UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

[winjer]

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]

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]

That isn't what the barrister says, that's what the Register misinterprets it as.

The Register makes a reasonable interpretation of this:

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]

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]

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]

Source for the 3rd search and 45 minutes would be nice.

"London Photographers' Branch secretary Marc Vallée", on Twitter.

 

[winjer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yep.



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.

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]

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

Thing is, I am reliably informed this is bollocks.

Now I suppose I have to read the ICO document to explain why...

 

[derf]

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]

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]

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]

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?

Can't think of anything better to adorn the GLA website than a few upskirt shots.

 

[boskysquelch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Fucking ridiculous. And still stupid cops think they can make people delete photos.

 

[cybertect]

and destroy any evidence that might be in them in the process.

 

[stowpirate]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).