editor
hiraethified
If it a private square then you have no right to take photos, but that guard's excuse was full of shit.
UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
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.
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
je suis teuchter
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.
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
dead stare and computer glare
Half the time it's a case of 'clipboard, big bunch of keys, reflective jacket and a radio' syndrome.
editor
hiraethified
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
Active Member
As a matter of interest in relation to the OP, how on earth would the flying squad get underground? 
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
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
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
'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!
No wonder the police don't want people to take photos. There might be photo evidence against them!
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
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
dead stare and computer glare
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.
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
hiraethified
Be nice if that was from this site!
Paul Russell
Psychogeographer
Another example of heavy handed policing
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-architectural-photographer-as-terrorist
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-architectural-photographer-as-terrorist
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
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
Psychogeographer
Just read that story. Amazing...
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!
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
Aussie in San Francisco
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.
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
The guest was Olivier Laurent from the British Journal of Photography
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
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.
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
Psychogeographer
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/
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
holocene death beat
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
Psychogeographer
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.
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.
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
Testicle Hairstyle
Peado-panic in full swing here tonight:
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.
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.
photograph them photographing you, get stomped on:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint
editor
hiraethified
I read that today. It's absolutely outrageous.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
it's no great secret that the police don't like fitwatchers.
Similar threads
