UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

[untethered]

It might be worth adding to the guide that if your photography in a public place antagonises others, you could be arrested for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. The expected BOP would be the other people becoming violent towards you. I've no idea how often this actually happens.

 

[editor]

It might be worth adding to the guide that if your photography in a public place antagonises others, you could be arrested for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.

'Antagonising' others is not a criminal offence as such, and even if it was, surely it would come under the harassment laws covered in the article if you're simply photographing others? After all, look at what the paparazzi get away with.

I did mention breach of the peace further on in the article.

 

[untethered]

'Antagonising' others is not a criminal offence as such, and even if it was, surely it would come under the harassment laws covered in the article if you're simply photographing others? After all, look at what the paparazzi get away with.

BOP isn't a criminal offence. It's a common law complaint with a power of arrest.

In harassment, the behaviour has to be persistent and there is no requirement that the harassing behaviour is likely to lead to any specific response on the part of the victim. In behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, it is the reaction of people other than the person antagonising the situation that matters. It's not antagonism per se that matters but antagonism that provokes or is judged likely to provoke a violent response.

I did mention breach of the peace further on in the article.

Yes, but in the context where the photographer is breaching the peace, rather than provoking a situation in which others might.

 

[editor]

Yes, but in the context where the photographer is breaching the peace, rather than provoking a situation in which others might.

I can't think of any examples of a successful 'breach of the peace' prosecution against a photographer doing his job, although some clueless officers have tried it on in the past.

Maybe I'll add a line and link it to this page: http://www.epuk.org/News-snippets/719/police-sued-over-stolen-cameras

 

[editor]

Some research:

What is a breach of the peace? In R v Howell [1981] 3 All ER 383, Watkins LJ said "... we cannot accept that there can be breach of the peace unless here has been an act done or threatened to be done which actually harms a person or in his presence his property or is likely to cause such harm or which puts someone in fear of such harm being done."

In DPP v Percy [1995] 3 All ER 124, the court clarified that conduct could be breach of the peace if there was a real risk that it would elicit violence from a third party. (The judgement relied heavily on R v Howell in general.) In that respect, if a photographer is hassling people in a way that creates a real risk that may might respond violently, or, for example, angers parents by photographing their children, there would be a possibility of a conviction for breach of the peace. Admittedly it is far less likely than the police would sometimes have photographers believe.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide#c53

 

[untethered]

Some research:

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide#c53

Which seems to support my argument. Admittedly it's more of a theoretical possibility than something that is likely to happen, but I do know of one (non-photographic) case of a successful conviction for BOP where no violence occurred but was decided on the likely reaction of others to a continuance of that behaviour.

 

[editor]

Which seems to support my argument.

Well, sort of, but I couldn't find any examples of as successful prosecution.

But as it says at the beginning, it's supposed to be a brief guide and if I list every single legal possibility, it's going to become a very long and dull document.

I have however added this:

Breach of the Peace
Another legal catch-all sometimes employed by the police against photographers refusing to leave a scene when doing their job is, "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace."

We can't think of any successful prosecutions of press photographers under this law, but it has certainly been used on occasion.

Some legal precedents:
In R v Howell [1981] 3 All ER 383, Watkins LJ said "... we cannot accept that there can be breach of the peace unless here has been an act done or threatened to be done which actually harms a person or in his presence his property or is likely to cause such harm or which puts someone in fear of such harm being done." while in DPP v Percy [1995] 3 All ER 124, the court clarified that conduct could be breach of the peace if there was a real risk that it would elicit violence from a third party.

This could apply to a photographer hassling people in such a manner that he/she might elicit a violent response from those around them, although we'd suggest that this kind of offence would be extremely rare.

Cheers for the input.

(Note: I've since tidied up the text a bit on the web page)

 

[untethered]

My own brief (non-exhaustive guide is):

Permission - you don't need to ask or get it but sometimes it helps.
Trespass - if you're on private property expect to get kicked out.
Privacy - if your subjects are in a public place or easily visible from one they have no privacy rights.
Harassment - if you annoy other people you may be arrested, eventually.
Obstructing the highway - if the police ask you to move along, do so.
Obstructing the police - if the police ask you to move along, do so.
Pro or amateur - the law is the same though some situations may favour one or the other.

 

[Paul Russell]

Here's an interesting tale from one of my Flickr contacts from a couple of days ago.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/2420960125/

Edit: once again the police officer says it's "unlawful to photograph people in public". Do any police actually know the law on this?

Edit2: my computer doesn't want to install the latest version of Flash Player, so I can't see the accompanying video. Is it any good?!

 

[editor]

Here's an interesting tale from one of my Flickr contacts from a couple of days ago.

That's just the kind of ridiculous treatment photographers are suffering more and more regularly from moronic security tossers.

I'll add your link to my case examples. There's quite a list forming now.

 

[teuchter]

What, technically, is the definition of a "public place"?

 

[editor]

What, technically, is the definition of a "public place"?

Public thoroughfare, road, street, pavement, path, canal towpaths, public parks and play areas etc.

 

[Paul Russell]

Public thoroughfare, road, street, pavement, path, canal towpaths, public parks and play areas etc.

That's right of course.

But there is a worrying trend on the horizon towards the privatisation of previously public space. Canary Wharf is a current example, I think, but soon a large part of Liverpool city centre will effectively become private property. It will be a "mall without walls" and even in open-air streets security guards will be able to tell you to buzz off if they don't like the look of you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/29/communities

"the first privatisation of a city centre anywhere in England"

 

[neonwilderness]

Edit2: my computer doesn't want to install the latest version of Flash Player, so I can't see the accompanying video. Is it any good?!

Shows the security guard talking bollocks and trying to push them about and detain them. It cuts out when the other guards arrive.

 

[teuchter]

Public thoroughfare, road, street, pavement, path, canal towpaths, public parks and play areas etc.

Not buildings in public ownership, then?

 

[Paul Russell]

Shows the security guard talking bollocks and trying to push them about and detain them. It cuts out when the other guards arrive.

Thanks! Maybe it'll end up on youtube...

 

[disco_dave_2000]

I've now finished my Guide To Photographer's Rights - I'd welcome feedback/corrections from users (but note that it's intended as a general guide, not an in depth examination of all the sometimes quite-complex laws).

Very good section of information - thanks

 

[Paul Russell]

Thanks, yes, it's a good read.

So, reading the whole thing, am I right in understanding that there are no circumstances in which anyone (security staff, pcso, police) can demand that you delete images on the spot?

"Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) external link national police-press guidelines makes their rights clear:

"Members of the media ...

The guidelines also warn that any police officer who deletes a photographer's images could face criminal, civil or disciplinary action..."

And if the police delete an image they could face "face criminal, civil or disciplinary action", or does that just apply to images taken by press photographers, not amateurs?

 

[editor]

So, reading the whole thing, am I right in understanding that there are no circumstances in which anyone (security staff, pcso, police) can demand that you delete images on the spot?

Security guards categorically can not make you delete your images under any circumstances.

From the sirimo website:

Security guards do not have stop and search powers, nor do they have the right to delete images or confiscate film. The police may, in some circumstances, sieze film or memory cards, but they should never destroy film or delete images. If the photographer has committed an offence, the images are evidence, and if he/she has not, then the images are innocent. Either way, they should not be destroyed or deleted.

 

[chooch]

I've now finished my Guide To Photographer's Rights..
I'm going to look into doing a credit card sized 'Bust card' that can be printed out

That's very helpful, and the card would be great.
I wonder what the legal position is here in Spain. Might just go find out...

 

[editor]

That's very helpful, and the card would be great.
I wonder what the legal position is here in Spain. Might just go find out...

Generally, they're much bigger on the right to privacy in Europe.

 

[chooch]

Generally, they're much bigger on the right to privacy in Europe.

Not so sure here. I suspect the Guardia Civil wouldn't hesitate to break lens and face, but there may be some legal protection. Google ain't providing, so far...

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Not so sure here. I suspect the Guardia Civil wouldn't hesitate to break lens and face, but there may be some legal protection. Google ain't providing, so far...

The only instance I've come across in Spain (of any police/security intervention) was here in Granada when a German tourist was asked to delete images after taking photographs of a military building in the centre of town. It's a decorative building with a beautiful courtyard - you wouldn't guess it was a military building.

Guardia Civil are always more than happy to let tourists poke there lenses through the doors of the court buildings. I suspect Granada being a very tourist oriented city is an exception and have absolutely no doubt you would get huge grief if you ever tried to photograph some of the very heavy handed dealings of demos and street parties by Policia Nacional in other parts of Spain.

 

[untethered]

It's worth pointing out that while no-one should make you delete your pictures or do it for you, it's very easy to use file recovery tools to get them back.

 

[editor]

It's worth pointing out that while no-one should make you delete your pictures or do it for you, it's very easy to use file recovery tools to get them back.

Only if you don't take any more photos on the card which you might want to do if some twat's just forced you to delete what you've just taken.

If you're in area where you think you might get hassle, it's worth taking a stack of cards with you and regularly swapping them over and stashing the used cards somewhere hard to find.

 

[Pie 1]

Edited - my Q already answered in a post above.

 

[chooch]

absolutely no doubt you would get huge grief if you ever tried to photograph some of the very heavy handed dealings of demos and street parties by Policia Nacional in other parts of Spain.

Aye. I've never dared. Might ask my journalist contact whether he knows what's what.

 

[neonwilderness]

Here's an interesting tale from one of my Flickr contacts from a couple of days ago.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/2420960125/

Edit: once again the police officer says it's "unlawful to photograph people in public". Do any police actually know the law on this?

It's made it into the local paper now.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/happyaslarry/2442294717/

 

[Guineveretoo]

This story was on Radio 4 this afternoon, along with an interview with Austin Mitchell, and mention of flickr... Anyone would think journalists read this forum!

 

[disco_dave_2000]

One week the Met want individuals to watch and shop photographers looking 'odd' - the next week they are asking for photographers to help solve a murder!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ould-hold-key-to-oxford-st-murder-827359.html