UK Photographer Gets Harrassed For Photography; Funny Exchange

[Bob Hubbard]

http://www.pixiq.com/article/uk-photographer-gets-harrassed-for-photography-funny-exchange

Full article at http://www.visitscunthorpe.com/ScunthorpeNews/headline/Golden-Wonder-Security

Video

The article gives a lot of background. The video, was a riot. So polite they were.

I liked the "I don't give a toss about the law" comment.

 

[Sukerkin]

:chuckles: I couldn't bear to watch the whole thing ... as may have become apparent over the years I'm rather 'English' and was terribly embarrassed for the security person trying desperately - and failing - to avoid falling into the pit of 'Jobsworth'. I've made my opinions plain on Little Hitlers' over the years here so I shall say no more ... other than well done to the photographer for politely and un-threateningly standing his ground.

 

[Tez3]

Why on earth would anyone want to photograph a crisp factory and in Scunthorpe of all places? I'm inclined to think especially as it's being filmed at the same time, someone is winding the security guard up and trying to make an issue out of not being photographed, a put up job methinks. I'm betting they've been there before, checked that the security will rise to the bait then set out deliberately to record it all.

 

[granfire]

Why on earth would anyone want to photograph a crisp factory and in Scunthorpe of all places? I'm inclined to think especially as it's being filmed at the same time, someone is winding the security guard up and trying to make an issue out of not being photographed, a put up job methinks. I'm betting they've been there before, checked that the security will rise to the bait then set out deliberately to record it all.

The same type of people who's work we love to look at - 100 years later. I think he likes to do somewhat of a historian's work, just that to have that 100 yo picture, somebody had to take it of that crisp new place back then.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

read the article, and related bits. Explains it better I think.

As to why? Honestly, to me it's pretty boring, but some folk like doing it.

 

[Tez3]

The same type of people who's work we love to look at - 100 years later. I think he likes to do somewhat of a historian's work, just that to have that 100 yo picture, somebody had to take it of that crisp new place back then.

Having seen the buikding I would entitled the book, 'Bland and Boring buildings that do nothing for anyone anywhere'. Sorry still think it's a wind up to make a fuss about photagrpahing thing. If not, if the photographer had contacted the manager of the building, asked if they could photograph it I'm betting they'd have been invited in and got to photograph anything they wanted out of pity for someone with lack of architechural taste if nothing else.
It's very unfair to put someone like the security guard in a position like that, they do what they are employed to do, most companies don't like unathorised photos being taken and give instructions accordingly, what else was the guard supposed to do, especially in this economic climate and high unemployment? ou can say they should have let them photograph the building but if then they got the sack? 'Jobsworth' it may be but it's still true that there's bills to pay, mouths to fee and a roof over the head to be kept' so really it's unfair to do that to the guard, walk away and take it up with the people responsible..the company.

 

[granfire]

Are you buying int the American Paranoia? :lol:

No telling what catches a person's eye, even on a butt ugly building. I think Exile had an album up on MT with ugly A$$ empty stripmall stores, like old abandoned Walmart buildings. Certainly no architectural gems, but a part of our urban history.

The color combination, how the light reflects off certain materials, Or just that he has been through there 10, 20 or 30 years prior and there was no building, or a different one.

But seriously, you stand clear across the street from a building...


It kind of reminds me of the German people who have their houses pixilated on google earth, making it look like something Xrated, when any Tom Dick and harry can walk by their house and take pictures.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So, you're ok with being lied to, told you can't do something, that something legal was illegal?

See, I, as a photographer, take offense to clueless bullies giving me a load of crap when I'm doing something that's 100% legal.
More so when they are actual uniformed law enforcement types, and not rent-a-cops like these were.

More of the problem is the probability that both the guard and the supervisor actually thought that it was illegal.
Even more of a problem would have been an actual cop showing up who would have backed them and not the photographer.

Now asking for an ok would be polite. But it's apparently not a legal requirement.

The guard in there was obviously quite taken aback that her 'authority' wasn't 'obeyed without question'. Little nazi's get that way, on both sides of the Atlantic.

What differs this British incompetent guard from her American version was that she didn't phone in a complaint about a 'terrorist' who 'threatened' her, resulting in a full military response, the assault and beating of the photographer, the theft and destruction of his gear, his loss of freedom, loss of employment, and excessive high legal defense bills. (actual case in the US btw)

Because he pissed her off by doing something completely legal in your country.


What the company likes, is irrelevant.
What the guard wants, is irrelevant.
What the officer demands, is irrelevant.
Unless the law requires it. Then it is relevant.

Comply now, argue later still equals = I got them to do it anyway. I stopped them from doing a lawful act. I win, freedom loses.

Sure this is a case of some urban shooter taking pictures of stuff that many of us (me included) find boring and meaningless. That's besides the point.

I applaud this guy for knowing his rights under the law, and putting his foot down to claim them.
If people don't do that, ultimately you lose those rights as it becomes 'common law' and 'accepted'.
He kept his cool. Neither she nor her supervisor did.

Now if he'd been trespassing, done a break in etc, I'd fully support the local constable smacking him. But that's a different argument.

 

[Gnarlie]

This looks to me like an almost perfect example of what happens when two people share the shallow end of the gene pool.

Of course the photographer is within his rights to be taking photographs on public property, but it would have been courteous to ask if you can photograph the company's private property. Worse, when he is asked not to take photographs, rather than respecting the wishes of the person asking he causes confrontation by stating his rights. OK, he can be right in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't mean he's not being a bit of a dick in exploiting it and waving the loophole in someone's face when they are only doing their job. If he had any sense, he'd have asked first out of respect, and the whole situation could have been avoided. In fact, he'd probably have gotten better photographs from on site, but I guess being right and getting one over on someone were more important.

Same goes for the security - it would have been easier and less aggravating for them to ask politely what he was doing, contact the PR people and let him into the site to take better pics. Would have got them out of their little hut for an hour.

My working life has been full of maggots like this, causing confrontation and abrasion for the sake of it, rather than working together. I might sound like a bit of a hippy, but why do people fail to co-operate so often? It's not that hard.

 

[Tez3]

I think it would have been better to confront the people giving the orders that he wasn't to photograph the building not pick on a security guard who works a 60 hour week for £3 ($1.55) an hour. Better to have ignored her and taken it up with those who are in charge, who told her that to keep her job she had to keep to their rules. Picking on a security guard is easy, don't get mad at the monkey, get mad at the organ grinder. The best thing about being British is that we can compromise, not harangue someone, not get in their face but to change things the way they are supposed to be changed. Confronting a powerless security guard is cowardly, raising it in the media, with your MP, make a campaign about it but why pick on a security guard how ever wrong they may be.
The guard is someone on minimum wage trying to do a job, maybe she doesn't do it well, maybe the photographer had come on to the Golden Wonder property which actually did look like it when talking, even if he wasn't taking photos from there but how pointless is it to have an argument with a security guard when you could be campaigning properly, it's weak and feeble to try to campaign this way after all it hasn't done any good, hasn't made the news, the company isn't shamed. It's done nothing probably except lose the woman her job, yeah nice one and I bet she still doesn't know what's legal and what's not so this 'effort' has done nothing. Education is what's needed not harrassment on any side.

Photograph any of my buildings you will be arrested and probably sent to prison, that's legal and there's signs everywhere saying we can do it...because we can and will.

 

[Gnarlie]

Completely agree Tez, it's not a hard thing to sort out if you want to take photos on company property, and for everybody to be happy at the end of it.

Can I photograph your buildings if I ask nicely first, or do I go to prison either way?

 

[Tez3]

Completely agree Tez, it's not a hard thing to sort out if you want to take photos on company property, and for everybody to be happy at the end of it.

Can I photograph your buildings if I ask nicely first, or do I go to prison either way?

Sometimes people are allowed to photograph certain places but the MOD has it's own photographers so control is tight, there's certain buildings that can be phtographed from roads in some locations. My house is an MOD one as is the land it's on so you can't photograph that either lol it all comes under the Offical Secrets Act. There's signs everywhere warning people. Often people can't see why they can't take a photo of a building etc but you'd be surprised what they can be used for,making legends for a start, imagine taking a photo of a college for example I could then make it look as if I studied there, 'see there's me on the steps' sort of thing.

As for the Golden Wonder thing, if the point was to show that people don't know the law etc it's fallen short, filming a security guard making a fool of herself doesn't cut it. If they want to campaign and educate the public on what the law allows and doesn't, this isn't the way to do it. Anyone can wind someone up and film them, it would be more to the point if the company were educated about the law and what photographers can and can't do, looking at that building they'd probably be grateful someone wanted to photgraph it. Ecuating the company would be a start, educsating the public would be a better way to go and this isn't educating anyone.

Bob as for being lied to, happens every day 'wasn't me', education, education, education not confrontation when it's not necessary.

 

[jks9199]

I'm kind of in the middle with this one.

The photographer has a point; he wasn't breaking the law (I assume), he wasn't trespassing, all he was doing was taking pictures. Why? Don't ask me... Maybe he saw something in the play of light & shadow on the building... Maybe he just likes factory buildings.

The guards have a point, too. He's taking pictures of their building and staff without permission. That can be a problem... Maybe there are corporate espionage concerns, like a "secret ingredient" or employees who could be vulnerable to some sort of coercion or pressure. Or just plain image control. Don't know...

Neither side handled it particularly well. No, the photographer didn't get pissed off and violent. Neither did the guards. But the photographer was rather passively aggressive, pushing the issue on and on, rather than simply stopping and moving along. And the guards shouldn't have cited "the law" without being able to actually cite a law. Since he wasn't breaking the law, back off.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

In the US, I don't need your permission to take pictures in public.
According to this UK shooter, you don't there either.
There -is- a movement there to educate the cops and public.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#United_Kingdom
http://www.photographersrights.org.uk/
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

UK law is different from US law in some ways.

Now Tez, as a member of the Armed Forces, gets special privilege. The average Brit, not so much.

United Kingdom
Legal restrictions on photography

In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place, and in general the right to take photographs on private land upon which permission has been obtained is similarly unrestricted. However a landowner is permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography. Two public locations in the UK, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square have a specific provision against photography for commercial purposes without the written permission of the Mayor,[2] and permission is needed to photograph or film for commercial purposes in the Royal Parks.[3]

Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment.[4]

It is a criminal offence (contempt) to take a photograph in any court of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal, or to publish such a photograph. This includes photographs taken in a court building, or the precincts of the court.[5] Taking a photograph in a court can be seen as a serious offence, leading to a prison sentence.[6][7] The prohibition on taking photographs in the precincts is vague. It was designed to prevent the undermining of the dignity of the court, through the exploitation of images in low brow 'picture papers'.[8]

Photography of certain subject matter is restricted in the United Kingdom. In particular, the Protection of Children Act 1978 restricts making or possessing pornography of under-18s, or what looks like pornography of under-18s.

It is an offence under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to publish or communicate a photograph of a constable (not including PCSOs), a member of the armed forces, or a member of the security services, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse, however the onus of proof is on the defence, under section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000. A PCSO cited Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to prevent a member of the public photographing them. Section 44 actually concerns stop and search powers.[9] However, in January 2010 the stop-and-search powers granted under Section 44 were ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

Following a prolonged campaign, including a series of demonstrations by photographers abused by Police Officers and PCSOs, the Metropolitan Police was forced to issue updated legal advice which now confirms that 'Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel' and that 'The power to stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 no longer exists.'[10]

It is also an offence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to take a photograph of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or possessing such a photograph. There is an identical defence of reasonable excuse. This offence (and possibly, but not necessarily the s.58A offence) covers only a photograph as described in s.2(3)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2006. As such, it must be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Whether the photograph in question is such is a matter for a jury, which is not required to look at the surrounding circumstances. The photograph must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must call for an explanation. A photograph which is innocuous on its face will not fall foul of the provision if the prosecution adduces evidence that it was intended to be used for the purpose of committing or preparing a terrorist act. The defence may prove a reasonable excuse simply by showing that the photograph is possessed for a purpose other than to assist in the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism, even if the purpose of possession is otherwise unlawful.[11]

and

Photography and privacy

A right to privacy exists in the UK law, as a consequence of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998. This can result in restrictions on the publication of photography.[27][28][29][30][31]

Whether this right is caused by horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 or is judicially created is a matter of some controversy.[32] The right to privacy is protected by Article 8 of the convention. In the context of photography, it stands at odds to the Article 10 right of freedom of expression. As such, courts will consider the public interest in balancing the rights through the legal test of proportionality.[29]

A very limited statutory right to privacy exists in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. This right is held, for example, by someone who hires a photographer to photograph their wedding. The commissioner,[33] irrespective of any copyright which he does or does not hold in the photograph[33] of a photograph which was commissioned for private and domestic purposes, where copyright subsists in the photograph, has the right not to have copies of the work issued to the public,[34] the work exhibited in public[35] or the work communicated to the public.[36] However, this right will not be infringed if the rightholder gives permission. It will not be infringed if the photograph is incidentally included in an artistic work, film, or broadcast.[37]

Wikipedia.


Based on these links, and my admittedly limited understanding of UK laws, to be blunt, the guard was a tit and her supervisor a git.
The shooter was perhaps rude, but not by my NY standards. I would have said simply "If I'm breaking the law, get a cop and let him make the call. If not, sod off and stop harassing me."
Well, maybe not the last part....out loud.

At the end of the day, my view is that the guards were out of line, not the shooter.

As to German law, that's a whole different ballpark.
http://guidedmunich.com/german-privacy-laws/

 

[granfire]

Yeah, the Germans are nuts that way.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yeah, the Germans are nuts that way.

I wouldn't say nuts, I'd say different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_copyright_(Germany)
http://www.photoattorney.com/?p=1118
These show some of the differences in laws.

I cracked my head good looking at houses this afternoon, so a more indepth dig will have to wait until I stop seeing quintuple.

 

[Tez3]

I'm a civvie actually rather than being a member of the armed forces, the MOD owns a lot of property including several farms, a few villages and a pub where we are, they are all leased out to civvies.
http://www.darlingtonandstocktontim...66.The_Bolton_Arms__Downholme__near_Richmond/

If there's a campaign here to educate people it's not making any impact ...probably I have to say because no one is particularly interested apart from a few who seem to think there's a problem where there isn't. Most Brits are actually private people, they prefer not to have their homes or places of work photographed, just because it's not illegal to photograph doesn't seem a good reason just to take photos. However if you do wish to, asking politely is the way to go, just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to leave good manners at home. You will find saying 'right I'm taking a photo and it's legal' won't get you very far with most people, all it does is set their backs up. You don't have to ask but it's polite to do so. If you insist on taking them against the owners wishes and there's an argument you may find yourself being done for breach of the peace.

The law may say you can photograph anyone you want but there's also a moral point that says surely that if that person doesn't want to be photographed they shouldn't be. To go around photographing people for your own ends and telling them it's tough it's legal and I'm doing it anyway is the mark of a scoundrel and is immoral even if it is legal.

Nobody came out of the video looking good, shouldn't have been done.

 

[Gnarlie]

I don't know about the US, but the rules around the use personal and commercial data in the UK and Germany are remarkably similar, as they stem from the same EU legislation.

The way that the legislation, case law and precedent have been interpreted in the two countries is different, meaning that the application of laws is also different. There are many grey areas, and photography of people and their property is certainly one of them.

In the UK, I wasn't allowed to take photographs at my TKD gradings without signed permission slips from the parents / all involved.

In Germany, people want their properties blurred on Google Street View.

Neither of those were a legal requirement at the time, but until a court case takes place to establish precedent, it's prudent to err on the side of caution, which is what both my TKD club and Google had done.

Often European case law and precedent leads to subtle changes in the way legislation and law is interpreted and applied. For this reason, it's sensible not to work to close to the edge of the grey areas, as a small change in current thinking can leave one rather vulnerable.

Aside from all of that, surely it's just easier to get a better result by actually co-operating with the people involved, and respecting their wishes.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

As someone who does event photography, this is of interest:

In the UK, I wasn't allowed to take photographs at my TKD gradings without signed permission slips from the parents / all involved.

I'd be unable to work if I had to do that. 1 wedding, 100 guests, 12 say 'no photos', how can you keep it straight in your head to comply?

In the US it's simple: In public, your fair game. You have no expectation of privacy in public. Of course, for private events, most tickets/etc have disclaimers/agreements on them that serve as a photo release. In the case of weddings it's just expected that you don't make a scene with the hired photographer out of respect for the happy couple.

Now in private, is a different thing. If you were shagging on a public beach in plain view, you have no right of privacy. (I've seen it btw) As a photographer I could have shot the nice couple all I wanted (I didn't). No invasion of privacy there as they were in public. Now, had they been in their home, I couldn't walk up to the house and press a lens against a window as they had an expectation of privacy. Even if the curtains were wide open. (also seen it).

Extreme example, but fitting.
My understanding is that in the UK the same is true, but in Germany that same couple would expect privacy in both cases.

When dealing with photography in public while I will agree asking for permission is the polite thing to do, it shouldn't be a legal requirement. One only needs to see a case of police brutality, or an accident, or a crime to understand why.

"Hello officer, could you turn a bit to the right so I can catch the highlights on your blood soaked baton better please?"
"Hello Mr. Regime Bully, could you growl a bit more evilly while you drag that woman by her hair? Say, is it ok if I take you picture, it's for the Times?"

I can't see than ending well.

Public photography has captured some of the worst highlights of things like the Arab Spring, the Kent State shootings, and thousands of events in between. Laws that would stop some guy who likes to shoot boring factory fronts, would also apply to those folks, allowing government and police to stifle free speech more. As an American that lives in a nation that claims such is important (reality is often other mind you), it's important to me to push for the defense of it world over.

My position/opinion. YMMV and all that.

 

[Tez3]

As someone who does event photography, this is of interest:


I'd be unable to work if I had to do that. 1 wedding, 100 guests, 12 say 'no photos', how can you keep it straight in your head to comply?

In the US it's simple: In public, your fair game. You have no expectation of privacy in public. Of course, for private events, most tickets/etc have disclaimers/agreements on them that serve as a photo release. In the case of weddings it's just expected that you don't make a scene with the hired photographer out of respect for the happy couple.

Now in private, is a different thing. If you were shagging on a public beach in plain view, you have no right of privacy. (I've seen it btw) As a photographer I could have shot the nice couple all I wanted (I didn't). No invasion of privacy there as they were in public. Now, had they been in their home, I couldn't walk up to the house and press a lens against a window as they had an expectation of privacy. Even if the curtains were wide open. (also seen it).

Extreme example, but fitting.
My understanding is that in the UK the same is true, but in Germany that same couple would expect privacy in both cases.

When dealing with photography in public while I will agree asking for permission is the polite thing to do, it shouldn't be a legal requirement. One only needs to see a case of police brutality, or an accident, or a crime to understand why.

"Hello officer, could you turn a bit to the right so I can catch the highlights on your blood soaked baton better please?"
"Hello Mr. Regime Bully, could you growl a bit more evilly while you drag that woman by her hair? Say, is it ok if I take you picture, it's for the Times?"

I can't see than ending well.

Public photography has captured some of the worst highlights of things like the Arab Spring, the Kent State shootings, and thousands of events in between. Laws that would stop some guy who likes to shoot boring factory fronts, would also apply to those folks, allowing government and police to stifle free speech more. As an American that lives in a nation that claims such is important (reality is often other mind you), it's important to me to push for the defense of it world over.

My position/opinion. YMMV and all that.

There's no law against taking photographs of gradings however most organisations that involve children now not just martial arts, require that you ask the permission of parents before taking photos, it's part of the child protection policies many organisations put in place now. It's not a legal requirement.

There's nothing stopping wedding photographers from working, there's no ban on photography.

No one is saying one should ask 'permission' before taking photographs of such things as riots etc, we were talking specifically about this video you posted, there it would have been polite to ask.