UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

[Mrs Magpie]

In my line of work permission slips for photos are good practice because of in loco parentis. I don't think it's illegal to take photos that happen to have kids in them.

 

[toggle]

Public as in on a public highway and not private land. I was standing on the road when I was taking that picture and that was most certainly outside the security guard's jurisdiction.

Incidentally, you can't take 'professional' photos of, say, a band in a park without permission.

oh definately the bloke was being an arse in your original situation, if he had a leg to stand on, he would have been explaining the terms of the official secrets act, not weebling and trying to wind you up. the area in which you were photographing does contain some buildings that cannot be photographed (in the same wat firky's bloody great ship does not exist), but the behavior of the guard was laughable and shows that the building you where photographing was not one that you can't legally photograph

However, a shopping center, as an example, can be defined as a private space, that you cannot take your own pix in, but a public space, in that CCTV usage and operators have to be appropriately registered.

 

[Paul Russell]

There is so much paranoia about taking pictures of children that a sort of urban myth seems to be building up.

For example, a couple of kids saw me with a big camera recently:

Kid 1: "Woah. Can you take my picture, I'm gonna dive off this breakwater".

Me: "No".

Kid 2 to Kid 1: "Don't be stupid, that would be illegal".

That sort of thing.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Little fuckers are a nuisance. They should be banned from public places to faciliate photography.

 

[Errol's son]

I woud expect to get stopped taking photos of big companies' HQs, airports, miltary bases, MI6, Downing St, parts of Westminster, the stock exchange etc.

In most countries you get in loads of crap for taking pictures of anyone or anything official.

In this day and age, you can't really expect the UK to be much different whether ou take a photo from a public road or from some private land.

 

[editor]

Incidentally, I've been googling stuff on taking pictures of students and can find nothing, but I know through my line of work that we need written permission to display students' images on the web or on walls in school, and that the Specialist Schools Trust, or the Shakespeare's schools festival, or the East London student voice forum, all ask for written permission if a photographer is going to be present and specifically exclude under 16s without such permission.

Photographing schoolchildren and displaying identifiable photos on the web is quite a separate issue, especially if the photos are being taken on private property (i.e. a school). You need permission to do that.

But if the school was holding an event in a public place - say a street parade - then people would be free to photograph it (subject to other related laws, of course).

 

[editor]

In this day and age, you can't really expect the UK to be much different whether ou take a photo from a public road or from some private land.

What? You think a "big corporate" should own the *air* around them and thus have the power to stop passers by taking pictures from the street?!!

 

[editor]

I should add that I was carrying around my cheapo looking Ricoh GR digital compact and not some pro camera set up at the time.

 

[Errol's son]

No, I would be pissed off if I took a photo of GlaxoSmithKline from the A4/M4 whilst driving past on the flyover and got told off. But from their land, I can understand why they may not like it. But it is understandable that some companies get upset with people photographing them. I imagine HLS aren't too keen on it these days nor many of the City's investment banks.

But I wouldn't be that annoyed if I was told to clear off from taking photos from roads around Heathrow whether they are publicly owned or owned by BAA.

 

[Paul Russell]

Good point.

Little fuckers are a nuisance. They should be banned from public places to faciliate photography.

 

[laptop]

In the UK, are we allowed to take photos of military places, Scotland Yard, MI6, airports etc or are some places (or parts of them) restricted?

Nope.

1.

(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,
​

Then [last time I looked] they were liable to up to 14 years in jail.

The Post Office Tower (Telecom Tower) was notoriously a Prohibited Place until the early 1990s.

 

[editor]

No, I would be pissed off if I took a photo of GlaxoSmithKline from the A4/M4 whilst driving past on the flyover and got told off. But from their land, I can understand why they may not like it.

Hang on - no one's saying that it's OK to take pictures if you're on their land because they're perfectly within their rights to tell you to fuck off.

But once you're back on the public highway, you can snap GlaxoSmithKline to your heart's content (with the caveat of committing harassment/obstruction etc).

 

[editor]

The Post Office Tower (Telecom Tower) was notoriously a Prohibited Place until the early 1990s.

*nudges laptop in the direction of post 44

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Makes me want to take photos that aren't allowed just to piss them off.

 

[laptop]

*nudges laptop in the direction of post 44

And who dug up that quote in an earlier thread? Eh?

 

[editor]

And who dug up that quote in an earlier thread? Eh?

And it was appreciated, but that's not enough to save you here fella! :d

 

[editor]

Makes me want to take photos that aren't allowed just to piss them off.

I'm almost tempted to go back next week with my longest lens and biggest camera and snap even more pictures and perhaps incorporate a panorama or two, just for fun.

 

[samk]

Little fuckers are a nuisance. They should be banned from public places to faciliate photography.

Yes, it is a nuisance when they are fucking so taking a picture would make me a paedopornographer

 

[Bob_the_lost]

In the UK, are we allowed to take photos of military places, Scotland Yard, MI6, airports etc or are some places (or parts of them) restricted?

You will make any TA center or Army barracks take careful note of you and possibly get the MPs out to ask a few questions if you do hang around taking photos. It's almost certainly legal, but it would not be a good idea to have a load of photos of military buildings on your memory card when doing it.

 

[8ball]

I'm almost tempted to go back next week with my longest lens and biggest camera and snap even more pictures and perhaps incorporate a panorama or two, just for fun.

You should take a bunch of other photography enthusiasts along with you and hold a short lecture before letting them loose snapping the place.

 

[editor]

You should take a bunch of other photography enthusiasts along with you and hold a short lecture before letting them loose snapping the place.

That's a nice idea. Perhaps they should keep walking up and down the stretch outside the car park while snapping so there'd be no chance of anyone being done for obstruction. Inviting a passing Critical Mass to join in the fun might add a little spice to proceedings too.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm almost tempted to go back next week with my longest lens and biggest camera and snap even more pictures and perhaps incorporate a panorama or two, just for fun.

Go back with a brutally sharp macro lens in the portrait range and a fucking big flash and get him really angry by refusing to accept his aurthority (take a heavy tripod so you can brain him if he actually attacks you), take his picture looking like a raving loon. Then stick it up on your photo site.

 

[trashpony]

They threatened to take my camera away when I was taking photos at Sellafield. When I asked why they wouldn't allow photos, the bloke didn't really seem to know. I suspect they've all seen too many films (and the power in those jobs is quite minimal so you've got to grab it where you can)

 

[Bernie Gunther]

If it was Sellafield, their films come out all foggy anyhow due to random radioactivity.

 

[laptop]

They threatened to take my camera away when I was taking photos at Sellafield.

Parts of it - specifically, at least, the plutonium stores - must be Prohibited Places within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act(s).

Third anonymous shed from the left as you look from the coast, if I remember correctly

 

[trashpony]

Parts of it - specifically, at least, the plutonium stores - must be Prohibited Places within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act(s).

Third anonymous shed from the left as you look from the coast, if I remember correctly

I only took pictures of the big ball thing with my bf doing 'face of terror' in the foreground. I missed the shed

 

[editor]

Of course, the law gets a bit daft when you consider that there's Google Earth satellites floating overhead and peeps with colossal lens who can snap undetected from miles away.

 

[toggle]

Of course, the law gets a bit daft when you consider that there's Google Earth satellites floating overhead and peeps with colossal lens who can snap undetected from miles away.

the fact they can tell you that the bt tower did not exist also shows it's bloody daft

 

[exosculate]

In case the link hasn't already been posted, it's here.

pdf

I should read it myself!

I try not to hang around anywhere too long with security guards, because generally they are bored shitless with inactivity, and get very excited about getting the chance to do actually do something.

Thats good that is.

As an aside - does anybody know how long copyright exists on old photographs?

 

[editor]

Thats good that is.

As an aside - does anybody know how long copyright exists on old photographs?

Artistic works by known creators (such as paintings, drawings, prints, collages, sculpture, video art or photographs - including negatives and prints) = Lifetime of the artist + 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the artist died.

http://www.mda.org.uk/cbasics.htm