> i.e. local Chief Constables can make up some laws if they feel like it.


I'm not sure whether that is some sort of discretionary-power-granting, or whether it's basically saying "you're on your own when it comes to interpreting the law, we're not going to give you any guidelines, if you get it wrong don't look at us". Both of which are bad but clearly the first is a lot worse.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jul 3, 2008)

Where can i buy/rent a megaphone to go and harass security people with me new camera then?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 3, 2008)

I was photographing some semi trucks parked near a truck stop in Chilliwack. A rotund young lady yells, 'is that your truck?'

'No'.

'Why are you taking pictures?'

'I like to take pictures'

[Silence, she keeps walking with two cups of coffee]

[Profferring camera to woman]: 'Here, do you want to see some'

'Grunt'

'Is it okay, like: taking pictures?'

'Grunt'


[She disappeared into the store where she was a clerk, and then proceeded to try and overcharge me for a deck of playing cards]

The pictures were nothing to write home about, as it turns out.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 3, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Much as I hate to link to....
> 
> 
> e2a; Yay! Link didn't even work. The angels are looking after me
> ...



Hello Orwell.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jul 3, 2008)

Yes I am worried about the statement in the BJP article that said 





> While Jacqui Smith reaffirmed that there are no legal restrictions, she added that local Chief Constables were allowed to restrict or monitor photography in certain circumstances.



This means that any police officer can on the spot, say that the local Chief Constable has put a restriction on photographing whatever it is you point your camera at.  The Chief constable is not going to cause problems for his officers by denying this, so the decision can be made up on the spot by some bored officer who wants to exercise power that he doesn't really have but he can rely on getting on demand from his superiors 

Even if police constables did not do this, and the authority to restrict or monitor photography was done with advanced notice in certain circumstances, you can be sure that political demonstrations or other places where police were active, would have restrictions placed on them in advance.

What is the point of having a camera it you cannot take pictures where and when you want to?

Tourist towns like London and seaside towns are the very places where most photographs are taken.  In fact most of the UK is a valid place to take tourist pictures.  If tourists are allowed to take pictures (and it is to be hoped that they are) then I demand the right to also take pictures wherever I want.

I also demand the right to take pictures of the police and other officials going about their work iin public places.  They work for us, we pay their salaries.

I have to admit that once the issue of the right to take photographs was publicised by MP Austin Mitchell among others then I feared that the government would move to clarify the matter in their own restrictive favour.


----------



## XR75 (Aug 18, 2008)

*Assault on photography.*

This is becoming a recurring theme. 



> Carroll had been visiting relatives in the area. A keen photographer, he had taken his camera with him on a Saturday morning shopping trip to take some shots of the high street. He was in Boots with his brother and sister-in-law when he was confronted by the police, who told him they had received a complaint from a member of the public that he had been taking pictures of 'sensitive buildings'. 'I was marched out of the shop, stood against the wall and made to empty my pockets,' he says. 'I was scared and intimidated. I mean, I'm one of the most law-abiding citizens you could meet. I don't even drop litter! I shouldn't really have handed over the film but, at the time, I was afraid of being arrested.'
> 
> The police had the film developed and returned the pictures to him later that day, acknowledging that they were entirely innocuous. They also admitted that there had been no complaint from the public; they had stopped Carroll because they thought he was taking pictures of children. Carroll lodged a complaint with the local station. 'The superintendent at Humberside police got in touch and was very sympathetic. But he still claimed that his officers had behaved correctly and at times of heightened security we have to accept less freedom for our own good.'



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/08/17/sv_photographers.xml&page=1


Are orders coming down from seniors, ignorant beat cops just being cops or is it paranoid people spurred on by news stories?
Can we expect this to continue until people accept it and laws are made.

On the other hand there's no need to have people running around making photographs which could help terrorists or annoy ordinary people going about their business. A license or a register of photographers and their whereabouts would help bring some accountability where it's needed and verify them when buying specialist equipment or being questioned by the police.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 18, 2008)

On our guided walk of the murals of Brixton we were stopped from taking photos of one of them because it was a the back of an adventure playground.  A friend also forbade me from posting a pic on the internet of me and her 9 month old baby! I just don't get it. 

Perhaps someone on here can explain what harm there is in taking photos that have children in them, or point me to a case where someone has found a picture of a child on the internet and then found a way to harm that child.


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2008)

XR75 said:


> This is becoming a recurring theme.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is really telling about that case is that the cops admitted they stopped him because they thought he was photographing children, then used the 'in times of heightened security line...'. What the hell kind of justification is that? You can't just reel out a completely unrelated crime to justify a wrongful arrest. Time and time again we see these 'reduced freedoms' abused, quite apart from anything else it leads to complete mistrust of the police.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 18, 2008)

XR75 said:


> Are orders coming down from seniors, ignorant beat cops just being cops or is it paranoid people spurred on by news stories?


Bit of each.  It is _known_ that terrorists have taken photographs of potential targets, etc. (they have been found when searches have been carried out and they have formed part of the evidence in some cases).  So people taking photographs of potential targets is, quite properly, identified as a potential weak spot which _could_ be the break necessary to identify potential attackers carrying out reconnaissance.

However, the problem comes when that "keep 'em peeled" advice gets pumped out to all officers and to the public (it's been on a number of publicity campaigns).  Unfortunately sometimes (and I would very strongly suspect it is a tiny minority of times) officers overreact and we get stories like this.  In the vast majority of cases sensible officers either watch for a while and dispel their suspicions without even approaching the people concerned or, at worst, go and have a brief chat and resolve things without any need to take things any further, seize cameras or whatever.

I would also suspect some incidents arise when an officer _wants_ to go down the quic word route but, instead of having a pleasant chat, the "suspect" gets arsey and refuses to speak or whatever.  In such situations, as the initial suspicions, however slight, cannot be dispelled, more intervention will be needed.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 18, 2008)

Cid said:


> ... to justify a wrongful arrest.


Who was arrested?


----------



## pogofish (Aug 18, 2008)

XR75 said:


> This is becoming a recurring theme.
> 
> A license or a register of photographers and their whereabouts would help bring some accountability where it's needed and verify them when buying specialist equipment or being questioned by the police.




Yes.  Have you really missed *all* the other threads on the subject?  Including a considerable amount of good legal/practical advice.

Fuck-no!


----------



## Firky (Aug 18, 2008)

Reminds me when I was nearly frog marched off Canary Wharf for taking photos


----------



## Pip (Aug 18, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> On our guided walk of the murals of Brixton we were stopped from taking photos of one of them because it was a the back of an adventure playground.  A friend also forbade me from posting a pic on the internet of me and her 9 month old baby! I just don't get it.
> 
> Perhaps someone on here can explain what harm there is in taking photos that have children in them, or point me to a case where someone has found a picture of a child on the internet and then found a way to harm that child.



It's not really the same thing, but on R4 tonight there was a piece about an internet paedophile site who posted up normal, innocent pictures of kids for its members to wank over (sorry ), so apparently it goes on. Maybe that's what your friend was worried about?


----------



## Dan U (Aug 18, 2008)

One of the jobs my mate does in the Met is to go around 'sensitive targets' in London in plain clothes looking for people taking pictures of non obvious tourist things - CCTV, doorways, security patrols etc.

Then he follows them/calls a uniformed team to stop them etc.

Terrorists do to research and dry runs etc, it would be remiss of the Met etc to not consider this, imo.


----------



## 888 (Aug 18, 2008)

XR75 said:


> On the other hand there's no need to have people running around making photographs which could help terrorists or annoy ordinary people going about their business. A license or a register of photographers and their whereabouts would help bring some accountability where it's needed and verify them when buying specialist equipment or being questioned by the police.



Are you fucking serious? Also, do you realise how incredibly easy it is nowadays to take a photograph of just about anything? The number of cameras around has increased massively. The easiest way is jsut to pretend to be texting someone.


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Who was arrested?



Apologies, just completely overreacting in a fit of apoplectic rage...


----------



## 888 (Aug 18, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Bit of each.  It is _known_ that terrorists have taken photographs of potential targets, etc. (they have been found when searches have been carried out and they have formed part of the evidence in some cases).  So people taking photographs of potential targets is, quite properly, identified as a potential weak spot which _could_ be the break necessary to identify potential attackers carrying out reconnaissance.



That makes a lot more sense than actually trying to prevent "terrorists" or whoever from taking photographs of their targets, which is completely futile.


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2008)

Enid Laundromat said:


> It's not really the same thing, but on R4 tonight there was a piece about an internet paedophile site who posted up normal, innocent pictures of kids for its members to wank over (sorry ), so apparently it goes on. Maybe that's what your friend was worried about?



No it wasn't... It was a forum in which people exchanged photos 'innocently' to test integrity etc, then met up outside the forum itself in order to exchange more explicit images.


----------



## Pip (Aug 18, 2008)

Cid said:


> No it wasn't... It was a forum in which people exchanged photos 'innocently' to test integrity etc, then met up outside the forum itself in order to exchange more explicit images.



But according to the police officer they were interviewing, the comments on the "innocent" photos made it quite clear what these people were about.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 18, 2008)

This is getting well boring on many photo forums.

First point is that nothing has changed legally for many years.

The only reason this sort of thing is getting reported more frequently is because there are far more photographers working in public and private spaces. It's a perpetuated myth being believed by more and more on both sides.

We're also a country at war. May not seem like it from where we stand even though the fact that we're losing is upping oil prices and the cost of living. As an aggressive, attacking nation we can expect a bit of come back and the law should be looking out for that.

Of course, the law can be abused.

In the Three years I trekked around London with a back pack, tripods and several cameras I was only ever asked once what I was up to by police. Even then they accepted my polite explanation and let me carry on.

In the Three months I slept homeless in London I was 'stopped and searched' under anti-terrorism legislation about 12 times. Just for walking the streets at the wrong time in the wrong place.


This photography stuff is a huge red herring people. Really is and you're all falling for it. Far more important law changes going on across Europe.


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2008)

888 said:


> Are you fucking serious? Also, do you realise how incredibly easy it is nowadays to take a photograph of just about anything? The number of cameras around has increased massively. The easiest way is jsut to pretend to be texting someone.



Not to mention the fact you can planning extracts (maps at 1:1250) with no difficulty at all, and it's not so hard to get hold of building plans.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 18, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> point me to a case where someone has found a picture of a child on the internet and then found a way to harm that child.



Paedos can take a picture of a child and then use the internet to find that childs PC and make fumes come out of the keyboard that makes the child susceptible to the evil pervs advances.

FACT.


----------



## pogofish (Aug 18, 2008)

quimcunx said:


> A friend also forbade me from posting a pic on the internet of me and her 9 month old baby! I just don't get it.



In the last few months, I have photographed literally hundreds of kids for work.  The number of parents who refused permission when I asked - *one!*






I really wonder how much of this is being blown out of all proportion by someone with their own axe to grind?


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2008)

Enid Laundromat said:


> But according to the police officer they were interviewing, the comments on the "innocent" photos made it quite clear what these people were about.



Yes, but as I said there was nothing explicitly illegal about those images, they were a means of vetting people before allowing them access to the sharing of more explicit imagery. It's sad they were used in this way of course, but pictures of fully clothed children are not hard to come by.


----------



## 888 (Aug 18, 2008)

.


----------



## pogofish (Aug 18, 2008)

888 said:


> .


----------



## Pip (Aug 18, 2008)

Cid said:


> Yes, but as I said there was nothing explicitly illegal about those images, they were a means of vetting people before allowing them access to the sharing of more explicit imagery. It's sad they were used in this way of course, but pictures of fully clothed children are not hard to come by.



I think it's faintly ridiculous to object to your friend putting a picture of her and your child on the internet, but then I haven't got kids.


----------



## 888 (Aug 18, 2008)

pogofish said:


>



It was a comment that was no longer funny because Cid's post stood in between it and the photograph.


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2008)

888 said:


> It was a comment that was no longer funny because Cid's post stood in between it and the photograph.



Sorry...


----------



## Firky (Aug 18, 2008)

If nonces want to be titulated all they have to do is visit swim wear on the mother care's website, join a family naturist forum or even pick up a freeman's catalogue. One of my favourite photos is by a photographer who's name I forget and it is just a toddler eating a carrot and she happens to be nude. I have only seen it in a book and really liked the way it was lit and the expression of curiosity on her face (obviously never had a raw carrot). I saw that in a book I borrowed from the library at uni. My point is if a person wants to obtain photographs of children that could be regarded as sexually excplicit they're not going to go around stalking kids with a camera. And my other point is that you can still appreciate the aesthetics of photograph, subject, or medium with out finding it erotic.

I am not sure what qualifies as child pornography, I know it has various levels but really - just because a person takes photos of kids doesn't make them a nonse. Fuck, I took a photo of a group of kids playing in a fountain and it was only when a friend pointed out that I could be done for that I realised how stupid all this is.

Child porn?







What about this one, that was displayed in the Baltic in Newcastle by Nan Golding:

http://www.thefileroom.org/images/klara_and_edda_belly_dancing.jpg

(NSFW)

Not a photo I like myself but if you look at hte work she does it puts it in context, she takes photos of peoples lives and relationships:







As for the terror threat - that is a load of bollocks IMO. Just an excuse to stop you because they are bored and the police do like to excersize their powers.


Again. You can take photos of kids and not be a nonce. Sorry to state the obvious but it fucks me off this stupid hysterical reaction to child pornography, whipped up by the media.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 18, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> The only reason this sort of thing is getting reported more frequently is because there are far more photographers working in public and private spaces. It's a perpetuated myth being believed by more and more on both sides.



Not true in all cases, I think.  The railway press is replete with tales of enthusiasts being hassled by station staff, security guards and sometimes the BTP for taking photographs.  It's certainly got worse in the last few years.  This despite Network Rail's stated position that enthusiasts are useful extra 'eyes and ears' in the 'fight' against terrorism.

That said, when there's a steam train about - which is the only time you'll find me on the platform with my camera - they do accept that it will attract enthusiasts and they invariably leave them alone.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 18, 2008)

Enid Laundromat said:


> I think it's faintly ridiculous to object to your friend putting a picture of her and your child on the internet, but then I haven't got kids.



That is incredibly naive.

Posting pictures publicly on the internet is a completely different issue to the public taking of photographs. There are all sorts of reasons why someone wouldn't want pictures of themselves and their children published publicly. All sorts of innocent reasons.


----------



## longdog (Aug 18, 2008)

The cops tried this old bollocks on in Hull with a guy taking pictures of the new St Stephens shopping centre because they could be useful to terrorists.

Of course terrorist would be too dim to find a map of the place on the internet wouldn't they

http://www.ststephens-hull.com/Comgenic.Manager.Images/St%20Stephens%20Spring%20Street%20Guide2.pdf

Police intelligence... An oxymoron if ever there was one.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 18, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Not true in all cases, I think.  The railway press is replete with tales of enthusiasts being hassled by station staff, security guards and sometimes the BTP for taking photographs.  It's certainly got worse in the last few years.  This despite Network Rail's stated position that enthusiasts are useful extra 'eyes and ears' in the 'fight' against terrorism.
> 
> That said, when there's a steam train about - which is the only time you'll find me on the platform with my camera - they do accept that it will attract enthusiasts and they invariably leave them alone.




Yeah, the Railway press and every other ham publication short of news.


Nothing has changed legally for fucking years. It's just that everyone and everybody is a photographer these days and the police have been given something new to do. Your rights are exactly the same as they were 20 years ago.


----------



## Firky (Aug 18, 2008)

And another thing right, the fucking police are the worst for taking photos and filming people with out permission. You go to a demo and you always see some fucker with no numbers on and a big fuck off camera in your face.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 18, 2008)

Enid Laundromat said:


> It's not really the same thing, but on R4 tonight there was a piece about an internet paedophile site who posted up normal, innocent pictures of kids for its members to wank over (sorry ), so apparently it goes on. Maybe that's what your friend was worried about?



As vile as that thought is, it doesn't actually harm the child. 

*awaits 'you're obviously not a mother, but speaking as one' post.*


----------



## longdog (Aug 18, 2008)

Anyone who takes a camera out with them should print this out and quote it if necessary.



> The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) is unequivocal on the matter: 'Police officers may not prevent someone from taking a photograph in public unless they suspect criminal or terrorist intent,' they say in a statement. 'Their powers are strictly regulated by law and once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.'


----------



## Firky (Aug 18, 2008)

longdog said:


> Anyone who takes a camera out with them should print this out and quote it if necessary.



Am gonna print that out and put it in me bag, cheers doggy - got an URL to go with it?


----------



## longdog (Aug 18, 2008)

firky said:


> Am gonna print that out and put it in me bag, cheers doggy - got an URL to go with it?



Page three of the article in the OP

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/08/17/sv_photographers.xml&page=3


----------



## Pip (Aug 18, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> That is incredibly naive.
> 
> Posting pictures publicly on the internet is a completely different issue to the public taking of photographs. There are all sorts of reasons why someone wouldn't want pictures of themselves and their children published publicly. All sorts of innocent reasons.



Such as?


----------



## Firky (Aug 18, 2008)

longdog said:


> Page three of the article in the OP
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/08/17/sv_photographers.xml&page=3



Cheers, you can fuck off now again, shit breath


----------



## longdog (Aug 18, 2008)

Enid Laundromat said:


> Such as?



Paedophiles will claw their way through the screen and molest them.

I've seen it happen.


----------



## longdog (Aug 18, 2008)

firky said:


> Cheers, you can fuck off now again, shit breath



Fuck you cuntybollocks 

Poof!


----------



## longdog (Aug 19, 2008)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Paedos can take a picture of a child and then use the internet to find that childs PC and make fumes come out of the keyboard that makes the child susceptible to the evil pervs advances.
> 
> FACT.



There's no scientific proof but it is a fact


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 19, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Yeah, the Railway press and every other ham publication short of news.
> 
> Nothing has changed legally for fucking years. It's just that everyone and everybody is a photographer these days and the police have been given something new to do. Your rights are exactly the same as they were 20 years ago.



That isn't the point though, is it?  It's not a matter of whether your rights have changed, but whether you're likely to get more hassle whilst going about your lawful business than you used to.  And in the case of the railways, you almost certainly are.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2008)

Dan U said:


> Then he follows them/calls a uniformed team to stop them etc.


I'd be very surprised if he told he he does that for more than about 5%* of those he initially sees taking photos ...

(ETA:  * - dependant on the subject - a lot higher for non-touristy things like electricity sub-stations!)


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2008)

888 said:


> That makes a lot more sense than actually trying to prevent "terrorists" or whoever from taking photographs of their targets, which is completely futile.


There is no actual attempt to prevent people taking photographs - that is a conclusion drawn by people seeing a number of photographers stopped / spoken to / having thier photos checked, as if it is some actual prohibition.

It isn't.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 19, 2008)

I remember seeing the Met give a kicking to some guy who photographed them giving some other people a kicking during a demonstration the night the Iraq war began - must have been some sensitive government building or child's playground in the background somewhere.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2008)

longdog said:


> Of course terrorist would be too dim to find a map of the place on the internet wouldn't they


Because a map is _exactly_ the same as photographs, isn't it?

And a particular photograph is exactly the same as any other photograph taken from another position, or at another time ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2008)

firky said:


> You go to a demo and you always see some fucker with no numbers on and a big fuck off camera in your face.


Camera operators are frequently civilian police _staff_ ... so the absence of numbers may be nothing untoward (as they don't have any).


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 19, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> I remember seeing the Met give a kicking to some guy who photographed them giving some other people a kicking during a demonstration the night the Iraq war began - must have been some sensitive government building or child's playground in the background somewhere.



But did they give him a reciept for his kicking afterwards?

During the anti-war demos I always took close up shots of the cops with cameras and told them I was putting them on the internet. They didn't like it.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 19, 2008)

XR75 said:


> On the other hand there's no need to have people running around making photographs which could help terrorists or annoy ordinary people going about their business. A license or a register of photographers and their whereabouts would help bring some accountability where it's needed and verify them when buying specialist equipment or being questioned by the police.



Wind-up, right? 

The police better remove all those postcards of London, sharpish.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Camera operators are frequently civilian police _staff_ ... so the absence of numbers may be nothing untoward (as they don't have any).



At the G8 Gleneagles demo there were lots of police with no numbers stood around. Curiously none would answer the question as to why this was so.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Camera operators are frequently civilian police _staff_ ... so the absence of numbers may be nothing untoward (as they don't have any).



Both times I've had a severe kicking from the police (one of which was for simply asking why there were arresting my mate after he had been taking photos of them), none of them had numbers visable.

And if you tell me fully kitted up riot squads are civilian staff, well, I'm fairly sure you can guess my reaction 

Coppers hiding their numbers on demos is so regularly seen I can only conclude it's official policy, for reasons that are obvious.


----------



## Calibre (Aug 19, 2008)

I can't believe I've never been picked up by the police for taking photos considering some of the stuff I've done, sometimes in plain view of a policeman


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> That isn't the point though, is it?  It's not a matter of whether your rights have changed, but whether you're likely to get more hassle whilst going about your lawful business than you used to.  And in the case of the railways, you almost certainly are.



The fact that we are a country at war will always have some effect on your day to day freedoms. I appreciate that few people accept war as anything other than a TV screen phenomenon these days, but that doesn't make any potential retaliation less real.

I also realise that new anti-terror legislation (and old laws) can be abused and that many jobs worths will make the most of any chance to enforce their own bit of 'power'.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2008)

Enid Laundromat said:


> Such as?



Just one purely hypothetical example...

Say a family have been re-homed in a new location after receiving death threats during a court case. They even have new identities and have told no-one about their history.

Extreme example, but still a valid one. There are plenty of other good reasons.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 19, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> The fact that we are a country at war will always have some effect on your day to day freedoms. I appreciate that few people accept war as anything other than a TV screen phenomenon these days, but that doesn't make any potential retaliation less real.
> 
> I also realise that new anti-terror legislation (and old laws) can be abused and that many jobs worths will make the most of any chance to enforce their own bit of 'power'.



We're not 'at war,' unless you're stupid enough the rhetoric surrounding TWAT.

But even if we were, the point I was making was that it's irrelevant that your legal right to take pictures hasn't changed, when there is so much more willingness about on the part of the police and various other assorted jobsworths to hassle you for doing so.  You don't appear to disagree...?


----------



## Dan U (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> I'd be very surprised if he told he he does that for more than about 5%* of those he initially sees taking photos ...
> 
> (ETA:  * - dependant on the subject - a lot higher for non-touristy things like electricity sub-stations!)



yeah i don't think it happens a lot, but it does happen.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2008)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Coppers hiding their numbers on demos is so regularly seen I can only conclude it's official policy, for reasons that are obvious.


It is anything but.  Which is why vehicles, helmets and God knows what else are now marked with identification numbers, why they have sewn in numbers, etc.

If you see officers without numbers, go and find a senior officer (usually have orange or other coloured epaulettes on public order overalls), away from the current trouble, and make an official complaint.  Repeat that formally later, including details of the senior officer and any action they took / didn't take.  Accompany it with photographs.

I have to say that these allegations that officers routinely have no numbers do not accord _at all_ with my recollection of disorder situations when I was serving and I cannot think that they have fallen back.  There certainly _were_ widespread instances from the 80s, but not more recently.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 19, 2008)

If I were going to do a lot of photography in London I would probably get a photo ID Card made up for me listing me and my local camera club. It might help to calm things down to produce some identification like that.


----------



## Chuff (Aug 19, 2008)

I voted for more laws, anyone taking a photo of me should have written permission beforehand, this espically refers to traffic and close circuit cameras.

Luckily nowdays you can video a kicking and upload it straight to the internet perventing the old shit kick and camera steal bollocks.


----------



## longdog (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Because a map is _exactly_ the same as photographs, isn't it?
> 
> And a particular photograph is exactly the same as any other photograph taken from another position, or at another time ...



Way to totally miss the point


----------



## longdog (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> It is anything but.  Which is why vehicles, helmets and God knows what else are now marked with identification numbers, why they have sewn in numbers, etc.
> 
> If you see officers without numbers, go and find a senior officer (usually have orange or other coloured epaulettes on public order overalls), away from the current trouble, and make an official complaint.  Repeat that formally later, including details of the senior officer and any action they took / didn't take.  Accompany it with photographs.
> 
> I have to say that these allegations that officers routinely have no numbers do not accord _at all_ with my recollection of disorder situations when I was serving and I cannot think that they have fallen back.  There certainly _were_ widespread instances from the 80s, but not more recently.



Can I come and live in your world?

The police there sound so nice


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> It is anything but.  Which is why vehicles, helmets and God knows what else are now marked with identification numbers, why they have sewn in numbers, etc.
> 
> If you see officers without numbers, go and find a senior officer (usually have orange or other coloured epaulettes on public order overalls), away from the current trouble, and make an official complaint.  Repeat that formally later, including details of the senior officer and any action they took / didn't take.  Accompany it with photographs.
> 
> I have to say that these allegations that officers routinely have no numbers do not accord _at all_ with my recollection of disorder situations when I was serving and I cannot think that they have fallen back.  There certainly _were_ widespread instances from the 80s, but not more recently.


The last person i saw who tried this, a marked legal observer (can't remember the action but it was within the last 5 years or so) was threatened with arrest, pushed violently back towards the police lines and disappeared into the morass. Cops remove their numbers every time it gets tasty, i don't know why you try and pretend that it's not the case.


----------



## longdog (Aug 19, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Cops remove their numbers every time it gets tasty, i don't know why you try and pretend that it's not the case.



Because in his world the police are always doing what they are supposed to be doing and civilians are always doing what they shouldn't


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 19, 2008)

longdog said:


> Because in his world the police are always doing what they are supposed to be doing and civilians are always doing what they shouldn't









Bart: Take him away, boys. 
Chief Wiggum: Hey, I'm the Police Chief here. Bake him away, toys. 
Lou: What was that, chief?
Chief Wiggum: Do what the kid says.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 19, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> The fact that we are a country at war will always have some effect on your day to day freedoms. I appreciate that few people accept war as anything other than a TV screen phenomenon these days, but that doesn't make any potential retaliation less real.
> 
> I also realise that new anti-terror legislation (and old laws) can be abused and that many jobs worths will make the most of any chance to enforce their own bit of 'power'.



Who the fuck are we at war with?


----------



## bluestreak (Aug 19, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> The last person i saw who tried this, a marked legal observer (can't remember the action but it was within the last 5 years or so) was threatened with arrest, pushed violently back towards the police lines and disappeared into the morass. Cops remove their numbers every time it gets tasty, i don't know why you try and pretend that it's not the case.


 
Yeah, I'd expect anyone pulling that sort of shit to be the first in the back of the van.  IIRC protestors asking comlpicated questions to cops comes under "threatening behaviour"


----------



## Pip (Aug 19, 2008)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Just one purely hypothetical example...
> 
> Say a family have been re-homed in a new location after receiving death threats during a court case. They even have new identities and have told no-one about their history.
> 
> Extreme example, but still a valid one. There are plenty of other good reasons.



Don't make me laugh!
Any less extreme examples?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> If you see officers without numbers, go and find a senior officer (usually have orange or other coloured epaulettes on public order overalls), away from the current trouble, and make an official complaint.  Repeat that formally later, including details of the senior officer and any action they took / didn't take.  Accompany it with photographs



Do you have any idea what would actually happen if you tried this?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Unfortunately sometimes (and I would very strongly suspect it is a tiny minority of times) officers overreact and we get stories like this.  In the vast majority of cases sensible officers either watch for a while and dispel their suspicions without even approaching the people concerned or, at worst, go and have a brief chat and resolve things without any need to take things any further, seize cameras or whatever.



it's not a minority of times it's becoming alarming frequent particularlly since the wooden top community officers have got a bee in their bonnet... 

going over and harrassing a member of the public doing nothing illegal is still intimidation by police and is still an over reaction to the situation...

what photographs did they recover from the tube bombers which would allow them to make any form of assesment of their intended target?

Or the WTC?  or Madrid?  Bali?  etc  etc etc...

repeating the lies doens't make them more vaild... 

thus far no photographs have been recoved of any of the 'new wave of terror' attacks...


----------



## Firky (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> It is anything but.  Which is why vehicles, helmets and God knows what else are now marked with identification numbers, why they have sewn in numbers, etc.
> 
> If you see officers without numbers, go and find a senior officer (usually have orange or other coloured epaulettes on public order overalls), away from the current trouble, and make an official complaint.  Repeat that formally later, including details of the senior officer and any action they took / didn't take.  Accompany it with photographs.
> 
> I have to say that these allegations that officers routinely have no numbers do not accord _at all_ with my recollection of disorder situations when I was serving and I cannot think that they have fallen back.  There certainly _were_ widespread instances from the 80s, but not more recently.



Yeah right, like they're going to let me anywhere near a senior officer to make a complaint in the first place


----------



## fela fan (Aug 19, 2008)

Stories like this just paint a picture of an increasingly paranoid nation.

There are over five million state cameras photographing the public, yet the public cannot be sure of wrongful harrassment by agents of the state making up bullshit and then stealing film.

What a sad indictment of a once-free nation.

Mind you i could be wrong, many britons seem to think this added security is better than freedom.

Oh well.

State: we will photograph you, and we will regulate your freedom to photograph anything. We can accuse you of children photography or terrorist-planning photography and on that basis we're gonna stick our fucking faces right up into your life.

Paranoid.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 19, 2008)

weltweit said:


> If I were going to do a lot of photography in London I would probably get a photo ID Card made up for me listing me and my local camera club. It might help to calm things down to produce some identification like that.



There must be millions of camera-touting tourists in london. 

It's feeling the need to do stuff like this that seriously attacks basic freedoms to live one's life free from interference by the paranoid state.


----------



## fogbat (Aug 19, 2008)

fela fan said:


> Stories like this just paint a picture of an increasingly paranoid nation.
> 
> There are over five million state cameras photographing the public, yet the public cannot be sure of wrongful harrassment by agents of the state making up bullshit and then stealing film.
> 
> ...



Moving to Thailand's the only option


----------



## fela fan (Aug 19, 2008)

fogbat said:


> Moving to Thailand's the only option



Well, it was a different, freer country in britain when i did do the move: coming on for 20 years ago now.

I know i'm not living there, but in my estimation somewhere a bad turning was taken. That turning was trading freedom for the illusion of security. And this a country that dealt with the NI terrorism problem stoutly for ages.

Now it's just plain paranoid.

Thailand'll get there one year, unless capitalism takes a turning itself. I just hope it's not in the foreseeable future.


----------



## fela fan (Aug 19, 2008)

fogbat said:


> Moving to Thailand's the only option



If you knock out the words 'to thailand', you're probably about right though!

Mental madness it's becoming.


----------



## soam (Aug 19, 2008)

Pretty sure that this has been posted here before but its well worth printing out and having with you when snapping...

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

There is a vid on you tube that shows the two PCSO's on Oxford street harrassing a guy who is filming and then backpeddling as they realsie that he clearly knows the law a lot better then them


----------



## longdog (Aug 19, 2008)

Poor little cop being caused alarm, harassment and distress because he's being filmed.


Awwww..... Dudums 

What a fucking wanker


----------



## Gromit (Aug 19, 2008)

> he had been taking pictures of 'sensitive buildings'.


 
Building One: Oh no, he's taking a photo, but my bum looks so big todays please stop him.

Building Two: I'm not going over to stop him. I haven't got any make up on.


(((Sensitive Buildings)))


----------



## longdog (Aug 19, 2008)

GCHQ Cheltenham

About as sensitive a building as it's possible to get .

London Tube map of potential use to terrorists. 

Damn you internetz for all of your help to terrorists. Damn you to hell

<starts campaign to have internet banned for the safety of the publlic>


<burns hard-drive>


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2008)

soam said:


> Pretty sure that this has been posted here before but its well worth printing out and having with you when snapping...
> 
> http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php


Loads more info - and links to current stories - here:
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html


----------



## Gromit (Aug 19, 2008)

Go to a Spurs home match where the Met think that there might be trouble and you will see numbers taped up plenty. 

One of which harressed the fuck out of my asthmatic mate cuase he was having trouble breathing and trouble with his bad leg. To the extent of pushing him to the ground repeatbly for nothing.

Both times Cardiff played there loads of coppers hid their numbers. Cardiff fans are well known for filming police indiscrections for use as evidence in court and they know it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Edit:  Removes sensible answer as it is apparent you are intent on trolling with longdog and it is a waste of time.



DB - saying that cops regularly remove their numbers on demos isn't "trolling", it's stating the truth.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2008)

Marius said:


> Both times Cardiff played there loads of coppers hid their numbers. Cardiff fans are well known for filming police indiscrections for use as evidence in court and they know it.


I've seen that happen more than once at City games, and I've also had officers refuse to give me their number when asked.

Sorry, D-B, but these are the facts.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2008)

Note: there is a related discussion about building photography here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=268907

(some off topic posts have been removed from this thread)


----------



## winjer (Dec 3, 2008)

The police are going to get new guidelines about section 44 (& 43) searches under the Terrorism Act, including a section on dealing with photographers.

Part of which is this:



> If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or an arrest should be considered. Film and memory cards may be seized as part of the search, but officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film. Although images may be viewed as part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized, officers should not normally attempt to examine them.  Cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic examination.  The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the device on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or damaged.


which has caused some concern because it doesn't mention the 'special procedures' which apply to journalistic material under PACE, but as far as I can see these actually only apply to search warrants, not stop-and-search. Anybody interpret this differently?

Worth noting that journalists mostly didn't want these special privileges in the first place anyway.


----------



## editor (Dec 3, 2008)

Fucking hell. That wording is terrifyingly open to abuse.


----------



## winjer (Dec 3, 2008)

It's a lot worse without the underlying guidance on s43, which it's easy to forget is a search for "evidence of liability to arrest under Section 41", which means that it should only be used when "based on reasonable suspicion that the person is a terrorist, the purpose of the search is to discover evidence that the person is a terrorist"

We'll see.


----------



## leftistangel (Dec 22, 2008)

Took some photo's at a works christmas party hosted at a local pub, and one of my colleagues - who was drunk at the time, got quite annoyed with me when I later printed some off, saying I broke the law as I didnt have her consent. Is there any truth to that?


----------



## cybertect (Dec 22, 2008)

Not unless you were using the prints for the purposes of commercial advertising, for the purpose of sexual arousal (invasion of privacy if they were 'upskirt/downblouse' shots or of a minor - unlikely in a pub) or in planning an act of terrorism.

Outside chance of a harassment case, if it's part of a repeated behaviour, or Breach of the Peace if you're in Scotland.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 22, 2008)

leftistangel said:


> Took some photo's at a works christmas party hosted at a local pub, and one of my colleagues - who was drunk at the time, got quite annoyed with me when I later printed some off, saying I broke the law as I didnt have her consent. Is there any truth to that?



no, basically


----------



## editor (Feb 13, 2009)

Latest development: 


> Taking photographs of police officers could be deemed a criminal offence under anti-terrorism legislation that comes into force next week. Campaigners against section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which becomes law on Monday, said it would leave professional photographers open to fines and arrest.
> 
> The National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers' Association said the law would extend powers that are already being used to harass photographers and would threaten press freedom. Hundreds are due to converge on Scotland Yard on Monday in a mass picture-taking event organised by the NUJ.
> 
> ...


Protest on 16th Feb: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=279735

Discuss the issues here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=278280


----------



## laptop (Feb 13, 2009)

winjer said:


> Worth noting that journalists mostly didn't want these special privileges in the first place anyway.



I thank, belatedly, m'learned friend for drawing my attention to that very wonderful speech.


----------



## derf (Feb 13, 2009)

This is getting fucking silly.
It sounds more like a police state every time I read the next bit of the thread.

I may be visiting the UK next summer and I dispair what my wife will think of the place.
Sorrry sayang, can't take a photo of downing street/Westminster/a dog in the street in case they think your a terrorist.
No, not in a park. If there are kids about some daft cunt is sure to suggest you are trying to shag them.
What, photograph a london bobby? Fuck me no. It's a 48 grilling and deportation for that one.

Why do you put up with that shit over there?


----------



## mhendo (Feb 17, 2009)

Sorry, i know this is meant to be a thread about the UK, but i thought you might be interested in this infuriating-yet-somehow-amusing story from the US.

Short version:

A guy was detained then arrested by Amtrak Police for taking photos on a public platform in New York City's Penn Station.

The funny bit: he was there to take pictures to enter in an Amtrak "Picture Our Train" photography competition.

Story and video here


----------



## stowpirate (Feb 17, 2009)

Even an old MI5 head wants some form of sanity to return.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7893890.stm


----------



## winjer (Feb 18, 2009)

laptop said:


> I thank, belatedly, m'learned friend for drawing my attention to that very wonderful speech.


Cheers. I'm finding the online access to old Hansard very enlightening, especially that the same debates happen again and again, and always the police are congratulated with more powers, even when everybody admits they were in the wrong. Deja vu:

"LORD KILBRACKEN: Finally, as the police advanced on the demonstrators, I myself saw a television crew who attempted to shoot the sequence. Immediately a constable approached and, in my hearing, said that they had already been warned, and if they attempted to shoot a foot of film they would be arrested. This was a crew from Independent Television."

"LORD KILBRACKEN: I had to keep moving, and it was very noticeable that a number of people, who were seen writing down numbers of constables, were immediately arrested for that reason. I did not want that to happen, and that is why I did not succeed."

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1961/oct/19/police-action-at-trafalgar-square
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1961/oct/17/demonstration-trafalgar-square-police
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1962/jul/24/trafalgar-square-meeting

And on the currently much talked about subject of eliciting information of use to _the enemy_:

"EARL RUSSELL: Personally I have little doubt that almost everything could be made an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act. To stand and look at a view if that view were a fortification would be an offence under the Act. [...] These large powers have been entrusted to His Majesty's Government with universal consent. We are all perfectly willing to submit to dictatorship and tyranny for the purpose of the prosecution of the war, but that is no reason why we should not keep an eye upon the particular powers exercised and question whether they are being exercised reasonably and intelligently. [...] While everybody is willing that autocratic powers to an unlimited extent should be exercised where necessary, we all want them to be exercised reasonably; and we should not make ourselves ridiculous by putting them in force in an unreasonable way against persons who are doing something which is perfectly harmless."

"LORD LUCAS: A man may represent himself as a reporter, and say that he is coming to collect information for the newspaper which he represents. But if it is of importance that information on the particular subject should not-get to the ears of the enemy, far the best and most effective way is to prevent the information being collected, and for that purpose the words "attempting to elicit any information" have been specially put into the Regulations. When it comes to dealing with information of this kind, by far the safest way is to take steps that people shall be deterred from coming round and attempting to get it."

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1915/may/04/military-prosecutions-of-journalists


----------



## derf (Feb 18, 2009)

mhendo said:


> A guy was detained then arrested by Amtrak Police for taking photos on a public platform in New York City's Penn Station.
> 
> The funny bit: he was there to take pictures to enter in an Amtrak "Picture Our Train" photography competition.



Did he get any pictures of the egg on their faces?
I'll bet the cops got a right bollocking over that one.

Back to thread. how is it that the UK government can get away with a law so open to be used however the police (or an individual cop) feels at the time?

Wording like that could easily allow a cop caught with his trousers down the right to arrest the press photographer and keep him locked up while the evidence is accidentally lost.

Sorry UK government, but you really are acting like some right wing police state.


----------



## winjer (Feb 18, 2009)

derf said:


> Back to thread. how is it that the UK government can get away with a law so open to be used however the police (or an individual cop) feels at the time?


They got away with it in Northern Ireland for 86 years.

(possibly with some gaps)


----------



## editor (Feb 18, 2009)

winjer said:


> Cheers. I'm finding the online access to old Hansard very enlightening, especially that the same debates happen again and again, and always the police are congratulated with more powers, even when everybody admits they were in the wrong.


On an unrelated note, it remains the source of some pride that urban75 made it into that esteemed journal:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/deleg1/st051031/51031s01.htm


----------



## winjer (Feb 18, 2009)

There should be a "disconcertingly well-informed" badge.


----------



## pogofish (Mar 31, 2009)

Seems it is now "illegal" to take photos on public access land at Donald Trump's estate/proposed development at Menie in Scotland now?



> Neil Hobday, the Menie project director, said: "To find Debra Storr snooping around, illegally taking photos and looking at the locks was simply beyond belief and it way exceeds her authority as a councillor."



Councillor 'intimidated' as she took photos at Trump site - Scotsman.com News


----------



## dylanredefined (Mar 31, 2009)

Errol's son said:


> In the UK, are we allowed to take photos of military places, Scotland Yard, MI6, airports etc or are some places (or parts of them) restricted?



  Depends if you cant take photos normally have a notice up saying you cant because of the official secrets act .Or someone will come and tell you you cant .And if its particulary secret can detain you ,but,probably have to trespass to find something that secret .


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2009)

It was discussed in Parliament on Wednesday:





> *1 Apr 2009 : Column 262WH*
> *Photography (Public Places)*
> 
> *11 am*
> ...


----------



## editor (Apr 3, 2009)

Here's an important part:


> *The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Shahid Malik):*
> 
> The second issue concerns the new offence in section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. It makes it an offence to elicit, attempt to elicit, publish or communicate information about an individual who is or has been a constable, or a member of the armed forces or intelligences services. The information must be of a kind that is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing acts of terrorism.  It has been suggested that the new offence could criminalise people taking or publishing photographs of police officers. A photograph of a police officer may fall within the scope of the offence, but would do so in only limited circumstances. The offence is designed to capture terrorist activity directed at members of the protected groups, which, sadly, we know occurs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dreadwear (Apr 5, 2009)

editor said:


> If you're standing on a public highway, sure. The law is basically, "you can photographs whatever the fuck you like so long as you're not on someone else's private property."



Finsbury Avenue in EC2M is apparently a private estate and no-one is allowed to take photos of the buildings there. You can walk through it and sit in it and be in it, but you can't take photos.

I was moved on yesterday by a security guard and when I asked why am I not allowed to take photos he simply said "terrorism".  I don't quite get it, but I didn't want my camera confiscated so I slowly backed away from him, hoping he wouldn't suddenly become a feral zombie or something and went elsewhere to take photos!

Which is a shame because there are some seriously amazing shots to be taken there!


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2009)

Dreadwear said:


> Finsbury Avenue in EC2M is apparently a private estate and no-one is allowed to take photos of the buildings there. You can walk through it and sit in it and be in it, but you can't take photos.
> 
> I was moved on yesterday by a security guard and when I asked why am I not allowed to take photos he simply said "terrorism".


_*If*_ it a private square then you have no right to take photos, but that guard's excuse was full of shit.


----------



## derf (Apr 5, 2009)

editor said:


> _*If*_ it a private square then you have no right to take photos, but that guard's excuse was full of shit.



I've been keeping half an eye on this thread because the issues raised here are saying a lot about the paranoid state of the UK t the moment.

I do believe that your attitude is the correct one on this issue. 

How about the poster's fear of confiscation of his camera by a security guard. Surly regardless of where he was at the time that would be theft.


----------



## Dreadwear (Apr 5, 2009)

editor said:


> _*If*_ it a private square then you have no right to take photos, but that guard's excuse was full of shit.



There was nothing at all anywhere that says it is a private square so I don't know. 

This same thing happened to me a few weeks ago down Marylebone Road too. Euston Towers. There are some lovely buildings there and I was taking some abstracky type shots when two guards came up and told me I couldn't take photos. Their reasoning was that receptionists didn't want to be photographed. I told them I was only taking photos of the buildings, of the architecture. They ummed and ahhed and said that cos I didn't have a tripod then it was ok!

But I feel uncomfortable now about going there. I just don;t get it, personally. The buildings are beautiful so why can't people take photos of them!


----------



## teuchter (Apr 5, 2009)

Reading this thread, I can't help but to think about the various religious/tribal persuasions which have superstitious beliefs about photography ... the taking of pictures stealing your soul and all that.
The whole thing seems so ridiculous. If I were a terrorist there are are a multitude of (easy) ways that I could take photos covertly. The whole thing about trying to stop people taking photos makes me a little angry not just because of the principle, but because it seems so fundamentally dim-witted.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 5, 2009)

Half the time it's a case of 'clipboard, big bunch of keys, reflective jacket and a radio' syndrome.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2009)

Dreadwear said:


> There was nothing at all anywhere that says it is a private square so I don't know.
> 
> This same thing happened to me a few weeks ago down Marylebone Road too. Euston Towers. There are some lovely buildings there and I was taking some abstracky type shots when two guards came up and told me I couldn't take photos. Their reasoning was that receptionists didn't want to be photographed. I told them I was only taking photos of the buildings, of the architecture. They ummed and ahhed and said that cos I didn't have a tripod then it was ok!
> 
> But I feel uncomfortable now about going there. I just don;t get it, personally. The buildings are beautiful so why can't people take photos of them!


You should make notes from the article on this site. If you are on a public thoroughfare, then the guards have no right to stop you taking pictures. If they argue the toss about where their private land extends to, just step to the edge of the pavement and snap away.


----------



## Woollyredhat (Apr 16, 2009)

As a matter of interest in relation to the OP, how on earth would the flying squad get underground?


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 17, 2009)

Interesting story about Police forcing tourist to delete photos of London bus... 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-caught-taking-picture-iconic-London-bus.html

Has Google Street view any photos of London buses or rail or bus stations


----------



## Dreadwear (Apr 20, 2009)

_'I have already written to Sir Paul... and made the point that if it was not for people taking photos, we would not know about the death of Ian Tomlinson or the woman hit by a police officer,' she added_

No wonder the police don't want people to take photos. There might be photo evidence against them!


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 20, 2009)

Dreadwear said:


> _'I have already written to Sir Paul... and made the point that if it was not for people taking photos, we would not know about the death of Ian Tomlinson or the woman hit by a police officer,' she added_
> 
> No wonder the police don't want people to take photos. There might be photo evidence against them!



Next step in anti-terrorism paranoia will be to make photos of the Police unprintable by extending the official secrets act. DDR type socialism is just over the horizon


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 24, 2009)

More cop-invented restrictions:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/P...-hes-not-allowed-to-photograph-children-11475

Guy took some photos of kids damaging local woodland and was visited by a police officer who told him people aren't allowed to photograph children without the parents' permission. Police officer then asked to see his camera and computer, to which he said no. Officer said a specialist officer would be coming around to take the matter further, but no one did. Bloke now afraid to take his camera anywhere.


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2009)

Vintage Paw said:


> More cop-invented restrictions:
> 
> http://www.ephotozine.com/article/P...-hes-not-allowed-to-photograph-children-11475





> Mr Massey, who was so shocked by the situation forgot to ask for the officers' badge numbers or name *proceeded to show the police officer one of the many articles which highlights the fact that taking photographs of children is not illegal *before she went on to ask if she could look at his camera and computer.


Be nice if that was from this site!


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 27, 2009)

Another example of heavy handed policing

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-architectural-photographer-as-terrorist


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 27, 2009)

Paul Russell said:


> Another example of heavy handed policing
> 
> http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-architectural-photographer-as-terrorist



Sounds to me like a bunch school bully's?  Maybe even totalitarianism attitudes taking hold in the management structure.  Some of the Police comments would suggest our freedoms are now seen as a major problem.


----------



## Paul Russell (Apr 27, 2009)

Vintage Paw said:


> Guy took some photos of kids damaging local woodland and was visited by a police officer who told him people aren't allowed to photograph children without the parents' permission. Police officer then asked to see his camera and computer, to which he said no. Officer said a specialist officer would be coming around to take the matter further, but no one did. Bloke now afraid to take his camera anywhere.



Just read that story. Amazing...


----------



## MarbleMad (May 4, 2009)

Hi, I'm a newbie to the forum. I've just had my first brush with the law relating to photography and whilst boning up on my rights I found you lot and thought I'd share....

I've had run ins with security guards (who hasn't) i'm fortunate i suppose that I've always found the real police to be relatively reasonable but .. the neighbours?

So the unsupervised mob of kids from next door have been out every night, 'till late, kicking the ball into the dividing fence between our front gardens. Does it bother me they've knocked the fence to bits, well no, not really. It's their fence. Does it bother me that they're in my garden to fetch the ball every 5 minutes, actually no. Not the kind of thing that bothers me. Does it bother me that they just called the police because I was taking photographs of THE SKY from MY OWN HOUSE! well yeh. I'm a bit hacked off about that.

I'm no great shakes as a photographer but I enjoy making and using unusual bits of kit (see my home made stereoscopic rig). So about a week ago I built a controller to allow me to take time laps movies (in 3d if i chose). It's sat untested all week as I've been busy during the day and in the evening I was scared to set it up for fear of the delicate kit being smashed to pieces by a stray football. Sunday evening we appeared to have a kid free garden so at about 8pm I set the system up, INSIDE my house, pointing out the front door at the moon and clouds. About 5 minutes in the kids appeared but I thought 'sod it' and let it run. I let it run for about 40 minutes taking a shot every 10 seconds and it worked quite nicely. At about 9.30 I'd retrieved the images and rendered them into a nice little movie file when I got "the knock"

The 2 coppers (who were quite understanding really) informed me the kids next door had reported to their parents that I had a video camera set up pointing at them. The officer knew all about the football and I think he first assumed I was trying to film the kids acting as a nuisance. He began explaining if I had cctv set up it must only point at my property. I was sitting right next to the laptop so I just said 'let me show you precisely what I was doing' and I ran him the movie. They accepted my motives were perfectly innocent right away although I was a wee bit annoyed that they suggested I should maybe consider what others would think and perhaps I should use the back garden... I just pointed out that the moon was only visible from the front. I should have also mentioned that the kids also play in the back garden. I mean.. I've been hassled for taking photographs on private property. Many have had problems taking photographs in public property.. but.. taking photographs in my OWN HOUSE! On my own property?? Man. I know how the smokers feel now. So new rules, you can only take photographs in your own bed under the covers! (that'd be grim viewing). After the police left I had a laugh to myself as we were discussing the photographer = terrorist phenomenon and lying on the table between me and the 2 policemen were a soldering iron, 6 9volt batteries and a pile of wires and electronics (the kit I used to make the camera controller).

Anyway the police were ok. But my bloody neighbours. I never give them ANY trouble but you know what this is about? Those kids new they shouldn't be kicking that ball into the garden (even though, as i said, i couldn't really care less) so the parents have assumed I have been annoyed and am collecting 'evidence' against them but rather that:
A: tell the kids to stop playing football in the front garden
or
B: Coming and talking to me to ask if it's a problem or to say 'sorry'.
Either of which cases would have resulted in me saying
'I don't mind. Just try and remember to shut the gate when you retrieve the ball'
Instead of that they think 'I Know' let's pre-empt his complaint and sick the police on him with innuendo of paedophilia.

This is the result of the daemonization  of photographers by police, press and government. we're losing the public and people now think it's open season on photographers.

What REALLY annoys me is the idiotic way they pick on people with BIG cameras. I'm reasonably clued up on electronics. If I wanted to spy on my neighbours I could install half a dozen cctv cameras they'd never ever see. But no. My camera looks like something a mad bomber would have in a CARTOON!. Does it not occur to people that the folks who are actually up to no good probably look just like them and take their nefarious shots on camera-phones.. oh it's become a bit of a rant, hasn't it? 
Sorry and Hello!


----------



## mhendo (May 4, 2009)

MarbleMad said:


> Anyway the police were ok.


Actually, i think that the very fact that the police would send someone out for a complaint about someone taking pictures from their own private property suggests that the police are not, in fact, OK.

If someone calls the cops and says "There's a guy with a big camera taking pictures from his front yard," the police response should be "Why the fuck are you telling us this, you dozy, self-righteous busybody?"


----------



## MarbleMad (May 4, 2009)

mhendo said:


> Actually, i think that the very fact that the police would send someone out for a complaint about someone taking pictures from their own private property suggests that the police are not, in fact, OK.
> 
> If someone calls the cops and says "There's a guy with a big camera taking pictures from his front yard," the police response should be "Why the fuck are you telling us this, you dozy, self-righteous busybody?"



wellllll yes and no. If I called the police I'd rather they show up and find out what the situation actually is rather than just try to judge the situation based on the scant information they get over the phone, but YEH, I kind of hope they would tare a strip off the people who complained for wasting their time once they'd ascertained I'd done nothing wrong.. But I do take your point. I guess I just don't know who to be more angry with. I just know I'm angry.


----------



## GoneCoastal (May 11, 2009)

Photography in public places podcast http://www.photolegal.com/index.php/2009/05/09/photolegal-podcast-no-2-photography-in-public-places/ 
The guest was Olivier Laurent from the British Journal of Photography


----------



## pogofish (May 11, 2009)

MarbleMad said:


> He began explaining if I had cctv set up it must only point at my property.



I think he was talking shit here, for several reasons.

Firstly, most domestic CCTV does not come within the scope of current legislation at all.

Secondly, if trained on a public space, or anywhere with a reasonabe assumption of public access, there would be no bar to any form of photography at all.  

Anyone with a complaint would have to make a reasonable case for (say) the harrassment regs or some other legislation to apply.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 11, 2009)

Welcome aboard MarbleMad.  Stick around and post up some pictures when you have time.  Some of the Moon series would be good.  This is the first time I have heard of anyone being questioned by the police about taking photographs from inside their own home.  I wonder how quickly they would have responded if it was yourself calling them and you reported a burglary.


----------



## Paul Russell (May 13, 2009)

Interesting one here:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968

"A Greek photographer has been arrested and sent to court for causing 'public harassment, alarm or distress' after taking and deleting pictures of a young girl in the London underground, BJP can confirm

The photographer, Pericles Antoniou, 53, was on holiday in London with his family when, on 17 April, he was arrested in the London tube by police officers. Antoniou, as he described the event in a letter to the Greek ambassador in London, was on his way to visit the photo exhibition of Russian photographer and painter Rochenko when he started taking pictures of people in the London tube.

‘A lady complained about the fact that I was taking photos of her daughter,’ wrote Antoniou. ‘I apologized immediately, as the ethics and common practice of photographers dictates, I showed the lady the photos I had taken of her daughter, and I erased every photo which contained her.’"

My guess is that the man claiming to be the girl's father trotted out the "taking pictures of people without their consent is illegal" bollocks, the police detained him and then realising there was nothing they could charge him with, came up with this vague harassment type charge.

Edit: the guy's portfolio is here:

http://photocircle.gr/component/option,com_uhp2/task,viewpage/Itemid,68/user_id,65/lang,el/


----------



## winjer (May 13, 2009)

Paul Russell said:


> My guess is that the man claiming to be the girl's father trotted out the "taking pictures of people without their consent is illegal" bollocks, the police detained him and then realising there was nothing they could charge him with, came up with this vague harassment type charge.


It's not a 'vague' charge, and it's very likely to have been the first thing the police had in mind when detaining him. It's very unlikely to succeed at trial though.


----------



## Paul Russell (May 21, 2009)

winjer said:


> it's very likely to have been the first thing the police had in mind when detaining him. It's very unlikely to succeed at trial though.



Well, I don't agree with you on the first part, but you were right about the second.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...f_safety_fears_update_21_May_news_282996.html

I find the fact that this even got to court quite frightening.


----------



## MarbleMad (May 30, 2009)

OK I didn't bother uploading the moon movie that got the cops called on me because it was a bit dull but here are a couple more timelaps movies:


And I had another adventure  Last weekend Glasgow had its second 'subway' festival. Now i know the score when photographing on the railways. Get the station duty officers permission. He'll say no tripod no flash and you're usually OK.
So Sunday morning I try and phone the event organisers to see what the score is with photography. No answer on any number so I head out anyway. Get to the first tube station and ask can I take photographs? standard answer "you need the duty officers permission". OK will that do me for all the stations and trains as it's an arts festival throughout the network and on the trains? "No you need the permission of every station manager".. every one? on the network?? "Yes".
Clearly that's not practical so stuff it I take my chances. Asked the various artists as I travelled around and they were universally happy to be photographed. UNTIL I caught the attention of event organiser woman:
 she's at the vey end if you want to skip to the good bit.
She appeared to be under the impression I needed written permission to take photographs as this is what the press office told her. I'm not press. I'm an amateur photographer. No, not without written permission. Now I know I could be chucked out for not having the station managers permission but she didn't.. still scuppered me filming in that train any further.

I contacted the event organiser afterwords and right enough she was misinformed but still the problem remained that to take a photograph you need ALL the station managers permission.

I'd like to take the matter further. I don't want a scalp or anything but it'd be nice if they could manage a little joined up thinking and work out a way for photography to be allowed next year. 

It's a health and safety issue really. But I don't understand why it extends to no photography without permission. Surely if it's tripods and flashes that bother them then it's tripods and flashes they should ban. not photography. It really is ridiculous that they organise a tourist event like this, manage to circumvent the considerable H&S issues involved in stuffing the subway with performers BUT YET finding a way to allow photography without the idiotic nuisance of getting EVERY station managers permission eludes them. And STILL you run into event manager woman who thinks you need written permission, well you'd think there'd be a way. Oh and obviously the trains were stuffed with people taking photographs on mobiles. It's BIG CAMERA prejudice.


----------



## pogofish (Jun 6, 2009)

Peado-panic in full swing here tonight:



> Mr Greig, who also acts as chairman of Aberdeen Safer Community Partnership, said: “It is extremely worrying to hear about this report of suspicious activity.
> 
> “This is a well used park by many children and family members."



http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/1250980

So when exactly did photography in itself become a "suspicious activity"?  

BTW, Martin Greig is also the cunt who wants to ban beggars, impose compulsory drug testing as a condition of entry to pubs and clubs, has the 4th highest expense claims in the council and is an ardent supporter of yet more fucking Tescos here.  In fact, his only redeeming feature is that he was one of the four council members who broke party ranks and voted to ban a NF rally here a while back.


----------



## editor (Jun 9, 2009)

More idiocy: 





> PhotographyBLOG Editor, Mark Goldstein, was stopped and searched in central London yesterday for “taking photos of iconic landmarks”. Under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, the Metropolitan Police are now conducting patrols along the South Bank of the River Thames, specifically targeting “individuals with cameras who are photographing famous buildings”. After informing the officer that I ran a photography website and giving her my business card, I was issued with Form 5090(X), with no actual search taking place. The whole process was somewhat undermined by two other officers posing for photos with tourists whilst their colleague completed the paperwork! I can only conclude that it was the bright pink Casio camera that I was testing at the time which attracted the police officer’s attention…
> 
> http://www.photographyblog.com/news/pblog_editor_stopped_and_searched/


----------



## MarbleMad (Jun 22, 2009)

photograph them photographing you, get stomped on:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint


----------



## editor (Jun 22, 2009)

MarbleMad said:


> photograph them photographing you, get stomped on:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint


I read that today. It's absolutely outrageous.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2009)

MarbleMad said:


> photograph them photographing you, get stomped on:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint


it's no great secret that the police don't like fitwatchers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2009)

i've taken about 1,000 pictures of the police over the past year, and although a few cops really hate it (mostly members of the fit) i've only been given a little trouble over it. i was at the met police authority meeting just after the g20 where the deputy commissioner said it was fine to film met cops, something i'll remind his underlings of should they prove, er, reticent.

i've also taken pictures of numerous cctv cameras and other security measures over the past five years without let or hindrance - no one's given a fuck.

when i put in an foi request about the government security zone, asking if any activity legal elsewhere was prohibited or subject to restrictions within the zone (the size of and bounds of which they wouldn't tell me, incidentally) i was told there wasn't. so carry on filming...


----------



## winjer (Jul 9, 2009)

> The MPS has published advice for photographers who want to take photographs in the capital.
> 
> The advice covers number of areas and is suitable both for amateur and professional photographers.
> 
> The advice also summarises the guidance which is given to officers regarding photographers.


http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2009)

That's really interesting. I've added it to the Photographers Rights section: 
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html


----------



## pogofish (Jul 9, 2009)

The man mentioned in my post above is now set for trial - He's denying the charges:

http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/1297500


----------



## winjer (Jul 9, 2009)

Meanwhile in Chatham, photographer is briefly arrested for suspicious photography while not providing ID in a built-up area:
http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2009)

That's ridiculous.  I'll add that to my case studies page.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 10, 2009)

winjer said:


> Meanwhile in Chatham, photographer is briefly arrested for suspicious photography while not providing ID in a built-up area:
> http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/





I was just reading that from a link I found elsewhere and spotted editor's reply in the comments. 

In other news, the Met have issued new guidelines about police and photographers. Not that it would make much difference in Chatham...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/09/metropolitan_police_photo/




			
				El Reg said:
			
		

> The Metropolitan Police has issued guidance to its officers to remind them that using a camera in public is not in itself a terrorist offence.
> 
> There has been increasing concern in recent months that police have been over-using terrorism laws and public order legislation to harass professional and amateur photographers. The issue was raised in Parliament and the Home Office agreed to look at the rules.
> 
> ...


----------



## Paul Russell (Jul 13, 2009)

Another day, and another couple of PCSOs with nothing better to do but hassle people with cameras. In Middlesborough, where my Flickr-friend Lawrence also seems to get loads of hassle...

http://bit.ly/Uo4kP


----------



## Paul Russell (Jul 21, 2009)

Guardian making quite a noise over this:

http://tinyurl.com/lhfkks


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2009)

Respect to Gemma Atkinson for pursuing this.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jul 22, 2009)

Interesting... the Harry Potter film actor who's just been sentenced was arrested after he'd photographed police officers. (Apparently when they subsequently looked on his phone they found pictures of his cannabis plants on it and thus investigated further)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8161154.stm


----------



## teecee (Jul 22, 2009)

winjer said:


> Meanwhile in Chatham, photographer is briefly arrested for suspicious photography while not providing ID in a built-up area:
> http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/



Nabbed again

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/22/kent_police/


----------



## cybertect (Jul 22, 2009)

.


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2009)

editor said:


> Respect to Gemma Atkinson for pursuing this.


She was on BBC London TV news this afternoon. It's important that this kind of unacceptable police conduct gets publicised and hopefully the High Court will clarify the issue.


----------



## disco_dave_2000 (Aug 12, 2009)

Something just arrived to me - hopefully of interest - not sure if the 'flash-mob' event needs it's own thread - mods?

..............

I'm a Photographer, Not a Terrorist!

Photographers to "Flash-Mob" Canary Wharf - as new campaign for photographer's rights is launched.

A new campaign for photographers' rights launched this weekend with more than two hundred leading photographers showing their support for the http://PhotographerNotaTerrorist.org/ website by holding up a placard saying "I'm a Photographer, Not a Terrorist!" It will help all photographers to understand and uphold their legal right to take photographs.

The campaign will fight for photographers' rights across the country, opposing police repression and the abuse of anti-terrorism legislation. It will challenge the unreasonable restrictions in pseudo-public spaces such as shopping centres and Canary Wharf.

Anti-Terror Map

The website will map the use across the country of the Terrorism Acts which can impose prison sentences for simply photographing a police officer and whose wide-ranging draconian powers allow police to stop and search anyone even where there is no reasonable suspicion of terrorism at all.

Stop & Search Bust Card

Also featured on the site will be a 'bust card' for photographers that will set out their legal right to take photographs when stopped by police or security staff.

Canary Wharf 'Flash-mob'

The campaign calls for a National Photographers Flash-Mob of Canary Wharf on 12th September 2009 and is calling for photographers across the country to highlight spaces where photography is unreasonably restricted. The flash-mob action will highlight how heavy handed private security guards are restricting individual liberty and press freedom by preventing photographers from pursuing their hobby or their profession.

The London flash-mob will be 3pm at the Clocks, Canary Wharf, London. Other locations to follow.

ENDS

Notes to editors:


Photos of the campaign launch party are available at: http:// PhotographerNotaTerrorist.org/launch-party-photos

Contact 

hello@PhotographerNotaTerrorist.org


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2009)

cheers!


----------



## big eejit (Aug 31, 2009)

The chap who police pursued as a terrorist for taking pics of trains in Wales joins in the debate about what happened to him on this flickr thread:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/photography_is_not_a_crime/discuss/72157622148565272/

And another flickrer who was beaten up by the Greek police finds out that that wasn't what happened at all!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/teacherdudebbq2/3867264455/


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

I was taking the dog for a walk and was using it as an excuse to test an XA camera. I pointed my camera across the street at this uninteresting building and had just turned around to walk up the street. When some idiot came out of the building and started hurling abuse. He threatened physical violence and wanted the camera. I refused to communicate and walked away up the street and down an adjacent path. He followed and gave up probably because I did not want to get involved in a confrontation. I called the Police and was told it would just be my word against his as their was no obvious witnesses apart from the dog.


----------



## winjer (Sep 18, 2009)

*Cops try to seize Motorcycle News camera*



> Cops in an unmarked car dramatically seized an MCN camera after we took their picture in North Wales on Sunday.
> 
> The officers had been waiting in a lay-by on the A5 secretly watching thousands of riders heading to our meeting in Betws-y-Coed, a protest rally over North Wales Police's heavy-handed treatment of law-abiding motorcyclists. A marked patrol car was positioned further along the same route.
> 
> [...] he handed it back after our man persistently asked what powers it had been seized under.



http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/N...eptember/sep1609-video-cops-seize-mcn-camera/


----------



## stowpirate (Sep 18, 2009)

winjer said:


> http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/N...eptember/sep1609-video-cops-seize-mcn-camera/



After listening to that bollocks I must remember when photographing the Police to make sure that the registration number, make of vehicle and their mugshot are very prominent. Then upload them to flickr and tag them with  "terrorism" & "Security Services" - what planet was this police officer on? He hinted that he was part of the Security Services or Fire Arms Officer


----------



## sim667 (Sep 24, 2009)

Took 14 students out yesterday, with a camera per pair....... we made it 10 metres outside the college gate before a police car pulled up and started questioning the only non caucasian student in the entire group......

I had to clear it all up and explain what i was doing there (i may only be 26 but its pretty clear im the frickin tutor, the students even told them that), and i also had to explain exactly what they were taking photos of!


----------



## 19sixtysix (Sep 25, 2009)

winjer said:


> http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/N...eptember/sep1609-video-cops-seize-mcn-camera/



Notice the lack of identification numbers on said constables.


----------



## cybertect (Nov 5, 2009)

"Photography without a permit is not permitted anywhere on the More London estate, including the GLA building"

More London security guard about 30 minutes ago.  

This applies to all the tourists taking pictures of Tower Bridge too, apparently.


----------



## winjer (Nov 5, 2009)

19sixtysix said:


> Notice the lack of identification numbers on said constables.


I think that's part of the cleverly designed uniform, you can't always tell if they have numbers on, let alone read them:
http://www.north-wales.police.uk/nwpv2/_globalimages/uploaded/pcso_pedometer.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_02/policeDM2204_228x400.jpg


----------



## stowpirate (Nov 5, 2009)

cybertect said:


> "Photography without a permit is not permitted anywhere on the More London estate, including the GLA building"
> 
> More London security guard about 30 minutes ago.
> 
> This applies to all the tourists taking pictures of Tower Bridge too, apparently.



Unenforcible bollocks from some jobsworth by the sound of it?


----------



## mhendo (Nov 5, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> Unenforcible bollocks from some jobsworth by the sound of it?


I had no idea what More London was, so i went and looked it up.

If that area of real estate were located in the US, the question of whether photography could be banned would turn on whether the development itself were public or private land. For example, shopping malls are generally considered public in a generic sense, in that they are open to the public for entry and shopping etc., but they are also private land where the owners can set rules about certain types of behavior (no passing out pamphlets, no photography, etc.).

Given that the More London development contains City Hall and an open-air amphitheatre, it certainly seems to be public space, in the full sense of the word—land owned by the public and designed for public use. The Wikipedia entry, however, does refer to a subsection of More London, including the The Scoop, water features and planting areas, as the "public realm." Could this mean that some areas are private an off-limits to photography, while others are public and OK?


----------



## stowpirate (Nov 5, 2009)

mhendo said:


> I had no idea what More London was, so i went and looked it up.
> 
> If that area of real estate were located in the US, the question of whether photography could be banned would turn on whether the development itself were public or private land. For example, shopping malls are generally considered public in a generic sense, in that they are open to the public for entry and shopping etc., but they are also private land where the owners can set rules about certain types of behavior (no passing out pamphlets, no photography, etc.).
> 
> Given that the More London development contains City Hall and an open-air amphitheatre, it certainly seems to be public space, in the full sense of the word—land owned by the public and designed for public use. The Wikipedia entry, however, does refer to a subsection of More London, including the The Scoop, water features and planting areas, as the "public realm." Could this mean that some areas are private an off-limits to photography, while others are public and OK?



It is all complete nonsense as most people have a camera built into their mobile's with some I think touching 12mp. So how do they enforce such rules - stop and search and confiscate. Also Tower Bridge is a tourist icon so the whole idea of having permits and permission is insanity  

I was reading about the restrictions that were impossed during WWII on photographers in the UK and think what is going on now is what we were fighting to avoid. You could photograph more or less anything in the 1940's except maybe a barrage balloon or military build up for D Day. I will try and scan the articles and letters from AP magazine apparently the Police attitude was far more measured with cameras and films returned to photographers after casual discussions without the fuss we have nowadays with arrest and confiscations.


----------



## mhendo (Nov 5, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> It is all complete nonsense as most people have a camera built into their mobile's with some I think touching 12mp. So how do they enforce such rules - stop and search and confiscate. Also Tower Bridge is a tourist icon so the whole idea of having permits and permission is insanity


I'm not debating any of that. My point was a narrowly legal one. It is my understanding that security guards etc. cannot stop people taking photographs when the photographer is standing on public land, but that their authority to prevent photography changes if the land itself is private.


----------



## stowpirate (Nov 5, 2009)

mhendo said:


> I'm not debating any of that. My point was a narrowly legal one. It is my understanding that security guards etc. cannot stop people taking photographs when the photographer is standing on public land, but that their authority to prevent photography changes if the land itself is private.



I understood that, as soon as this private land is used by members of the public, or they are invited onto the land, or it is a public right of way the legality and enforcement of such rules is insanity.


----------



## mhendo (Nov 5, 2009)

Insanity? Well, i guess i am convinced by your persuasive legal argument.


----------



## stowpirate (Nov 5, 2009)

mhendo said:


> Insanity? Well, i guess i am convinced by your persuasive legal argument.


----------



## cybertect (Nov 5, 2009)

It is private land. They're within their rights to request people not take photographs on their property. 

What bugs me is

* there are no signs stating that this is their policy (they do have notices around the site banning skateboarding, etc.)

* I've been here before about three years ago.  I was told by security to stop taking photographs outside the GLA building. On that occasion I received an apology from More London Estates and was told that it shouldn't happen again as their policy of requiring a permit only applied to commercial photography.

* Only yesterday I was merely asked by a security guard what my purpose was and then he told me it was perfectly OK and let me carry on - about thirty yards from where I was stopped today. Same camera, same me.

* they have a clear policy (no photography, personal & non-commercial included, without a permit - the Estate Office confirmed this this afternoon) that is then apparently enforced very inconsistently. If it were enforced consistently it would expose the ludicrousness of the situation if tens of thousands of tourists were stopped taking pictures.

* the GLA building is slap bang in the middle of the development. It should be a public building in a public place. It's the seat of London's democracy. However, it's leased by the GLA from More London Estates Ltd and they can't do anything about the situation (what I was told by the GLA before).

* if you don't want people taking photos of your buildings, don't hire Norman Foster to design them and put them next to one of the most famous bridges in the world

I've got the email address of the relevant person at the estate office and I'll be getting in touch when she's back from holiday next week.


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 30, 2009)

BBC photographer angry after being questioned by police over taking pics of St Pauls sunset. Apparently they were stopping everyone who was taking pictures and "no-one else had complained".

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ror-quiz-for-photographing-st-pauls-sunset.do

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8384972.stm


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2009)

Ridiculous. Again.


----------



## winjer (Nov 30, 2009)

winjer said:


> Meanwhile in Chatham, photographer is briefly arrested for suspicious photography while not providing ID in a built-up area:
> http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/


Kent Police exceeded powers in too-tall photographer case
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26/kent_police_tall_explanation/


----------



## Paul Russell (Nov 30, 2009)

Bizarre how everyone finds the constant harassment of anyone with an SLR ludicrous and laughable (even Mariella and Andrew Marr) when everyone has a camera in their phone but still the police do it over and over again.


----------



## editor (Nov 30, 2009)

Thanks for the updates.

My list of case studies is getting very, very long now:
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html#legal


----------



## sim667 (Dec 1, 2009)

Dont know if this had been posted on here, but may be very handy to print off and leave in your camera bag......

Official MET photography advice


----------



## Paul Russell (Dec 1, 2009)

Well, he doesn't work for the BBC, but another day, another little story:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/4769...ed_for_taking__terror__festive_lights_photos/

Edit: Now picked up by BJP

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=871596


----------



## cybertect (Dec 3, 2009)

Lead story in today's (Thurs) Independent. Big, above the fold headline in the copy _Newsnight_ had earlier.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/warning-do-not-take-this-picture-1833127.html


----------



## Paul Russell (Dec 3, 2009)

cybertect said:


> Lead story in today's (Thurs) Independent. Big, above the fold headline in the copy _Newsnight_ had earlier.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/warning-do-not-take-this-picture-1833127.html



I was just going to post that. Nice one!


----------



## xes (Dec 3, 2009)

I watched an interesting video the other week, where a bloke was filming the police, they came over and told him he couldn't. He challenged this, and asked them what law this was under. They went away with their tails between their legs. 

There is NO law which stops for from filming or taking pictures in public. IIRC, you have to be suspected of terrorism related offences before this comes into play. I would dog out the video, but it's freeman related stuff, so it won't be well recieved. 

Edit- Fuck it, I've found it so I'll put it up. Skip to 6 minutes, if you want to go past the freemanontheland stuff  The police do not know their own "laws".


----------



## winjer (Dec 3, 2009)

cybertect said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/warning-do-not-take-this-picture-1833127.html





> Craig Mackey, who speaks for the Association of Chief Police Officers on stop-and-search legislation, said he does have sympathy for photographers, but said that part of the problem was that some officers were not aware how best to use the "complex" legislation. He said: "It goes back to the issue of briefing and training of staff and making sure they are clear around the legislation we are asking them to use. There is no power under Section 44 to stop people taking photographs and *we are very clear about getting that message out to forces.*"


Perhaps it's time they got very clear about consequences for ignoring that message.


----------



## dlx1 (Dec 3, 2009)

I seen on BBC news 24 last night (The Papers) fount page of The Independent.

Is there an argument that a down turn that tourists come to London to see land marks.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Dec 4, 2009)

They were just talking about this on R4's Today programme (Friday, 4 December), from about 8:45-ish (I missed the start when I was putting cream cheese on my bagel in the kitchen) to 08:57.

They had a photographer and a copper on.

Photographer was saying that he'd been stopped and gave his details and was objecting to his details now being on a database.  He said the police attitude towards him was fairly okay, but then he'd complied and given his details.  He referred to anecdotal evidence that the police attitude towards other photographers depends on whether they comply or try to assert their rights.

Copper of course said that briefings had gone out earlier in the year but acknowledge there was perhaps a need for a reminder.


----------



## Badgers (Dec 4, 2009)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> They were just talking about this on R4's Today programme (Friday, 4 December), from about 8:45-ish (I missed the start when I was putting cream cheese on my bagel in the kitchen) to 08:57.
> 
> They had a photographer and a copper on.



Was interesting I thought... 

Sounded like the age old thing that some policemen approach these situations sensibly and others do not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2009)

Badgers said:


> Was interesting I thought...
> 
> Sounded like the age old thing that some policemen approach these situations sensibly and others do not.


i'm still fucked off i'm so very rarely warned about taking pictures


----------



## winjer (Dec 5, 2009)

> This is the message circulated by Andy Trotter, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, to police forces in England and Wales.
> 
> "Officers and PCSOs are reminded that we should not be stopping and searching people for taking photos. There are very clear rules around how stop-and-search powers can be used. However, there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so. We need to co-operate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals. We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever. However, unnecessarily restricting photography, whether from the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and worse still, it undermines public confidence in the police service."



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...hotographers-and-antiterror-laws-1834626.html


----------



## Badgers (Dec 5, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm still fucked off i'm so very rarely warned about taking pictures



Have you tried changing your appearance or religion?


----------



## winjer (Dec 8, 2009)

*Award-winning photographer stopped after photographing bank building*



> 'He asked what I was doing, and I just told him that I was taking pictures and didn't have to tell him anything at all,' says Smith. At that point, a second security officer came up to Smith and asked for his personal details, which the photographer refused to provide, at which point the guards called the police
> 
> Three police cars and one vans arrived on the scene with up to six armed police officers detaining the photographer. 'They were responding to an incident involving a male at reception who refused to leave, which was not true,' Smith tells BJP.
> 
> ...



http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=871742


----------



## e19896 (Dec 8, 2009)

You can print out your own copy of the letter sent to all Chief Constables and keep it in your bag ....... thanks to Amateur photographer for this one

www.amateurphotographer.co.uk

This is a copy of a letter sent by the Association of Chief Police Officers to Chief Constables and Commissioners across England and Wales over the weekend:

4 December 2009


To: all Chief Constables and Commissioners

Dear Colleague

Section 44 Terrorism Act and Photography

Adverse media coverage of the police service use of Section 44 powers, when dealing with issues relating to photography, have recently hit the headlines again and suggests that officers continue to misuse the legislation that is available to them. The evidence also suggests that there is confusion over the recording requirements of 'Stop and Account' and the actual police powers of 'Stop and Search'. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the legislation and guidance in relation to these matters.

Stop and Search
Section 44 gives officers no specific powers in relation to photography and there is no provision in law for the confiscation of equipment or the destruction of images, either digital or on film.

On the rare occasion where an officer suspects that an individual is taking photographs as part of target reconnaissance for terrorist purposes, then they should be treated as a terrorist suspect and dealt with under Section 43 of the Act. This would ensure that the legal power exists to seize equipment and recover images taken. Section 58A Counter Terrorism Act 2008 provides powers to cover instances where photographs are being taken of police officers who are, or who have been, employed at the front line of counter terrorism operations.

These scenarios will be exceptionally rare events and do not cover instances of photography by rail enthusiasts, tourists or the media.

The ACPO/NPIA Practice Advice, published in December 2008, is again included with this letter and specifically covers the issues surrounding photography. The guidance also includes the need for clear briefings on the use of Section 44 and it may be appropriate to include photography issues within those briefings.

Stop and Account
Encounters between police officers and PCSOs and the public range from general conversation through to arrest. Officers need to be absolutely clear that no record needs to be submitted to cover any activity that merely constitutes a conversation.

Only at the point where a member of the public is asked to account for their actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of an item, do the provisions of the PACE Act apply and a record for that 'stop and account' need to be submitted. Even at that point, such a discussion does not constitute the use of any police power and should not be recorded under the auspices of the Terrorism Act, for example.

Officers should be reminded that it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs of a public building and use of cameras by the public does not ordinarily permit use of stop and search powers.


Yours sincerely


Andrew Trotter OBE QPM
Chief Constable
Head of ACPO Media Advisory Group

Craig Mackey QPM
Stop and Search
Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Business Area


----------



## winjer (Dec 9, 2009)

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear:



> We all happily accept the occasional questioning at airport checkouts and I don't see a great deal of difference when photographing potential terrorist targets. [...] The public maybe need to be a bit more co-operative. Explaining your rights or refusing to give your details won't placate the Police Officer, it'll make them think you're hiding something. Give them your address, it won't hurt and pictures can be retrieved from your card at home."



http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Thoughts-on-the-new-guidelines-on-antiterror-law-use-12658


----------



## winjer (Dec 10, 2009)

"On Sunday an NUJ member was arrested by two armed police officers at London City Airport for an alleged assault on a member of airport security. The photographer fully denies any wrongdoing and the NUJ has instructed lawyers to defend him. The photographer had been covering a small and peaceful protest by environmental campaigners in Santa outfits at the airport. He was arrested in the middle of filing pictures to national newspapers."

http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=1439


----------



## GoneCoastal (Dec 10, 2009)

Steve Bell in The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2009/dec/07/steve-bell-anti-terror-laws
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2009/dec/08/steve-bell-if
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../09/policing-terrorism-photography-steve-bell


----------



## sim667 (Dec 10, 2009)

http://hub.the-aop.org/

Dont know if you've seen this one already, but Grant Smith, former chairman of the Association of Photographers was 'Briefly Detained' for photographing a central london church on the 8th.


----------



## e19896 (Dec 11, 2009)

An amateur photographer was arrested at lunchtime 10 12 09 while taking photographs of posters on a building in Hounslow, west London. Photography enthusiast Karol Berezowski, originally from Poland, said officers handcuffed him, before taking him by car to Hounslow Police Station where he was held for three hours. The incident took place at 11.50am on Hounslow High Street.  Speaking to Amateur Photographer. shortly after being released from police custody, Berezowski said he was charged with a public order offence after ‘refusing to take his hands out of his pockets’ when police searched him.

Police said they will not release details of the incident ahead of a possible court hearing. Berezowski said that officers originally told him he would be searched under anti-terrorism laws. Berezowski, who works as a ‘building service engineer’, said that the reason police charged him was ‘abusive’ behaviour, which he denies.

The photographer, who has lived in London for three years, has told Amateur Photographer that he was photographing posters on buildings at the end of Hounslow High Street.  He had been using a classic Leica M6 film camera and claims to have been taking pictures for his portfolio.

The Metropolitan Police have confirmed that a man was arrested today 10 12 09 for a ‘Section 5′ Public Order Offence, at 11.50am, but a spokesman refused to comment further for legal reasons.  The amateur photographer said he has been issued with an £80 fine but is currently seeking legal representation because he plans to take the case to court.  Hounslow Police Station declined to comment when contacted by Amateur Photographer.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 11, 2009)

source for story above

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...th_Leica_M6_in_London_suburb_news_292842.html


----------



## e19896 (Dec 11, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> source for story above
> 
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...th_Leica_M6_in_London_suburb_news_292842.html



Ta slack of me Man flu..


----------



## cybertect (Dec 11, 2009)

e19896 said:


> Berezowski said he was charged with a public order offence after ‘refusing to take his hands out of his pockets’ when police searched him.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Metropolitan Police have confirmed that a man was arrested today 10 12 09 for a ‘Section 5′ Public Order Offence, at 11.50am






			
				Public Order Act 1986 said:
			
		

> *5 Harassment, alarm or distress *
> 
> (1)   A person is guilty of an offence if he—
> 
> ...



Keeping both your hands in your pockets while talking to someone is the most serious insult imaginable in Poland. It means that your mother didn't know which of her two lovers is your father.

The police officers knew this as they're all trained to be multiculturally aware these days.

Obviously. Or something.


----------



## cybertect (Dec 11, 2009)

Bugger me! It _is_ rude in Poland 

Polish Etiquette



> Hands in pockets is considered disrespectful and rude. It is also bad etiquette to sit with one ankle resting on the other knee.


----------



## derf (Dec 11, 2009)

Bernie Gunther said:


> source for story above
> 
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...th_Leica_M6_in_London_suburb_news_292842.html





> He claims police forced him to the ground before bundling him into a police car.
> 
> Police said they will not release details of the incident ahead of a possible court hearing.



The court action being him having the cops for assault and false arrest?
Sounds like he has a case.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Dec 11, 2009)

And in The Register today http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/11/police_quiz_itn_reporter/


----------



## cybertect (Dec 11, 2009)

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Police_crackdown_on_City_photographers_news_292881.html



> POLICE CRACKDOWN ON CITY PHOTOGRAPHERS
> 
> If you are planning to take photos of buildings around the City of London you may want to think again. Anti-terrorism police have instructed security guards to treat as suspicious anyone seen taking photos who hasn't notified the building's security personnel beforehand.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Dec 11, 2009)

Mass gathering organised by photographer not a terrorist on Jan 23rd.
Quite a number of press photographers involved with this I think. Think this group did the protest at Scotland Yard iirc

http://www.photographerNotaTerrorist.org/


----------



## mhendo (Dec 11, 2009)

Fucking hell. This thread gets more depressing all the time. I thought things were generally more sensible in Britain. You should be leaving the silly stuff to the Yanks.

When i lived in England, i had a few encounters with the old bill (mainly traffic stops), and every one of them was a friendly, helpful, and reasonably sensible-seeming bloke. Are they all now power-hungry cocks? I can't believe some of the ridiculous shit they're pulling on photographers over there.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Dec 11, 2009)

And Guardian reporter Paul Lewis today tests photographing at The Gherkin after the ACPO info was issued about taking a more common sense approach to photography in the street

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-special-branch-terror-suspect


----------



## Paul Russell (Dec 12, 2009)

sim667 said:


> http://hub.the-aop.org/
> 
> Dont know if you've seen this one already, but Grant Smith, former chairman of the Association of Photographers was 'Briefly Detained' for photographing a central london church on the 8th.



A TV crew that were doing a report on this very story had a bit of bother as well:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u..._covering_photographer_story_news_292827.html


----------



## GoneCoastal (Dec 13, 2009)

And Jess Hurd, a press photographer is taking action against the Met for being stopped and having images forcibly viewed despite showing her press card
Despite National Guidelines regarding press cards and also the fact that journalistic material has special status, She was apparently told "We can do anything under the terrorism act" ..... She had been asked to cover a wedding reception at a hotel in Docklands

(Now I notice that the linked article is dated 11/12/2009 but refers to something that happened on 10/12/2008)

Camera forcibly taken
Ms Hurd’s camera was forcibly taken from her by the officer, despite her protests that there were safeguards in place to ensure a free press.  The officer’s response was: “We can do anything under the terrorism act”.

Footage viewed
A third officer took the camera and watched footage with a further officer who was still in the police car, some distance from Ms Hurd.  She was fearful that her entire days work could be wiped and was by now feeling intimidated, as she was in a dark car park being questioned in an intimidating way by police officers.
Told by police there would be ‘severe penalties’ if she used the footage, and that the police own the copyright
Ms Hurd was informed that she could not use any footage of the police car or police officers and that if she did there would be ‘severe penalties’, although these were not specified.   

http://www.bindmans.com/index.php?id=672


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 13, 2009)

The incident with Jess Hurd was in fact in 2008.  Here is a report from AP dated 15th December 2008.

It is possible that the police picked her up because she is known for doing work for Socialist Worker and therefore considered a risk to our so-called Democracy.

I guess it has taken this long for the complaint to be considered.  It will be interesting to see the results.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Dec 13, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The incident with Jess Hurd was in fact in 2008.  Here is a report from AP dated 15th December 2008.
> 
> It is possible that the police picked her up because she is known for doing work for Socialist Worker and therefore considered a risk to our so-called Democracy.


Aha - ok - so She's only just made an official complaint then and started tweeting about it this morning. Ta 

And yep - makes one wonder/suspect an agenda


----------



## GoneCoastal (Dec 13, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I guess it has taken this long for the complaint to be considered.  It will be interesting to see the results.


Mmm... My guess would be a "there's guidance re-issued blah blah" but as shown in the last week or so - it wouldn't seem to have made any difference


----------



## dlx1 (Dec 13, 2009)

this was in the paper yesterday by Victoria Moore

The picture that could land you in jail: How police in Big Brother Britain treat you like a terrorist for taking holiday snaps

two page spread


----------



## hendo (Dec 14, 2009)

Bumped because the Met has reissued its guidance on photographers this week. Here.


----------



## editor (Dec 14, 2009)

I've started to update my section on Photographers rights, but it's moving so fast and so many dodgy stories are breaking that I'm having to expand it in all directions!


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 14, 2009)

This is a bit specific, but re. railway photography, where some people have had a lot of hassle from BTP and station staff/security, Virgin Trains have just issued some very sensible new guidelines.  They don't seem to be online but there's a photo of one of the posters here.  Good for Virgin, say I. 

That story that dlx1 links to is strangely encouraging, in that it's indicative of how wide a cross-section of the population is now concerned about how civil liberties are being eroded.


----------



## big eejit (Dec 16, 2009)

And again...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/italian-student-police-arrest-filming


----------



## likesfish (Dec 16, 2009)

ffs you should be able to talk to somebody using a camera in public with out becoming a fucking nazi about it 
 If I can manage to restrain my self from twatting a frankly bonkers twitcher.
 (Spotted near the end of an airfield in cyprus during the first gulf war wearing camoflauge gear and carrying massive optics) took ages to actually get to the bloke.
 you can even make a joke about it "sorry sir we've been told to check on anyone taking photos boss has got a sad on about it"etc
 99.9% of stops are going to be completely harmless anyway so giving it the big I am is completelty counterproductive.


----------



## dlx1 (Dec 16, 2009)

> Photographers rights



Is there bullet point A5 can print out. That I or other could show if
got hassle here my right to take photos


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2009)

Here's a hugely expanded section on photographers rights: http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html

Loads more to do...


----------



## laptop (Dec 16, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> Is there bullet point A5 can print out. That I or other could show if
> got hassle here my right to take photos



Erm... listen to detective-boy. There's no stronger guarantee of grief from plod than announcing "I know my rights".

The probability of grief is inversely related to individual plod's feeling of security in their authority - hence to rank; this is why pseudoplod, having negative rank, are especially prone to causing grief.

Chat. Be matey. Give a convincing impression of recognising the constable as human. Negotiate, giving a convincing impression of dealing as equals.


----------



## dlx1 (Dec 17, 2009)

> Chat. Be matey. Give a convincing impression of recognising the constable as human. Negotiate, giving a convincing impression of dealing as equals.



I use to work for the police I met all kinds, some think as shit, Some with no computer skills (need training) most I found alight.

I was thinking of the wannabe police (security)

sim667


> A Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) may not
> perform a s44 search without a police officer present.


----------



## sim667 (Dec 17, 2009)

Paul Russell said:


> A TV crew that were doing a report on this very story had a bit of bother as well:
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u..._covering_photographer_story_news_292827.html


----------



## sim667 (Dec 17, 2009)

dlx1 said:


> Is there bullet point A5 can print out. That I or other could show if
> got hassle here my right to take photos



Photographer not a terrorist


----------



## winjer (Dec 17, 2009)

laptop said:


> Erm... listen to detective-boy. There's no stronger guarantee of grief from plod than announcing "I know my rights".


That's no reason you shouldn't *know* them.



> The probability of grief is inversely related to individual plod's feeling of security in their authority - hence to rank; this is why pseudoplod, having negative rank, are especially prone to causing grief.


Oddly with the TSG it seems to work the opposite way.


----------



## sim667 (Dec 17, 2009)

laptop said:


> Erm... listen to detective-boy. There's no stronger guarantee of grief from plod than announcing "I know my rights".
> 
> The probability of grief is inversely related to individual plod's feeling of security in their authority - hence to rank; this is why pseudoplod, having negative rank, are especially prone to causing grief.
> 
> Chat. Be matey. Give a convincing impression of recognising the constable as human. Negotiate, giving a convincing impression of dealing as equals.



Well DB does tend to know how police tend to think generally......as he's seen it from their point of view....

What does seem to get skipped over very if is the understanding that the police are meant to 'serve and protect'...... harassing people people going about their daily lives for taking a photograph is doing neither, plus they're also paid for by our taxes, we essentially pay their wages.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 3, 2010)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8438628.stm

interesting twist


----------



## winjer (Jan 4, 2010)

Photograph graffiti too often, get an ASBO:



> Judge Reddihough, sentencing, said: “I have seen a number of examples of the graffiti. It may well be that some sort of graffiti could come into the class of a work of art.” But he said the businesses tagged did not consider the images to be works of art. “It would have been distressing,” Judge Reddihough continued. After the hearing Matthews declined to comment.
> 
> Dave Bowler, prolific priority offenders’ scheme manager for the police and ex-ASBO co-ordinator, said: “In September 2006, a large scale investigation into graffiti tags appearing in Reading was commenced involving staff from Reading Borough Council, Reading Police and British Transport Police.
> 
> “Part of the investigation included the large scale ‘tagging’ of the rooftops within Reading town centre. These investigations led to the eventual arrest of persons involved in  these activities and Mr Matthews’s appearance at Reading Crown Court. Mr Matthews has had an anti-social behaviour order imposed on him for a period of two years, following his own admissions that he had been present as a trespasser on roof tops and railway property when others had carried out graffiti attacks and he had photographed their so called ‘art’. This should serve as a warning to those other like-minded individuals who believe that they can display their ‘art’ on other people’s property. The removal of graffiti causes great expense to the council each year and ultimately the local taxpayers foot the bill. Reading Borough Council and Reading Police will not tolerate such behaviour and identified offenders will be brought to justice at every opportunity.”



http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2063307_asbo_for_photographer_who_snapped_grafitti_art


----------



## laptop (Jan 6, 2010)

> THE CAMPAIGN group "I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist!" invite all Photographers to a mass photo gathering in defence of street photography.
> 
> Gather at 12 noon on Saturday 23rd January 2010 in Trafalgar Square.
> 
> Full details on www.photographernotaterrorist.org



Has anyone heard of another event called for the 20th? Some lack of timing here...


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jan 6, 2010)

laptop said:


> Has anyone heard of another event called for the 20th? Some lack of timing here...


The 23rd's the only one I'd seen so far


----------



## winjer (Jan 6, 2010)

laptop said:


> Has anyone heard of another event called for the 20th? Some lack of timing here...



The black-tie e-Government National Awards dinner?
http://www.e-governmentawards.co.uk/booking.php

Otherwise no. There's also this on the 23rd:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=313276

"Love photography, hate cameras!"


----------



## Moz131 (Jan 7, 2010)

laptop said:


> Has anyone heard of another event called for the 20th? Some lack of timing here...




Something needs to be arranged up in Manchester. I went to the first gathering, after travelling overnight and sleeping in my car in Hounslow, dedication eh? 
But I don't want to do it again, not yet anyway, but do want to show my support, as I'm sure a lot of other photographers do, who maybe cant travel that far. 
We don't get as much hassle up here, at least I haven't. However, I'm sure the harassment will progress up the country as the threat of terrorism generally increases, and the general public should know how the interpretation of these laws is affecting their own personal liberty's. 
Most people Ive spoken to about it, dont realise how much it could affect their freedoms. Then others who are photographers, dont know their rights and expect a police officer to know it if they are enforcing it, understandably, who then giving over all information and end up on a database.

Ive typed that and realised I can just sort it out myself, good ol' facebook.


----------



## laptop (Jan 7, 2010)

Moz131 said:


> Something needs to be arranged up in Manchester.



Best talk to www.photographernotaterrorist.org about the 23rd, then?


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jan 7, 2010)

Leicestershire Police to wear name badges as well as numbers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/05/leicestershire-police-name-badges

"The public have a right to know who is dealing with them. They want to be dealt with by a name, not a number"


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jan 8, 2010)

Security sensitive Gherkin will now contain a Sky News studio http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44865&c=1


----------



## Moz131 (Jan 11, 2010)

When your stopped and search under section 44, obviously all the information they take gets put onto a database... How and where can I access information on the database? Should I be able to just browse the whole database or would I only be able to access my own personal information? 
I need to find out some more information on this database Ie how long its kept, what is kept, other details that are held? 

I was told by the police that it was simply a log of who it was that was stopped and the police officers conducting the search. This is so that they can see if an officer is harassing certain individuals and it is hard evidence should any complaints arise. Im not to sure thats all its for to be honest.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 11, 2010)

This afternoon I got stopped by some kind of military police guy because I was about to take some pictures of a couple of old planes on display by the entrance to an RAF base. Took my address and everything. I decided not to argue. He told me I could be arrested if I had taken any pictures and published them anywhere.

Here is what I was taking a photo of:







That photo is from the RAF's own website.   


PS my photo would have been better than that because the planes were all frozen up in snow and stuff.


----------



## Moz131 (Jan 12, 2010)

^If its private property you were stood on, then its upto them what restrictions they impose on photography. I dont think he has the right to take your name and address though. If you co-operated with him and stopped taking pictures then thats that, no need to take your information. If you refused and continued to take photos, Im sure there will be a by-law that _could_ be used to prosecute you, however I doubt that much would come of it. But they could hold you to stop you from leaving, then call the police and only the police can request your information, and only if they suspect you of breaking a law IIRC.

Then again, RAF base, military laws, I dont know about them, it could be that they put a bag over your head a next thing your in Guantanamo Bay! 

Shame really, they could have had a nice winter photo for their website too. Did you not manage to take any before you were stopped?


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2010)

teuchter said:


> This afternoon I got stopped by some kind of military police guy because I was about to take some pictures of a couple of old planes on display by the entrance to an RAF base. Took my address and everything. I decided not to argue. He told me I could be arrested if I had taken any pictures and published them anywhere.


He was talking utter shit. They can only ask you to stop taking photos if you're standing on their private land, but if you're on a public road they can fuck right off.


----------



## cybertect (Jan 12, 2010)

Official Secrets Act 1911

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1911/cukpga_19110028_en_1



> 1 Penalties for spying
> 
> (1)If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State—
> 
> ...





N.B. There is no outright ban on photographing military bases, but the burden of proof is shifted to the photographer to prove his innocence.


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2010)

But if you're standing on a public road taking a picture of what is basically an obvious tourist attraction, the 'spying' charge is plainly ludicrous - unless stuffed fake Spitfires are Britain's new secret air weapon.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 12, 2010)

Moz131 said:


> ^If its private property you were stood on, then its upto them what restrictions they impose on photography. I dont think he has the right to take your name and address though. If you co-operated with him and stopped taking pictures then thats that, no need to take your information. If you refused and continued to take photos, Im sure there will be a by-law that _could_ be used to prosecute you, however I doubt that much would come of it. But they could hold you to stop you from leaving, then call the police and only the police can request your information, and only if they suspect you of breaking a law IIRC.
> 
> Then again, RAF base, military laws, I dont know about them, it could be that they put a bag over your head a next thing your in Guantanamo Bay!
> 
> Shame really, they could have had a nice winter photo for their website too. Did you not manage to take any before you were stopped?



No, I was just lining a couple up when he appeared with the usual "can I help you?" (reply: "no thanks I'm fine").

He didn't believe me when I said I hadn't actually taken any yet though, which is probably why he went on to the whole taking of details thing.

Maybe I should have pretended to delete something and looked scolded.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 12, 2010)

editor said:


> But if you're standing on a public road taking a picture of what is basically an obvious tourist attraction, the 'spying' charge is plainly ludicrous - unless stuffed fake Spitfires are Britain's new secret air weapon.



Well, the entry to the base is behind them (the fact I was actually trying to take a picture in the opposite direction didn't seem to matter mind you).

But yes it's basically stupid. I told him they ought to put a sign up saying that taking photos of their spitfires are a threat to national security.

I would be interested to know what he was _actually_ entitled to ask me for. He took name, address and phone number(?). Asked me what I do for a living and demanded to see photo ID. I told him I didn't have any photo ID (which I didn't). I showed him a business card from work with my name on it. So he wrote down my employers' name and kept the card.


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2010)

teuchter said:


> I would be interested to know what he was _actually_ entitled to ask me for. He took name, address and phone number(?). Asked me what I do for a living and demanded to see photo ID. I told him I didn't have any photo ID (which I didn't). I showed him a business card from work with my name on it. So he wrote down my employers' name and kept the card.


If you were on public road, he had no right to ask for your name or address - unless he was claiming to be stopping you under the Terrorism Act, which would really be pushing it. 

Under Section 44 (which is probably the nearest thing he could legitimately claim), he had no right to your personal details.

The trick is to demand they explain what law they are using against you. If they trot out a lad of vague guff about terrorism, they almost certainly are making it up.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-anti-terrorism.html

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html


----------



## cybertect (Jan 12, 2010)

editor said:


> Under Section 44 (which is probably the nearest thing he could legitimately claim), he had no right to your personal details.



I don't think Military Police can normally use s44 powers outside of military land, etc. and even on a military base, I believe it would have to have been previously authorised by a senior civilian police officer under the terms of s44 itself.

Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987




			
				Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 said:
			
		

> 2 Jurisdiction
> (1) In any place in the United Kingdom to which subsection (2) below for the time being applies, *members of the Ministry of Defence Police shall have the powers and privileges of constables*.
> 
> (2) The places to which this subsection applies are—
> ...



[emphasis added]

They may, however, be able to claim use of s43, which covers the situation where a constable reasonably suspects a person _is_ a terrorist committing or about to commit an offence. Certainly, ACPO and Home Office guidance states that constables should use s43 and not s44 if they believe their suspect is a terrorist.


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2010)

Section 44 is no more


----------



## teuchter (Jan 12, 2010)

laptop said:


> Section 44 is no more



That's great.

Probably deserves a thread of its own. What happens next?


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jan 12, 2010)

teuchter said:


> That's great.
> 
> Probably deserves a thread of its own. What happens next?


Here ya go ! 
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=313908

The Govt's going to appeal the ECHR ruling  so watch this space I'd say


----------



## Moz131 (Jan 12, 2010)

laptop said:


> Section 44 is no more




FUCK! Im almost finished writing my dissertation on section 44. 10,000 words, now pointless. Hmm maybe im gunna have to reword most of it now to refer to it in the past tense.

Anyone know where I could get a transcript of the court hearing?


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2010)

Moz131 said:


> FUCK! Im almost finished writing my dissertation on section 44. 10,000 words, now pointless. Hmm maybe im gunna have to reword most of it now to refer to it in the past tense.



The government can spin it out as long as April, then ECHR tells them to fuck off with their "appeal".



> Anyone know where I could get a transcript of the court hearing?



Er, you are familiar with http://www.echr.coe.int/ ?

No?

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/v...ighlight=&sessionid=42666436&skin=hudoc-pr-en

May work... otherwise go to press releases, link is there. Quinton & Gillan -v- UK.


----------



## Moz131 (Jan 12, 2010)

^ Thank you.

Just seen the other thread to.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jan 13, 2010)

Moz131 said:


> ^ Thank you.
> 
> Just seen the other thread to.


I quoted most of the judgement in the other thread as the link's a bit flaky


----------



## winjer (Jan 21, 2010)

laptop said:


> http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/v...ighlight=&sessionid=42666436&skin=hudoc-pr-enMay work... otherwise go to press releases, link is there. Quinton & Gillan -v- UK.


Those links are temporary, they refer to a search result by index (e.g. the 4th result).

Hudoc provides persistent links on the 'Notice' page for a case, e.g.
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=860909&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 is the permalink to this judgment.


----------



## editor (Jan 21, 2010)

GoneCoastal said:


> Here ya go !
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=313908
> 
> The Govt's going to appeal the ECHR ruling  so watch this space I'd say


Doh! Wrong frum!  
Por title! 

No wonder folks missed it. Lemme fix that.


----------



## laptop (Jan 21, 2010)

winjer said:


> Hudoc provides persistent links on the 'Notice' page for a case, e.g.
> http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=860909&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 is the permalink to this judgment.



Ta. I'd spend a good 15 minutes searching for a permalink...


----------



## sim667 (Jan 21, 2010)

I posted this in the S44 thread itself, but thought id ask here too.....



> so can i just check this??
> 
> If i get stopped taking photos up in london, and they try to search me under section 44, they are actually not allowed to do so (a lot of photographers get search under S44).
> 
> And that will remain in place until an appeal either goes in favour of the police or not?


----------



## cybertect (Jan 23, 2010)

@sim667

It's currently a point of debate, the government say it's legal for them to continue using s44, but their interpretation of the ECHR may be dodgy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/19/home_office_bad_advice/


----------



## Paul Russell (Jan 23, 2010)

BTW, are all you Londoners going to the Trafalgar Square "gathering" today?

http://photographernotaterrorist.org/

(I did consider going, but there's engineering works on the trains, which turns it into an almost 8-hour commute for me )

I wonder how many people will get stopped and searched?


----------



## winjer (Feb 4, 2010)

cybertect said:


> It's currently a point of debate, the government say it's legal for them to continue using s44, but their interpretation of the ECHR may be dodgy.
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/19/home_office_bad_advice/


The Register's interpretation certainly is dodgy.

Liberty's explanation here: http://bit.ly/9BLuH2 Shorter: Yes, they can still use it.


----------



## winjer (Feb 4, 2010)

Photographers told to leave police alone

"Yes, it's not nice to be stopped by police for taking what we consider innocent photos, but as the cop doesn't know us and our intentions, who are we to criticise him when he is doing his job?"

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographers_told_to_leave_police_alone_news_294570.html


----------



## laptop (Feb 5, 2010)

winjer said:


> The Register's interpretation certainly is dodgy.
> 
> Liberty's explanation here: http://bit.ly/9BLuH2 Shorter: Yes, they can still use it.



The Register's interpretation is quoting a lawyer saying "Hmm, on the face of it anyone now stopped under S44 would have a case to argue against the police."

Note that cases against the police always have a jury (of 7 in the case of civil cases).

Nothing's cast-iron certain until _that_ case goes to the House of Lords Supreme Court and/or European Court of Human Rights. But the deterrence value of the _possibility_ of the hassle of such a case may well assist in getting police forces to dissuade ossifers from random crap searches...


----------



## winjer (Feb 5, 2010)

laptop said:


> The Register's interpretation is quoting a lawyer saying "Hmm, on the face of it anyone now stopped under S44 would have a case to argue against the police."


That isn't what the barrister says, that's what the Register misinterprets it as.


----------



## winjer (Feb 10, 2010)

*Photographer searched three times in 45 minutes*



> Photographer Philip Callier had gone to an industrial estate in Hayes, Middlesex, last Sunday morning to take pictures of demonstrators blockading  import depots which distribute goods produced in Israeli settlements on Palestine’s West Bank. When a police officer questioned why he was there, he explained that he was a press photographer covering the event, and showed his police-recognised press card.
> 
> “The police officer told me that he was going to search me under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), as he believed that I might be in possession of a set of keys that fitted the locks the protesters were using to chain themselves to the gates. He stated that in the past keys had been passed to photographers. I replied that I had just arrived, had been in full view of police officers at all times and that nobody had passed me anything. However, not to be obstructive I agreed to the search. My searching officer found my house keys. He tried these in the protesters’ locks to no avail.
> 
> “After the search he allowed me to continue my job. But as I started to walk to the next blockaded gate, the same police officer said that I would be searched again if I approached any of  the other gates. As I arrived at the second gate, which was in full view of the first gate, I was approached by another police officer and told that section 1 of PACE was being enforced and that I was going to be searched. Once again my searching officer found my house keys and tried them in the protesters locks. But, of course, they did not fit.”



http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=1477


----------



## laptop (Feb 10, 2010)

winjer said:


> That isn't what the barrister says, that's what the Register misinterprets it as.



The Register makes a reasonable interpretation of this:




			
				barrister Matthew Ryder said:
			
		

> Any force and/or officer continuing to use s44 in the way it was used in the past, will be acting unlawfully. They will certainly be opening themselves up to a claim for damages at the Strasbourg Court. Furthermore, claims could be brought domestically as well. The fact that the House of Lords previously sanctioned the broad use of section 44 does not prevent the Supreme Court reconsidering the issue and finding the conduct unlawful under domestic law, in light of the Strasbourg ruling.



My own reading: anyone suing for improper use of S44 powers after 12 April may well have to go to higher courts, but they'll stand a decent chance.


----------



## laptop (Feb 10, 2010)

winjer said:
			
		

> Photographer searched three times in 45 minutes



Source for the 3rd search and 45 minutes would be nice.







Oooh, 45 minutes, rings a bell...


----------



## winjer (Feb 10, 2010)

laptop said:


> The Register makes a reasonable interpretation of this:


That's the barrister's opinion, which I already said I agree with, not the Register's interpretation which is that all use of s44 is unlawful and that the Home Office has said the ECtHR decision changes nothing, which I don't believe they have only that "the police will continue to have these powers available to them".



> My own reading: anyone suing for improper use of S44 powers after 12 April may well have to go to higher courts, but they'll stand a decent chance.


And that isn't the same as "anyone now stopped under S44".


----------



## winjer (Feb 10, 2010)

laptop said:


> Source for the 3rd search and 45 minutes would be nice.


"London Photographers' Branch secretary Marc Vallée", on Twitter.


----------



## winjer (Feb 11, 2010)

laptop said:


> Source for the 3rd search and 45 minutes would be nice.


Photos now up here:
http://www.marcvallee.co.uk/blog/2010/02/philip-caller/


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 14, 2010)

> Pictures like this, even if taken in public places, will become difficult or impossible to take and publish if the Information Commissioners Office sets a new code of practice for "Personal Information Online". A consultation is currently under way and ends on 5 March; see the website www.ico.gov.uk
> 
> Photographs such as these will be treated as data under the Data Protection Act. Never mind that we have more CCTV cameras than anywhere else. Pictures in public will become private. "The ICO's proposed new code for personal information online has "commonsense" new rules that prohibit photography in public places where anyone who's in the photograph might be unhappy about being photographed. A photo, taken in public, is now deemed private data, y'see."
> 
> For further critique of this proposed new code and the impact for all photographers of 'orphan works' provisions in the Digital Economy Bill, see the website www.copyrightaction.com



http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/photoblog/2010/02/the_kiss.html


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 18, 2010)

Anyone get stopped for taking photos near the GLA building by the security guards?

Well, now they want your photos:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/londondotgov/

Ironic?


----------



## cybertect (Feb 18, 2010)

Paul Russell said:


> Anyone get stopped for taking photos near the GLA building by the security guards?



Yep.



> Well, now they want your photos:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/groups/londondotgov/
> 
> Ironic?



ha!

The thing is the security guards work for More London Estates, who own the land and the GLA building itself (the GLA just lease it). When I've spoken to them in the past, GLA Press Office say there's sod all they can do about it.

More London say that their security policy (i.e. no photography without a permit if you're caught by a guard on a bad day/have a large camera) is dictated by their corporate clients - the likes of PriceWaterHouseCoopers. 

Though officially they're unlikely to stop you if you're just taking a photo of Tower Bridge or the City. Except that's exactly what has happened to me before.


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 18, 2010)

cybertect said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough (on the part of the GLA). This creeping privatisation of previously public space is worrying. City centre areas of Bristol and Bath have recently become private property as well... And that's only places that I visit... Guess it's happening all over the country...


----------



## laptop (Feb 18, 2010)

boskysquelch said:


> one Simon Chapman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thing is, I am reliably informed this is bollocks.

Now I suppose I have to read the ICO document to explain why...


----------



## derf (Feb 18, 2010)

I have been reading this thread with great interest and wonder why you put up with this oppression.
It sounds like if you, in a western democracy, have all sorts of crap to put up with if you come across a stroppy copper or even some tin pot security guard.
Out here in this country we have no such problems.
The cops actually ask you to take their photo.

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e294/realindonesia/Image0585.jpg

(ed: off topic image removed)


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 18, 2010)

laptop said:


> Thing is, I am reliably informed this is bollocks.
> 
> Now I suppose I have to read the ICO document to explain why...



I got as far as reading the ICO document, and it doesn't mention photography, which the original document is amended to acknowledge, then it gets more complicated...


----------



## laptop (Feb 18, 2010)

Paul Russell said:


> then it gets more complicated...



Indeed. A photo is or can be a document. So it's the specifics of what the ICO is _in fact_ suggesting for handling of documents that needs unpicked. Chapman has form for misunderstanding...


----------



## Ae589 (Feb 18, 2010)

Paul Russell said:


> Anyone get stopped for taking photos near the GLA building by the security guards?
> 
> Well, now they want your photos:
> 
> ...



Can't think of anything better to adorn the GLA website than a few upskirt shots.


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 18, 2010)

laptop said:


> Indeed. A photo is or can be a document. So it's the specifics of what the ICO is _in fact_ suggesting for handling of documents that needs unpicked. Chapman has form for misunderstanding...



okidokie I'll duly ignore any reference made by him or ICO or whaddeva in the future... I'll add to the great list of other things I shouldn't read coz they'll be someone somewhere who'll know different fo sho.


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 18, 2010)

cybertect said:


> Yep.
> 
> The thing is the security guards work for More London Estates, who own the land and the GLA building itself (the GLA just lease it). When I've spoken to them in the past, GLA Press Office say there's sod all they can do about it.



Thanks for the info. Just added a summary of that to a discussion in that Flickr group BTW. Don't know why the GLA couldn't be arsed to type it themselves. Lazy buggers.


----------



## cybertect (Feb 18, 2010)

Paul Russell said:


> Thanks for the info. Just added a summary of that to a discussion in that Flickr group BTW. Don't know why the GLA couldn't be arsed to type it themselves. Lazy buggers.



Ta. Saves me doing it later


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 18, 2010)

cybertect said:


> Ta. Saves me doing it later



The pool is worth a look right now though. Full of pics of Boris. Don't think they will last long. 

http://www.flickr.com/groups/londondotgov/


----------



## cybertect (Feb 24, 2010)

Shopping mall security guard accuses photographer of being a paedophile because he took a photo of his own son.

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/24/mall-security-guard.html



> Outside of the mall, Kevin was stopped by a police constable who had received a complaint from mall security that a suspicious potential paedophile had been taking pictures on its premises. The PC threatened to arrest Kevin "for creating a public disturbance" and ordered him to delete the photo of his son. The PC also averred that the Bridges Shopping Centre is a hotbed of paedophile assaults.


----------



## editor (Feb 24, 2010)

Fucking ridiculous. And still stupid cops think they can make people delete photos.


----------



## cybertect (Feb 24, 2010)

and destroy any evidence that might be in them in the process.


----------



## stowpirate (Feb 24, 2010)

This comment I think sums up the stupidity brilliantly

"But they photograph us on CCTV all the time.

The Government are paedophiles. Burn them!"

Think about the children


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 24, 2010)

Just had a possibly unworkable but perhaps worthwhile idea. 

What if there were an SMS number or something per area that would forward to a list of participating local photographers. When hassled, you text this list of local volunteers and all who can, come running to document your harassment. Given this stuff mostly happens in urban centres, chances are reasonable that at least one other photographer is nearby.


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 25, 2010)

I was walking around Bournemouth yesterday, and I noticed for the first time that the one of town's pseudo-police men* had a mini-CCTV camera attached to his right shoulder. 

*They're not PCSOs, but city guardians, or whatever, not sure what these ones are called. They look a bit like traffic wardens, but basically walk around telling people off for dropping litter and skateboarding, cycling on the pavement, etc.


----------



## Paul Russell (Feb 25, 2010)

Another person searched and then locked up for 8 hours:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest

under terrorism laws, or whatever they could think of as they went along...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 26, 2010)

I take it that the guy will be suing for defamation? 

Thee policeman's attitude is the reason why I, like many others, who was once a wholehearted supporter of the police, would now not bother to piss on a policeman if he was on fire.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 26, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Just had a possibly unworkable but perhaps worthwhile idea.
> 
> What if there were an SMS number or something per area that would forward to a list of participating local photographers. When hassled, you text this list of local volunteers and all who can, come running to document your harassment. Given this stuff mostly happens in urban centres, chances are reasonable that at least one other photographer is nearby.



Sort of like the old "independent witness" idea in multiracial areas in the 70s and 80s, where if you saw the Bill hassling someone, you went over and took notes on what was happening. Of course, this can just provoke the police, but if they've got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to fear, have they?


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 27, 2010)

Paul Russell said:


> I was walking around Bournemouth yesterday, and I noticed for the first time that the one of town's pseudo-police men* had a mini-CCTV camera attached to his right shoulder.


Police, PCSOs, door supervisors, security guards and every fucker else is starting to do this now.  It is because "we" demand CCTV footage otherwise we don't believe it happened.  It is totally fuckwitted and a _major_ waste of money (mainly in the immense bureaucracy that accompanies it, keeping track of the footage in an evidentially sound manner).


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 27, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Sort of like the old "independent witness" idea in multiracial areas in the 70s and 80s, where if you saw the Bill hassling someone, you went over and took notes on what was happening.


Either would be a good development. (I know this pun doesn't work quite so well in the era of digital photography ...)

I have argued for this (specifically around the use of stop and search) for years.  I _almost_ got a formal scheme off the ground at Brixton when I was there - it wold have involved providing some advice and guidance to those wishing to do it and then providing them with some identification (for showing to police officers) and a direct line number to a senior officer to report concerns - a bit like Independent Custody Visitors, but for the street.  Sadly the bosses bottled out ... 

People should be encouraged to "supervise" police activity in that way (in a resonsible and non-interventionist fashion) as it is the only effective way of overseeing their activity - their supervisors cannot be with them except for a tiny proportion of the time.

Equally people should be encouraged to do likewise with criminal activity, for exactly the same reason: the police cannot be at the scene of a crime except for a tiny proportion of cases.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 27, 2010)

editor said:


> And still stupid cops think they can make people delete photos.


I have no idea why this level of ignorance is so persistent ... 

They will never have been trained that that is what they can do.  It is not consistent with (in fact, it is the polar opposite of) other evidence handling practice.  There is no law or procedure which they will have been left to their own devices to interpret which may be widely misinterpreted.

I suspect that (a) there are lots of new laws which individual officers have had very little, if any training on and which have not been proactively drawn to their attention and (b) they have therefore based their understanding on media coverage of new laws (which has sometimes suggested that police would have that power).

But seeing as this has been going on for so long now I do not understand why forces have not published a simple resume of what they can, and cannot do in relation to photographers and made sure that every officer acknowledges that they have been given it and understand it.


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2010)

derf said:


> I have been reading this thread with great interest and wonder why you put up with this oppression.


This is an important thread and posting up pretty pictures of police in foreign lands to support some wildly flawed irrelevant argument  has nothing to do with the debate whatsoever. Please don't pursue this 'point' here, derf - start a new thread if you want a debate on the merits of foreign policing versus UK "oppression."


----------



## cybertect (Mar 2, 2010)

Kidlington, Oxfordshire

photographer stopped and searched under s*43* of the Terrorism Act after he took four photographs of a police officer, who then demanded that he delete the photos.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/50...ation_to_stop_ex_RAF_engineer_in__Kidlington/

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...deleted_photos_terror_search_news_295299.html

He joined in on this thread on the AP forum.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/872749/an/0/page/0#872749


----------



## winjer (Mar 9, 2010)

> As bombs went off in Baghdad the London-based Iraq elections in Brent, North West London, did not go smoothly either. Some Iraqi-Kurds found they were unable to vote despite holding all the relevant documentation.
> 
> London Metropolitan police and TSG riot officers were brought in to contain the Kurdish voters in a pen. Tempers frayed and the Kurdish protestors pushed into the street and blocked the highway in a sit-down protest. As scuffles broke out and arrests made the police came under attack from bottles and rocks. The TSG riot police retaliated with batons and shields.



http://current.com/items/92301998_police-and-kurds-clash-during-london-iraq-election.htm

At 03:52 "Stop taking pictures or I'll take that off you".


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2010)

David Hanson MP, the UK Policing and Crime Minister has made a statement today:



> “I recently met with Austin Mitchell MP, members of the Parliamentary All Party Photography Group and representatives of the photographic press and the Royal Photographic Society to discuss the issue of counter terrorism powers and offences in relation to photography.
> 
> “I welcomed the opportunity to reassure all those concerned with this issue that we have no intention of Section 44 or Section 58A being used to stop ordinary people taking photos or to curtail legitimate journalistic activity.
> 
> ...



http://www.wirefresh.com/uk-minister-reassures-photographers-about-police-harassment/


----------



## editor (Apr 9, 2010)

An update about Clause 43 of the Digital Economy Bill. Photographers won!



> Photographers can claim a victory after the House of Commons removed the controversial Clause 43 from the Digital Economy Bill
> 
> Clause 43 would have allowed third parties to gain a license to use any orphan work without its copyright owner's permission provided it had done a diligent search for that person. Photographers united under the Stop43 campaign argued that the proposed legislation would bring to an end a photographer's control over his images.
> 
> ...


----------



## derf (Apr 9, 2010)

editor said:


> This is an important thread and posting up pretty pictures of police in foreign lands to support some wildly flawed irrelevant argument  has nothing to do with the debate whatsoever. Please don't pursue this 'point' here, derf - start a new thread if you want a debate on the merits of foreign policing versus UK "oppression."



Surely that is the point. Lots of posts here telling how the police hassle or even arrest some poor sod for doing nothing wrong. At the same time police in other countries (and one not that many years clear of being an oppressive one)  encourage you to take photos.
It puts into contrast how far the UK has gone down the pipes with daft laws used against poor sods who have no bad intent.
Frankly I'm shocked at the way things seem to be going over there and feel sorry for what you blokes are having to put up with.

Added. Yes it is a serious thread and I'm finding it very interesting.


----------



## winjer (Apr 13, 2010)

UK government appeals European Court ruling on Section 44
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=874193


----------



## DKH1103 (Apr 21, 2010)

*Photography in Blackheath leads to wailing police sirens*

I had an interesting experience whilst photographing the sunset in Blackheath last night. Apparently a local resident phoned the police due to someone with a camera behaving "suspiciously" <sigh>. The full story is on my blog:

http://www.davidkhardman.com/2010/04/public-photography-paranoia-and-police.html


----------



## ramjamclub (Apr 21, 2010)

*police OTT*

The Police and security forces are OTT 
on another thread


----------



## pogofish (Apr 21, 2010)

DKH1103 said:


> I had an interesting experience whilst photographing the sunset in Blackheath last night. Apparently a local resident phoned the police due to someone with a camera behaving "suspiciously" <sigh>. The full story is on my blog:
> 
> http://www.davidkhardman.com/2010/04/public-photography-paranoia-and-police.html



Interesting?  

Does Terry Waite still live somewhere in Blackheath?  I once had the attention of a number of police when I was inadvertantly the nearest person to him with a camera.


----------



## photohell35 (May 6, 2010)

I'm a budding amateur photographer, a single female, look quite young (but am 35, lol), have a camera that is a step up from a run of the mill digital, but nothing like the monster equipment the media run around with... yet yesterday I was confronted in the park, today in a street... all for taking pics of birds!!  Today I was asked if i was a terrorist by a pretty aggressive male in a quiet street near me, he actually meant it and had his phone out to call the police!  Yesterday i was approached in a park by a man clearing rubbish who had hidden from me behind a tree and called his boss on me!?  He asked why I was taking photos of him... despite the fact my camera was pointing the other way at birds on the grass area!?

I KNOW I'm allowed by law to take photos in a park, and okay I'm risking it a bit doing so in the street - but why is it okay to come and intimidate a lone female like that?  Especially one as innocent and law-abiding as me!?


----------



## editor (May 6, 2010)

Sounds like the bloke was more of a nutter! Maybe you should have called the cops on him?


----------



## cybertect (May 12, 2010)

Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition deal: full text




			
				The Guardian/New government said:
			
		

> *10. Civil liberties*
> 
> The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour government and roll back state intrusion.
> 
> ...



[emphasis added]


----------



## Paul Russell (May 12, 2010)

Yes, speaking as someone who has voted Labour in every election from 1992 onwards (including this one), I was hoping that one of the very few good things to come out of a Tory/LibDem Government would be the anti-authoritarian stuff.

Can of worms opened?


----------



## winjer (Jun 28, 2010)

Some good news:



> The Metropolitan Police has apologised and paid damages to two photojournalists after its officers prevented them from covering a protest outside the Greek Embassy. Marc Vallée and Jason Parkinson were prevented from capture images of the protest in December 2008 by officers from the Met’s diplomatic protection group. The London protests were a reaction to an incident in Greece where a young boy had been killed by the Greek police force. Vallée had his camera pulled away from his face and the lens of Parkinson's video camera was covered by officers. The two men were then told by officers they were not permitted to film them. The Metropolitan Police last week admitted the pair were unlawfully prevented from reporting by its officers and accepted liability for breaching both journalists' rights to freedom of expression – as detailed in Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Each man was paid legal costs by the Met and damages of £3,500.



http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=45636&c=1


----------



## winjer (Jun 28, 2010)

Meanwhile in Romford:



> This would be the mandatory angry blog post about my harassment in Romford yesterday. I was told by the police I was breaching the terrorism act, public order act, various misc copyright and child protection laws and otherwise being an “Agitator”. The incident started when I took an image (not a very good one it seems ) of a Police Cadet unit forming up to take part in an Armed Forces Day parade. I was quickly and aggressively stopped by one of their adult officers asking me who I worked for. I responded that I was a freelance and upon being told I needed parental permission to photograph them, I explained this was a public event in a public place and that I didn’t for editorial use. She then demanded my details and when I declined, I was quickly pulled aside by police officers. Then started recording, see below for the rest. I had my lens covered while trying to photograph my harassment , then told ‘I consider you a threat under the terrorism act’ for photographing a police officer, had my camera taken from around my neck, was detained and frog marched away before being pushed down some stairs and told they were concerned for my safety.



http://julesmattsson.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-romford-incident/


----------



## sim667 (Jun 28, 2010)

derf said:


> Surely that is the point. Lots of posts here telling how the police hassle or even arrest some poor sod for doing nothing wrong. At the same time police in other countries (and one not that many years clear of being an oppressive one)  encourage you to take photos.
> It puts into contrast how far the UK has gone down the pipes with daft laws used against poor sods who have no bad intent.
> Frankly I'm shocked at the way things seem to be going over there and feel sorry for what you blokes are having to put up with.
> 
> Added. Yes it is a serious thread and I'm finding it very interesting.



Ive spent a lot of time in spain, and know ridiculous stuff happens there too (maybe not photography wise, but certainly driving etc.......) I think every police force probably has it bane of contention.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Jun 28, 2010)

winjer said:


> Meanwhile in Romford:
> 
> http://julesmattsson.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-romford-incident/


Just read about it in the Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...top-photographer-taking-pictures-2012827.html

'The law' are above the law, apparently.


----------



## winjer (Jun 30, 2010)

I expect the police to rely even more on made up powers now:



> The European court of human rights has rejected an attempt by the UK government to appeal a judgment over its stop-and-search powers.
> 
> The decision means that a January 2010 court judgement which found section 44 of the Terrorism Act to be illegal is final.


http://www.politics.co.uk/news/legal-and-constitutional/govt-stop-and-search-appeal-rejected-$21381052.htm


----------



## cybertect (Jul 6, 2010)

winjer said:


> Meanwhile in Romford:
> 
> 
> 
> http://julesmattsson.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-romford-incident/




He's been stopped _again_ - s43 this time


----------



## laptop (Jul 8, 2010)

They _should_ stop now:



> The home secretary has announced stricter tests for stop and search powers after they were ruled unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights.
> 
> Police will now not be allowed to use the powers unless they "reasonably suspect" a person of being a terrorist.
> 
> ...


----------



## winjer (Dec 14, 2010)

The IPCC now says that knowing someone has been filming the Docklands Light Railway _is_ reasonable grounds to suspect they are a terrorist, and thus justify a search under Section _43_ of the Terrorism Act, especially due to all the _confusion_ caused by the media talking about police stopping photographers for no reason.

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr_141210_woolwichstopandsearch.htm


----------



## GoneCoastal (Dec 20, 2010)

winjer said:


> The IPCC now says that knowing someone has been filming the Docklands Light Railway _is_ reasonable grounds to suspect they are a terrorist, and thus justify a search under Section _43_ of the Terrorism Act, especially due to all the _confusion_ caused by the media talking about police stopping photographers for no reason.
> 
> http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr_141210_woolwichstopandsearch.htm


 
Grr


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 26, 2010)

It should be possible to identify, name and shame or hound these individuals that are making these assumptions on what is a terrorist threat?  Out here in the wilderness you could photograph local air bases, nuclear power station, transport infrastructure and other potential terrorist targets without any interference from the Police. Photograph an RTA and the Police want to know who you are, where you live etc etc etc...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 17, 2011)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...9/Why-cant-we-take-pictures-of-policemen.html

Just seen the article date. Was this over turned?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...9/Why-cant-we-take-pictures-of-policemen.html
> 
> Just seen the article date. Was this over turned?


 
you have every right to take pictures of the police.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 17, 2011)

The story threw me, & then i clocked the date. <doh>


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2011)

winjer said:


> The IPCC now says that knowing someone has been filming the Docklands Light Railway _is_ reasonable grounds to suspect they are a terrorist, and thus justify a search under Section _43_ of the Terrorism Act, especially due to all the _confusion_ caused by the media talking about police stopping photographers for no reason.
> 
> http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/pr_141210_woolwichstopandsearch.htm


that link doesn't work but this one does: http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_141210_woolwichstopandsearch.aspx


----------



## pk (Jan 18, 2011)

I've shot tons of things on the DLR, used to jump through all the hoops to get permission (no tripods allowed, accompanied by staff at all times, limited to off peak hours, and administration fees).

Now I just show up and shoot, not been caught the last 3 times I've done it.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 25, 2011)

http://mark-reed.blogspot.com/2011/01/complaint-im-photographer-not-terrorist.html


----------



## markreed (Jan 27, 2011)

OMG I'm a famous!


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2011)

markreed said:


> OMG I'm a famous!


I'm surprised they released you after you took those dangerous photographs. You surely are a threat to national security.

Or something.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jan 27, 2011)

Next time you are carrying out your evildoing surveillance, pick a day without mist!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 6, 2011)

markreed said:


> OMG I'm a famous!


 
Sorry Mark but now you have posted on here they have opened a file on you. Everybody here is a dangerous threat to security.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 16, 2011)

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...ice_has_great_xscape_news_305585.html?aff=rss


----------



## GoneCoastal (Feb 19, 2011)

And it's happening again 

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...errorists_say_police_news_305758.html?aff=rss

"All photographers are potential terrorists, say police"

C&P From article:

"Police routinely treat anyone seen taking pictures in public as potential terrorists, officers have told photography students during special police-led workshops.
Thirty-nine commercial photography students at Cleveland College of Art & Design have taken part in training sessions after tutors themselves fell victim to police stops.
'They [students] have been looking into the way criminals recce areas using photography, video footage and note-making,' said a college spokesman.
'Police officers are encouraged to approach anyone seen taking photographs or making notes as an effective and proportionate way to prevent and detect serious crime and terrorism.' "


----------



## mhendo (Feb 19, 2011)

What the fuck is going on over there? Has everyone in authority completely lost their mind? Are there really people who think that harassing casual photographers is going to prevent even a single act of terrorism or criminal activity?


----------



## andyzot (Feb 28, 2011)

What is the law concerning displaying other road users vehicle registration numbers in photos on the internet.
They wouldn't be the subject matter but there as part of the photo.

Thx


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 28, 2011)

Not illegal in and of itself.


----------



## mhendo (Feb 28, 2011)

andyzot said:


> What is the law concerning displaying other road users vehicle registration numbers in photos on the internet.
> They wouldn't be the subject matter but there as part of the photo.


I can't claim to be certain that there is no law against this, but this is one of those areas where any law against it would make absolutely no sense. 

A vehicle registration number is, by definition, a public piece of information. It is designed specifically to be displayed in public, and to allow people who don't know who owns any particular vehicle to differentiate one vehicle from another. Every time you drive your car on a public street, or park it in your driveway, you are displaying the license plate for the whole world to see.


----------



## DannyD (Jun 6, 2011)

"Oy! Oy! You! You with the camera!" this is so funny...

I wonder if anyone has got any advice on my dilemma - I was taking photos of groups of people in a public area with a fountain - in front of the town hall - I assume this area belongs to the city council? Anyway, loads of kids were playing in the fountain, people were sitting on the grass, etc - there are always loads of people in this area - so I decided to take shots of various random shots of people, wide shots of the whole place, as well as shots of kids playing in the fountain - it was a very hot day - after I had finished, I was stopped by 2 police officers (not uniform) and asked why I was taking loads of photos and what I was going to do with the photos - I explained it was for a photographic book competition and needed to take loads of photos in order to get at least one good shot from the shoot - overall they were OK and I just cooperated with them by searching my bag and looking at what I had shot - no action was taken in the end and didn't even tell me to delete the kids shots.

The question I want to ask is - one of the pictures I might consider using for my book - 2 kids playing in the fountain - the shot of 2 kids are not identifiable - one is got back towards the camera so you can't see the face, and the other I can make into a silhouette - I can even change the colour of clothing - there is nothing in the shot, as far as I can tell that identifies the kids (maybe only the location can be identified, but not the kids) - just in case there are any issues - I didn't have permission to photo the kids from the parents - 

Can I still use this type of photo for my book competition?


----------



## editor (Jun 6, 2011)

DannyD said:


> Can I still use this type of photo for my book competition?


If they were in a public place and you won't be using their images to 'front' commercial products or otherwise misrepresent them, yes.


----------



## DannyD (Jun 6, 2011)

editor said:


> If they were in a public place and you won't be using their images to 'front' commercial products or otherwise misrepresent them, yes.


 
thanks for that, much appreciated - there is so much ambiguity and paranoia involved, thanks.


----------



## winjer (Jun 28, 2011)

"I don't appreciate being filmed. [...] I am the law" - Met PC D724


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2011)

To show what photographers can expect to put up with in London, six photographers from activist group ' Shoot Experience ' were despatched to various parts of London and asked to take photographs. As expected, every one of the photographers found themselves being confronted by witless security guards, with the police being called on three occasions.

http://www.wirefresh.com/london-pho...right-to-snap-photos-security-hassles-follow/


----------



## kmarxs&sparks (Jul 22, 2011)

Is this London or north fucking Korea?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2011)

kmarxs&sparks said:


> Is this London or north fucking Korea?


 
can't be north korea cos there's enough to eat here


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2011)

What was encouraging was that the police seem to have finally developed a clue but the security guards remains as stupid as ever.


----------



## kmarxs&sparks (Jul 22, 2011)

winjer said:


> "I don't appreciate being filmed. [...] I am the law" - Met PC D724




Jesus fucking Christ!
I can see how the cop may be concerned about the embassy but he was well out of order.

Did the copper get reported?


----------



## cybertect (Jul 30, 2011)

editor said:


> What was encouraging was that the police seem to have finally developed a clue


 
N.B. City of London police, not the Met.

I could be slightly cynical and wonder if word got round the smaller force what was really going on, but it's good to see.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2011)

winjer said:


> "I don't appreciate being filmed. [...] I am the law" - Met PC D724


The photographer does an admirable job of keeping his cool and thoroughly outwitting the cop.


----------



## laptop (Jul 30, 2011)

cybertect said:


> N.B. City of London police, not the Met.
> 
> I could be slightly cynical and wonder if word got round the smaller force what was really going on, but it's good to see.


 
I wondered about that. Out loud. Ossifer smiled.

But it's not hard to deduce, when they had 6 photographers, each accomanied by a video camera-person, all going "OK, call the cops, then, please," that this is a test.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 30, 2011)

One of my neighbours is a CoL PC. I'll have to see if she heard anything


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 21, 2011)

Police Try To Bring Wiretapping Charges Against Woman Who Filmed Them Beating A Man

Looks like US cops are similarly unenthusiastic about being filmed breaking the law.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ainst-woman-who-filmed-them-beating-man.shtml


----------



## mhendo (Aug 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Police Try To Bring Wiretapping Charges Against Woman Who Filmed Them Beating A Man
> 
> Looks like US cops are similarly unenthusiastic about being filmed breaking the law.
> 
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ainst-woman-who-filmed-them-beating-man.shtml


Well, not quite.

It's not "the police" that are trying have criminal wiretapping charges brought against the woman; it's a single disgruntled cop who was disciplined as a result of the video. The legal types quoted in this story don't seem to think he has much of a chance of succeeding in his efforts to have her charged, and the spokesperson for the police department makes clear that the complaint was filed personally, and not on behalf of the police department.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 21, 2011)

kmarxs&sparks said:


> Jesus fucking Christ!
> I can see how the cop may be concerned about the embassy but he was well out of order.
> 
> Did the copper get reported?



Lots of backfilling by that cop toward the end.


----------



## cybertect (Sep 13, 2011)

mhendo said:


> Well, not quite.
> 
> It's not "the police" that are trying have criminal wiretapping charges brought against the woman; it's a single disgruntled cop who was disciplined as a result of the video. The legal types quoted in this story don't seem to think he has much of a chance of succeeding in his efforts to have her charged, and the spokesperson for the police department makes clear that the complaint was filed personally, and not on behalf of the police department.



The case was thrown out by the court

http://www.pixiq.com/article/wiretapping-law-doesnt-apply-in-massachusetts


----------



## mhendo (Sep 13, 2011)

cybertect said:


> The case was thrown out by the court
> 
> http://www.pixiq.com/article/wiretapping-law-doesnt-apply-in-massachusetts



Thanks for the update. I think it's a good result, not only in this particular case, but for the precedent it sets in Massachusetts. The idea that police should be protected from being filmed or recorded when performing their duties in public is very problematic, and i think the DA's decision that they have no expectation of privacy in such situations is heartening.

The most depressing part of the whole story is that a cop who participated in a brutal beating that left the victim with "nearly every bone in his face broken, teeth knocked out and partially blinded in one eye" was only suspended for 45 days.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 7, 2011)

Anyone fancy an urban photography day out in London? As individuals move in a loose pack and take pictures of 'sensitive' sites, Mi6, Mi5, MOD, BAe, McDonald's etc. - anyone who gets hassled gets photographed by the others.

Could be a hoot?


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 14, 2011)

A few years ago I went into my local newsagent for a paper, and the woman behind the counter told me this story:

"Someone tried to photograph my shop the other day [from the street, presumably]. I said to him, 'Hand over your camera, or I call the police,' so he did. No one photographs MY shop!"

I would like to have told her that if she'd called the police, they'd have told her the photographer wasn't committing any crime, but in taking his camera, she certainly was. One reason why I didn't was because she kept two huge Alsatians behind the counter. But I showed her what I thought by never going into that shop again.


----------



## pogofish (Oct 18, 2011)

On the subject of photographing shops - Here's a pretty jawdropping report of an incident that happened over an upcoming exhibition on a controversial planning issue in my neck of the woods:

http://aberdeenvoice.com/2011/10/security-or-censorship-photos-banned-near-utg-show/


----------



## gavman (Oct 18, 2011)

winjer said:


> "I don't appreciate being filmed. [...] I am the law" - Met PC D724



the boy done good


----------



## sim667 (Oct 18, 2011)

Is there not a name and shame website for police and security guards where photographers/videographers can put up their pics and name them?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 18, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Is there not a name and shame website for police and security guards where photographers/videographers can put up their pics and name them?



www.urban75.net


----------



## sim667 (Oct 18, 2011)

well that tells you your rights, and has case studies, there's no such name and shame though.


----------



## XR75 (Oct 18, 2011)

editor said:


> What was encouraging was that the police seem to have finally developed a clue but the security guards remains as stupid as ever.



Or they're doing exactly what they're told to.

Here's another incident with someone taking photos in a mall.



> “He then said I had been spotted taking photos in the shopping centre which was ’illegal’ and not allowed and then asked me to delete any photos I had taken. I explained I had taken 2 photos of my daughter eating ice cream and that she was the only person in the photo so didn’t see any problem. i also said that I wasn’t that willing to delete the photo’s and there seemed little point as I had actually uploaded them to facebook.
> 
> “He then said i would have to stay right where I was while he called the police, which seemed as little extreme. My daughter was crying by this stage, but I said that was fine I would wait and began to comfort my daughter who was saying she didn’t like the man and wanted to go. After about 5 minutes two police officers arrived.



http://www.thelawyer.com/taking-photographs-at-braehead-shopping-centre/1009790.article

What makes it a little more mysterious is the statement released by the police further down in the article.



> “The members of the public who asked for the security staff to become involved have told us that they did so for reasons which had absolutely nothing to do with him taking photographs of his daughter. They had a very specific concern, which I am not in a position to discuss publicly, that they felt the need to report. It was because of this very specific concern that security staff became involved. They were right to raise their concern and we are glad that they did so.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 18, 2011)

> It was because of this very specific concern that security staff became involved. They were right to raise their concern and we are glad that they did so.



What they mean is that a man taking photos of a little girl in these times is assumed to be a paedo ! even if the little girl is in fact his daughter! - what a fucking state of affairs we have gotten into!!


----------



## winjer (Nov 11, 2011)

_"Security guards have no right to prevent street photography," says Home Office_

_The Home Office and the British Security Industry Association have published a new set of guidelines for security guards confirming that photography in public places is legal and cannot be restricted. More than a year after Home Secretary Theresa May launched a review of the UK's counter-terrorism and security powers, a new set of guidelines have been published for security guards, who, in an increasing number of cases, have been accused of preventing professional photographers from working in public places._

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j...guards-prevent-street-photography-home-office


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 12, 2011)

Thanks winjer for that link. I have downloaded the guidlines PDF to my mobile phone.


----------



## FunkyUK (Nov 24, 2011)

Is anyone concerned that the Levenson enquiry is going to lead to rehash of the laws into photography in public places?


----------



## Boo38 (Nov 28, 2011)

Well, it seems s.44 of the Anti terror law is still rife in Hampshire.
I was stopped & searched under said act yesterday for taking a photograph of an Ambulance and a police car outside a property in my area, the usual Q's ensued and when I didn't consent they slapped on the bracelets and detained me for the purposes of a search under s.44.....and there was me thinking it had been canned as it was unlawful??


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 29, 2011)

Boo38 said:


> Well, it seems s.44 of the Anti terror law is still rife in Hampshire.
> I was stopped & searched under said act yesterday for taking a photograph of an Ambulance and a police car outside a property in my area, the usual Q's ensued and when I didn't consent they slapped on the bracelets and detained me for the purposes of a search under s.44.....and there was me thinking it had been canned as it was unlawful??


It has been, and I don't think S44 was ever in effect in Hampshire... though I could be wrong on the latter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2011)

Boo38 said:


> Well, it seems s.44 of the Anti terror law is still rife in Hampshire.
> I was stopped & searched under said act yesterday for taking a photograph of an Ambulance and a police car outside a property in my area, the usual Q's ensued and when I didn't consent they slapped on the bracelets and detained me for the purposes of a search under s.44.....and there was me thinking it had been canned as it was unlawful??


i hope you have the search form; i would consult a solicitor with regard to suing for assault - i would be interested to see how they'd justify the use of force and iirc use of handcuffs has to be recorded (don't quote me on that though)


----------



## Boo38 (Nov 29, 2011)

Yes got the form/receipt of the stop & search, complained to the Professional Standards department, and local MP, just wish I hadn't had a drink as only got 15 seconds of video footage before they slapped the cuffs on!


----------



## editor (Nov 29, 2011)

I've added this to the growing case studies here: http://www.urban75.org/photos/photography-case-studies.html


----------



## cybertect (Nov 29, 2011)

Does it actually say s44 on the form?!!!

Detained unlawfully if it does.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 29, 2011)

I know this will have been mentioned before, but is there a link to a FAQ on photographing at demos? I'll be taking my SLR tommorow.

eta: ah, here:http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographing-protests.html


----------



## cybertect (Nov 30, 2011)

Are you in Southampton?

Rather disturbing story about a guy there having his camera taken as 'evidence' by two policemen today.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=369433

It appears the the police were fakes (impersonating police officers, not PCSOs ) operating an elaborate scam.


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 2, 2011)

No Portsmouth....
Sorry for the delay in replying, been busy with this complaint.
So far I have informed my local MP and have emailed the Professional Standards Department, I'm about to send them a hard copy of my complaint also.
The form the use was a C12 A?? And they use codes for what type of search, mine was search code 'J' which translates into 'Terrorism s.44(2)'
I took some quick legal advice from a local firm I use and they simply said to make a formal complaint to the front desk at the station, that proved to be as much use as indicators on a submarine.
I will look into using Bindmans in London as they do this on a daily basis, unless anyone else can suggest a decent law firm who deal with these specific matters?
I'm a computer mong so can't upload the two photo's that lead to me being a terrorist, but I do have 15 seconds of video footage, just before they slap the bracelets on!


----------



## cybertect (Dec 2, 2011)

Boo38 said:


> The form the use was a C12 A?? And they use codes for what type of search, mine was search code 'J' which translates into 'Terrorism s.44(2)'



C12A is the standard form to be completed after a 'Street Encounter' in police-speak.

Hampshire police's Procedure documents are here

The most relevant being 24700, 24701 and 24702. 

24701 is STREET ENCOUNTERS – USE OF FORMS C12A AND C12B



> 3.8.2.
> 
> In an effort to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy the information required to be recorded on the C12A Street Encounters form in relation to Stop and Account will be kept to the minimum that is necessary to comply with Government data recording requirements.
> 
> ...



So, I'm correct in understanding that they've entered Code as 'J' and Relevant Power as 'Terrorism s.44(2)?


----------



## cybertect (Dec 2, 2011)

Have you been in touch with Amateur Photographer magazine? They would be *very* interested in the story and may be able to give you some advice.


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 2, 2011)

Hi, thank you for your valuable advice,
I didn't think of AP, I'll get onto that over the weekend.
Yes code 'J' was entered into the form, and it refers to 'Terrorism s.44(2), correct.

AFAIK that act has been suspended, and it all now comes under something different? All I am really after is to make the force accountable for their actions and give them further bad publicity surrounding their dealings with the Public going about their normal lawful lives, I do not expect to be accused of being a terrorist every time I go out doing my hobby.

P.S. Just emailed AP to give them a heads up and ask for their advice.


----------



## cybertect (Dec 2, 2011)

Great. Don't suppose there's a chance of a pic of the form?


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 2, 2011)

> 3.9. Terrorism Stops
> 3.9.1. Where a Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 authorisation has been
> made, it conveys the power for a police officer in uniform to
> ‘Stop AND Search’ a person in a location covered by that
> authorisation.





> 3.9.4. When issuing C12A Street Encounters forms in respect of
> Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 stop and searches, officers
> should write “RAINBOW” in the box titled ‘Operation Name’ and
> enter the occurrence number in the box titled ‘Occurrence
> ...



3.9.4. Is the clincher, no such wording was ever filled in as there was no such vulnerable site, just two enforcement officers feeling bored and wanting something to do.


----------



## cybertect (Dec 2, 2011)

Thanks. You might want to redact your name and/or address on that, though.

Forgive me my blindness, but where's the mention of s44? Is it on the other side?


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 2, 2011)

No, I'm not bothered about them knowing my name etc I have nothing to fear, the mention of s.44 is the 'search code' box toward the bottom "J" is the code and "Terrorism s.44(2)" is the Legal power exercised!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> I know this will have been mentioned before, but is there a link to a FAQ on photographing at demos? I'll be taking my SLR tommorow.
> 
> eta: ah, here:http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographing-protests.html





Boo38 said:


> No Portsmouth....
> Sorry for the delay in replying, been busy with this complaint.
> So far I have informed my local MP and have emailed the Professional Standards Department, I'm about to send them a hard copy of my complaint also.
> The form the use was a C12 A?? And they use codes for what type of search, mine was search code 'J' which translates into 'Terrorism s.44(2)'
> ...



from the sounds of the film you were detained unlawfully and the search itself was unlawful on the grounds that they are exercising a search power under section 1 of pace (pace box also ticked on form) but did not introduce themselves prior to the search giving their name (or warrant number) and the station to which they are attached, as per section 2 of pace.


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 2, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> from the sounds of the film you were detained unlawfully and the search itself was unlawful on the grounds that they are exercising a search power under section 1 of pace (pace box also ticked on form) but did not introduce themselves prior to the search giving their name (or warrant number) and the station to which they are attached, as per section 2 of pace.



The footage is only a very brief afterthought on my part, they may have well introduced themselves prior to that footage being take, although I strongly doubt it as I only know the name of the enforcement revenue collector from the s&s form.

A PACE search was conducted, but the reason for the search was under s.44(2) of the Anti terror act. Which I am led to believe is suspended regarding ECHR.

And as you correctly say, I had no idea of which station they are from, still don't now??


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 2, 2011)

cybertect said:


> Forgive me my blindness, but where's the mention of s44? Is it on the other side?


Apologies...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 2, 2011)

i don't know if there are any regulations about filming yourself getting searched. as far as i know it's not against the law, although it would be slightly inconvenient for the cops and you wouldn't get great pictures. never seen anything in the pace code of practice about stop the person being searched filming. and as long as you're in a public place you can take pictures of what you want.


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 2, 2011)

Yes thank you for your advice and thoughts, there is NO law that stops you from filming what you wish, nor is there any law that says you can't photograph what you want either.
It is simply the old bill making up the law as they go along, thinking that they are one rung above the rest of us and have some sort of authority over us, especially photographers?

Simply because they dislike the fact that you have a pro camera in your hands and are photographing something you find interesting, they believe they can accuse you of being a terrorist and attempt to exploit your lack of knowledge into submission, is what is wrong here.
They are public servants, they serve you and me, they are there to protect US.

However some of them fail to honour the oath they swore when they became members of the public office, and believe that they are employed to protect those that choose to govern us, this is incorrect, and I firmly believe that they need to be made accountable for their actions against us, the people they have been employed to protect.

I was in public, on a public pavement, by a public road, minding my own lawful business, taking a photograph of something I thought might be news worthy for the local rag, they took offence to that and they committed offences themselves, I committed none.

Taking photo's is not a crime, detaining a person using a suspended act, and handcuffing them for the duration of a search, is common assault.


----------



## cybertect (Dec 2, 2011)

Boo38 said:


> Apologies...



Aha. Now that makes sense.

Thank you.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 2, 2011)

Boo38 said:


> They are public servants, they serve you and me, they are there to protect US



Sadly not  They're a bunch of utter fickin' cunts.


----------



## laptop (Dec 3, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know if there are any regulations about filming yourself getting searched. as far as i know it's not against the law, although it would be slightly inconvenient for the cops and you wouldn't get great pictures.



There were suspicions that Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (introduced by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008) was intended to stop filming of police (and members of the armed forces and security services). But it had not been used by the end of 2010, the Home Office reported in January - and I haven't heard of use this year.

58A states that:



> (1) A person commits an offence who—​(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—​(i) a member of Her Majesty's forces,
> (ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
> (iii) a constable,​which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or​(b) publishes or communicates any such information.​(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.​


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2011)

laptop said:


> There were suspicions that Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (introduced by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008) was intended to stop filming of police (and members of the armed forces and security services). But it had not been used by the end of 2010, the Home Office reported in January - and I haven't heard of use this year.
> 
> 58A states that:


eliciting isn't taking pictures, it's asking people questions. and you can't use a bit about publishing and communicating to stop people taking pictures.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 3, 2011)

editor said:


> And then there's the thought that although the guy was a complete tosser, he's probably on a shit wage *so who am I to try and get him sacked?*



someone he is cunting about . Just as Im sure Levi Bellfield ,minimum wage security guard and prize cunt , cunted others about when he had his little uniform on . Earning a crap wage isnt a license to fuck others about . Just think of the others he has intimidated that werent as conversant with personal rights and the law as you are , and the others he will most certainly harass and intimidate in the future . Zero sympathy for twats like that .regardless of the money theyre on .


----------



## Greebo (Dec 3, 2011)

Casually Red said:


> someone he is cunting about . Just as Im sure Levi Bellfield ,minimum wage security guard and prize cunt , cunted others about when he had his little uniform on . Earning a crap wage isnt a license to fuck others about . Just think of the others he has intimidated that werent as conversant with personal rights and the law as you are , and the others he will most certainly harass and intimidate in the future . Zero sympathy for twats like that .regardless of the money theyre on .


Agreed.  If he's abused even the tiny bit of power which went with his job, he doesn't deserve to keep it.


----------



## Nigel (Dec 3, 2011)

Guy in America could face up to 75years in prison for photograping police officers, what he considers wrongly executing their duty:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DbxSZ_FB8&feature=share


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 3, 2011)

Well I had the first response to my complaint today off my local MP.
And I am extremely pleased with what he has said in his letter, he has written to the Chief Constable of Hants police, the Chair of Hants police authority, and chair of the professional standards committee on my behalf.

He has asked that the chief constable deal with this very quickly, offer an apology and compensation, as in his own words "On the face of it, there were no legal powers to stop & search him or stop him from taking photographs in a public place".
He also goes on to say "I look forward to your early reply as it is of great concern to me that officers are going about their duties quoting the law wrongly and acting illegally"

So far so good, lets see them play their hand first before I make my next move.
Thank you once again everyone for your advice.


----------



## RoyReed (Dec 3, 2011)

Good luck with this - it's still happening far too often!


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 3, 2011)

Thank you, I have just emailed Bindmans for some advice before I inform the local press.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 3, 2011)

Tash (Alan Lodge)
posts about a Notts student getting his tape back after more overzealous and incorrect policing
http://nottingham.indymedia.org/articles/2239




			
				notts indymedia said:
			
		

> However, Lewis had only filmed the arrest of the individual, NOT the original alleged crime.  There has been some media exposure on this issue and the continued lack of ahderence by officers to the protocols / guidelines agreed with Nottinghamshire Police.
> 
> 
> The constables action may be contrary to at least three clauses, namely:
> ...


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 3, 2011)

I find it absolutely incredible that it ever got to this stage at all, I mean how on earth do they seriously believe they are acting with any sense of lawfulness going around detaining and seizing innocent members of the public equipment? I have never heard that one of there 'knee jerk' anti terror stop & search has ever provided any evidence that they have made the correct decision.

It is purely because they wish to exert some sort of authority over others, well, if this is how they improve public relations someone is seriously deluded.
My s&s was done unlawfully under a part of an act (s.44) that no longer exists, the fact that Acts are not law is beside the point, but I will not let there puerile attitude deter me from photographing what I want when I want.


----------



## laptop (Dec 3, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> eliciting isn't taking pictures, it's asking people questions. and you can't use a bit about publishing and communicating to stop people taking pictures.



Yes, I'm fairly sure the courts would find that in the end. But, what with plod (and pseudoplod?) apparently using S44 after its repeal... the question would be, how far up the chain of courts would you have to go to get the right answer? £1000-worth, £10,000-worth... ?


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 3, 2011)

I am pretty confident in my case that they will fold very quickly, admit their error, give a bit of flannel saying that they were only doing their job, whatever their 'job' is, and cough up.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 3, 2011)

Boo38 said:


> Apologies...


Unreadable even under a microscope I'm afraid.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 3, 2011)

Boo38 said:


> I am pretty confident in my case that they will fold very quickly, admit their error, give a bit of flannel saying that they were only doing their job, whatever their 'job' is, and cough up.


Particularly now the MP is involved. (MPs love this sort of thing - the law is clear, it's not politically risky for them because every party _claims_ they're for press freedom, there's a high chance of success, and they can look like the good guys standing up for their constituents for a change.)


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 3, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Unreadable even under a microscope I'm afraid.



It loads large enough for me to read? Even if you click on the image and then on the arrow in the top right hand corner it should enable you to magnify it, it's just the 'code' J, and it's definition, Terrorism s.44(2)


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 3, 2011)

Maybe it's just my notebook, but nothing works to make that attachment readable, even hitting Ctrl + so that other test is three inches high.


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 3, 2011)

Hm?? What about this one?

I click on the blue link and enlarge it in that screen...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 3, 2011)

Better, but there are still parts that are very blurry that I can't see properly, but I do have cataracts. You must have good vision.


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 3, 2011)

Ha ha! No I have the actual document in front of me, I have double vision...and that's not through beer


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 3, 2011)

On another note, a mate of mine had hassle from a couple of cops a few months ago when he was taking pictures near Buckingham Palace and was well pissed off at their lack of legal knowledge regarding the rights of photographers and refused to give his details but loved the fact that he was recorded as 'male, forties' when he's well into his late sixties.


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 3, 2011)

He's had an easy paper round then!


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 11, 2011)

Update, yesterday I received a letter from the Chief inspector, asking if I would be so kind as to arrange an appointment with his _'management assistant'_ to go into my local cop shop and attempt a local resolution......er No I can't and I won't.

I had at first simply rolled over and though yep OK I will arrange to go in and discuss this, but after a bit of thought, I wondered why 'I' should have to go to their place of work? After all I've done sod all wrong here, shouldn't it be them making the effort to come to me and sort out their mess?

Besides, I don't trust them, I would much rather the meeting is held on neutral ground where I can stack the odds in my favour, I am not contemplating letting them in my front door, but would much rather it be held somewhere I know, how do I know that walking into his place of work I'm not opening myself up to arrest?
I smell a rat.

Am I paranoid, yes, after years of being treated badly by the police, and now unlawfully, they are the very last people on earth that I would trust.


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 12, 2011)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...inspector-photo-outburst-military-parade.html


----------



## laptop (Dec 12, 2011)

stowpirate said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...inspector-photo-outburst-military-parade.html



Nice one Jules Mattson.

And can someone find the online link to this week's _Economist_ piece on photographing police in the US? I have to go now...


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 12, 2011)

http://www.economist.com/node/21541467 is it this?


----------



## laptop (Dec 12, 2011)

Boo38 said:


> http://www.economist.com/node/21541467 is it this?



Home now. It is. Ta


----------



## cybertect (Dec 15, 2011)

I took the liberty of posting Boo38's tale on talkphotography.co.uk

Interesting result

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=372093




			
				AndWhyNot said:
			
		

> Musicman, if you're active on U75 get the OP (boo38) to get in touch with me as I went through all this with Portsmouth a year ago.
> 
> As part of the force's resolution of my formal complaint (for which I received an official apology) they were supposed to be undertaking to better educate frontline staff about discontinuation of s44. Might prove some useful background for the OP.


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 15, 2011)

The more info the better, thank you, I have emailed him.
An official apology is the least I would expect!


----------



## cybertect (Dec 15, 2011)

Thinking about it, it might help if the stationery the Police are using didn't refer to legislation that's no longer on the statute books...


----------



## Boo38 (Dec 16, 2011)

Well I did try to inform them, even gave them two chances to confirm what law they were going to be searching me under....I know the anti terror law is only an act so isn't law at all.
But I agree, the document they issued me with a breakdown of the search codes would have only led to confirming to the officers that they had in fact acted lawfully, another stella point to raise with the chef inspector, cheers cybertect!


----------



## Jeremy Johnson (Dec 27, 2011)

I'm aware that it is full of embassy's but for some reason 'Kensington Palace Gardens' Road has signs up and down it stating 'no photography'.
I took a photo of one of the signs and then from an intercom of one of the houses the security told me to delete it! Anyone else had experience of this road! ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Palace_Gardens


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 27, 2011)

It doesn't seem to be a private street, in which case they have no right to prohibit photography.

Might go down there tomorrow, it's just down the road and I have a camera to test.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 27, 2011)

It's full of Embassies as well as billionaires and armed police at either end though.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 27, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It doesn't seem to be a private street, in which case they have no right to prohibit photography.
> 
> Might go down there tomorrow, it's just down the road and I have a camera to test.



TERORST


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 27, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> It's full of Embassies as well as billionaires and armed police at either end though.


Well, I'll try not to do any suicide bombings while I'm there. I bet they have nice houses.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 27, 2011)

Just don't make sudden movements near the ones with guns.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 27, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Just don't make sudden movements near the ones with guns.


I may be wearing a bulky overcoat  It's likely to be cold.


----------



## laptop (Dec 27, 2011)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It doesn't seem to be a private street



IIRC it is a private street. Which is an attraction for the embassies.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Dec 27, 2011)

...and the billionaires.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2012)

more fuckwittery from plod last week outside Lawrence trial at old bailey
on a public street. (thanks to tash tweet for this info)
http://photothisandthat.co.uk/2012/01/07/police-censorship/


> Another photographer adds, ” It was a complete joke. The Police officers couldn’t decide which side of the street to make us stand on. One officer said we couldn’t stand under the scaffolding (open to the public) on kerb opposite because “the building company haven’t given you permission” – to stand on a public street? Then they insisted we stand about 50 yards away (to do a car shot) and when the car arrived one officer followed me across the street to make sure he blocked my view. I asked another officer if this was still a public street? She refused to answer”.


----------



## editor (Jan 8, 2012)

Jeremy Johnson said:


> I took a photo of one of the signs and then from an intercom of one of the houses the security told me to delete it! Anyone else had experience of this road! ?


You should have invited the person out to discuss it, and then snapped them too for the extra LOLz.


----------



## Floppy Fairy (Jan 15, 2012)

Actually, i do wonder what the laws on photography are, and if anybody has a decent knowledge of them i would really like some advise..
When i was twelve a photo was taken of me by a photographer named Iain Mckell, i had no idea who he was and he said that the photos were to be used in a private portifolio. Well three years later i find out that hes made a book named 'The new gypsies' with me in it, did a launch at the london school of fashion with my photo AND had allowed it to be printed in big issue magazine with a artical labelling me a a gypsy and saying that all gypsies shit in hedges! On top of that if you type 'gypsy' into google images my photo comes up!

I never gave him permission to use my photo and even if i had would he not have needed parental permission?

What would anyone suggest is a good course of action?


----------



## editor (Jan 15, 2012)

Floppy: you've started another thread on this here, so it makes sense to discuss it there.


----------



## Marc Fairhurst (Mar 4, 2012)

I tend to have problems from security personnel, but not the police, in general. I got more grief taking this:



...than I did when taking things like this.


----------



## winjer (Mar 19, 2012)

big eejit said:


> And again...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/italian-student-police-arrest-filming


Follow-up on that incident:

"An Italian student has won an out-of-court settlement with police after she was stopped under anti-terrorist legislation while filming buildings in London, and later arrested, held in a cell for five hours and then fined."

"Bonomo is particularly concerned about the handling of her complaint by the acting inspector David Pascoe, from the Met's department of professional standards. He decided Bonomo had no grounds for complaint without even interviewing any of the officers involved. The Met has now been asked to reinvestigate the complaint by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which upheld an appeal from Bonomo. The IPCC said Bonomo had lodged a "serious complaint" that had become part of the "global discourse on policing" after the video "became viral and has attracted national and international criticism". 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/19/police-payout-student-arrested-filming


----------



## Jeremy Johnson (Mar 20, 2012)

Just thought I'd say that I got a response from The Crown estate RE: Taking photos in Kensington Park Gardens road!

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/photography_in_kensington_palace

Its nice that they admit there is no legislation or law to make this enforceable!


----------



## winjer (Mar 20, 2012)

Jeremy Johnson said:


> Its nice that they admit there is no legislation or law to make this enforceable!


No specific legislation, but plenty of law.

"The authority for this rule is not derived from legislation but from the right of every landowner to impose conditions on access to its property." is correct, and enforceable.


----------



## RoyReed (Mar 31, 2012)

No photography in Parliament Square?


----------



## laptop (Apr 1, 2012)

RoyReed said:


> No photography in Parliament Square?


 
Dowload a permit for news photography.


----------



## mhendo (Apr 1, 2012)

laptop said:


> Dowload a permit for news photography.


That's not a permit. It's an authorization notice saying that holders of a UKPCA Press Card can shoot. Downloading the notice by itself is pointless if you don't have the card, and the notice says that you don't need to display the notice as long as you have the card.


----------



## laptop (Apr 1, 2012)

mhendo said:


> That's not a permit. It's an authorization notice


 
But you're not forced to tell pseudoplod it isn't a permit 



mhendo said:


> saying that holders of a UKPCA Press Card can shoot. Downloading the notice by itself is pointless if you don't have the card, and the notice says that you don't need to display the notice as long as you have the card.


 
True, certainly true in theory. Reports on whether it works, in practice, without a press card would be interesting...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2012)

article and video in guardian about security not knowing arse from spanish archer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/video/2012/apr/16/02-olympic-venue-security-stop-photography-video


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 16, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> article and video in guardian about security not knowing arse from spanish archer
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/video/2012/apr/16/02-olympic-venue-security-stop-photography-video


Text article here - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/16/02-olympic-venues-row-security-photography

The key point being at the end:


> "I've never been stopped as much as I have in the past six months," she said. "It's happened more than in the rest of my life before. Sometimes I even think, 'Can I be bothered with all the hassle of taking a particular picture, is it worth it?' It's got to that stage."


Which is the thing really - even if you know the law and you're entirely on the right side of it, after a while of getting hassle you're likely to consciously or subconsciously avoid places where you might get even more. The basic purpose is being achieved.


----------



## Mr Smin (Apr 16, 2012)

I just read that article and I thought it really demands a flash-mob (sorry about the pun) of photographers to pitch up at some agreed time and location and take pictures of a noteworthy London site en masse.


----------



## RoyReed (Apr 16, 2012)

Mr Smin said:


> I just read that article and I thought it really demands a flash-mob (sorry about the pun) of photographers to pitch up at some agreed time and location and take pictures of a noteworthy London site en masse.


Already been done at City Hall. Unfortunately none of the security guards came out to play.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2012)

Mr Smin said:


> I just read that article and I thought it really demands a flash-mob (sorry about the pun) of photographers to pitch up at some agreed time and location and take pictures of a noteworthy London site en masse.


either that or to turn up one after the other all day long.


----------



## Mr Smin (Apr 16, 2012)

RoyReed said:


> Already been done at City Hall. Unfortunately none of the security guards came out to play.


 
That's coz they're soft. Proper, 'Olympic'', security guards would never miss a chance to defend a famous landmark from artistic endeavour. Probably.
I sort of envisioned it looking like a photography club field trip - cameras, cucumber sandwiches. No tripods obviously as that's classed as dual-use technology because you _could_ mount machine guns on them.


----------



## Haaris Qureshi (May 15, 2012)

Hey. Was just reading your website, and I found it extremely informative. One thing missing that I want to know about. Exactly WHEN can the police view or/and confiscate your video? If I'm filming something, and they tell me that they want to see what I'm filming, when do I have to stop the recording and actually show them, for what reasons? Thanks.


----------



## sim667 (May 15, 2012)

Haaris Qureshi said:


> Hey. Was just reading your website, and I found it extremely informative. One thing missing that I want to know about. Exactly WHEN can the police view or/and confiscate your video? If I'm filming something, and they tell me that they want to see what I'm filming, when do I have to stop the recording and actually show them, for what reasons? Thanks.


 
They can only seize it for evidence as far as I'm aware, which i think they need a warrant for.

You can only be stopped for filming something if you are standing on private land.


----------



## laptop (May 15, 2012)

sim667 said:


> They can only seize it for evidence as far as I'm aware, which i think they need a warrant for.


 
They need a warrant from a judge *if* it's filmed for journalistic purposes.



sim667 said:


> You can only be stopped for filming something if you are standing on private land.


 
Not quite. There may be circumstances in which, for example, filming a crime scene could harm the investigation. But cops regularly over-use this when they simply don't _want_ filming.


----------



## sim667 (May 15, 2012)

Theyve been changing laws then, when I learnt it at college they needed a warrant to confiscate memory cards and video of anyone.

It also used to be the case that you could only be stopped from filming a crime scene if you were actively disrupting the investigation.

TBF scum are a law unto themselves, they'll just try and make up whatever rules suit them at the time.


----------



## laptop (May 15, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Theyve been changing laws then, when I learnt it at college they needed a warrant to confiscate memory cards and video of anyone.


 
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is very specific: "special procedure materials" are notes and images gathered, by anyone, _for journalistic purposes_.

It's the only specific protection for journalism in the law of England and Wales.



sim667 said:


> It also used to be the case that you could only be stopped from filming a crime scene if you were actively disrupting the investigation.
> 
> TBF scum are a law unto themselves, they'll just try and make up whatever rules suit them at the time.


 
That would be a matter for the court to decide when one sues the police


----------



## sim667 (May 15, 2012)

laptop said:


> The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is very specific: "special procedure materials" are notes and images gathered, by anyone, _for journalistic purposes_.
> 
> It's the only specific protection for journalism in the law of England and Wales.
> 
> ...


 
So you have to have an NUJ card?


----------



## laptop (May 15, 2012)

sim667 said:


> So you have to have an NUJ card?


 
No.

For the third time: you have to be taking notes or pictures _*for journalistic purposes*._

The law very deliberately does not define this phrase. Whether you were in fact covered will be decided by the court when you sue the police for wrongful seizure.

As I keep saying to photographers: if you want to know _precisely what the law is_, move to Germany.


----------



## sim667 (May 15, 2012)

Blimey, dont get stroppy about it.

It would make sense that you are a journalist if you have an NUJ card, but not if you dont, but i guess with the amount of grassroots media now, anyone can really claim they're shooting for jorunalistic purposes. The issue really is now whether they use these powers as opposed to the terrorism act powers to further the integration of state censorship into society.


----------



## editor (May 21, 2012)

Glasgow underground are set to introduce a complete ban on photography.   

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...introduce-complete-ban-on-photography.293676/


----------



## robart (May 31, 2012)

question im a driving instructor .I use an on board camera to record pupils and possibly to report bad drivers
what the law reguarding this ,i thought if you can see it you can shoot it


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 7, 2012)

West Mercia Police are undoubtedly not happy about having to pay out £10,000 in compensation to a wronged (indeed _*assaulted*_) photographer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/05/west-mercia-police-compensate-man?newsfeed=true


----------



## editor (Jun 7, 2012)

robart said:


> question im a driving instructor .I use an on board camera to record pupils and possibly to report bad drivers
> what the law reguarding this ,i thought if you can see it you can shoot it


If you're on public roads, then you should be free to film.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 7, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> West Mercia Police are undoubtedly not happy about having to pay out £10,000 in compensation to a wronged (indeed _*assaulted*_) photographer.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/05/west-mercia-police-compensate-man?newsfeed=true


 
no doubt the bastards who did it will get away scott free.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 7, 2012)

'Words of advice', I daresay.


----------



## laptop (Jun 7, 2012)

robart said:


> question im a driving instructor .I use an on board camera to record pupils and possibly to report bad drivers
> what the law reguarding this ,i thought if you can see it you can shoot it


 
You should inform the pupils that you are recording them - since it's video of them personally, rather than them appearing incidentally in video of the street. (Same rules apply as for recording conversations, I think.)

As for recording the street scene: so long as you're in "a place accessible to the public" (the words of at least one judge in a precedent-setting finding) you should be OK.


----------



## cybertect (Jun 19, 2012)

From Pink News





			
				Pink News said:
			
		

> A gay man was stopped at Gatwick airport last year by a Border Force officer who suspected he was ‘involved in paedophilia’ because he had a camera and a boyfriend, a report into controls at the airport has revealed.
> 
> The incident was recorded during observations of staff behaviour as part of an inspection at Gatwick airport’s north terminal by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s office, and highlighted by journalist David Hencke.
> 
> ...


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 28, 2012)

cybertect said:


> From Pink News


 
jesus


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jun 28, 2012)

robart said:


> question im a driving instructor .I use an on board camera to record pupils and possibly to report bad drivers
> 
> what the law reguarding this ,i thought if you can see it you can shoot it


 
I'm not a lawyer, but from my perspective -

Since Google can send cars driving through public highways to record images, I don't see why anyone else can't.

Many bus operators have CCTV systems fitted to their buses, including cameras recording the view of the road in front of and behind the bus (this has had quite an effect on reducing dodgy insurance claims) but I don't know whether such recordings would be accepted as evidence by police of (for example) someone else committing a moving traffic offence.  I think such recordings can be used to do people for driving / parking in bus lanes, but this may depend on local legislation / signage for the bus lane though.

Inside buses, there is a notice to the effect that CCTV recording is in use, the CCTV is operated by X bus company and their contact details are given.  This seems to be in line with the general set of standards that should be adhered to if you use CCTV recordings in your premises - that seems to include buses. 



cybertect said:


> From Pink News


----------



## stephen hardy (Jul 9, 2012)

Hi all. Was wondering if anyone knows the laws around taking photographs in shops? I was made to delete a photograph I took at a store in Camden on Saturday but was sure this wasn't legal.


----------



## RoyReed (Jul 9, 2012)

Even the police can't make you delete photographs without a court order as the photographs themselves might constitute evidence. How were you 'made' to delete them?

You must be aware though that taking photographs on private property is at the permission of the property owner.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2012)

stephen hardy said:


> Hi all. Was wondering if anyone knows the laws around taking photographs in shops? I was made to delete a photograph I took at a store in Camden on Saturday but was sure this wasn't legal.


You have no legal right to take photos inside a shop as it's private property, but equally they have no right to force you to delete photos.


----------



## Greebo (Jul 9, 2012)

RoyReed said:


> <snip>You must be aware though that taking photographs on private property is at the permission of the property owner.


^This.  

Get your timing right, don't make a nuisance of yourself, ask nicely and the shopkeeper might let you.  OTOH get in the way of customers, buy nothing, look as if you're taking photos for ideas of what you could sell (or at what price), and no shopkeeper in their right mind will want you in the shop.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 9, 2012)

What about a shop with the sign "These paintings are Copyright, do not photograph" in the window?  That's surely bollocks and I could snap through their windows all day, right?


----------



## laptop (Jul 9, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> What about a shop with the sign "These paintings are Copyright, do not photograph" in the window? That's surely bollocks and I could snap through their windows all day, right?


 
If you took a photo of the shop in which the paintings featured _incidentally_, that's fine.

If you photograph _the paintings_ without the permission of _the artist_ that's not good: if you go on to sell the photos that's doubleplusungood.

Same as if someone copied your photos and sold the copies...


----------



## stephen hardy (Jul 9, 2012)

All,

Thanks for your reply. The store was a clothes store called Cyberdog in Camden.

They did have signs up saying no photography. I took a picture of my other half wearing a silly hat, without anything of significance in the background.

The guy stood over me and forced me to delete the picture from my camera in quite an aggressive fashion.

When questioned he said it was illegal to photograph in any shop due to copyrights laws and health and safety.

It was only after it happened that I began to think about how out of order it was him forcing me to do that.

We only took one picture and weren't being obstrusive in anyway.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2012)

stephen hardy said:


> When questioned he said it was illegal to photograph in any shop due to copyrights laws and health and safety.


That is total bollocks, although he had every right to be a bit annoyed if you were ignoring the notices put around the shop.

More here: http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-deleting-images.html


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 9, 2012)

Fucking psytrance cash-ins.  Twats.


----------



## laptop (Jul 9, 2012)

stephen hardy said:


> When questioned he said it was illegal to photograph in any shop due to copyrights laws and health and safety.


 
Worth bearing in mind that the phrase from legal precedent (in one or more of the cases over wedding sold to _Hello_ or _OK!_) is that photography is presumed to be permitted from _"places accessible to the public"_ - which is wider than "public places".

Though I can see Cyberdog being touchy about people snapping designs to send pix to rip-off plants in China, their remedy is against the importer, not the photographer.


----------



## what (Jul 9, 2012)

I haven't been for a while but last time I was in cyberdog that had a pretty big sign at the entrance and loads more around the shop saying no photos. This I believe is to do with the copyright more than the H&S as in the past they have had a lot of people try to rip off their designs. Didn't they have quite a spat with the market and a trader who was selling T shirts very similar to their flashing programmable LED T Shirts a few years ago?


----------



## stephen hardy (Jul 9, 2012)

My gripe isn't with the not taking photographs part. I would have been more than happy not to do so if asked politely. The thing that got my back up was being aggresive forced to delete them as though I was some kind of criminal.

I really never expected something like that to happen in the uk, espeically in a shop whom I imagine aim to appeal to the more liberal types of clientele and brand themselves as anti-establishment types.

That said not sure why they're getting so hung up on taking photos either. Do they also expect people not to wear their clothes in public too?! (although to be fair I can't imagine many people have the balls to do so looking at the state of some of the stuff they sell)


----------



## stephen hardy (Jul 10, 2012)

Just spoke with the store manager. She was very apologetic and confirmed it wasn't store policy to force people to delete pictures. Seems like it was just a lone store assistant acting like a dick.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 11, 2012)

laptop said:


> Though I can see Cyberdog being touchy about people snapping designs to send pix to rip-off plants in China, their remedy is against the importer, not the photographer.


 


what said:


> I haven't been for a while but last time I was in cyberdog that had a pretty big sign at the entrance and loads more around the shop saying no photos. This I believe is to do with the copyright more than the H&S as in the past they have had a lot of people try to rip off their designs. Didn't they have quite a spat with the market and a trader who was selling T shirts very similar to their flashing programmable LED T Shirts a few years ago?


 
This is mental reasoning. If I wanted to do that, I'd invest in a fucking t-shirt and take photos/send it over. As if banning photography is going to stop people copying their shitty fucking designs, that are also on their shitty fucking website anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> This is mental reasoning.


all reasoning is mental: think about it.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2012)

stephen hardy said:


> Just spoke with the store manager. She was very apologetic and confirmed it wasn't store policy to force people to delete pictures. Seems like it was just a lone store assistant acting like a dick.


Good for you for taking this up with them.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 11, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> all reasoning is mental: think about it.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 11, 2012)

There are not enough facepalms



> A BBC photographer was stopped by police on suspicion of being a terrorist as he took pictures outside Tate Modern.
> Jeff Overs, 48, was photographing sunset over St Paul's Cathedral when a policewoman, with a community support officer, told him she was "stopping people who were taking photographs, as a counter-terrorism measure" and demanded his name, address and date of birth...


 
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-man-in-terror-quiz-for-photographing-st-pauls-sunset-6714008.html


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2012)

skyscraper101 said:


> There are not enough facepalms
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/bbc-man-in-terror-quiz-for-photographing-st-pauls-sunset-6714008.html


just to check: you do know that's from 2009?


----------



## weltweit (Jul 11, 2012)

Must protect St Pauls!


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 12, 2012)

She'd have been told to piss right off if that was me.


----------



## Cbx63 (Jul 16, 2012)

Hi Just thought I’d share a little incident that happened yesterday in North Wales near the Ponderosa Cafe on the Horse shoe pass Llangollen. It’s very popular with bikers so I thought I would ride down there and try and take some action shots of the bikes coming round the corners.I purposely left my white ex-police bike in the car park and walked down to the bend, stood on a corner where i was visible from quite a distance from both directions so as not to cause alarm. Boy was i wrong after the only the 5 mins i was challenge by a bloke who rode past turned round and came back , demanding me to show him I.D and saying that i wasn’t allowed to take photos of him or his bike. Of course i politely said yes i am and wouldn’t show him any I.D, so he sat on his bike trying to block my view. When that didn’t work he decided to get of his bike and try to confiscate my camera which of course wasn’t going to happen so he swung a punch at me, needless to say the police was called but he'd scarped by the time I’d finished on the phone and i missed the shot of number plate while scrambling back up the banking.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 16, 2012)

That's the first time I've heard of somebody who _wasn't_ a copper demanding to see ID for taking a photo. Perhaps he was off duty.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 16, 2012)

Cbx63 said:


> .... after the only the 5 mins i was challenge by a bloke who rode past turned round and came back , demanding me to show him I.D and saying that i wasn’t allowed to take photos of him or his bike. ....


Perhaps he was lacking something. Something like insurance or a valid drivers licence


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2012)

Unlawful arrest UK, Farnborough airshow 2012.


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 3, 2012)

Police Threaten Press Photographer


> Disgraceful behaviour by a plain clothed Police officer (one assumes a detective, who says he’s in charge of the crime scene, who then clearly threatens the photographer quoted above, by saying “I’ll be touching you in a Police car back to Ilford Police Station”) and a Police sergeant against a press photographer doing his job and covering a story from an un-cordoned public footway...


----------



## socialist (Aug 18, 2012)

Can anyone tell me if the police have a right to sieze your memory card or camera while taking photos at the scene of a crime (attempted murder) in a public place (a street) with victim, police, ambulances etc present? SD card was taken by the police and reason given for seizure was there "might be evidence" in the photos. Just wondered if I had to hand it over. I might have been willing to take the SD card to the local nick after copying the contents, but the memory card (or both camera and card) were demanded there and then. A link to an authoritative source would be handy so I can print something off in case the situation comes up again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 18, 2012)

Police and criminal evidence act


----------



## socialist (Aug 18, 2012)

> Police and criminal evidence act


​So the police can sieze a memory card (or camera) in that sort of situation? I just found a comment from ACPO to officers that says "Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order."​


----------



## laptop (Aug 21, 2012)

socialist said:


> ​​So the police can sieze a memory card (or camera) in that sort of situation? I just found a comment from ACPO to officers that says "Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order."​


 
Absolutely not. They need a court order, and ACPO are right (oddly enough).

See "special procedure material" in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and here.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 20, 2012)

On Sunday I was photographing autumn foliage and parked near the gate of an army base to photograph a particularly nice tree, red in its autumn leaves. This morning two plain clothes policemen arrived and asked if this was my car? yes. And was I near XYZ base on the 18th? possibly says I. What were you doing? photographing trees, ok, would it be ok to see the photos? don't see why not I said and led them to my office where I showed them the photos of the tree. They seemed satisfied and duly left.


----------



## mhendo (Nov 20, 2012)

weltweit said:


> On Sunday I was photographing autumn foliage and parked near the gate of an army base to photograph a particularly nice tree, red in its autumn leaves. This morning two plain clothes policemen arrived and asked if this was my car? yes. And was I near XYZ base on the 18th? possibly says I. What were you doing? photographing trees, ok, would it be ok to see the photos? don't see why not I said and led them to my office where I showed them the photos of the tree. They seemed satisfied and duly left.


What geniuses!

Because, of course, it would have been impossible for you to take pictures of the tree AND pictures of the army base, and then transfer the army base pictures to a different device. The fact that you took a picture of a tree is, apparently, conclusive proof that you're not a terrorist.

At least you can sleep soundly at night, knowing that these are the people looking out for your security and your rights.


----------



## laptop (Nov 20, 2012)

weltweit said:


> What were you doing? photographing trees, ok, would it be ok to see the photos? don't see why not I said and led them to my office where I showed them the photos of the tree. They seemed satisfied and duly left.


 
Did you quote them a price for a nice "giclée print"?


----------



## weltweit (Nov 20, 2012)

mhendo said:


> ...
> Because, of course, it would have been impossible for you to take pictures of the tree AND pictures of the army base, and then transfer the army base pictures to a different device. The fact that you took a picture of a tree is, apparently, conclusive proof that you're not a terrorist.


Don't say that, they might be reading this and they might come back


----------



## weltweit (Nov 22, 2012)

laptop said:


> Did you quote them a price for a nice "giclée print"?


No, unfortunately the pictures are not that great. What I was really looking for was an autumn spread of colour but when I saw the tree I thought I may as well have a bit of that while I am here.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 22, 2012)

Incidentally, someone did mention that I got away with it because I am white and British. Others who don't share these charachteristics may not be so lucky.


----------



## pogofish (Nov 29, 2012)

I see the police here are still viewing photographers as "suspicious":



> What is Project Kraken?
> 
> Project Kraken is a national initiative set up to increase public vigilance and protect our coast and waters. It is about getting people to work together to fight criminality and terrorism to keep the maritime community safe and secure.
> 
> ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 29, 2012)

God forbid anyone should want to take a picture of a bridge. No tourist would ever do that certainly.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 29, 2012)

I like "Evasive answers to common boating questions" too.

"Is that a ketch or a sloop?"
"Er, sorry, I don't know anything about boats."
*sends email*


----------



## sim667 (Nov 29, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I like "Evasive answers to common boating questions" too.
> 
> "Is that a ketch or a sloop?"
> "Er, sorry, I don't know anything about boats."
> *sends email*


 
I know quite a lot about boats, but dont have a fucking clue what a ketch or a sloop is?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 29, 2012)

sim667 said:


> I know quite a lot about boats, but dont have a fucking clue what a ketch or a sloop is?


Have you checked yourself for signs of terrorism recently?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 29, 2012)

sim667 said:


> I know quite a lot about boats, but dont have a fucking clue what a ketch or a sloop is?


there's no need to parade your ignorance and undermine your claim to know quite a lot about boats


----------



## weltweit (Nov 29, 2012)

I now have a little thing like a business card in my wallet saying that I am a member of a camera club. Not had to use it yet but I hope it may give me credibility if I need it.


----------



## RoyReed (Nov 30, 2012)

A photographer has complained to his local council after a ‘Santa assistant’ stopped him taking pictures at a publicly-accessible Christmas lights switch-on event.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...ta-bans-photography-at-christmas-lights-event


----------



## weltweit (Nov 30, 2012)

RoyReed said:


> A photographer has complained to his local council after a ‘Santa assistant’ stopped him taking pictures at a publicly-accessible Christmas lights switch-on event.
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...ta-bans-photography-at-christmas-lights-event


I don't recognise the authority of santa's assistants !!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 30, 2012)

You don't want to end up on the naughty list do you?


----------



## RoyReed (Nov 30, 2012)

I like the idea of someone dressed as an elf trying to tell me what I can and can't photograph.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 30, 2012)

Regarding the law and how to cope with a security guard or police officer.

Someone I know has printed out various legal advices and keeps them in his rucksack in case he is accosted. What do people think of that? I am not sure I would want to produce printed materials and start quoting law at people, might make me sound like a smartarse, nobody likes a smartarse!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 30, 2012)

I wouldn't bring out sheafs of paper to justify myself - I would (politely and calmly) say that what I was doing was legal, and ask whoever it was to say why it wasn't. It's more important to know the law and be confident that what you're doing is legal than have it printed out in your bag.

There are some wallet-sized "cheat sheets" around - I think some are linked to on this thread - which are good for reminding yourself of the details.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 30, 2012)

By the way, there's a follow-up on the "don't take pictures of Santa" thing that has the council saying that they can question anybody and require any photographer of council events at all to have pre-approval - http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...l-we-have-right-to-question-all-photographers


> Council officials have officially warned all photographers – including amateurs and those with camera phones – that they must seek permission to take pictures at council-run events, including those designed to celebrate Christmas...
> 
> ...The statement continued: ‘The council has a duty of care during events to members of the public, and has the right to question all photographers.
> 
> ...


Not quite sure how they could justify this for events taking place in public areas.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Dec 5, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> By the way, there's a follow-up on the "don't take pictures of Santa" thing that has the council saying that they can question anybody and require any photographer of council events at all to have pre-approval - http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...l-we-have-right-to-question-all-photographers
> 
> Not quite sure how they could justify this for events taking place in public areas.


They can't justify it or enforce it. They are just trying it on. They need to be challenged, just as lots of other attempts at stopping photography have been challenged.


----------



## laptop (Dec 5, 2012)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Not quite sure how they could justify this for events taking place in public areas.


 
A little digging suggests that the original Santa event was on Council-owned land and not very visible at all from the highway, unless the ceremony took place on that famous Welsh thoroughfare l'Avenue de Clichy.

 [http://www.merthyr.gov.uk/english/councilanddemocracy/councilnews/pages/default.aspx?NewsID=776]

 The legitimacy of the edict would therefore depend on the distinction between public land and places accessible to the public...

 Marvel at the Thatcherite-architectural-hegemony desolation of the Civic Centre forecourt: http://bit.ly/TuTlMc


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 5, 2012)

laptop said:


> Marvel at the Thatcherite-architectural-hegemony desolation of the Civic Centre forecourt: http://bit.ly/TuTlMc


404


----------



## laptop (Dec 5, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> 404


 
Fixed..


----------



## Andrew Paquette (Feb 23, 2013)

I signed into this forum because it finally gives me an opportunity to complain about an incident in London last year. I live in the Netherlands, but travel to London a few times a year due to my work. I am not a professional photographer, but I am an enthusiastic amateur. The equipment I had up until recently was pretty average (now I shoot with a D800 and either a Zeiss 15mm Distagon or 100mm Makro-planar). At the time this incident occurred, I had a Nikon D5100 with a 18-105 zoom on it. The most threatening thing about this camera was the lens hood. Apart from that, it wasn't particularly interesting to look at.

So I get to London and as usual, I take my camera everywhere I go. I happen to like taking photographs of infrastructure. This is partly because of an interest in architecture and civil engineering, but also because I happen to teach architecture and civil engineering to CG art students. On top of that, I have also written a book with chapters on the subject. With all this in mind, I head down into one of the tube stations. I think it was Waterloo, but I'm not sure. Whichever one it was, it was about four to five levels deep. In some sections it had portions of the support structure clearly visible. This was fascinating visually, so I took out my D5100 and started taking shots. 

As I said, I'm not a pro, and at that time the camera was in the neighborhood of a couple days old. I still hadn't figured out how to set it up for shooting in low light, so I was taking a number of black frames without realizing it. As I am doing this, a person in a uniform accosts me.

"What are you taking pictures of then?"
"These beams here"
"And why would ya be doin' that?"
"Because it's interesting"
"Why is it so interesting then?"
"I happen to have an interest in architecture and this sort of..."
"Look that's not something I could care less about. Let's see what pictures you've got in there."

At this point, my lack of familiarity with the camera and the black frames convince the uniformed person that I am purposely trying to annoy him. The reason is that I try to display the pictures, but see nothing (because they are black). I keep pushing buttons, and get absolutely nothing (I think) and my friend is getting more annoyed by the moment.

'Look, you're gonna have to delete all those pictures"
"What pictures?"
"Whatever ye got on there then, delete 'em"
"I don't know how to delete them! I just bought this camera."
"I'm not interested in that. I'm tellin' ya what ye're gonna do, now do it."

At this point I stumble upon a shot from the previous day and realize that none of the shots underground were properly exposed. I tell the costumed person this, and manage to convince him, though it doesn't improve his attitude at all. He then complains that I'm causing an obstruction, though there is no tripod and I'm out of the way. If anything, he is causing an obstruction by stopping to talk to me.

Anyway, after that I decided not to take a camera to the UK again, and I haven't been back for a year, despite opportunities. As far as I was concerned, if the locals couldn't handle tourists taking photos, then they could live without tourists (or in my case, business that doesn't always have to be conducted in person).

After seeing this site though, I'm inclined to give it another try.

AP


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 23, 2013)

Technically speaking it is prohibited to take pictures on the tube network without applying (and paying) for a permit - but this is a bit of a joke, tourists do it all the time and so do bored people waiting on platforms with their phones. I probably have hundreds of pictures, including of Waterloo, and even when I've been fairly obvious about it nobody has ever hassled me - it's more a question of bad luck that you encountered a bullying jobsworth, I'm afraid. (Even the police don't have the power to order you to delete your pictures, let alone some LU employee, but some people like to pretend they do.) Usually the only time you would have issues is if you were actively getting in people's way, or you were using a flash - they really don't like people using flashes, for obvious safety reasons.

I did once set up a miniature tripod at the end of a platform and start taking long exposures, but that was a bit extreme.


----------



## ddraig (Apr 22, 2013)

slightly long animation and some clips about Atkinson case
re knowing the law etc


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2013)

You are allowed to take photos on the tube, but not using a flash or tripod, although the wording is rather vague:  





> 4.5 For safety reasons, on our buses and Underground trains and in our bus and Underground
> stations you must not:
> • smoke
> • use bicycles, roller skates, roller blades, scooters, skateboards or similar equipment
> ...


[PDF] http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/conditions-of-carriage.pdf


----------



## Artaxerxes (Apr 29, 2013)

Better get watermarking those photos fellas

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2013)

Artaxerxes said:


> Better get watermarking those photos fellas
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/


Another reason to keep your work off Facebook/Instagram etc.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2013)

Artaxerxes said:


> Better get watermarking those photos fellas
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/


 
That is outrageous, I had not heard anything about that, registering individual photographs is unusable and this just allows the wholesale theft of private works.

How on earth did that get through?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2013)

Artaxerxes said:


> Better get watermarking those photos fellas
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/


I don't think watermarking is going to be enough ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I don't think watermarking is going to be enough ...


after all, this new law is pisstaking.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2013)

Wonder what these people have to say about it?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/photography.htm


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> after all, this new law is pisstaking.


Pickman's are you saying that it is not real (a spoof)? or that it is taking the piss?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Pickman's are you saying that it is not real (a spoof)? or that it is taking the piss?


er the latter of course. you haven't been drinking at the stupid pool with articul8 have you?


----------



## laptop (Apr 29, 2013)

Artaxerxes said:


> Better get watermarking those photos fellas
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/


 
Urgh. Horrible piece. The new law does not, in fact, do what Orlowski says there, *at all*. He's been drinking at the fountain of alarmism that is Paul Ellis.

What you *do* want to watch out for are the *T&Cs* on Instagram sites, etc.

As for what the law does do: watch out for any proposal by the photographers' "collecting society" DACS to seek authorisation to issue a so-called "extended collective licence".

*If* DACS were stupid enough to apply to the Government to be authorised to issue any "extended collective licence" that would allow commercial use, *then* make your objection loudly known.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2013)

laptop said:


> Urgh. Horrible piece. The new law does not, in fact, do what Orlowski says there, *at all*. He's been drinking at the fountain of alarmism that is Paul Ellis.
> 
> What you *do* want to watch out for are the *T&Cs* on Instagram sites, etc.
> 
> ...


 
laptop you are the voice of reason and I will get back down off my high horse which I had just mounted as a result of that article 

So just websites for sharing photos, keep an eye on their terms and conditions, indeed that has been the case for a while.


----------



## laptop (Apr 29, 2013)

Also, keep doing searches on tineye.com (or, FWIW, google images) for a random sample of your pics - including the more nickable ones.

If someone does gone through the rigmarole of trying and failing to find you and getting a licence to use a pic as an "orphan", there will be cash waiting for you.

If they nick it without the above rigmarole, take them to small claims court and say you want damages for a "flagrant" breach, on top of what you'd have charged if they asked nicely.

None of this kicks in before 2015 at the earliest.


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2013)

When I last had images on a website online I made an effort not to be on google images at all.
However I was not trying to sell my images, if I were I suppose I would want people to be able to find them as easily as possible.


----------



## sim667 (Apr 29, 2013)

Ah, i just started a thread about that. I couldnt find much information, so went on what was said on the register.....

its looking like they've misunderstood it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 29, 2013)

sim667 said:


> Ah, i just started a thread about that. I couldnt find much information, so went on what was said on the register.....
> 
> its looking like they've misunderstood it.


grand


----------



## weltweit (Apr 29, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22337406

Still seems to be of concern at the BBC...


----------



## laptop (Apr 30, 2013)

weltweit said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22337406
> 
> Still seems to be of concern at the BBC...


 
They're only really reporting that there _is a row_. I don't often sympathise with the Intellectual Property Office, but when it comes to having to wheel out patient explanations without actually saying "look, Ellis isn't sane in the sense you or I understand the word"...


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2013)

Good piece in PC Pro: 


> Fears that incoming government legislation could deprive photographers and social media users rights to the images they post online are "not justified", according to one legal expert.
> 
> The government’s Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act deals with licensing work where the owner can’t be identified, known as orphan works.
> 
> ...


More: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/enterpr...-alarm-over-social-media-photos-not-justified


----------



## RoyReed (May 1, 2013)

Diligent search = "I dumped the image in Google Image search and nothing came up so I thought it was OK to use it."

Without qualification it's meaningless.


----------



## laptop (May 1, 2013)

RoyReed said:


> Diligent search = "I dumped the image in Google Image search and nothing came up so I thought it was OK to use it."
> 
> Without qualification it's meaningless.


 
It is going to be qualified. It will be based on this: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/hleg/orphan/mou.pdf

Sorry, no time to summarise right now.


----------



## RoyReed (May 1, 2013)

laptop said:


> It is going to be qualified. It will be based on this: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/hleg/orphan/mou.pdf
> 
> Sorry, no time to summarise right now.


It says:


> In the framework of the European Digital Libraries Initiative, which aims to provide a common multi lingual access point to Europe’s cultural heritage,
> 
> The Undersigned
> - Appreciating the importance of the European Digital Libraries (“EDL”) initiative and of
> ...


And then goes on to list the signatories.

It doesn't say what due diligence actually entails.


----------



## laptop (May 1, 2013)

RoyReed said:


> It doesn't say what due diligence actually entails.


 
Beg pardon: it refers to the guidelines here: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/hleg/orphan/guidelines.pdf


----------



## RoyReed (May 1, 2013)

laptop said:


> Beg pardon: it refers to the guidelines here: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/digital_libraries/doc/hleg/orphan/guidelines.pdf


That makes more sense. But I can't see it being followed.


----------



## laptop (May 1, 2013)

If it's not followed, you'll be in a better position than if a photo is stolen at present.

That is to say, if a body fraudulently issues a licence to use a work as orphan, you'll be able to sue that body, instead of the user.

And it'll be a body with (often) more to lose than the end-user; and certainly one more worried about reputation.

And if someone uses your photo and they have *neither* a licence from you *nor* an orphan work licence, then you have a strong case for aggravated damages for flagrant breach of your copyright. No-one will any longer be able to depend on a lie that they "tried" to find you.


----------



## weltweit (May 1, 2013)

I still can't see why this is necessary and why now?


----------



## laptop (May 1, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I still can't see why this is necessary and why now?


 
The "orphan works" bit is just the crack in the edifice of the law where the lobbyists who want to weaken your rights put the lever.

The more interesting bit is the "extended collective licensing" - and the scary bit is yet to come, with details of proposals to extend the circumstances in which people and companies can use your work (photos) without asking.

A Famous Web Search Engine continues to push hard to have the law changed to allow it to do what it damn well pleases.


----------



## weltweit (May 1, 2013)

laptop said:


> The "orphan works" bit is just the crack in the edifice of the law where the lobbyists who want to weaken your rights put the lever.


Indeed, interesting ... but there are image search facilities which give the impression of free to use images, although they are not .. and although they are not I and many others use these works on forums like U75 like confetti. We should not really do this.


laptop said:


> The more interesting bit is the "extended collective licensing" - and the scary bit is yet to come, with details of proposals to extend the circumstances in which people and companies can use your work (photos) without asking.


Hmm.....


laptop said:


> A Famous Web Search Engine continues to push hard to have the law changed to allow it to do what it damn well pleases.


Oh, that famous web search engine. Indeed, that wants to catalogue everything and make everything available, even when it is not theirs.


----------



## RoyReed (May 9, 2013)

The UK Intellectual Property Office has issued a 'myth-busting' document about the effect on photographers of the new copyright law, Section 77 on page 68 (the bottom of page 76 in the PDF).

This is how it claims that the scheme will work:


> *So how will the Orphan Works scheme work?*
> 
> Any person wishing to use an orphan work will need to apply for a licence to do so and payment for the licence payable up-front at the going rate.
> 
> ...


----------



## laptop (May 9, 2013)

RoyReed said:


> The UK Intellectual Property Office has issued a 'myth-busting' document about the effect on photographers of the new copyright law, Section 77 on page 68 (the bottom of page 76 in the PDF).
> 
> This is how it claims that the scheme will work:


 
Ta. There's one new commitment in there - the "verified" bit.


----------



## Smyz (May 30, 2013)

Saw this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/

Looks bad. Long article but 

"Quite what happens next is not clear, because the Act is merely enabling legislation - the nitty gritty will come in the form of statutory instruments, to be tabled later in the year. Parliament has not voted down a statutory instrument since 1979, so the political process is probably now a formality.

In practice, you'll have two stark choices to prevent being ripped off: remove your work from the internet entirely, or opt-out by registering it. And registration will be on a work-by-work basis.

"People can now use stuff without your permission," explained photo rights campaigner Paul Ellis. "To stop that you have to register your work in a registry - but registering stuff is an activity that costs you time and money. So what was your property by default will only remain yours if you take active steps, and absorb the costs, if it is formally registered to you as the owner."

And right now, Ellis says, there's only one registry, PLUS. Photographers, including David Bailey, condemned the government for rushing through the legislation before other registries - such as the Copyright Hub - could sort themselves out.

"The mass of the public will never realise they've been robbed," thinks Ellis. The radical free-our-information bureaucrats at the Intellectual Property Office had already attempted to smuggle orphan works rules through via the Digital Economy Act in 2010, but were rebuffed. Thanks to a Google-friendly Conservative-led administration, they've now triumphed.

"


----------



## laptop (May 30, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Saw this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
> 
> Looks bad. Long article but...


 
But: www.londonfreelance.org/fl/1306faq.html


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 30, 2013)

Smyz said:


> Saw this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/


That's the same link as was posted here on the last page!


----------



## Zaide Lemur (Jun 24, 2013)

editor said:


> *"Oh you! You can't take that picture...."*
> 
> So, I'm walking along Avemaria Lane (near St Pauls) minding my own business. It's quiet and there's barely anyone around.
> 
> ...


 
I just dont get the overzealous desire to restrict people filming or photographing public areas.


----------



## Boo38 (Aug 6, 2013)

My utmost apologies! I never realised this was so long ago, and my inbox  hasn't updated, just sat there, ignoring relevant emails and generally just attempting to annoy me.
However, further to this farce, I made a formal complaint to the IPCC and my MP, who in turn informed the Professional Standards Department, a few other MP's in Parliament, and the chief constable for Hants.
Ended up having a face to face conversation with Chief Inspector Alison Heydari at a neutral location.
I had a third party with me to assist, A Mark Singleton the founding editor of "Scene that".
Anyhow, everything was going great until I recited the events of that night and how her two officers acted, when it got to me informing her that I had requested on more than one occasion to them both "what Law are you going to search me under?" and the reply being "under s.44 of the anti terror act" this was then blatantly denied ignored and dismissed.
The CI covered their backs by regurgitating the lies she had been fed by two of her officers and informed me that they had persistently informed me that the search was being carried out under s.43 of the Anti terror act, at this point, the meeting was brought to a close as she was informed that if she couldn't tell the truth then there was little point on carrying out the alternative dispute resolution, no defence or retort was made to this accusation, therefore confirming what she knew all along, in that she had been lied too, and had then been forced to lie to me, perfect proof, for me anyway, of how corrupt they really are.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 15, 2013)

laptop said:


> The "orphan works" bit is just the crack in the edifice of the law where the lobbyists who want to weaken your rights put the lever.
> 
> The more interesting bit is the "extended collective licensing" - and the scary bit is yet to come, with details of proposals to extend the circumstances in which people and companies can use your work (photos) without asking..


 
...like the mushrooming of images/video that will come with the widespread use of Google Glass


----------



## EJG49 (Jan 3, 2014)

Hi all, new here.

Actually, I'm not much of a photographer but had occasion to use a camera recently and the police were very heavy handed about the whole thing.  I took *three* photos of boys who had been harassing my young daughter and who I've had numerous problems with in regard to anti social behaviour. I wanted to record who was causing the problems (as evidence, in case further hassle arose). This was in November, in the street, and the boys were wearing not just clothes but the full winter wear get up of hats and gloves etc.

The boys told their parents and the police visited me that evening. There was just myself and my daughter in the house when they came. They spent around half an hour asking and re-asking me to delete the photos and failing to clarify whether I'd broken the law. I counted at least 8 'requests' along the lines of "Will you delete the photos. I am disappointed in you not deleting them. Yes, you have your concerns and now I'm asking you to delete the photos... and on and on...) I thought my behaviour was legal so I stood my ground despite their threatening behavior. The officers suggested, among other things, I might be seen as a paedophile. I am a 49 year old full time mother, wielding an old Canon Powershot, photographing a bunch of boys in broad daylight, in a public street, and they suggest I could be seen as a paedophile (my 7 year old daughter was there the whole time this happened).

Earlier this year I had someone shoot out my front door and a window with an air gun (whilst my daughter and I were in the house) and the police didn't even step over my doorway when I reported it. One officer turned up, made some noises and was gone within ten minutes. This time, two of them were in my house for around half an hour, and they used just about every verbal manipulation trick they could to try and 'make' me delete the photos. When they left I sat down and cried for an hour - the experience was horrendous and has changed entirely how I see police officers. They were bullies, plain and simple.

I now have a complaint in to the local police. Of course, they say the officers did nothing wrong despite them also (weeks later) admitting I had not broken any laws. I just wanted to alert you all to there being people like me (with very limited photography skills and no long range lense) who are being bullied by the police about public photography taken in defence. Furthermore, as the police investigate themselves (and my experience suggests the investigators aren't bias free) redress is unlikely unless the infringing of our rights involves witnesses on our part. 

The defence I was given for their behaviour was "They *believed* they were doing the right thing" and the investigating officer concurred with them. So, it seems as long as police officers hold a belief they're in the right we're supposed to just take whatever unfairness they dish out to us. Be warned, never deal with them alone and pass this info on to anyone you want.

Oh yes, I will never let another police officer over my threshhold. They aren't to be trusted.


----------



## RoyReed (Jan 5, 2014)

Gloucestershire Police officer investigated after amateur photographer complaint


----------



## RoyReed (Jan 5, 2014)

Via @phnat on Twitter

With a spate of recent police incidents, here's the official word from @PoliceChiefs to keep if you need it.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 7, 2014)

I was just coming in to post a link to that video..... but urban is streaks ahead of me as ever.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 13, 2014)

RoyReed said:


> Gloucestershire Police officer investigated after amateur photographer complaint




If by accident he had  photos of the actual incident as it occured the Police attitude would have been "thank you sir" or the feeble minded Police officer would have arrested him  Anyway a similar thing happened to me when I photographed a minor traffic accident. Everybody was using mobiles to film the scene and I had my proper camera. PC plod came over and gave me a right bollocking except in my case told the twat to get lost. I then continued taking photos but concentrated on him, albeit I did not take any actual pictures of the twat.


----------



## uthikoloshe (Feb 14, 2014)

Dot


----------



## Quartz (Feb 14, 2014)

RoyReed said:


> Via @phnat on Twitter
> 
> With a spate of recent police incidents, here's the official word from @PoliceChiefs to keep if you need it.



Is that also good for north of the border?


----------



## laptop (Feb 14, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Is that also good for north of the border?



Says here that the same principles were adopted by ACPOS: _presumably_ they're inherited by Police Scotland?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 14, 2014)

EJG49 said:


> Hi all, new here.
> 
> Actually, I'm not much of a photographer but had occasion to use a camera recently and the police were very heavy handed about the whole thing.  I took *three* photos of boys who had been harassing my young daughter and who I've had numerous problems with in regard to anti social behaviour. I wanted to record who was causing the problems (as evidence, in case further hassle arose). This was in November, in the street, and the boys were wearing not just clothes but the full winter wear get up of hats and gloves etc.
> 
> ...



And this was recently? As in the coppers tried to bully you into deleting the photos by implying that it would give the impression that you were a paedophile, and this happened since the murder of Bijan Ebrahimi?

What force was this? They sound like right geniuses.


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 12, 2014)

Paul and Hannah Weller are pushing for a new law to prevent the publication of any photograph of a child without parental consent.

Paul Weller and his wife call for child press protection (BBC)

This follows their court case against the  Daily Mail  where they have just been awarded £10,000 damages after photos were taken of their kids by a paparazzo in California.

The fact that they won their case makes me think that the law is working OK as it is. Can you imagine the nightmare if the law was changed. It would mean that a photo like this (taken at the Streatham Kite Festival) would be illegal as it would probably be impossible to get permission from the parents of all of the children in the photo.




Princess Kite by RoyReed, on Flickr


----------



## editor (Jun 12, 2014)

RoyReed said:


> The fact that they won their case makes me think that the law is working OK as it is. Can you imagine the nightmare if the law was changed. It would mean that a photo like this (taken at the Streatham Kite Festival) would be illegal as it probably be impossible to get permission from the parents of all of the children in the photo.


It would be the end of true street photography for starters.


----------



## laptop (Jun 12, 2014)

editor said:


> It would be the end of true street photography for starters.



Nah, it'd only be a law for the famous.

Who have not, of course, thought through how it'd work for civilians, or civilian's children.

Howzabout a law that jailed a pap for taking a pic of a civilian kid while under the impression they were famous, but let off a civilian who took a pic of a famous kid under the impression they were a fellow-civilian?


----------



## BigHairyFinn (Aug 30, 2014)

Hi all, it seems that the police don't quite get the public place thing... 
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1141...d_claims_____Police_humiliated_me___/?ref=rss


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 30, 2014)

Read about this when it was first published. I wonder who made the complaint? And would a complaint have been made if say, it was a much "younger" photographer taking the photos?


----------



## Tankus (Mar 12, 2015)

Illegal tripods on Hampstead heath.....wtf.........
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ht-the-law-today-the-law-won?CMP=share_btn_tw


----------



## laptop (Mar 12, 2015)

Tankus said:


> Illegal tripods on Hampstead heath.....wtf.........
> http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ht-the-law-today-the-law-won?CMP=share_btn_tw





> an offence to use a tripod on Hampstead Heath: specifically S11 of LCC bylaws of 1932 banning any “photographic stand apparatus”.


----------



## Tankus (Mar 12, 2015)

Yep ...read that ....new one on me !


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 12, 2015)

wtf


----------



## sim667 (Mar 12, 2015)

laptop said:


>



I was just coming in to post this.

Although I wouldn't have thought it would warrant a caution,  who's Hampstead Heath owned by?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 12, 2015)

lcc by-laws surely a dead letter unless incorporated in successor authority by-laws, as lcc dead since 1965


----------



## laptop (Mar 13, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> lcc by-laws surely a dead letter unless incorporated in successor authority by-laws, as lcc dead since 1965



I haven't checked recently, but the bylaw signs were changed at the abolition of the GLC to refer to the wonderfully-titled "London Residuary Body". Worthy of Pratchett.

I have no idea how this relates to my dim memory that the Heath was a creature of the City of London Corporation.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2015)

laptop said:


> I haven't checked recently, but the bylaw signs were changed at the abolition of the GLC to refer to the wonderfully-titled "London Residuary Body". Worthy of Pratchett.
> 
> I have no idea how this relates to my dim memory that the Heath was a creature of the City of London Corporation.


apparently still in force: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/thin...d-heath/Documents/hampstead-heath-byelaws.pdf but interestingly this pdf states they're enforced by hampstead heath constabulary, ie not met or city of london.


----------



## laptop (Mar 13, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> apparently still in force: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/thin...d-heath/Documents/hampstead-heath-byelaws.pdf but interestingly this pdf states they're enforced by hampstead heath constabulary, ie not met or city of london.



As Rusbridger (or more likely one of his sub-editors on his behalf) says. Interesting review of the Constabulary, including its engagement with nocturnal visitors to the West Heath, here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 13, 2015)

laptop said:


> As Rusbridger (or more likely one of his sub-editors on his behalf) says. Interesting review of the Constabulary, including its engagement with nocturnal visitors to the West Heath, here.


i like the millions of pms of support


----------



## OddOneOut (Jun 28, 2015)

I took my bridge camera with some macro lenses into my local park this morning to take some closeups of flowers and whatever plants and bugs looked interesting. I was busy taking some closeups of bumblebees and a ladybird on a leaf in a tree when two police officers appear and ask me what I'm doing. I'm taking pictures of a bug in the tree officer. Then they tell me they have a report of a person in the park matching my description with a camera taking pictures...and there are children playing in the park sir!! I was a bit shocked so immediately offered them a look at my photos which they obviously saw were harmless. I said I understand them checking it out and they left, but afterwards I really started to feel uncomfortable and it totally spoiled my day. I started to think who in their right mind would call the police to report someone who had a camera...and the police then following it up. If the idiot who had called the police had actually looked to see where I pointed my camera they would hopefully have realised that I was not a flippin' pedophile...but thank you so very much for calling the police and making me feel like one!!

I'm actually very offended and and embarrased. After the police left I just felt despondent to take any more pictures...so I'm glad I found this forum to vent a bit and share my story. I know I did nothing wrong, so I feel like the police should instead have observed what I was doing and then left me alone, instead of approaching me and implying that taking photographs in a public place is somehow wrong because there are children in the vicinity. Crazy world we live in.


----------



## ddraig (Jun 28, 2015)

a FW and I were threatened physically by a 6ft 16yrd old whose mum was suggesting the person i was with was a paedo as he had a camera and had started filming yesterday!
we were on an anti workfare action and giving out leaflets, the police were called and he was made to delete the photos as was not on public land and was in the car park of the store we were leafleting. more police came and tried to get our details but i refused, almost got arrested for BoP but as we were already leaving they let us go.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2015)

ddraig said:


> the police were called and he was made to delete the photos as was not on public land and was in the car park of the store we were leafleting....


That's against the law. The police have NO right to make any photographer delete their photos under any circumstances.
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-deleting-images.html



> *General points*
> 
> Officers do not have the power to delete digital images, destroy film or to prevent photography in a public place under either power. Equally, officers are also reminded that under these powers they must not access text messages, voicemails or emails.
> 
> ...


http://www.urban75.org/photos/met-police-photography-advice.html


----------



## ddraig (Jun 28, 2015)

yes we thought so
we had the woman and kid shouting and some old bloke who was yelling about the "real world" and about 6 plod to deal with!

thanks, will pass that info on


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2015)

ddraig said:


> yes we thought so
> we had the woman and kid shouting and some old bloke who was yelling about the "real world" and about 6 plod to deal with!
> 
> thanks, will pass that info on


That page also gives tips on how to recover deleted photos.


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 28, 2015)

ddraig said:


> the police were called and he was made to delete the photos as was not on public land


As editor said this is illegal. Deleting the photos is deleting evidence and can't be done by anyone without a court order. You should report this incident to the chief constable of your local division. I hope you managed to get a note of the police officers numbers.

If this ever happens again and you do delete any images, take the memory card out straight away and make sure no further writes are made to the card and you should be able to retrieve any deleted images using Recuva (free version) or any of the other recovery programmes that are available.

There's a free PDF to download and print  on this site which you could keep with you in case of any future incidents:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

(BTW editor the links on your info page to the Met Police photography page get a 404. This appears to be the current link: http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice)


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 28, 2015)

OddOneOut said:


> I took my bridge camera with some macro lenses into my local park this morning to take some closeups of flowers and whatever plants and bugs looked interesting. I was busy taking some closeups of bumblebees and a ladybird on a leaf in a tree when two police officers appear and ask me what I'm doing. I'm taking pictures of a bug in the tree officer. Then they tell me they have a report of a person in the park matching my description with a camera taking pictures...and there are children playing in the park sir!! I was a bit shocked so immediately offered them a look at my photos which they obviously saw were harmless. I said I understand them checking it out and they left, but afterwards I really started to feel uncomfortable and it totally spoiled my day. I started to think who in their right mind would call the police to report someone who had a camera...and the police then following it up. If the idiot who had called the police had actually looked to see where I pointed my camera they would hopefully have realised that I was not a flippin' pedophile...but thank you so very much for calling the police and making me feel like one!!
> 
> I'm actually very offended and and embarrased. After the police left I just felt despondent to take any more pictures...so I'm glad I found this forum to vent a bit and share my story. I know I did nothing wrong, so I feel like the police should instead have observed what I was doing and then left me alone, instead of approaching me and implying that taking photographs in a public place is somehow wrong because there are children in the vicinity. Crazy world we live in.



Photography is not a crime. Tell them to fuck off


----------



## OddOneOut (Jun 28, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Photography is not a crime. Tell them to fuck off


Cheers Mr Bishie. After reading this forum, next time I will (tell them to fuck off), although a bit more politely at first.

I doubt very much that anything would have happened if I was using a mobile phone, but it does seem that whenever you use a half decent camera with a chunky looking lens then people get suspicious of what you're up to. It's very frustrating. RoyReed's post of the ACPO guidance to officers is pretty clear that they can't stop you from taking pictures in public. But by approaching and questioning you just because you have a semi-pro camera is bordering on harassment in my opinion, and in effect they are intimidating you to not even be there with a camera in the first place.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2015)

RoyReed said:


> (BTW editor the links on your info page to the Met Police photography page get a 404. This appears to be the current link: http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice)


Cheers - I've updated the page.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 23, 2015)

editor said:


> That's against the law. The police have NO right to make any photographer delete their photos under any circumstances.
> Photographers Rights And The Law In The UK - the law and photography
> 
> 
> Metropolitan Police official photography advice - Police statements on photography



It says they must not access text messages, voicemails or emails? Im guessing this doesn't count on confiscated things though?


----------



## laptop (Sep 23, 2015)

sim667 said:


> It says they must not access text messages, voicemails or emails? Im guessing this doesn't count on confiscated things though?



*IF* the images were taken for a journalistic purpose - or indeed if they form part of communication with a lawyer - before they can confiscate things they need an order from a court.

PACE 1984 Part II


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 23, 2015)

laptop said:


> *IF* the images were taken for a journalistic purpose - or indeed if they form part of communication with a lawyer - before they can confiscate things they need an order from a court.
> 
> PACE 1984 Part II


maybe diamond could have a use after all


----------



## laptop (Sep 23, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> maybe diamond could have a use after all



Sorry, should have written something like "*professional* communication with a lawyer".


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 4, 2016)

Agency takes down pictures after Network Rail complains:

What's going on? Network Rail demand Alamy photo removal



> ...Photographers who challenged this have been met with mixed responses, the 1972 photograph (long before Network Rail existed) by Homer Sykes has been restored by Alamy while other contemporary news images – which had been published in the UK press without issue – have not been.
> 
> Another such removed image was, according to the photographer John Heseltine: “a shot from Camley Street in 1984 with the nature reserve under construction in the foreground, the Goods Way gasometers in the middle distance and the tower of St Pancras on the horizon nearly a mile away. The land was once the property of the Midland Railway but the land was ceded by Camden Borough Council to The London Wildlife Trust the year I made the image”. He is appealing the takedown to Alamy and you can see the photo in question second to last here.
> 
> Posters on Alamy’s member forum described various images removed as including “an electricity danger sign”, pictures of stations “taken from a nearby public road” and even one in another country “at the platform at the Gare du Nord Station in Paris”...


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Agency takes down pictures after Network Rail complains:
> 
> What's going on? Network Rail demand Alamy photo removal


Network Rail have backtracked on their advanced fuckwittery:


> *Alamy have emailed contributors and posted to their forum:*
> “We wrote to you yesterday about images taken at the Network Rail owned stations.
> Since then Network Rail have sought legal advice and they have changed their opinion. They have said they’re fine to sell editorially.
> We’ll put these all back on sale with an editorial only restriction.
> We have also advised Network Rail to update their photography policy to be in line with this.”


----------



## Tig (Feb 12, 2016)

Now here's an interesting story. Guy in my area complaining about not being allowed to take photos of fruit in Aldi, although I suspect there may be more to this story than meets the eye.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 12, 2016)

Tig said:


> Now here's an interesting story. Guy in my area complaining about not being allowed to take photos of fruit in Aldi, although I suspect there may be more to this story than meets the eye.


Sounds bananas


----------



## Tig (Feb 12, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> Sounds bananas


Aldi are within their rights to ask him to stop taking photos and to leave. I'm suspecting he displayed 'attitude' when confronted and that's the real reason he's been banned. Quite why you'd go running to the papers though, is beyond me.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 26, 2016)

Tyneside lunacy:

Security call filmmaker ‘lunatic’ for defying nonsense photo ban


----------



## CarryOn (Mar 10, 2016)

Hi everyone. 

I took some photos of trains travelling and some UK railways are interested in my photos, for 'promotional' use, they say. They send me emails but no mention of payment for my work. I know photos are very good but I am not sure what's the regulation related to the copyright when you photograph trains. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 10, 2016)

CarryOn said:


> Hi everyone.
> 
> I took some photos of trains travelling and some UK railways are interested in my photos, for 'promotional' use, they say. They send me emails but no mention of payment for my work. I know photos are very good but I am not sure what's the regulation related to the copyright when you photograph trains. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.


You can photograph trains as much as you like; I think stations might have restrictions on commercial photography on their platforms but not amateur stuff. In any case the railways do not have copyright.

I doubt that they would pay you; I imagine they want the pictures for free. If you politely ask about payment I would imagine they will say "unfortunately we are not in a position to pay for the pictures", maybe adding something about crediting you. Personally I would not hand over pics for free to a PR department who are getting paid for this stuff themselves.


----------



## CarryOn (Mar 10, 2016)

I photographed outside the rail stations - and photos are of great quality and professional level - that is why the want them; some publications also showed interest. I just haven't photographed steam trains before - although I do professional editorial, landscape and portrait photography. It is a small railway station, so probably will have to check if it is run by volunteers and stuff like that. I am a bit confused as to what should I do. Thanks for your kind reply.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 10, 2016)

CarryOn said:


> I photographed outside the rail stations - and photos are of great quality and professional level - that is why the want them; some publications also showed interest. I just haven't photographed steam trains before - although I do professional editorial, landscape and portrait photography. It is a small railway station, so probably will have to check if it is run by volunteers and stuff like that. I am a bit confused as to what should I do. Thanks for your kind reply.


Well, if you photographed outside the station you have no legal issues. (Even inside, they wouldn't own the copyright, but they might sue you for breaching bylaws or similar... almost certainly not though.) You have copyright on those pictures and can sell them or not as you see fit.


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2016)

New update: 



> Find out what you can and can't take photos of in the UK in this exclusive Practical Photography guide. Watch Tim take to the streets of London to see how people react to photographers, and get the official lowdown from Inspector Malcolm Graham from the Cambridgeshire Constabulary.







> Insp. Graham does suggest that while perfectly within your right to photograph certain subjects, that it can sometimes lead to unwanted, and undesirable confrontation.
> 
> Children are one prime example that he mentions, and it’s no surprise that parents will often be very protective of their children when cameras are around, regardless of what the law may have to say.  Also, following a person to continually photograph them could see you potentially falling foul of stalker laws.
> 
> ...


Photographing on the streets and the law in the UK - DIY Photography


----------



## editor (Jul 11, 2016)

The photographer in the video has far more patience than me.


----------



## RoyReed (May 4, 2017)

Not good!


----------



## editor (May 5, 2017)

RoyReed said:


> Not good!



That's fucking insane.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2017)

More here: 



> Police have been accused of abusing their powers by a professional photographer who was detained under anti-terror laws after he was seen taking pictures of Hove town hall on Thursday. Eddie Mitchell was held for about an hour while police checked his camera.
> 
> It was eventually decided that there was no reason to believe that the press photographer, who works for outlets including the BBC, was a terrorist.
> 
> ...


Photographer held after taking pictures of Hove town hall


----------



## Pickman's model (May 5, 2017)

editor said:


> More here:
> 
> 
> Photographer held after taking pictures of Hove town hall


A) he should sue; B) should have a mass photo of Hove town hall


----------



## Pickman's model (May 5, 2017)

Oh: the police have no power to detain for purposes of establishing identity


----------



## sim667 (Jul 4, 2017)

I'm after some advice really here.

Last saturday I was sitting down getting ready for a quiet night in, and get a panicked call...... there's a club night on and their photographer has blown them out. 6 hours work, 2 hours editing...... I said yeah sure, £150 inc expenses. Take it or leave it. They took it.

I went down, asked about what they wanted "just photos of performers and crowd shots"..... So I cracked on. I delivered the images but 4pm the next day, despite having not got home until 4 am.

I've delivered 77 decent quality images..... But I haven't been paid, and I've got a message today saying "aren't there any more photos?"

I haven't actually been paid yet, so if they're not happy with what I've provided, I'm willing to discuss why and what they're proposing to offer for payment instead. But I should say they can't upload any images for promotion until I'm paid, right?

Edit: oh hang on, I think there's been a problem..... she's already uploaded them, there's only a 3rd of them there.


----------



## editor (Jul 4, 2017)

sim667 said:


> I'm after some advice really here.
> 
> Last saturday I was sitting down getting ready for a quiet night in, and get a panicked call...... there's a club night on and their photographer has blown them out. 6 hours work, 2 hours editing...... I said yeah sure, £150 inc expenses. Take it or leave it. They took it.
> 
> ...


*waits update...


----------



## sim667 (Jul 5, 2017)

editor said:


> *waits update...



I'd exported some as a lower res by mistake, so I've rectified that, and added about another 40 pics of people I hadn't put in originally because of all the gurn faces.

They're using the pics on social media, so I don't think they can really justify coming back to me and arguing about the price now. So lets see if they pay in the next 30 days as it says on the invoice.

Still my copyright, so if they don't pay they'll get a cease and desist from me, and then I'll take action to recoup my losses if not. I know in theory now they're on fb that she's granted the rights of ownership to fb, but I haven't give her express permission to upload them to fb either.

I'm trying to be cordial though as my company I run with freinds does a lot of work with them too.


----------



## Cid (Jul 5, 2017)

They can't grant rights to fb if they don't have them... Which I suppose depends on the terms of your invoice, but presumably is contingent on them actually fulfilling the contract.


----------



## sim667 (Jul 5, 2017)

Cid said:


> They can't grant rights to fb if they don't have them... Which I suppose depends on the terms of your invoice, but presumably is contingent on them actually fulfilling the contract.



There's nothing alluding to terms on my invoice, I was planning on giving them an open ended license upon payment, at which point they were free to publish the images.

However they've simply proceeded to publish on receipt of the images, without payment first.


----------



## Cid (Jul 5, 2017)

sim667 said:


> There's nothing alluding to terms on my invoice, I was planning on giving them an open ended license upon payment, at which point they were free to publish the images.
> 
> However they've simply proceeded to publish on receipt of the images, without payment first.



There will be stuff implied by the nature of the contract though. The law may be obtuse, but it's not so obtuse that it doesn't recognise things like a normal course of dealings. I have no idea of the details though; it's probably possible to argue that it was assumed the license was granted on a credit basis (the 30 day thing), but that's just a time factor. Once they've published the pictures they've accepted the contract and are liable to uphold their side of it. In basic principle obviously, it's probably horribly complex really - I'm sure they could try and argue stuff like not being satisfied with the images, but I'd think they'd be on a weak footing given that they used them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 5, 2017)

Cid said:


> Once they've published the pictures they've accepted the contract and are liable to uphold their side of it.


This is key. I wouldn't worry _just yet_, in that it is normal not to be paid until a month after an invoice. And given the nature of the project, it would seem normal that they'd want to use the images straight away, otherwise what's the point of doing it? 

This is where longer-term relationships are key, to build up trust. If your company does work with them, it's not in their interests to piss you off either. If they quibble over your fee, they're out of order, clearly.


----------



## editor (Jul 5, 2017)

sim667 said:


> I'd exported some as a lower res by mistake, so I've rectified that, and added about another 40 pics of people I hadn't put in originally because of all the gurn faces.
> 
> They're using the pics on social media, so I don't think they can really justify coming back to me and arguing about the price now. So lets see if they pay in the next 30 days as it says on the invoice.
> 
> ...


FYI: 





> In short, *Facebook* has a (broad) license to use your work, but there is no *copyright* transfer and *Facebook does* not *own* your *images* in any way
> 
> Does Facebook Really Own Your Photos? - Plagiarism Today


----------



## sim667 (Jul 5, 2017)

editor said:


> FYI:



Ah thanks, I had the wrong understanding.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 8, 2017)

To Hatch a Crow: National Trust targets photographers and film makers over image rights.

The national trust are chasing commercial snappers for fees now it seems ?


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> To Hatch a Crow: National Trust targets photographers and film makers over image rights.
> 
> The national trust are chasing commercial snappers for fees now it seems ?


That is fucking ridiculous, but would like to see the story confirmed elsewhere. I'll message them for confirmation. 



> However, while charging for access to privately owned land and waterways is nothing new- even if in this instance, charging individuals, charities and commercial enterprises to climb, walk and paddle within the national park will ring alarm bells- Charging to capture an image within the park certainly rachets up the concept of ownership to a previously unheard of level. I understand that if ‘recognizable landmarks’ are included in an image taken by a commercial photographer, then this will automatically trigger a charge. I guess this could be anything from the summit cafe on Yr Wyddfa to a boat bobbing about on Llyn Gwynant.
> 
> As if to emphasise the point, The National Trust Photography Permits Secretary informed my photographer informant that the trust was ‘actively pursuing’ several landscape photographers for damages as they had taken photographs on the Trust’s Snowdonia estates without permission and were using these photographs as stock images. Of course, photographs and video footage taken within the SNP are not only being used in outdoor publications or in advertising features- witness the latest Skoda Octavia advert featuring Bradley Wiggins shot near Capel Curig and the Llanberis Pass. Photographs are also used for greetings cards, calendars and posters by professional photographers.
> 
> For every successful landscape photographer whose images might grace a calendar or coffee table book, there will be dozens of photographers who just scrape by a bare living through their craft. Charging an exorbitant £250-400 an hour will just not be an option in many cases for those who fall within this latter category.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 8, 2017)

Is that any different from, say, Network Rail charging a professional for taking pics inside a station though? (£250-400 seems well steep!)


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Is that any different from, say, Network Rail charging a professional for taking pics inside a station though? (£250-400 seems well steep!)


Amateurs are free to take photos on Network Rail stations and they certainly don't face fees if their stations appear in the background somewhere of a photo they manage to sell.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 8, 2017)

I think people assume that NT land and properties are public property. Its not the view as such but well documented legal area of where you are snapping it from. I don't think this is designed to catch out walkers with an Iphone, but taxing those on the private property and snapping the non public views for commercial purposes.

ETA, should be in the T&C you agree to when accessing NT properties I would imagine

ETA2 Photographic access | National Trust Images


----------



## sim667 (Aug 8, 2017)

I've still not been paid from my post I made above. Don't know if to chase, or just forget and move on.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 8, 2017)

editor said:


> Amateurs are free to take photos on Network Rail stations and they certainly don't face fees if their stations appear in the background somewhere of a photo they manage to sell.



Yeah I know, hence why: Network Rail charging a *professional* for taking...

NT won't have a leg to stand on if you take a snap of something whilst not physically on their property though, same as a photo of a train station from a public street. 

The National Trust has many failings, but people making money by taking photos of their properties and using them in commercial ventures should cough up something, imo.


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah I know, hence why: Network Rail charging a *professional* for taking...
> 
> NT won't have a leg to stand on if you take a snap of something whilst not physically on their property though, same as a photo of a train station from a public street.
> 
> The National Trust has many failings, but people making money by taking photos of their properties and using them in commercial ventures should cough up something, imo.


In their properties, yes. But charging amateurs and semi pros for taking a pic out in the wilds? GTFO.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 8, 2017)

editor said:


> In their properties, yes. But charging amateurs and semi pros for taking a pic out in the wilds? GTFO.



Ah, didn't know they planned to charge amateurs, that would be wrong.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 9, 2017)

National Trust photography restrictions are implemented by actual law, not just policy, entry T&Cs etc


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 9, 2017)

sim667 said:


> I've still not been paid from my post I made above. Don't know if to chase, or just forget and move on.



Chase the fuckers, give them 7-days notice of County Court action, that normally works.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 9, 2017)

RoyReed said:


> Not good!




Blimey, I knew Eddie years ago, he's a big fucker, and always stands his ground. 

Top man.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2017)

mauvais said:


> National Trust photography restrictions are implemented by actual law, not just policy, entry T&Cs etc


What actual law is this?

Photographic access | National Trust Images



> Out of doors at NT properties
> 
> 
> All visitors to National Trust properties are allowed to take photographs out of doors for their own private use. Any requests from individuals wishing to sell or publish photographs should be directed to images@nationaltrust.org.uk
> ...



National Trust and photographers


----------



## mauvais (Aug 9, 2017)

editor said:


> What actual law is this?
> 
> Photographic access | National Trust Images
> 
> ...


The National Trust Byelaws 1965 (PDF)


----------



## mauvais (Aug 9, 2017)

This is of import because it can directly produce a criminal offence rather than, say, a breach of contract or a matter of (usually civil) trespass.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2017)

mauvais said:


> This is of import because it can directly produce a criminal offence rather than, say, a breach of contract or a matter of (usually civil) trespass.


Where does it mention taking photos in the open air?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2017)

sim667 said:


> I've still not been paid from my post I made above. Don't know if to chase, or just forget and move on.


Chase. They owe you that money.

(And welcome to the world of freelancing. Having to chase is way more common than it should be.)


----------



## mauvais (Aug 9, 2017)

editor said:


> Where does it mention taking photos in the open air?


Find -> 'photo'


> No unauthorised person shall on Trust Property sell or offer or expose for sale any commodity, or article *or for the purpose of trade or reward take any photograph*.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Find -> 'photo'


That's fucking ridicuous. I've gone right off the National Trust now. It's fair enough if people are bringing in a full production crew for a pro photoshoot, but an amateur getting lucky and selling a pic to the local rag or whatever? Fuck them.


----------



## editor (Aug 9, 2017)

They look after hundreds of miles of coastline too, How the fuck can they even dream of enforcing such a stupid law?


----------



## blossie33 (Aug 10, 2017)

Just seen this via a link from some photos I was looking at to an American photography magazine.
Specifically to do with copyright and Vivian Maier's photos but maybe of interest?

https://hyperallergic.com/147693/making-sense-of-the-legal-battle-over-vivian-maiers-artworks/


----------



## sim667 (Aug 16, 2017)

Chasing up payment today, hadn't given the organiser enough credit, its actually the venue that are meant to pay and haven't done so.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2017)

sim667 said:


> Chasing up payment today, hadn't given the organiser enough credit, its actually the venue that are meant to pay and haven't done so.


who was your contract actually with? have you at any time had dealings with the venue rather than the party people?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2017)

editor said:


> They look after hundreds of miles of coastline too, How the fuck can they even dream of enforcing such a stupid law?


your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to photograph as many national trust properties as possible


----------



## sim667 (Aug 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> who was your contract actually with? have you at any time had dealings with the venue rather than the party people?


No

I invoiced the party people as I was asked too.

It will come through, I think i'm just going through the lines of beaucracy. I know the party organisers, have done for a long time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2017)

sim667 said:


> No
> 
> I invoiced the party people as I was asked too.
> 
> It will come through, I think i'm just going through the lines of beaucracy. I know the party organisers, have done for a long time.


pity they didn't say 'oh, you need to talk to the venue' in the first place


----------



## editor (Nov 28, 2017)

Here's an interesting twist on the National Trust's rules on photography



> Last year, photographer Howard Kennedy got under fire because of a nude photoshoot inside the 17th century Craigievar Castle. The National Trust for Scotland (NTS), who owns the castle, started an investigation after revealing the nude photos Kennedy shot inside of it. However, the photographer has now decided to fight back. Reportedly, he is suing NTS for damaging his personal reputation and seeks £50,000 in libel damages.
> 
> 
> The Craigievar Castle is located in Aberdeenshire, Scotland. It was completed in 1626, and it’s been in the hands of NTS since 1963. It’s said to have inspired Walt Disney’s Cinderella Castle, but it seems it has also been an inspiring place for some nude shots. After Kennedy photographed the model Rachelle Summers in 2012, he and his wife Karen offered the prints for sale worldwide. In 2016, the images reached Gabriel Forbes-Sempill. She is the daughter of Lord Sempill, who gifted the castle to The National Trust. And this is where the whole saga began.
> ...


Nude photographer sues National Trust for Scotland for damaging his reputation


----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2018)

Some bunch of design agency chancers offered me a massive £10 per image to have my photos featured in a restaurant in Cardiff, offering that massively important 'photo credit.' As politely as I could, I declined.


----------



## Simonburn (Jun 23, 2018)

Hi
(dont know if this is the right place to post this)

Are you allowed to sell images you have taken of military planes at UK RAF (or USAF) bases?
Assumptions:
Images taken from outside the base, viewing areas dont say "No Photography"
As far as i can tell, you should be able to sell prints, but I cant find any difinative info.

Anyone have any solid info?
Thanks
Simon


----------



## editor (Jun 23, 2018)

Simonburn said:


> Hi
> (dont know if this is the right place to post this)
> 
> Are you allowed to sell images you have taken of military planes at UK RAF (or USAF) bases?
> ...


I can't think of any reason why you couldn't unless you're somehow endangering national security.


----------



## spitfire (Jun 23, 2018)

Simonburn said:


> Hi
> (dont know if this is the right place to post this)
> 
> Are you allowed to sell images you have taken of military planes at UK RAF (or USAF) bases?
> ...



People take pics of the Mach Loop all the time and this particular individual seems to be able to sell them so you should be fine*.

Lowflyzone-Low Level photography

There's an F35 in this gallery and they are pretty secret squirrel so get stuck in.

Lowflyzone-Low Level photography

*am not a lawyer


----------



## Simonburn (Jun 24, 2018)

Thanks for your thoughts, but I was hoping for a definative answer


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2018)

Simonburn said:


> Thanks for your thoughts, but I was hoping for a definative answer


Yes, yes you can


----------



## isvicthere? (Jun 24, 2018)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Have they still got a 'Flying Squad'? .



Nah-nah-nah, nah-nah-nah, nah-nah-nah-nah-NAAAAH-nah-nah-nah.


----------



## duncanh64 (Jul 28, 2018)

Thought I'd post this query here; was on holiday recently at the seaside and walked onto the local pier where there was a film being shot. We joined a small crowd of folk rubbernecking to see what was going on, some of them taking snaps with their phones. I had been taking a few photos further up the coastline and still had the camera (Nikon 1 J5) on the neck strap, but turned off and lens cap on; couldn't see anything particularly worth photographing (although apparently Eddie Izzard had been around earlier) and was about to go when a security chap came bounding over and bent down to me (was a big bloke; I'm not) and told me I couldn't use the camera here and he muttered something about my camera interfering with the crew's film cameras. I shrugged and told him I hadn't used the camera and was just going anyway; didn't notice him speak to anyone else taking photos. Any one know anything about this ? Have seen people using DSLRs/compact system cameras around film sets before with no issue..


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2018)

duncanh64 said:


> Thought I'd post this query here; was on holiday recently at the seaside and walked onto the local pier where there was a film being shot. We joined a small crowd of folk rubbernecking to see what was going on, some of them taking snaps with their phones. I had been taking a few photos further up the coastline and still had the camera (Nikon 1 J5) on the neck strap, but turned off and lens cap on; couldn't see anything particularly worth photographing (although apparently Eddie Izzard had been around earlier) and was about to go when a security chap came bounding over and bent down to me (was a big bloke; I'm not) and told me I couldn't use the camera here and he muttered something about my camera interfering with the crew's film cameras. I shrugged and told him I hadn't used the camera and was just going anyway; didn't notice him speak to anyone else taking photos. Any one know anything about this ? Have seen people using DSLRs/compact system cameras around film sets before with no issue..


He's talking total and utter bollocks.


----------



## RoyReed (Jul 29, 2018)

duncanh64 said:


> Thought I'd post this query here; was on holiday recently at the seaside and walked onto the local pier where there was a film being shot. We joined a small crowd of folk rubbernecking to see what was going on, some of them taking snaps with their phones. I had been taking a few photos further up the coastline and still had the camera (Nikon 1 J5) on the neck strap, but turned off and lens cap on; couldn't see anything particularly worth photographing (although apparently Eddie Izzard had been around earlier) and was about to go when a security chap came bounding over and bent down to me (was a big bloke; I'm not) and told me I couldn't use the camera here and he muttered something about my camera interfering with the crew's film cameras. I shrugged and told him I hadn't used the camera and was just going anyway; didn't notice him speak to anyone else taking photos. Any one know anything about this ? Have seen people using DSLRs/compact system cameras around film sets before with no issue..


I've shot in film sets a couple of  times. If they're actually filming, their microphones could pick up your shutter noise, which is why they would ask you not to take photos, but if you're in a public place and not causing an obstruction they can't stop you. Piers are sometimes private property, so they might have negotiated exclusive rights with the pier owner if you were actually on the pier.


----------



## duncanh64 (Jul 29, 2018)

RoyReed said:


> I've shot in film sets a couple of  times. If they're actually filming, their microphones could pick up your shutter noise, which is why they would ask you not to take photos, but if you're in a public place and not causing an obstruction they can't stop you. Piers are sometimes private property, so they might have negotiated exclusive rights with the pier owner if you were actually on the pier.


Thanks; he didn't mention anything about shutter noise and I could have easily turned that off; he seemed to be suggesting that using the camera could in itself interfere with their filming. They were had about half the pier cordoned off, we were on the bit closest to the Esplanade, all owned by the local council...


----------



## RoyReed (Jul 29, 2018)

duncanh64 said:


> Thanks; he didn't mention anything about shutter noise and I could have easily turned that off; he seemed to be suggesting that using the camera could in itself interfere with their filming. They were had about half the pier cordoned off, we were on the bit closest to the Esplanade, all owned by the local council...


Well the camera interfering with filming (other than shutter noise) is absolute bollocks. If you were in a public area you can photograph whatever you want.


----------



## editor (Oct 9, 2018)

This seems to reside in a dubious area of legality, given that this was Leicester Square.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 9, 2018)

editor said:


> This seems to reside in a dubious area of legality, given that this was Leicester Square.
> 
> View attachment 149232


Hah. I mean they have the same rights to film and take photos in public as anyone else, but if they then used that to defame you, I don’t think “you consented by being in public” is going to cut it as a defence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Oct 9, 2018)

They actually wrote 'throughout the Universe'.  

I very much doubt that putting that sign up changes their legal relations with anyone tbh.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 9, 2018)

That's priceless


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Oct 10, 2018)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They actually wrote 'throughout the Universe'.
> 
> I very much doubt that putting that sign up changes their legal relations with anyone tbh.



It’s a statement of discouragement.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Oct 12, 2018)

Something I was wondering, and this thread seems like a good place to ask it - do you have the right to take photos of buildings and then profit from selling them? Say for example I decided to produce a calendar of pictures of my village, would the owners of any buildings pictured have any legal right to object? What about specific types of buildings - all churches, or all town halls, or something?

(Not that it's something I'm ever likely to end up doing, but I was wondering anyway.)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 12, 2018)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Something I was wondering, and this thread seems like a good place to ask it - do you have the right to take photos of buildings and then profit from selling them? Say for example I decided to produce a calendar of pictures of my village, would the owners of any buildings pictured have any legal right to object? What about specific types of buildings - all churches, or all town halls, or something?
> 
> (Not that it's something I'm ever likely to end up doing, but I was wondering anyway.)


Sure. There are some countries where there is copyright over architecture but not here.

ETA: some MOD buildings are excluded from this in case you were thinking of that....


----------



## weltweit (Oct 12, 2018)

I took some photos one weekend focussing on a particular tree that was showing great autumn colours. The photos were awful and I was tempted to delete them immediately on getting them onto the computer. 

However it turned out the tree was just outside an army base and the guards had noted my licence plate and informed the police. Monday am I had a knock at my door and two detectives asking me what exactly I was doing so near the base. In the end although I probably didn't have to I invited them in to see the images I had from that session which seemed to calm their fears and that was that. 

I hadn't even realised the tree was outside a base!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 12, 2018)

Buddy Bradley said:


> Something I was wondering, and this thread seems like a good place to ask it - do you have the right to take photos of buildings and then profit from selling them? Say for example I decided to produce a calendar of pictures of my village, would the owners of any buildings pictured have any legal right to object? What about specific types of buildings - all churches, or all town halls, or something?
> 
> (Not that it's something I'm ever likely to end up doing, but I was wondering anyway.)



As FridgeMagnet has said.

Years ago I worked for 'Somerset Life' magazine, which carried regular features on Somerset villages, with truly beautiful photography, occasionally we would get a complaint from someone that we had published a photo that included their house, or even had it as the main focus of the photo.

Our response was always very polite, but basically boiled down to 'fuck off, you twat'.


----------



## bill4725 (Nov 22, 2018)

On Saturday I decided to take my new video camera out for a spin, just happened to coincide with the villages xmas lights being switched on. I set up in the town hall making sure I was right out of the way and in no way causing any obstruction (was in the sports hall area of the town hall that epitomises the very definition of a public space) and was very rudely asked to leave as I wasn't allowed to film in there because of children being present (I had actually arrived earlier then the opening time in order to get shots of the indoor faire without a sea of heads, incidently at the time of being asked to leave there wasn't a single child in the sports hall). being a public space, a free public event and the organisers being a community group who had hired the hall and the person telling me to leave not being a council employee could I have refused to leave and carried on filming. I did leave when asked but only as to not cause a scene. I want to write a letter of complaint to both the group involved and the town council but I want to be sure that I was in the right


----------



## editor (Nov 22, 2018)

bill4725 said:


> On Saturday I decided to take my new video camera out for a spin, just happened to coincide with the villages xmas lights being switched on. I set up in the town hall making sure I was right out of the way and in no way causing any obstruction (was in the sports hall area of the town hall that epitomises the very definition of a public space) and was very rudely asked to leave as I wasn't allowed to film in there because of children being present (I had actually arrived earlier then the opening time in order to get shots of the indoor faire without a sea of heads, incidently at the time of being asked to leave there wasn't a single child in the sports hall). being a public space, a free public event and the organisers being a community group who had hired the hall and the person telling me to leave not being a council employee could I have refused to leave and carried on filming. I did leave when asked but only as to not cause a scene. I want to write a letter of complaint to both the group involved and the town council but I want to be sure that I was in the right


If you're inside private property - and a town hall would count as that -  then you can be asked to stop filming.  The stuff about 'not being allowed to film children' is legally total nonsense if you're just filming for your own benefit.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Nov 22, 2018)

editor said:


> More here:
> 
> Photographer held after taking pictures of Hove town hall





cupid_stunt said:


> Blimey, I knew Eddie years ago, he's a big fucker, and always stands his ground.
> 
> Top man.



I bumped into Eddie a few weeks ago, turns out his Hove town hall experience wasn't the only one, he was arrested back in 2014 near Gatwick airport, for filming using a drone, despite having approval from the Civil Aviation Authority & permission of the land-owner. 



> Mitchell, a trained drone pilot who is also one of the few journalists with approval from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to commercially operate Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA), said he did not need to advise air traffic control as he was operating a drone weighing under 7kg at the time.
> 
> “I identified myself to police officers at the scene and said that I would be putting a drone up,” he said.
> 
> ...


Photojournalist arrested after filming with drone near Gatwick airport

It was a brief encounter, as he was in a rush, so I didn't find out what the outcome was, and if he got compensation.

The stupid thing is, he's a respected freelancer that supplies the likes of of the BBC, Sky, ITN, national & local newspapers with his work, and has helped the police & fire service by flying his drone over scenes of fires, etc. to help them to assess the situation.

ETA - oh, and this photo confirms what I posted before, that he's a big fucker, towering above the coppers!


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2019)

Power mad. 



> The new concert limits photographers to covering only the first three songs at a concert from the pit. It also states that all photos are shot on a “work-made-for-hire” basis, meaning the photographer agrees to transfer all rights (including copyright) to Grande’s company.
> 
> Finally, if photographers wish to use the photos they shoot for any purpose, including journalism, they must receive written approval from Grande.





> As you might expect, photographers aren’t happy about this contract, and some pretty big organizations in the world of photojournalism are publicly protesting the policy.
> 
> The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) has published a letter co-signed by 15 other groups, including the ASMP, AP, Gannett Company (USA TODAY’s owner and the largest US newspaper publisher), LA Times, and NY Times.
> 
> ...





https://petapixel.com/2019/03/27/ar...k-at-greedy-photogs-with-full-copyright-grab/


----------



## Ponyutd (Mar 28, 2019)




----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2019)

Ponyutd said:


>



Brilliant stuff from Ken!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 28, 2019)

Ponyutd said:


>




You sent me down a youtube rabbit hole.  

The 'photography is not a crime' lot post some funny stuff TBH, they totally own the coppers.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 28, 2019)

Not one, not two, but three cop cars turn-up in this case , and the photographer fucked them all off.


----------



## Ponyutd (Mar 28, 2019)

It's extraordinary how little they know, or pretend they don't.
They make themselves look proper dicks.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 28, 2019)

Good that the photographer kept his cool and knew the law.


----------



## dylanredefined (Mar 28, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Sure. There are some countries where there is copyright over architecture but not here.
> 
> ETA: some MOD buildings are excluded from this in case you were thinking of that....


They normally have signs prohibiting photography


weltweit said:


> I took some photos one weekend focussing on a particular tree that was showing great autumn colours. The photos were awful and I was tempted to delete them immediately on getting them onto the computer.
> 
> However it turned out the tree was just outside an army base and the guards had noted my licence plate and informed the police. Monday am I had a knock at my door and two detectives asking me what exactly I was doing so near the base. In the end although I probably didn't have to I invited them in to see the images I had from that session which seemed to calm their fears and that was that.
> 
> I hadn't even realised the tree was outside a base!


Well you made the weekend fly for the guard nothing
like a suspiscious vehicle to liven stuff up.


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Not one, not two, but three cop cars turn-up in this case , and the photographer fucked them all off.



"Can I ask what you're taking pictures of?"

"Anything I can see from a public footpath"


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 28, 2019)

editor said:


> "Can I ask what you're taking pictures of?"
> 
> "Anything I can see from a public footpath"



On one I watched, it went as...

"Why are you taking photos?"

"Because I've got a camera."


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2019)

And my story from years ago: “Oy you! You can’t take that picture….”


----------



## weltweit (Mar 28, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> ..
> Well you made the weekend fly for the guard nothing
> like a suspiscious vehicle to liven stuff up.


I did wonder why the soldiers on the gate didn't approach me at the time but on reflection they probably weren't permitted to leave their posts.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 28, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> They normally have signs prohibiting photography


Yeah, I don't think identifying those few buildings that you can't legally take pictures of is going to be hard. Particularly as you'd likely be in a dismal field in the middle of nowhere to begin with, which should give you a hint.


----------



## dylanredefined (Mar 28, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I did wonder why the soldiers on the gate didn't approach me at the time but on reflection they probably weren't permitted to leave their posts.



 If your outside the wire unless you are an active threat. All they would do is record what they saw. They have no powers to question you or detain you.


----------



## bemused (May 7, 2019)

There is an odd youtube subcult who engineer conflicts with the police then claim they are on a campaign for photographers rights. Two I saw recently involved one guy setting up a video camera and tripod outside a police staff carpark in the dark and other of a chap dressed head to toe in black, with a full face crash helmet camped outside the main entrance of a police station with a tripod.


----------



## editor (Oct 18, 2019)

Really useful video here with plenty of legal info


----------



## editor (Jul 12, 2021)

Thought this might be handy if anyone is planning a trip to the States









						Your Rights as a Photographer in the United States
					

Here's a summary of your rights as a photographer in the United States to give you peace of mind when you're shooting or publishing photos.




					petapixel.com


----------

