UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
This is getting well boring on many photo forums.
First point is that nothing has changed legally for many years.
The only reason this sort of thing is getting reported more frequently is because there are far more photographers working in public and private spaces. It's a perpetuated myth being believed by more and more on both sides.
We're also a country at war. May not seem like it from where we stand even though the fact that we're losing is upping oil prices and the cost of living. As an aggressive, attacking nation we can expect a bit of come back and the law should be looking out for that.
Of course, the law can be abused.
In the Three years I trekked around London with a back pack, tripods and several cameras I was only ever asked once what I was up to by police. Even then they accepted my polite explanation and let me carry on.
In the Three months I slept homeless in London I was 'stopped and searched' under anti-terrorism legislation about 12 times. Just for walking the streets at the wrong time in the wrong place.
This photography stuff is a huge red herring people. Really is and you're all falling for it. Far more important law changes going on across Europe.
First point is that nothing has changed legally for many years.
The only reason this sort of thing is getting reported more frequently is because there are far more photographers working in public and private spaces. It's a perpetuated myth being believed by more and more on both sides.
We're also a country at war. May not seem like it from where we stand even though the fact that we're losing is upping oil prices and the cost of living. As an aggressive, attacking nation we can expect a bit of come back and the law should be looking out for that.
Of course, the law can be abused.
In the Three years I trekked around London with a back pack, tripods and several cameras I was only ever asked once what I was up to by police. Even then they accepted my polite explanation and let me carry on.
In the Three months I slept homeless in London I was 'stopped and searched' under anti-terrorism legislation about 12 times. Just for walking the streets at the wrong time in the wrong place.
This photography stuff is a huge red herring people. Really is and you're all falling for it. Far more important law changes going on across Europe.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Paedos can take a picture of a child and then use the internet to find that childs PC and make fumes come out of the keyboard that makes the child susceptible to the evil pervs advances.
FACT.
pogofish
Testicle Hairstyle
In the last few months, I have photographed literally hundreds of kids for work. The number of parents who refused permission when I asked - one!
I really wonder how much of this is being blown out of all proportion by someone with their own axe to grind?
Cid
Proper break this time
Yes, but as I said there was nothing explicitly illegal about those images, they were a means of vetting people before allowing them access to the sharing of more explicit imagery. It's sad they were used in this way of course, but pictures of fully clothed children are not hard to come by.
It was a comment that was no longer funny because Cid's post stood in between it and the photograph.
If nonces want to be titulated all they have to do is visit swim wear on the mother care's website, join a family naturist forum or even pick up a freeman's catalogue. One of my favourite photos is by a photographer who's name I forget and it is just a toddler eating a carrot and she happens to be nude. I have only seen it in a book and really liked the way it was lit and the expression of curiosity on her face (obviously never had a raw carrot). I saw that in a book I borrowed from the library at uni. My point is if a person wants to obtain photographs of children that could be regarded as sexually excplicit they're not going to go around stalking kids with a camera. And my other point is that you can still appreciate the aesthetics of photograph, subject, or medium with out finding it erotic.
I am not sure what qualifies as child pornography, I know it has various levels but really - just because a person takes photos of kids doesn't make them a nonse. Fuck, I took a photo of a group of kids playing in a fountain and it was only when a friend pointed out that I could be done for that I realised how stupid all this is.
Child porn?
What about this one, that was displayed in the Baltic in Newcastle by Nan Golding:
http://www.thefileroom.org/images/klara_and_edda_belly_dancing.jpg
(NSFW)
Not a photo I like myself but if you look at hte work she does it puts it in context, she takes photos of peoples lives and relationships:
As for the terror threat - that is a load of bollocks IMO. Just an excuse to stop you because they are bored and the police do like to excersize their powers.
Again. You can take photos of kids and not be a nonce. Sorry to state the obvious but it fucks me off this stupid hysterical reaction to child pornography, whipped up by the media.
I am not sure what qualifies as child pornography, I know it has various levels but really - just because a person takes photos of kids doesn't make them a nonse. Fuck, I took a photo of a group of kids playing in a fountain and it was only when a friend pointed out that I could be done for that I realised how stupid all this is.
Child porn?
What about this one, that was displayed in the Baltic in Newcastle by Nan Golding:
http://www.thefileroom.org/images/klara_and_edda_belly_dancing.jpg
(NSFW)
Not a photo I like myself but if you look at hte work she does it puts it in context, she takes photos of peoples lives and relationships:
As for the terror threat - that is a load of bollocks IMO. Just an excuse to stop you because they are bored and the police do like to excersize their powers.
Again. You can take photos of kids and not be a nonce. Sorry to state the obvious but it fucks me off this stupid hysterical reaction to child pornography, whipped up by the media.
Not true in all cases, I think. The railway press is replete with tales of enthusiasts being hassled by station staff, security guards and sometimes the BTP for taking photographs. It's certainly got worse in the last few years. This despite Network Rail's stated position that enthusiasts are useful extra 'eyes and ears' in the 'fight' against terrorism.
That said, when there's a steam train about - which is the only time you'll find me on the platform with my camera - they do accept that it will attract enthusiasts and they invariably leave them alone.
That is incredibly naive.
Posting pictures publicly on the internet is a completely different issue to the public taking of photographs. There are all sorts of reasons why someone wouldn't want pictures of themselves and their children published publicly. All sorts of innocent reasons.
longdog
What is it you can't face?
The cops tried this old bollocks on in Hull with a guy taking pictures of the new St Stephens shopping centre because they could be useful to terrorists.
Of course terrorist would be too dim to find a map of the place on the internet wouldn't they
http://www.ststephens-hull.com/Comgenic.Manager.Images/St%20Stephens%20Spring%20Street%20Guide2.pdf
Police intelligence... An oxymoron if ever there was one.
Of course terrorist would be too dim to find a map of the place on the internet wouldn't they
http://www.ststephens-hull.com/Comgenic.Manager.Images/St%20Stephens%20Spring%20Street%20Guide2.pdf
Police intelligence... An oxymoron if ever there was one.
Yeah, the Railway press and every other ham publication short of news.
Nothing has changed legally for fucking years. It's just that everyone and everybody is a photographer these days and the police have been given something new to do. Your rights are exactly the same as they were 20 years ago.
quimcunx
imprimeo, lamino, distribuo
It's not really the same thing, but on R4 tonight there was a piece about an internet paedophile site who posted up normal, innocent pictures of kids for its members to wank over (sorry), so apparently it goes on. Maybe that's what your friend was worried about?
As vile as that thought is, it doesn't actually harm the child.
*awaits 'you're obviously not a mother, but speaking as one' post.*
Am gonna print that out and put it in me bag, cheers doggy - got an URL to go with it?
longdog
What is it you can't face?
Page three of the article in the OP
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/08/17/sv_photographers.xml&page=3
Such as?
longdog
What is it you can't face?
Paedophiles will claw their way through the screen and molest them.
I've seen it happen.
longdog
What is it you can't face?
longdog
What is it you can't face?
Paedos can take a picture of a child and then use the internet to find that childs PC and make fumes come out of the keyboard that makes the child susceptible to the evil pervs advances.
FACT.
There's no scientific proof but it is a fact
That isn't the point though, is it? It's not a matter of whether your rights have changed, but whether you're likely to get more hassle whilst going about your lawful business than you used to. And in the case of the railways, you almost certainly are.
I'd be very surprised if he told he he does that for more than about 5%* of those he initially sees taking photos ...
(ETA: * - dependant on the subject - a lot higher for non-touristy things like electricity sub-stations!)
Similar threads
