Harassment of photographers

Hi, [rant mode on]
has anybody here had problems with the police, PCSOs or private security when trying to take pics?
See the following article ---

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/08/17/sv_photographers.xml

We had a private security body dash out a somewhat fancy futuristic block of flats on Saturday and tell us "you can't take photos" -- rubbish if we are on a public place or highway (includes the pavement) we can take pics of just about anything except military establishments and one or two other government places.

[/rant mode off]

 

Mike
I feel you may have opened a can of worms with this request...
Myself. have not experianced any problems.
But Im sure there will a few.!
Robert

 

Woo, if you are on public land , you say it's a public right of way, then you should be able to take pics regardless of it being near a school. Admittedly you may well get supporters of the nanny state making noises but unless they can PROVE you are a paedophile or terrorist they can go whistle.

They can not demand that you erase your pics either, although it is often expedient to do so, then use a recovery programme to get them back when you get home.

 

WOO I agree with Mike. There can be no possible, legitimate reason preventing you taking photos in the manner you've enjoyed over many years. The HT you mention is way out of line - her authority extends only to the school (though taking pics of the school or kids from public land is probably another matter).
We had a big fuss about 8 years ago when some loony in the local authority issued an edict that adults attending school plays and concerts could not take photos. I refused to implement it and got round it by issuing a letter to parents saying that photography would be permitted, but if they didn't want their own child photographed they should let me know and I'd make suitable arrangements.
There was also an edict from the same loony that we should not allow photography at school sports. I pointed out that since our sports took place in a PUBLIC park there was no way I could prevent it happening.
The excellent article ine The Telegraph that Mike has highlighted contains a link leading to a PDF document about the legal situation regarding photography and photographers rights.
Here's a direct link to the site >
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

 

I should have added that about ten years ago I was stopped by a couple of plain clothes police who drew up in a car and asked what I was doing with the video camera I was carrying. I explained that we had just bought it for school and I was out an about in the city sizing up suitable locations for the kids to use in an historical documentary. I'd just been filming a brass plaque set in the road marking the site of the old stocks.
Cops pointed out that I was directly opposite a bank. Seems someone thought I was casing the joint and phoned 999. Explaining who I was was greatly assisted by the fact that my school secretary's hubby was a police inspector in the local cop shop and knew me well.:D

 

I am downright indignant reading the article in the link. We are supposed to meekly accept cammeras surveilling our life at every corner, but are not allowed (or at least we are discouraged, seemingly) to photograph the sky and birds and butterflies, great.
The only objection I have to the article is about the guy who photographed the yellow jacketed guard, I think taking photographs, specifically, of persons (as opposed to accidentally including some people in a landscape), without asking permission is extremely rude, wether it is lawful or not (which seems doubtful anyway), I would have been mad at him too.

 

Yeah, the use of terrorist law always seems daft to me, it's always the users of bigger that seem to get stopped, the mobile phone cams and small compact digis rarely get stopped yet they must be the most obvious for the job, unobtrusive commonly in use everywhere, "wot me ossifer, I wus just takin a pic of me mates" !

 

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

I havnt read this......i live in Germany,but it might be usefull to you lot.
Joe.

 

It is ridiculous. Firstly, if you are in a public place and taking pictures of the general scene, there is nothing anyone can do (although some will try). Now if you take a telephoto lens and point it at some kids, then I can see the issue, but if you are taking pics of the general area, or some piece of nature, then there's no problem.

Secondly, how can anyone rant at us for taking pics in public when we live in a country that has the highest number of CCTV cameras per capita out of every country in the world, and when Google have just start a project to drive a hi-tech camera van round the streets of every town and city in Britain for their 3D street level mapping service?

If a professional photographer can take pictures of bikini clad ladies sunbathing, for the holiday brochures (though admittedly not so likely in Britain), then why can't ordinary folk take pictures in public? The simple answer is we can, and there is nothing the law can do about it as long as you don't target specific individuals without their permission.

 

PS, I found this site which has a good PDF file leaflet that discusses the legal position in some detail:

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

 

woo, thats ridiculous,Typical of the police attitude.

Rather like the jobs worth Dic* head who confiscated the safety rescue knife I keep in the van for cutting string. He did try to prosecute me for carying an offensive weapond but they didnt proceed but kept the knife.

For those who dont know a safety recue knife is deigned not to impale and has a blunt end but sharp serated fold away blade (3"). Said W**** had stoped me for a VOSA check but decided to also analise my glove compartment.

If anyone tried to stop me me taking legitamate photos in a public place theyd get told were to go, id carry on regardless. For the record ive bought another safety knife as its an esential tool.

 

You started it Mike!:D

Rant begins -

In 1997 I set up one of the first Scottish Primary School websites. It was great and we won an award from the Times Educational Supplement for it. It was a superb way of publicising the work of the school and featured photographs of school life along with other stuff about the school.

Photos showed the kids at work and play and conveyed a pretty good impression of what the school was like. Parents and children loved it and we got many enquiries from home and abroad about enrolment as well as contact from many former pupils. Some of the FPs sent us photographs from their and their parents’ school days and we even got some dating back to the late 1800s and managed to establish a good historical visual archive.

When the panic about child *ex abuse on the www started (and I’ve got a better grasp of the ghastly reality of it than most, as Mrs W was a child protection officer and I’ve attended a course on the subject run by the Met’) The usual knee-jerk, let’s cover our back and crack this nut with a very large hammer, reaction kicked in in many local authorities.

The upshot in my case and no doubt in others too, was that regardless of the impossibility of some internet pervert morphing a photo (this is what was being done in some cases) all publication of photos had to be with permission of parents. The result in our situation was that I couldn’t afford the additional time, as running a regularly updated web site was already consuming ‘management’ time that I could barely find. Writing to each and every parent of a dozen kids in a group photo takes time and it can take a lot of time if Mrs Smith or Mr Brown takes her or his time in replying.

Things got even worse when I had to write to individual parents asking for permission to include picture of their prize-winning children in end of term newsletters.

The result – Latterly the school website showed very much fewer photos of children at work and play and was a much more opaque ‘window’ on real life in school.

My take on the subject of legality of photography is that a lot of politicians both local and national and some members of the police force (oh sorry I think the pc term is police service) are as about intelligent as those members of the public who take ‘vigilante’ action against a paediatrician.

End of Rant.

The old, and almost forgotten original site is here. I made major changes in 1999, but the 'new' site (it really was brilliant!) was snuffed when my successor took over the school. She lasted 28 months - I lasted 28 years!:D
http://www.sol.co.uk/k/kinnoull-primary-school/