police hasseling photographers at cruises lol
Discussion
guy was taking pics of the cars going by and got hassel off two different police men. he recorded the conversations.
www.ayrshore.com/other/traffic.mp3
www.ayrshore.com/other/cop.mp3
www.ayrshore.com/other/traffic.mp3
www.ayrshore.com/other/cop.mp3
Yeah, the boys in blue, always doing really important work!
It amazes me how they are so busy that they cant solve crime, but stopping a man with a camera, who is allowed to take pictures in a public place just infuriates me. I have just experienced this sort of policing myself by a young police officer who had obviously just got his badge and wanted to stop me for absolutely nothing. Good public relations, I think not.
I appreciated there are some police who are reasonable and sensible, I just wish they all were.
It amazes me how they are so busy that they cant solve crime, but stopping a man with a camera, who is allowed to take pictures in a public place just infuriates me. I have just experienced this sort of policing myself by a young police officer who had obviously just got his badge and wanted to stop me for absolutely nothing. Good public relations, I think not.
I appreciated there are some police who are reasonable and sensible, I just wish they all were.
i loved it when the copper said that it was illegal to use a flash by the roadside so the photographer asked whether Gatsos are illegal.
i alsways carry a printout of this document in my camera bag so that i can produce it if people hassle me (hasnt happened yet though). it isnt comprehensive but it is a very useful summary of what rights a photographer has:
www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotograp
i alsways carry a printout of this document in my camera bag so that i can produce it if people hassle me (hasnt happened yet though). it isnt comprehensive but it is a very useful summary of what rights a photographer has:
www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotograp
The officer has no right to insist he stop taking pictures - provided its in a public place.
You do not require permission to take pictures of anything in a public place, except possibly certain military installations.
Bunch of wallies. Dazzling the drivers with a flash,
ing lol.
If anybody treated me like that, I'd make an official complaint. The officers have no idea what they're on about.
You do not require permission to take pictures of anything in a public place, except possibly certain military installations.
Bunch of wallies. Dazzling the drivers with a flash,
ing lol. If anybody treated me like that, I'd make an official complaint. The officers have no idea what they're on about.
POD, that's worth knowing - I've read various tales in photography mags of amateur photographers being apprehended by the UK police in public places and having cameras confiscated for taking candids of people, especially if children were involved. Apparently they have the right to confiscate your kit, presumably they have to suspect a crime has been committed? Personally I'd be far too paranoid to point a camera at a child that wasn't my own, but they make good subjects - in fact having said that I've used a boy playing in the sand as foreground interest on a beach shot of that famous hotel in Dubai. I've always wondered about the legality. We shouldn't all be made to feel like perverts for including people in photos, but sometimes we are!
speedychrissie said:
Cheers for that...printed off (6 pages) and in the camera bag
Martin.
V6GTO said:
speedychrissie said:
Cheers for that...printed off (6 pages) and in the camera bag
Martin.
One can get arrested for just walking around suspiciously these days. As for stock, you cant use a photo of a recognizable figure without a model release, so (on occasion) I shoot the backs of people instead - a couple silhouette walking along hand in hand makes a nice pic.
The copper does sound like a bit of a bully.
jwyatt said:
Apparently they have the right to confiscate your kit, presumably they have to suspect a crime has been committed?
They have NO general right to take your camera, memory card, film or anything. It is theft, and possibly assault, if they do. The exception provided under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is if they belive it contains evidence of a crime, and even then journalistic material is protected. Contrary to widespread belief, you can legally take pictures of anyone you want, with or without their permission, if they are in a public place, children included. Publishing the pictures is covered by some legislation, depending on the circumstances, especially with children, but there is no privacy law to infringe in this country. Of course if taking the pictures is likely to cause a breach of the peace, then the police can intervene / ask you to move on, etc. And disobeying a police officer's instructions can be obstruction, which is arrestable...
ps I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me as the nice man with the truncheon takes you away...
tog said:
And disobeying a police officer's instructions can be obstruction, which is arrestable...
So what would it be called if your were obstructing an officer for an offence that did'nt exist? surely this must be an intersting legal dilema...
Would be intersted to know as previously I have been on the receiving of something vaguely similar & I knew what I had done was not illegal in any way but the officer was using the above tactic to threaten to arrest me if I basically did'nt agree with him.
Thanks for the document, will keep a copy of that!
If its illegal to take pictures of people in public, then why are CCTV cameras legal?
I've done a bit of candid in public, not in the UK though, and never really had a problem with the authorities, but I realise photography in general seems to be a growing problem worldwide, everyone thinks someone with a camera is a terrorist. Now if I was a terrorist I wouldn't be so blatently obvious, and probably wouldn't buy a £1500 camera + lenses when I'm gonna blow myself up next week!!
If its illegal to take pictures of people in public, then why are CCTV cameras legal?
I've done a bit of candid in public, not in the UK though, and never really had a problem with the authorities, but I realise photography in general seems to be a growing problem worldwide, everyone thinks someone with a camera is a terrorist. Now if I was a terrorist I wouldn't be so blatently obvious, and probably wouldn't buy a £1500 camera + lenses when I'm gonna blow myself up next week!!
SlimJ said:
If its illegal to take pictures of people in public, then why are CCTV cameras legal?
It's not, so they're legal. I could legally photograph you walking down the street, shopping, or whatever, as long as it is in a public place, and sell prints to anyone who wants one, publish them in a magazine or newspaper, put them on the internet, pretty much anything. However, if I did it every day it could be harrassment, and I can't imply any endorsement (ie put the photo in an advert) without your consent as it would be a libel. Private and general editorial use is fine, as long as I don't libel you, so I couldn't use your photo to illustrate a story describing, for example, how reckless drivers are free to walk the streets (unless I knew and could prove you were a reckless driver obviously).
SlimJ said:
I've done a bit of candid in public, not in the UK though
You're safer here than in France. There is a right over one's own image in France, where people can and do sue over their picture being published after being photographed in a public place. Yes, that's the same France where Henri Cartier-Bresson and others pioneered great street photography in the twenties and thirties - they couldn't do it today.
tog said:
[quote=SlimJ]If its illegal to take pictures of people in public, then why are CCTV cameras legal?
It's not, so they're legal. I could legally photograph you walking down the street, shopping, or whatever, as long as it is in a public place, and sell prints to anyone who wants one, publish them in a magazine or newspaper, put them on the internet, pretty much anything. However, if I did it every day it could be harrassment, and I can't imply any endorsement (ie put the photo in an advert) without your consent as it would be a libel. Private and general editorial use is fine, as long as I don't libel you, so I couldn't use your photo to illustrate a story describing, for example, how reckless drivers are free to walk the streets (unless I knew and could prove you were a reckless driver obviously).
thats not the case at all, you could try but if i found out and i was clearly identifiable i could sue you, basically if you are using the shots for financial gain you will need permission if the subject matter is clearly identifiable, including buildings! as for under 18's they would require consent from their parent or gaurdian. the exception to this would be if you are shooting for a newspaper or documenting a newsworthy event, then a release wouldnt be needed, however i would try to obtain one in case the image might be used later for, i.e stock library etc.
Edited by andybuk99 on Tuesday 1st August 00:51
Interestingly, a mate of mine was blocked from filming a house from a public road a few years back by an angry resident. My mate was doing nothing wrong, however this resident would not allow the camera to continue rolling because he believed my mate required his permission.
Ironically, we believe it was the resident who was committing an offence by stopping an individual from performing his lawful work.
Ironically, we believe it was the resident who was committing an offence by stopping an individual from performing his lawful work.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff