Stopped by the police for taking photos!!

AgX · Mar 21, 2009

Markus,

This all is quite new to me (and to the law enforcement people I came across so far), seemingly we are living in different countries...

Edit:
In times before the internet (and seemingly still now...) many misinformation was spread. I'm sorry for posting a wrong information.
But what counts is the real world with real police officers.

Markus Röhling · Mar 21, 2009

AgX said:
This all is knew to me (and to the law enforcement people I came across so far), seemingly we are living in different countries...

Every federal state has is own law, some simply don't mention an obligation to carry an ID-card, other explicitly state that there is no obligation to carry one (e.g. for Brandenburg see http://www.landesrecht.brandenburg.de/sixcms/detail.php?gsid=land_bb_bravors_01.c.14194.de § 1 (6), last sentence: "Eine Mitführungspflicht für den Ausweis besteht nicht.").

For the rights of the Berlin police to check you identify see http://www.berlin.de/imperia/md/content/seninn/abteilungiii/vorschriften/080229_asog.pdf § 21

Markus

AgX · Mar 21, 2009

Markus,

There is a special federal law on this is issue which is (to me) quite ambiguous.
Anyway, this is of lesser interest to most members here.

What I wanted to point out is that I, in contrast to many others here, grew up in a country where identity control is deeply rooted in society.

But there remains the question what harm a photographer can do, and what effect an identity check can have.

BobNewYork · Mar 22, 2009

Stoo Batchelor said:
........Sir Paul was in total agreement that his officers had been too heavy handed, and was going to make sure that all his officers were aware of the legislation surrounding this sensitive subject. He continued to say that it is his belief that a photographer should be able to photograph what he so wishes in the city without being harassed.(or words to that effect)

Stoo

Rock on Sir Paul!! Now he's just got to make sure that all the "boys in blue read the memo. It's good that the press and public have actually pushed back and that, of course, is the value of a democracy. Just seems a shame to me that they had to.

There is resistance here - but I'm not so sure how responsive the authorities have been. Several months back, I was on the train home from NYC. In "my" car was a German television crew taking footage of the suburbs as we were coming out of the city. Two police officers came up and told them to stop filming. It was an offense to take photographs from the train and the police could confiscate their equipment and arrest them. It was total confusion, and the film crew were embarrassed - and clearly concerned. Being one to mind my own business I, of course, piped up and questioned the ban on photographing from a train, the right of the police to confiscate the equipment and the probable cause for arrest. I was then advised that I should read the papers, that I didn't have a clue what was going on in the world, (red rag to a bull!!) and the danger we're all in. I suggested that what's going on here and now may also be more important and that perhaps the terrorists had achieved their goal by our own surrender. (Stupid, I know, but like I said - red rag to a bull!) I was promptly threatened with arrest, (and he actually suggested deportation!!!!) for interfering with a police officer in the course of his duty - and it wasn't even my camera

Not for nothing - but who the hell "cases the joint" with a huge HD camera, a sound tech and a producer !

Don't get me wrong - I was always, and still am a solid supporter of law enforcement. They do a difficult job - one that most of us don't want to do - and it's not like they become millionaires out if it. But I'm beginning to distrust them - and I just don't like that feeling.

I'll have another "tale of woe" later in the thread, I'm sure - but I have to put up the shelving in my new, (read "restored") darkroom now. But trust me - I'm still on a tear..

Bob H

Martin Aislabie · Mar 23, 2009

JBrunner said:
I can remember growing up how we made fun of the Soviets for this very proclivity. The fact that we have seen the enemy, and it is us, and that some persons actually tolerate this nonsense in the support of some hallucinatory idea of public safety shows just how fat and dumb people have become. Only blinding ignorance could enable support for such an idea.

How very sad, but also very true

Martin

firstdue · Apr 5, 2009

Interesting thread to me as I intend on being in London within 6 weeks, to do some shooting.

Last time I was in London I went by Buckingham Palace as the sun was coming up and the light was fantastic with the sun glinting off the gold tops of the fence around the Palace. I've always wondered what the reaction would be to me setting up a tripod with a small medium format rangefinder. I guess we'll find out.

archphoto · Apr 5, 2009

And I am so happy to live in Brazil !!!
A weekend in Brasilia, about 200km from Goiânia where I live.
Parliament building today: tourists with lots of camera's and nobody bothers, not even the security people.
Had a short talk with one of them this afternoon: sorry Sir, no crossing of that line.... OK.
Came back in the evening for some shots: nobody around, a bit scary....
From the garage a car came with the alarm lights on top on.
My wife was afraid we had done something wrong, I just met the guy from the afternoon again, like an old friend taking care of my security:
I love this counry !

Peter

An Le-qun · Apr 6, 2009

Since we're swapping stories: I was recently taking pictures of the architecture at the college where I used to teach. After taking a few of the windows of the campus police station, the college cops "came tumbling out of the building like clowns out of a beat-up Volkswagen at the circus," to quote a former colleague who was with me. After a short grilling ("what are you doing?" "what are you going to use the pictures for?" "who ['that's WHOM'] do you work for?"), they asked for the film. I gave it to them. A roll of expired 400tx.

I love this country....

Shangheye · Apr 6, 2009

An Le-qun said:
("what are you doing?" "what are you going to use the pictures for?" "who ['that's WHOM'] do you work for?"), they asked for the film. I gave it to them. A roll of expired 400tx.

I love this country....

I have often wondered where the law stands on that. Do they have a right to the whole film, or only the specific images taken on the campus/private property. I assume that if the film contains images that are not related to the campus, then you could argue a case for damages based on their value. In this digital age, they would have deleted the offending images. They can't do that with film, but that does not give them a right to the WHOLE film. They would have to agree to the development of the film and then retaining the negatives.

I had that threat from someone before and I told them that if they forcibly removed the film or destroyed it, that I would sue them for damages for any commercial value of any other images destroyed, and that they would have to prove I had taken a picture (I had not) before hand...kinda tough with film. I demanded his name and to see the manager to inform them of the risk they were taking before he acted. Helps if you have a witness by the way.

Not sure where the law stands...but it made him back off.

K

aluk · Apr 6, 2009

While no legal expert myself, I am fairly certain that police (or anyone else) have no right to seize your property, let alone destroy it, unless it can be useful as evidence for solving a crime, or can be used to help commit a crime.

walter23 · Apr 6, 2009

Anton Lukoszevieze said:
They have a right to stop and ask you some questions.

We're seeing a dress rehearsal for fascism. It's just so completely obvious that harassing photographers has got absolutely nothing to do with combating terrorism.

I'm not keen on letting fascism creep slowly into place. You have to stop it at step one.

BobNewYork · Apr 7, 2009

walter23 said:
We're seeing a dress rehearsal for fascism. It's just so completely obvious that harassing photographers has got absolutely nothing to do with combating terrorism.

I'm not keen on letting fascism creep slowly into place. You have to stop it at step one.

Historically fascism has never rushed in - it always "creeps". I recall a conversation many years ago with a German lady where we discussed Nazi Germany. I had asked how the Nazis were ever elected as it is pretty obvious that the entire German nation did not just wake up one morning and decide to rid the world of non-Aryans, (whatever that is) and go for world domination. Her response was a cautionary tale. She said. "It just happens little bit by little bit. You go along with it because you're told that a small sacrifice in personal rights is necessary to protect the nation - and you believe that. Suddenly, you wake up one morning and it's just too late."

I've always been a big supporter of the police in the past but as I see an increase in police brutality, increasing harassment of photographers et al. and democratic governments defending these actions at every turn it scares me to death.

Bob H

snallan · Apr 7, 2009

On El Reg today, even the Home Office think the police are being a bit too free and easy in their approach to harassing photographers.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/07/gov_photography/

BobNewYork · Apr 7, 2009

snallan said:
On El Reg today, even the Home Office think the police are being a bit too free and easy in their approach to harassing photographers.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/07/gov_photography/

And what do they do? Have committee meetings! Fairly recently the Home Office Minister was quoted as saying that he would go a long way to inhibit personal freedoms to protect the public. Someone, (like the PM perhaps) ought to tell him he just doesn't have that right ....or power.

I've definitely noticed a huge change in attitude on the part of law enforcement both here in the States and back home in the U.K. - and it's not a change I'm at all comfortable with.

It'll soon be time to man the barricades..

Bob H

gminerich · Apr 7, 2009

In the United States we have a test for the activities of the police. The tests are enumerated in the United States Constitution. U.S Citizens are protected from random search and seizure of property including your film and camera. There are a few laws (National Security & children) that may limit your rights to photograph but the police do not have the right to destroy your property (film) without a Court Order.

Having said that, if a cop hassles you, don’t resist. They have the nightstick and the gun! You have the courts to uphold your rights and seek redress.

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

George Minerich

removed account4 · Apr 7, 2009

mourr --

would you have started this thread if you hadn't been fined for not having valid insurance / registration for your car ?
i understand these are tough breaks ...
but at least you didn't get into an accident or a moving violation
and have other problems because you weren't up to date ..
when i was 20 i was stopped by the police for driving an un registered, un insured un inspected car that i had just bought from a friend and drove home.
the bill of sale was in the mail, and i was too excited to wait for it
( would have made my drive legal not illegal )
but instead, a mile from where i lived i was stopped by the police, thrown in the back of a cruiser, the car towed an driven home with lights flashing ...
then i had to appear in court ( 2 hours drive 4 hour wait ) when i was in college so i had to miss classes.
i had the bill of sale by that time and all charges were dismissed ..
i did manage to meet some interesting felons.
your rendez-vous could have saved you a lot of problems ...
seeing that you didn't have papers in the mail that would have cleared your name ...

archphoto · Apr 7, 2009

As far as the law goes in Holland: you have to carry an indentity card/passport with you ALL the time outside your house and show it to the police when they ask for it, otherwise you will be taken into custudy until you ID has been proven and you will be fined.

Peter

Markus Röhling · Apr 7, 2009

archphoto said:
As far as the law goes in Holland: you have to carry an indentity card/passport with you ALL the time outside your house and show it to the police when they ask for it, otherwise you will be taken into custudy until you ID has been proven and you will be fined.

Is this a remainder from the German occupation? Luckily enough we don't have such laws in Germany any more. You don't have to take your ID with you and the police can check your identity only in certain areas and when they have a concrete suspicion based on facts (which they must be able to proof in court). Even when they have to check your identity you have to hand over your ID only if you carry it with you (though it is a good idea to have it with you in these areas since they may take you to the police station (without a fine!) if you can't give reasonable evidence of your identity).

As for photographing in public spaces: There is a lot of rumour about interdiction of photographing in certain places and it also happened (also to me) that police suggested (but not forbid) to people that photography in certain places is forbidden. Since I could nowhere find any substantiation to it, I finally wrote to the Senator of Interior here in Berlin (there are minor differences between the federal states). The answer is basically:

Photographing might be permanently forbidden around military objects, though no such areas exist in Berlin. Note that this applies only for military objects, not for police, secret service or other public buildings, and that the area where photographing is forbidden has to be marked when you enter it.
The senator does not know of any areas in Berlin where such a permanent interdiction of photographing exists.
Police may temporarily forbid photographing in particular cases when it is necessary to prevent a concrete danger to public security and order. Please note, that they must be able to proof this concrete danger (through photographing!) in court in case you complain against it.

Markus

archphoto · Apr 7, 2009

Actualy, Markus, we got rid of it after the Nazi's left, but with the upcome of violence in the streets (and not paying for a bus-ride) it has been re-instated.

Before 11-'89 you had to be carefull around Brandenburg and Berlin with taking pic's, Ossie-times.
At Potzdam everybody took pic's of the castle down there, have been to Potzdam many times during the DDR and never had problems.

In Holland just the islamic people don't want to be photographed, if you do, they can get pretty violent.

Militairy objects ? Which ones ? A bit of common sence I guess.

Peter

Markus Röhling · Apr 7, 2009

archphoto said:
At Potzdam everybody took pic's of the castle down there, have been to Potzdam many times during the DDR and never had problems.

Interestingly enough it is now forbidden there for commercial purposes, since the public(!) trust who owns the castle and the gardens does not consider them a public space (see http://www.markus-roehling.eu/?p=234).

In Holland just the islamic people don't want to be photographed, if you do, they can get pretty violent.

Photographing people is a different issue if they are the main motive of a picture, though nobody has the right to become violent.

Militairy objects ? Which ones ? A bit of common sence I guess.

No guessing. Those that are marked. In Berlin there are two such objects, where photographing is actually forbidden, but since the area where you may not photograph is not marked, you are allowed to photograph them.

Markus

archphoto · Apr 7, 2009

Gute alte DDR-zeiten......... It was property of the people, Volkseigentum, and a public place.

Even they are not the main subject, islamic people can be quite agressive even if it is just in words.
At one time I was photographing a bank on asignment and one of them started cursing that I should not take his picture while I was waiting for him to get out of my picture.........

Things have changed in Holland over the years and not for the better..... sad.

Peter

firstdue · Apr 7, 2009

I've shot for my own fun 3 times in China. Not once have I ever been stopped, questioned, harassed or otherwise looked at (other than being non-Asian). And I passed plenty of police/military people. On the other hand, when walking up the coast at a fishing port I decided to cut my walk short when I saw the really big white boat was a Chinese Navy vessel.

dfoo · Apr 8, 2009

I lived in China for 4 years, and was only asked to stop photographing once... that was around the central police station in Shanghai. Isn't it funny, that the UK is now more fascist than the great evil red China?

Rick A · Apr 8, 2009

Sounds like you ARE hacked off about the insurance fine--however in these days, photographing ANY infrastructural element, or government buildings could be viewed as some TERRORIST documenting a TARGET. Be happy in the fact they let you continue to photograph at that location. It pays to keep up with ones personal obligations FIRST, and obsess with our joys and pleasures when all else is met.
Well that said, keep your inner eye on soft focus, and KEEP SHOOTING-- the more film we burn, the more the manufacturers will see the need to supply us.

dfoo · Apr 8, 2009

Be happy in the fact they let you continue to photograph at that location.

Bit of a strange attitude. The government serves the people, not the other way around!

Stopped by the police for taking photos!!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency