War on Photography - UK Front

[celtic_crippler]

Actually no, you can sue anyone for taking photos of you, absolutely anyone.

Not in this country.

 

[Tez3]

We can here. We can sue under a couple of laws.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

This thread deals with UK laws.

UK Photographer Rights Links
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

This looks to be an excellent guide and a quick read shows major differences between US and UK laws.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

In the US, the 4 questions I asked are all "Yes" answers. If I see Obama out on the White House lawn I can take his picture. I can take a shot of a cop on duty, a building, a kid, and I have no legal requirement to ask permission first. What I can do with those shots is covered by usage rights issues, but I can take the shot and legally can not be required to erase, hand over or otherwise remove the shot. There are of course some limits and restrictions (ie I can't sneak over the fence at the white house and take a shot of Obama on the toilet) but overall US photographers have a great deal of leeway in what they shoot and how.

Reading the link I tacked on above, indicates how and why those are often NO in the UK.

 

[Tez3]

There is no legal requirement to ask here, I'd strongly advise that you do though for two reasons, one because as I said it's a matter of good manners and secondly because you may be sued if you take a photo and the person doesn't want it taken. There is a third reason, in a lot of places you will get thumped. Brits like their privacy.
It's not a criminal offence but it is against civil law unless you are harassing someone and despite what that article says taking a photo when the subject hasn't consented is liable to get you a harrassment charge for which you will be arrested.
Much is made of photographers rights here but what about normal people going about their business don't they have the right NOT to be photographed if they don't wish to be? How far are photographers will to push this in invading ordinary peoples privacy?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If someone physically assaults me over something like taking their picture, well.....

I took your picture. I didn't physically or mentally harm you.
You attack me, inflict physical injury on me, as well as damage or destroy my property.

Which is the bigger crime?


Now, please do not take my arguing this position to indicate I disagree with you. It is good manners to ask first. My point is, do you have to -legally-? That's the only debating point for me in this case.

The UK Rights post I linked to is written by a UK lawyer I believe, and I differ to lawyers and judges over cops when it comes to interpreting the law.

 

[Tez3]

If someone physically assaults me over something like taking their picture, well.....

I took your picture. I didn't physically or mentally harm you.
You attack me, inflict physical injury on me, as well as damage or destroy my property.

Which is the bigger crime?


Now, please do not take my arguing this position to indicate I disagree with you. It is good manners to ask first. My point is, do you have to -legally-? That's the only debating point for me in this case.

The UK Rights post I linked to is written by a UK lawyer I believe, and I differ to lawyers and judges over cops when it comes to interpreting the law.

Hey I never said thumping you was right but a great many people will for taking photos of them! I don't know why people think the Brits are passive people, annoy them and they will thump you quite happily!
You don't legally have to ask in most cases.

The problem with UK law is that it isn't, UK law that is. That is a generalised piece of writing, we have different laws in Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man, the Channel Islands (much of their law is French) and Northern Ireland (I would never recommend taking photos there of people or buildings btw, seriously, it may cost you your life). We also have byelaws peculiar to individual places which may preclude photographing something or someone. These byelaws are made by either local councils or county councils.
It's a byelaw that stops commercial photographers taking photgraphs in Traflager Square not a statue law.
You really need to consult a solicitor specilising in this type of law.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

My dear friend, you have no idea how many people want to thump me. LOL!

 

[Tez3]

My dear friend, you have no idea how many people want to thump me. LOL!

Well I certainly don't!

However many people mistake the British people's politeness for weakness, they mistake our reserve for fear and they always underestimate us, big mistakes.

Giving someone a thump isn't considered a crime by those who do it, it's a straightener, a point in the right direction or a stiff talking to!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

UK photographers protest crackdown against public photography

January 25th, 2010http://carlosmiller.com/tag/united-kingdom/

By Carlos Miller
More than 2,000 photographers took to the streets in London Saturday in protest against the ongoing crackdown against public photography.

 

[Tez3]

Well that proves a few things I've said before, that we have appeals procedures we can go to when we don't like the laws we have and that the police don't always agree with political laws and will say so. A protest is always healthy even if you don't agree with the protestors, you can always protest against protestors! When public protest and public campaigns against things are illegal then we are in big trouble so far we aren't doing too badly.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

There is no legal requirement to ask here, I'd strongly advise that you do though for two reasons, one because as I said it's a matter of good manners and secondly because you may be sued if you take a photo and the person doesn't want it taken. There is a third reason, in a lot of places you will get thumped. Brits like their privacy.
It's not a criminal offence but it is against civil law unless you are harassing someone and despite what that article says taking a photo when the subject hasn't consented is liable to get you a harrassment charge for which you will be arrested.
Much is made of photographers rights here but what about normal people going about their business don't they have the right NOT to be photographed if they don't wish to be? How far are photographers will to push this in invading ordinary peoples privacy?

Hey Tez...I'm confused as to why CC TV is allowed under this system in England. It is ok for the local council to take everyone's photo without their permission, but individual subjects can't take another subject's photo? Just looking for clarification here, I have no dog in this fight.

 

[Tez3]

Hey Tez...I'm confused as to why CC TV is allowed under this system in England. It is ok for the local council to take everyone's photo without their permission, but individual subjects can't take another subject's photo? Just looking for clarification here, I have no dog in this fight.

I'll probably confuse you even more now, permission isn't needed to take photos of people but if the person whose photo is taken objects they can sue the photographer if they wish under civil law. It's not illegal to take photos unless the person or place is covered by the Official Secrets Act then it becomes a criminal act. You can however be sued in court if you take photographs of someone who objects.

Cantray to what you might think CCTV is actually wanted by people in our town centres on grounds of safety.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/22/cctv-surveillance-police-cost


CCTV isn't foisted on people, it's discussed a lot by local councils who after all have to pay for them!
http://www.welcometomonmouth.co.uk/...er-of-Commerce-hosts-CCTV-camera-meeting.html

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

I'll probably confuse you even more now, permission isn't needed to take photos of people but if the person whose photo is taken objects they can sue the photographer if they wish under civil law. It's not illegal to take photos unless the person or place is covered by the Official Secrets Act then it becomes a criminal act. You can however be sued in court if you take photographs of someone who objects.

Cantray to what you might think CCTV is actually wanted by people in our town centres on grounds of safety.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/22/cctv-surveillance-police-cost


CCTV isn't foisted on people, it's discussed a lot by local councils who after all have to pay for them!
http://www.welcometomonmouth.co.uk/...er-of-Commerce-hosts-CCTV-camera-meeting.html

Do you think that a British subject could sue their local council for taking their photo without permission?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Man in UK accused of pedophilia for photographing son in mall

 

[Bob Hubbard]

71-year-old man ordered to stop photographing car in UK shopping mall

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Architectural photographer harassed for second time in six months in UK

 

[Tez3]

Under the section he quotes for the reason he was being detained, the police can designate an area for the period of 48hrs as one where stop and search powers are needed, the Home Secretary has to be informed and the power ceases after 48 hours. It's used where an area is know to be used by gangs either for territorial disputes ie bloody great fights or for drug dealing etc.It may be an area where a foreign embassy is located and there is activities that have security issues. It may be somewhere where a member of the Government or Opposition, Royal Family lives or is visitng.
The photographer doesn't say where he was or at what time of day he was going down this street so I really can't offer any more explanation than this, he may have been right, the police may have been. They could have been harrassing him or not, not enough information.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Aha a new way to fight CCTV!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

At the age of 16, freelance photographer Jules Mattsson can teach adult photographers a thing or two about standing up for your rights to take photos in public. The English lad was on assignment taking pictures of police cadets lining up for a parade in London Saturday when he was confronted by several officers who accused him of terrorism, pedophilia and general all-around anti-social behavior (which is the British way of saying you should be locked up).

This is how Mattsson explained it on his blog:

The incident started when I took an image (not a very good one it seems ) of a Police Cadet unit forming up to take part in an Armed Forces Day parade. I was quickly and aggressively stopped by one of their adult officers asking me who I worked for. I responded that I was a freelance and upon being told I needed parental permission to photograph them, I explained this was a public event in a public place and that I didn’t for editorial use.

She then demanded my details and when I declined, I was quickly pulled aside by police officers. Then started recording, see below for the rest


I had my lens covered while trying to photograph my harassment , then told ‘I consider you a threat under the terrorism act’ for photographing a police officer, had my camera taken from around my neck, was detained and frog marched away before being pushed down some stairs and told they were concerned for my safety

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/06/29/madness-continues-in-the-united-kingdom/



a photographer and videographer each won £3,500 ($5,275) in damages after police prevented them from documenting a protest outside the Greek Embassy in 2008



And last week, another photographer was harassed in London under the terrorism laws when taking photographs with a tripod in public.

Things are getting so bad in the U.K. that Amateur Photographer magazine will give out a free lens cloth (right) in next month’s issue that state the rules for public photography to hand out to cops when they begin harassing photographers.



Link to image of cloth: http://carlosmiller.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/LENSCLOTH.low_.jpg