UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

[Pickman's model]

I just read that article and I thought it really demands a flash-mob (sorry about the pun) of photographers to pitch up at some agreed time and location and take pictures of a noteworthy London site en masse.

either that or to turn up one after the other all day long.

 

[Mr Smin]

Already been done at City Hall. Unfortunately none of the security guards came out to play.

That's coz they're soft. Proper, 'Olympic'', security guards would never miss a chance to defend a famous landmark from artistic endeavour. Probably.
I sort of envisioned it looking like a photography club field trip - cameras, cucumber sandwiches. No tripods obviously as that's classed as dual-use technology because you _could_ mount machine guns on them.

 

[Haaris Qureshi]

Hey. Was just reading your website, and I found it extremely informative. One thing missing that I want to know about. Exactly WHEN can the police view or/and confiscate your video? If I'm filming something, and they tell me that they want to see what I'm filming, when do I have to stop the recording and actually show them, for what reasons? Thanks.

 

[sim667]

Hey. Was just reading your website, and I found it extremely informative. One thing missing that I want to know about. Exactly WHEN can the police view or/and confiscate your video? If I'm filming something, and they tell me that they want to see what I'm filming, when do I have to stop the recording and actually show them, for what reasons? Thanks.

They can only seize it for evidence as far as I'm aware, which i think they need a warrant for.

You can only be stopped for filming something if you are standing on private land.

 

[laptop]

They can only seize it for evidence as far as I'm aware, which i think they need a warrant for.

They need a warrant from a judge if it's filmed for journalistic purposes.

You can only be stopped for filming something if you are standing on private land.

Not quite. There may be circumstances in which, for example, filming a crime scene could harm the investigation. But cops regularly over-use this when they simply don't want filming.

 

[sim667]

Theyve been changing laws then, when I learnt it at college they needed a warrant to confiscate memory cards and video of anyone.

It also used to be the case that you could only be stopped from filming a crime scene if you were actively disrupting the investigation.

TBF scum are a law unto themselves, they'll just try and make up whatever rules suit them at the time.

 

[laptop]

Theyve been changing laws then, when I learnt it at college they needed a warrant to confiscate memory cards and video of anyone.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is very specific: "special procedure materials" are notes and images gathered, by anyone, for journalistic purposes.

It's the only specific protection for journalism in the law of England and Wales.

It also used to be the case that you could only be stopped from filming a crime scene if you were actively disrupting the investigation.

TBF scum are a law unto themselves, they'll just try and make up whatever rules suit them at the time.

That would be a matter for the court to decide when one sues the police

 

[sim667]

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is very specific: "special procedure materials" are notes and images gathered, by anyone, for journalistic purposes.

It's the only specific protection for journalism in the law of England and Wales.



That would be a matter for the court to decide when one sues the police

So you have to have an NUJ card?

 

[laptop]

So you have to have an NUJ card?

No.

For the third time: you have to be taking notes or pictures for journalistic purposes.

The law very deliberately does not define this phrase. Whether you were in fact covered will be decided by the court when you sue the police for wrongful seizure.

As I keep saying to photographers: if you want to know precisely what the law is, move to Germany.

 

[sim667]

Blimey, dont get stroppy about it.

It would make sense that you are a journalist if you have an NUJ card, but not if you dont, but i guess with the amount of grassroots media now, anyone can really claim they're shooting for jorunalistic purposes. The issue really is now whether they use these powers as opposed to the terrorism act powers to further the integration of state censorship into society.

 

[editor]

Glasgow underground are set to introduce a complete ban on photography.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...introduce-complete-ban-on-photography.293676/

 

[robart]

question im a driving instructor .I use an on board camera to record pupils and possibly to report bad drivers
what the law reguarding this ,i thought if you can see it you can shoot it

 

[Mrs Magpie]

West Mercia Police are undoubtedly not happy about having to pay out £10,000 in compensation to a wronged (indeed assaulted) photographer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/05/west-mercia-police-compensate-man?newsfeed=true

 

[editor]

question im a driving instructor .I use an on board camera to record pupils and possibly to report bad drivers
what the law reguarding this ,i thought if you can see it you can shoot it

If you're on public roads, then you should be free to film.

 

[fractionMan]

West Mercia Police are undoubtedly not happy about having to pay out £10,000 in compensation to a wronged (indeed assaulted) photographer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/05/west-mercia-police-compensate-man?newsfeed=true

no doubt the bastards who did it will get away scott free.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

'Words of advice', I daresay.

 

[laptop]

question im a driving instructor .I use an on board camera to record pupils and possibly to report bad drivers
what the law reguarding this ,i thought if you can see it you can shoot it

You should inform the pupils that you are recording them - since it's video of them personally, rather than them appearing incidentally in video of the street. (Same rules apply as for recording conversations, I think.)

As for recording the street scene: so long as you're in "a place accessible to the public" (the words of at least one judge in a precedent-setting finding) you should be OK.

 

[cybertect]

From Pink News

A gay man was stopped at Gatwick airport last year by a Border Force officer who suspected he was ‘involved in paedophilia’ because he had a camera and a boyfriend, a report into controls at the airport has revealed.

The incident was recorded during observations of staff behaviour as part of an inspection at Gatwick airport’s north terminal by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s office, and highlighted by journalist David Hencke.

The report said some officers had “poor understanding of appropriate selection indicators and risk profiles in determining which passengers to challenge and in some cases were making judgements based on stereotypes.”

At the incident in question, inspectors observed a Border Force officer stopping a gay man who was travelling with his partner and whom the officer thought “might be involved in paedophilia”.

The report outlined the details: “The passenger was stopped and asked routine questions about their trip. When the officer indicated they wished to search the baggage, the passenger requested that this be done in a more private place. This request and a further request on this issue were refused. The contents of the passenger’s bag were then openly displayed including photographic equipment.

“The officer subsequently left the passenger to undertake background checks and later emerged signalling that the passenger could continue on their way.

“The officer then commented to another officer that the passenger was HIV positive; the colleague then advised that the searching officer should use stronger hand gel. These comments were made within earshot of the passenger and indeed other passengers in the channel.

“When subsequently asked why this passenger had been stopped immediately after this interaction, the officer commented that the passenger ‘looked like he might be involved in paedophilia’ and then went on to say that ‘the presence of the camera and the fact he had a boyfriend confirmed this’ (no photos were examined).

“Notebook records of this exchange were not kept although the passenger was delayed by almost 30 minutes.”

The report said the selection of the passenger was “inappropriate” and the behaviour of staff “unprofessional”, as part of a larger critique of practices at Gatwick airport last year which found that of 108 recorded searches, 71 percent were not justified.

John Vine, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, said he was “very concerned to learn of discriminatory practice in the conduct of detection activity. The extent of any discriminatory practices should be investigated and action taken to ensure officers understand and comply with the Agency’s duties under the Equality Act 2010.”

A Border Force spokesman told PinkNews.co.uk: “We are disappointed that the inspector will not share details of the individual cases so that the Border Force can investigate the incident and take further action as necessary.

“We have already addressed the Chief Inspector’s recommendations by introducing additional training for staff on issues of discrimination, we take discriminatory practice very seriously and have procedures in place to deal with any complaints.”

 

[fractionMan]

From Pink News

jesus

 

[Puddy_Tat]

question im a driving instructor .I use an on board camera to record pupils and possibly to report bad drivers

what the law reguarding this ,i thought if you can see it you can shoot it

I'm not a lawyer, but from my perspective -

Since Google can send cars driving through public highways to record images, I don't see why anyone else can't.

Many bus operators have CCTV systems fitted to their buses, including cameras recording the view of the road in front of and behind the bus (this has had quite an effect on reducing dodgy insurance claims) but I don't know whether such recordings would be accepted as evidence by police of (for example) someone else committing a moving traffic offence. I think such recordings can be used to do people for driving / parking in bus lanes, but this may depend on local legislation / signage for the bus lane though.

Inside buses, there is a notice to the effect that CCTV recording is in use, the CCTV is operated by X bus company and their contact details are given. This seems to be in line with the general set of standards that should be adhered to if you use CCTV recordings in your premises - that seems to include buses.

From Pink News

 

[stephen hardy]

Hi all. Was wondering if anyone knows the laws around taking photographs in shops? I was made to delete a photograph I took at a store in Camden on Saturday but was sure this wasn't legal.

 

[RoyReed]

Even the police can't make you delete photographs without a court order as the photographs themselves might constitute evidence. How were you 'made' to delete them?

You must be aware though that taking photographs on private property is at the permission of the property owner.

 

[editor]

Hi all. Was wondering if anyone knows the laws around taking photographs in shops? I was made to delete a photograph I took at a store in Camden on Saturday but was sure this wasn't legal.

You have no legal right to take photos inside a shop as it's private property, but equally they have no right to force you to delete photos.

 

[Greebo]

<snip>You must be aware though that taking photographs on private property is at the permission of the property owner.

^This.

Get your timing right, don't make a nuisance of yourself, ask nicely and the shopkeeper might let you. OTOH get in the way of customers, buy nothing, look as if you're taking photos for ideas of what you could sell (or at what price), and no shopkeeper in their right mind will want you in the shop.

 

[fractionMan]

What about a shop with the sign "These paintings are Copyright, do not photograph" in the window? That's surely bollocks and I could snap through their windows all day, right?

 

[laptop]

What about a shop with the sign "These paintings are Copyright, do not photograph" in the window? That's surely bollocks and I could snap through their windows all day, right?

If you took a photo of the shop in which the paintings featured incidentally, that's fine.

If you photograph the paintings without the permission of the artist that's not good: if you go on to sell the photos that's doubleplusungood.

Same as if someone copied your photos and sold the copies...

 

[stephen hardy]

All,

Thanks for your reply. The store was a clothes store called Cyberdog in Camden.

They did have signs up saying no photography. I took a picture of my other half wearing a silly hat, without anything of significance in the background.

The guy stood over me and forced me to delete the picture from my camera in quite an aggressive fashion.

When questioned he said it was illegal to photograph in any shop due to copyrights laws and health and safety.

It was only after it happened that I began to think about how out of order it was him forcing me to do that.

We only took one picture and weren't being obstrusive in anyway.

 

[editor]

When questioned he said it was illegal to photograph in any shop due to copyrights laws and health and safety.

That is total bollocks, although he had every right to be a bit annoyed if you were ignoring the notices put around the shop.

More here: http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-deleting-images.html

 

[fractionMan]

Fucking psytrance cash-ins. Twats.

 

[laptop]

When questioned he said it was illegal to photograph in any shop due to copyrights laws and health and safety.

Worth bearing in mind that the phrase from legal precedent (in one or more of the cases over wedding sold to Hello or OK!) is that photography is presumed to be permitted from "places accessible to the public" - which is wider than "public places".

Though I can see Cyberdog being touchy about people snapping designs to send pix to rip-off plants in China, their remedy is against the importer, not the photographer.