Photographers win British war on photography?

Donmck · Dec 7, 2009

"Everyone... has a right to take photographs and film in public places. Taking photographs... is not normally cause for suspicion and there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place."

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/06/photographers-win-br.html

Joe Grodis · Dec 7, 2009

Do they plan on taking over public libraries to cut out all "targets of value" pictures from books as well?

tim rudman · Dec 8, 2009

Joe Grodis said:
Do they plan on taking over public libraries to cut out all "targets of value" pictures from books as well?

and what about Google street mapping & Google Earth?!

perkeleellinen · Dec 8, 2009

I saw the front cover of the Independent Newspaper which pushed this issue forward. It was a strong front page, unfortunately I don't have it here otherwise I'd snap it post it here.

Anyway here's the story from the Indy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...hotographers-and-antiterror-laws-1834626.html

The comments at the bottom are interesting. Especially this:

I often despair when I read newspaper articles that list your legal rights in these encounters - that there is no compulsion to give your name and address, that an officer cannot delete your work from your camera and so on . . . this is often spoken with the pristine confidence of someone who has not spent hours in a police van or a night in a police cell for attempting to point out that an officer has no right to delete footage or demand my name and address - attempting to point this out will usually render you as "having an attitude" and - depending on the temperament of the officer - lead to detainment, lengthy checks, or even arrest for obstruction of an officer in the line of duty.

Aurum · Dec 8, 2009

Hardly, ACPO despite what it likes to portray, has no legal standing. They are a professional association or trade union.

I grew up in the 80's, and police harassment in places like Toxteth, Handsworth and Brixton was notorious (Look on YouTube for the not the nine O'clock news sketch called constable savage)
The police were forced of course to re-evaluate when riots started, and it was pointed out in the aftermath that they were at least partially responsible for engendering the situation.

As usual the main troublemakers appear to be the Met. They've always been viewed by the rest of the countries forces as a bunch of the proverbials. The associated forces such as Kent and the like, have obviously picked up the dross that even the Met can't use.

The really stupid thing is that it really doesn't have to be like this. I've shot street in places like Whitby during Halloween, and the police were just there to ensure public safety and direct traffic (and try not to giggle at some of the really wierd costumes). Same with Edinburgh during the fringe.

As there will be an election coming up soon, prehaps its worth asking politicians what they are going to do about this. Wrong answer? You've lost my vote.

pentaxuser · Dec 8, 2009

Aurum said:
The really stupid thing is that it really doesn't have to be like this. I've shot street in places like Whitby during Halloween, and the police were just there to ensure public safety and direct traffic (and try not to giggle at some of the really wierd costumes). Same with Edinburgh during the fringe.

QUOTE]

You mean that George Dixon has emigrated to the provinces Seriously there was a way of approaching the public that got the PC what he needed to know without antagonising the member of the public. Both parties assumed that the other had rights and was probably an innocent party legitimately pursuing their business. Take that away and assume the opposite and the result is what we see now in a lot of police and public interactions.

Increase the mutual hostility and the tipping point into no-go, unsafe areas except for the "muscled" on either side is easily reached and probably has been in more areas of the U.K. than many of us think and certainly than most Chief Constables and politicians will admit.

pentaxuser

perkeleellinen · Dec 9, 2009

From today's Guardian:

One of the country's leading architectural photographers was apprehended by City of London police under terrorism laws today while photographing the 300-year old spire of Sir Christopher Wren's Christ Church for a personal project. Grant Smith, who has 25 years experience documenting buildings by Richard Rogers and Norman Foster, was stopped by a squad of seven officers who pulled up in three cars and a riot van

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/08/police-search-photographer-terrorism-powers

Aurum · Dec 9, 2009

Obviously ACPO are being listened to then.:rolleyes:

Maybe Boris Johnson needs to be approached to reinforce the message that photography isn't a crime, and the reputation that London is getting is of a laughing stock.

If him and the Met don't give a stuff about that, thats fine, but they may be more concerned about the loss in tourism by discouraging coach groups of snap hungry Japanese and Americans

Rudeofus · Dec 9, 2009

Aurum said:
Maybe Boris Johnson needs to be approached to reinforce the message that photography isn't a crime, and the reputation that London is getting is of a laughing stock.

The most scary part is in the Guardian article, when the police is quoted as "we acted proportionate". Such "proportionate" behaviour and attitude sure doesn't entice me to visit the UK or the US anytime soon. Please tell me what's in the mind of security guards and police men if applying anti terror laws to someone who peacefully takes images of an old building is called "proportionate".

Pete H · Dec 9, 2009

Says it all ... here

Aurum · Dec 12, 2009

Interestingly the Daily Fail has now picked up on this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235241/The-picture-land-jail-How-police-Big-Brother-Britain-treat-like-terrorist-taking-holiday-snaps.html

Now I hate the mail with a passion, but it is quite widely read in the UK. Prehaps this might get the cause more into the public arena than publications like AP and the Guardian ever could.

viridari · Dec 12, 2009

Rudeofus said:
Such "proportionate" behaviour and attitude sure doesn't entice me to visit the UK or the US anytime soon.

Please don't be discouraged by a city or two who have it all wrong. The US is a very big country. Here in Raleigh, I walk right up to police & snap candid pics without any trouble.

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Uncle Goose · Dec 13, 2009

It begins to spread all over the world, even in my town (Ghent, Belgium) there was police brutality involving photographs being taken. The story is that a couple went to the temporary ice-skating track that was erected in the centre of the city for the holidays, the couple took their kid to there and wanted to get a photograph of their kid with 3 police officers standing around there, they asked it but the officers refuse to do this. So, after this refusal they decided to photograph only their kid but is seemed that the officers thought they were also photographed and started to ask to delete the photograph, the couple refused and tried to explain that they only photographed their own kid. Before they knew it they were grabbed, brutally handcuffed and dragged in the police car, all in front of the kid. One officer even had the nerve to say to the arrested couple to better put on their seatbelt (how you do that with your hands handcuffed on your back is a mystery to me). The people around clapped their hands, not to encourage the police but in a sarcastic manner. Once in the police station they were handed over to other officers who treated them more nicely and they let them go home.

Luckily this happened it the most crowed part of the city and was seen by many people, including reporters. The Major of Ghent (who is also the head of the police) said he was disgusted about the way these people were treated and the 3 officers in charge will not walk away from it unharmed. He also said that taking photographs of police officers is not illegal since they are a public service and it would create a better bond with the law enforcement. (publishing is another thing of course, other laws are in order there but this was just for in a family album, not for commercial use).

This is one of the first real incidents of this kind but it's lingering for some time now. A few months ago I was questioned by police when I was taking photographs of an abandoned cokes factory, he told me that I was not permitted to take photographs of industrial sites. I told him that I was on public property and that I may take pictures of whatever the hell I wanted, I also added that if he has a law against this in writing that I will comply with it. While they ran my ID through the main office he franticly searched his law books to see for any law on the subject but once my ID checked out he politely said goodbye and left.

benjiboy · Dec 13, 2009

Donmck said:
"Everyone... has a right to take photographs and film in public places. Taking photographs... is not normally cause for suspicion and there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place."

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/06/photographers-win-br.html

Would you please tell this to this six foot four, 250 lb cop who has me in an arm lock, I'm finding it very hard to convince him. :rolleyes:

Rudeofus · Dec 15, 2009

Uncle Goose said:
It begins to spread all over the world, even in my town (Ghent, Belgium) there was police brutality involving photographs being taken.

[...]

The Major of Ghent (who is also the head of the police) said he was disgusted about the way these people were treated and the 3 officers in charge will not walk away from it unharmed. He also said that taking photographs of police officers is not illegal since they are a public service and it would create a better bond with the law enforcement.

Individuals may step out of bounds once in a while, that's why there is a legal system to sort this kind of stuff out. That's the huge difference to the countless UK examples where authorities claim the cop's behavior was "proportionate".

A friend of a coworker of mine took a snap shot of a pub front in London (about half a year ago). Cops came and took his camera away and gave him a card with an address where he could pick up his camera. When he got his camera back the internal memory was destroyed. Sure gained another repeat tourist customer that way :rolleyes:

@viridari: it may be nice to know that not all places in the US have gone completely crazy, but most tourists have to few cameras to try out which places are normal and which are not. Maybe the US/UK tourist offices should draw a map for us central European imbeciles: green for "you may take pictures like normal people would expect", yellow for "cops may scowl at you but you may proceed", orange for "cops may give you a hard time but you may proceed after an ID check", red for "cops jump on you like you were a criminal but leave your stuff intact", UK flag for "system has gone completely haywire and authorities fully support that kind of madness".

Uncle Goose · Dec 15, 2009

Rudeofus said:
Individuals may step out of bounds once in a while, that's why there is a legal system to sort this kind of stuff out. That's the huge difference to the countless UK examples where authorities claim the cop's behavior was "proportionate".

Yes, I understand that the things in the UK are far more worse then my example but it makes me wonder how long it will take to become "proportioned" here in my country. I imagine that 10 years ago things like that were inappropriate too in the UK and the crowd would gone berserk about it, now they all seem to be sheep who accept whatever the government decides or tells them.

Donmck · Dec 15, 2009

Photographer beaten, detained in London for being "cocky" to policeman who implies she is a terrorist

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/15/photographer-beaten.html

benjiboy · Dec 15, 2009

Donmck said:
Photographer beaten, detained in London for being "cocky" to policeman who implies she is a terrorist

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/15/photographer-beaten.html

They were probably film critics, in disguise !

Aurum · Jan 3, 2010

Unfortunately plod still. don't. get. it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8438628.stm

Photographers win British war on photography?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency