UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

[Pickman's model]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

That's ridiculous. I'll add that to my case studies page.

 

[cybertect]

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/

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.


The guidance reminds officers that the public do not need a licence to take photographs in the street and the police have no power to stop people taking pictures of anything they like, including police officers.

 

[Paul Russell]

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]

Guardian making quite a noise over this:

http://tinyurl.com/lhfkks

 

[editor]

Respect to Gemma Atkinson for pursuing this.

 

[GoneCoastal]

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]

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]

.

 

[editor]

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]

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]

cheers!

 

[big eejit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/N...eptember/sep1609-video-cops-seize-mcn-camera/

Notice the lack of identification numbers on said constables.

 

[cybertect]

"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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Insanity? Well, i guess i am convinced by your persuasive legal argument.