Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

More photography laws?

  • Total voters
    141
laptop said:
Has anyone heard of another event called for the 20th? Some lack of timing here...
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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:

97CEB7BC_CF4C_081E_B5B1EC3263BCC6F7.jpg


That photo is from the RAF's own website. :facepalm:


PS my photo would have been better than that because the planes were all frozen up in snow and stuff.
 
^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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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—

(a)approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act; or

(b)makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy; or

(c)obtains, collects, records, or publishes, or communicates to any other person any secret official code word, or pass word, or any sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy;
he shall be guilty of felony . . .

(2) On a prosecution under this section, it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person was guilty of any particular act tending to show a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, or his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State; and if any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document, or information relating to or used in any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act, or anything in such a place or any secret official code word or pass word], is made, obtained, collected, recorded, published, or communicated by any person other than a person acting under lawful authority, it shall be deemed to have been made, obtained, collected, recorded, published or communicated for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State unless the contrary is proved.

...

3 Definition of prohibited place

For the purposes of this Act, the expression “prohibited place” means—

(a)any work of defence, arsenal, naval or air force establishment or station, factory, dockyard, mine, minefield, camp, ship, or aircraft belonging to or occupied by or on behalf of His Majesty, or any telegraph, telephone, wireless or signal station, or office so belonging or occupied, and any place belonging to or occupied by or on behalf of His Majesty and used for the purpose of building, repairing, making, or storing any munitions of war, or any sketches, plans, models or documents relating thereto, or for the purpose of getting any metals, oil, or minerals of use in time of war;
Click to expand...

:hmm:

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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
editor said:
Under Section 44 (which is probably the nearest thing he could legitimately claim), he had no right to your personal details.
Click to expand...

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—

(a)land, vehicles, vessels, aircraft and hovercraft in the possession, under the control or used for the purposes of—
(i) the Secretary of State for Defence;
(ii) the Defence Council;
(iii) a headquarters or defence organisation; or
(iv) the service authorities of a visiting force;
​
...

(3) Members of the Ministry of Defence Police shall have in any police area the same powers and privileges as constables of the police force for that police area, and in Northern Ireland the same powers and privileges as constables of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,—

(a) in relation to persons whom they suspect on reasonable grounds of having committed, being in the course of committing or being about to commit an offence; or

(b) if they believe on reasonable grounds that they need those powers and privileges in order to save life or to prevent or minimise personal injury.
Click to expand...

[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. :hmm:
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
 
winjer said:
The Register's interpretation certainly is dodgy.

Liberty's explanation here: http://bit.ly/9BLuH2 Shorter: Yes, they can still use it.
Click to expand...

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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

weltweit
Masters Student photographers on show
Replies
1
Views
247
RoyReed
RoyReed
Flavour
  • Poll
Film photographers: Do you have a scanner?
Replies
6
Views
378
Flavour
Flavour
Flavour
help me find artists/photographers who do nice seascapes
Replies
12
Views
416
Flavour
Flavour
skyscraper101
Help Licensing stock photography. Any experts?
2
Replies
57
Views
1K
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
Mr.Bishie
Photography Thread 2024
2 3 4 5
Replies
135
Views
6K
weepiper
weepiper
Back
Top Bottom