Photographers rights

[lifeboat1721]

Hi guys,

This is the most up to date link I can find..

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide

Ian

[Western SMT]

Hi Ian
Date of document is 19/11/04 but good link all the same.

[Western SMT]

Are we guilty until proved innocent?

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographers_guilty_until_proved_innocent_news_27 8299.html

[Bobjork]

I've never had problems with taking pictures when travelling in UK.
No cop or anyting came.

Did not even know there was a law against it.

[Western SMT]

Was it just chance that google managed to photo everything for the street maps before this law came out.

[G-CPTN]

Did not even know there was a law against it.
There wasn't!

[G-CPTN]

The police have no power to delete images. If they try to do so (and that has happened in the past), suggest politely they would be committing a criminal offence.
Interesting - I wonder what response you would get?

[Bobjork]

There wasn't!

Aha, so if I go to england now I can't take any photos...
Think I stay here then, where it is allowed to take photos of everyone and everything, as long as it is a public space.

[G-CPTN]

Until recently, the same applied here in the UK. If you were standing in/on a public space you could photograph freely.
Then it started that you could not take photographs of young children without the specific permission of the parents of all those that might be in the field of view. Now you risk arrest if a police officer is around as you might be construed to be a terrorist.

[Western SMT]

You can certainly take photos, it seems you just have to be careful what subject you are photographing and have a valid reason ready.
Nobody is going to bother about tourist photos but what they are saying is no photos of police, military or other security related subjects that could be twisted round to make you look suspect.

http://www.tonysleep.co.uk/info/permissions-and-releases

[G-CPTN]

So how do you classify the ceremonial soldiers that guard Whitehall and Buckingham Palace?
These used to be tourist attractions, but now could be classified as prohibited under recent declarations.

[Western SMT]

Time will tell just how far they these grey area rules on taking photographs will be stretched.

What the new law says
Section 76 of the newly introduced Terrorism Act 2008 states: 'A person commits an offence who elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been: a member of Her Majesty's forces, a member of any of the intelligence services, or a constable, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or publishes or communicates any such information.' The law adds that a person found guilty of such an offence faces up to ten years in prison or a fine, or both.

What next – will you will have to look away when passing men digging holes in the road for if you look it could be interpreted as helping terrorists locate gas pipes etc

[Western SMT]

Police told them to delete photos -

He was told by Police that photographing anything to do with transport was "strictly forbidden" and the officers recorded his details, including passport numbers and hotel addresses.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/17/police-tourist-photos-walthamstow

[Western SMT]

A brief guide on photographers rights

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html

[K9-70]

Carry a spare card or two with you at all times when out photographing.

If the police do force you to delete your photographs, (which they can't without a court order) delete the photographs, (do not format the card) then remove the card and replace it with the spare card.

When you get home, do a search on the net for a file recovery programme,
(I use the free programme Recuva from http://www.piriform.com/recuva).

If all goes well, you dhould be able to recover all the photographs that you deleted.

[coachman]

At a recent meeting of a photographic club I belong to, one of the members said he was approached by transport police who informed him he was commiting an offence by takeing pictures on railway property. He was then told that further action would be taken if he carried on doing this after being warned to stop - as he was not sure of what law or laws he was breaking he decided to play safe and leave. Just what threat the police thought a man in his mid seventies takeing pictures of trains was to the public I don't know ?

[G-CPTN]

It's Jobsworths, but, in this instance they are justified that photography (or similar activity) on private property is subject to sanctions if the property owner decides to exercise their 'right'.

There has been a rash of similar prohibitions in shopping malls - for no reason other than they can (according to property law).

[K9-70]

It's Jobsworths, but, in this instance they are justified that photography (or similar activity) on private property is subject to sanctions if the property owner decides to exercise their 'right'.

There has been a rash of similar prohibitions in shopping malls - for no reason other than they can (according to property law).

Yes, I would agree to a point, but, if the OP was using a good quality camera phone to make photos, then the transport policewould assume he's probably making a phone call.

As for shopping mals, that can be tricky.
A new shopping area opened in Lisburn about two years back and on my way to work one winters morning I decided to make a few photos. No one approached me as I made my photos. However, later in the day, I heard that a photographer was asked to stop making photos in the area due to possible security risks.

I often wonder if some of these employers are employing illegal staff and don't want to be found out?

[G-CPTN]

There are two topics that are quoted - the first was 'unauthorised' photographing of children, assuming that all photographers were paedophiles, and the other being terrorism - again assuming that all photographers were terrorists casing the joint prior to an attack.

Both are unfounded for 98% (or greater) of the population, but the vague possibility that it might occur is enough to 'justify' the beliefs of the hired 'security'.

Some of the Police attempt to enforce these restrictions on public spaces, but, again, the frequency of justification is low.

[robertdavey6]

At a recent meeting of a photographic club I belong to, one of the members said he was approached by transport police who informed him he was commiting an offence by takeing pictures on railway property. He was then told that further action would be taken if he carried on doing this after being warned to stop - as he was not sure of what law or laws he was breaking he decided to play safe and leave. Just what threat the police thought a man in his mid seventies takeing pictures of trains was to the public I don't know ?

He was not! However, it is not allowed to use flash or tripods. Flash for the obvious reason of dazzling drivers (potentially) and tripods are an obstruction risk.

[G-CPTN]

The owners of land (such as railway property) can decide whatever they like about whether to permit photography on their premises or not, but how they enforce that is a matter of conjecture - they do not have the right to confiscate cameras or insist that you delete any images! They can instigate action for trespass against the offender and remove them from the premises using reasonable force, and could take legal action in the courts but it would be debatable as to whether this would succeed.

This is a useful reference:-
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf