Photographer vs Police.....again
Discussion
I have a legal question which I was hoping the photographers could have a chance of answering before it disappears into the dark depths of SP&L.
Is taking a photograph on private property without the owners consent a criminal or civil offence?
The background to this question is a chap has been standing on the car park of his local football club taking pictures of the football clubs directors which is part of a protest campaign aimed at removing those directors.
He has not received any communication from the football club that this is unacceptable until 10:30pm last Tuesday night when 2 police officers visited him at home, issued him with a caution and informed him if he carried on then he would have his equipment confiscated.
I'm fairly clued up on photographers rights so it seems to me the police have rather overstepped the mark here, certainly with regard to the caution as no criminal offence has been committed. Surely this is a civil matter between the photographer and the football club and the police should only be a last resort if the photographer has ignored repeated requests not to take photographs.
Is taking a photograph on private property without the owners consent a criminal or civil offence?
The background to this question is a chap has been standing on the car park of his local football club taking pictures of the football clubs directors which is part of a protest campaign aimed at removing those directors.
He has not received any communication from the football club that this is unacceptable until 10:30pm last Tuesday night when 2 police officers visited him at home, issued him with a caution and informed him if he carried on then he would have his equipment confiscated.
I'm fairly clued up on photographers rights so it seems to me the police have rather overstepped the mark here, certainly with regard to the caution as no criminal offence has been committed. Surely this is a civil matter between the photographer and the football club and the police should only be a last resort if the photographer has ignored repeated requests not to take photographs.
It seems a bit of an odd way to go about things... Surely banning him from the grounds would be better?
It's private property, could they not have just sent a security guard to ask him to leave and not return?
But seemingly telling him that its ok for him to be there but saying it is now 'an offence' for him to take photos is really strange.
It's private property, could they not have just sent a security guard to ask him to leave and not return?
But seemingly telling him that its ok for him to be there but saying it is now 'an offence' for him to take photos is really strange.
NinjaPower said:
It seems a bit of an odd way to go about things... Surely banning him from the grounds would be better?
It's private property, could they not have just sent a security guard to ask him to leave and not return?
But seemingly telling him that its ok for him to be there but saying it is now 'an offence' for him to take photos is really strange.
It's all very complicated but basically the relationship between the fans and the directors couldn't be worse but the directors are nonetheless trying to worsen them with stunts like this.It's private property, could they not have just sent a security guard to ask him to leave and not return?
But seemingly telling him that its ok for him to be there but saying it is now 'an offence' for him to take photos is really strange.
Defcon5 said:
Issued him a caution for what?
Exactly, he should have asked them that very question which would have stopped them in their tracks however further research suggests he may not have received a caution just a talking to. However this is all fairly irrelevant and my original question still stands, is this a criminal or civil offence and should the police be involved at this or indeed any stage?There is a statement here for further clarification.
http://www.onevalefan.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?...
I suppose if he made a complaint against the Police Officers then that might clarify things.
I guess the complication here is that he was on the club's property. Although, if the public generally have access to it then the Road Traffic Act regards private property as a public place but I've no idea if that can be applied to taking snaps.
Next thing they'll be citing the prevention of terrorism legislation.
I guess the complication here is that he was on the club's property. Although, if the public generally have access to it then the Road Traffic Act regards private property as a public place but I've no idea if that can be applied to taking snaps.
Next thing they'll be citing the prevention of terrorism legislation.
This is probably more suitable in SP&L - more knowledgeable legal minds in there than mine (along with a greater number with no legal knowledge.) But I'll give it a go.
I suspect what has happened is that your friend was given either a formal or an informal harassment warning. Private or public, if your friend is harassing the directors then that's illegal. It sounds like he was told to stop in a clear and easily documented manner - by a pair of police officers. If he continues then he may well be arrested.
I suspect what has happened is that your friend was given either a formal or an informal harassment warning. Private or public, if your friend is harassing the directors then that's illegal. It sounds like he was told to stop in a clear and easily documented manner - by a pair of police officers. If he continues then he may well be arrested.
Edited by tenohfive on Saturday 28th January 14:40
Interesting that they told him his equipment would be confiscated if it happened again. I'd have thought the laws being broken here were harassment and trespass. Trespass is usually a civil matter with respect to photographers, but harassment is a criminal offence so I guess that is why the police paid him a visit. I wouldn't have thought having your camera taken away was a sanction available to the police though - wouldn't they need to charge him and then let the courts deal with it (with a penalty of up to 6 months in jail according to the "Photographers' Rights in the UK" fact sheet)?
In any case, it's best he doesn't do it again...
In any case, it's best he doesn't do it again...
MartinP said:
I wouldn't have thought having your camera taken away was a sanction available to the police though - wouldn't they need to charge him and then let the courts deal with it
It wouldn't be a form of sanction. His camera could be seized for evidential value i.e to examine it's contents to see if it assists with the investigation. Given that photo's of said directors would be on there, I'd suggest that in most cases it would assist the investigation.Trespass is a civil matter, until you are asked to leave and refuse to, which is a criminal offence I understand. If he is repeatedly photographing said directors and has been asked not to repeatedly then there might be something he can be charged with under protection from harassment legislation, but I know very little about that.
Thanks for the replies and just to clarify I have no connection with the individual involved this is just something that came up on the supporters website. My interest came from the police involvement as it struck me as another incident of heavy handed policing overstepping the mark and I was hoping to get some idea of whether the police should have been anywhere near this.
The facts are that a 16 year old boy has had a late night visit from the police after he was innocently taking photos outside a football club. There were no requests to stop and no signage stating photography was not allowed so it seems to me that when the police got the call they should have said it was nothing to do with them and to only phone them back after repeated requests to stop have been ignored.
It seem that there is no definitive answer to this and the lad doesn't look like he's going to pursue it anyway so I'm not going to worry about it too much.
The facts are that a 16 year old boy has had a late night visit from the police after he was innocently taking photos outside a football club. There were no requests to stop and no signage stating photography was not allowed so it seems to me that when the police got the call they should have said it was nothing to do with them and to only phone them back after repeated requests to stop have been ignored.
It seem that there is no definitive answer to this and the lad doesn't look like he's going to pursue it anyway so I'm not going to worry about it too much.
It is the ownership of the land that is important, not it's accessiblity to the public. As the carpark is privately owned by the club they are within their rights to deny photographers permission to take photographs. I don't know how far they could legally go with regards to getting images deleted but if he'd been on the road outside there's sweet FA they could do.
From the OP, it doesn't sound like harrasment nor terrorism so why the police? And how did they know who he was?
Public road/ footpath/ park etc.. are all fine.
Shopping centres/ football grounds privately owned so permission depends on the land owners/management.
<EFS>
From the OP, it doesn't sound like harrasment nor terrorism so why the police? And how did they know who he was?
Public road/ footpath/ park etc.. are all fine.
Shopping centres/ football grounds privately owned so permission depends on the land owners/management.
<EFS>
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff