Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

More photography laws?

  • Total voters
    141
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.
 
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.' "
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
"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 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.
Click to expand...

thanks for that, much appreciated - there is so much ambiguity and paranoia involved, thanks.
 
What was encouraging was that the police seem to have finally developed a clue but the security guards remains as stupid as ever.
 
editor said:
What was encouraging was that the police seem to have finally developed a clue
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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. :D
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The case was thrown out by the court

http://www.pixiq.com/article/wiretapping-law-doesnt-apply-in-massachusetts
 
cybertect said:
The case was thrown out by the court

http://www.pixiq.com/article/wiretapping-law-doesnt-apply-in-massachusetts
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

weltweit
Masters Student photographers on show
Replies
1
Views
239
RoyReed
RoyReed
Flavour
  • Poll
Film photographers: Do you have a scanner?
Replies
6
Views
371
Flavour
Flavour
Flavour
help me find artists/photographers who do nice seascapes
Replies
12
Views
410
Flavour
Flavour
Aladdin
Post your favourite painting
Replies
20
Views
715
ohmyliver
ohmyliver
skyscraper101
Help Licensing stock photography. Any experts?
2
Replies
57
Views
989
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
Back
Top Bottom