Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Discuss everything about photography such as technique, post-processing, printing, etc

Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza

Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby Graham » Sun May 27, 2007 12:11 am

Here is a LINK to an article in pdf form written by Linda MacPherson, a law lecturer at Heriot-Watt University, which sets out your rights when taking pictures in public places in the UK.

The site I got the link from advise anyone who takes pictures in public places to print off a copy and keep it with them when out and about, just in case.
I was banned for being homophobic.
Graham
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:32 am
Location: On the Strathclyde Police Most Unwanted list

Postby cybers » Sun May 27, 2007 3:13 am

A good solid platform to be standing on and a cracking read
Thank you After my troubles lately it's what the doctor ordered.
If cheese gets mouldy you throw it out...
Why buy it mouldy in the first place ?
User avatar
cybers
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:53 pm
Location: Livingston

Postby tobester » Sun May 27, 2007 5:45 pm

Cheers Graham, i think this could be sticky'd
User avatar
tobester
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 3101
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: Parbold

Postby katula80 » Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:34 pm

gawd ..it's been so long since I got in
katula80
Just settling in
Just settling in
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:20 am

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby conn75 » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:45 pm

Nah, you just need to be a good runner...
http://www.whiskywhiskywhisky.com
User avatar
conn75
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:29 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby alexboyd » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:15 pm

conn75 wrote:Nah, you just need to be a good runner...


I don't think I know many fit photographers! :D
User avatar
alexboyd
Busy bunny
Busy bunny
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby gap74 » Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:47 pm

Hmm, find this a somewhat worrying precedent....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scot ... 651107.stm
User avatar
gap74
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:33 am

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby Fossil » Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:13 pm

gap74 wrote:Hmm, find this a somewhat worrying precedent....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scot ... 651107.stm


The bint was pished and barft a bit. She must have clocked his big camera
Bum tit tit bum tit tit play yer hairy banjo
User avatar
Fossil
-
-
 
Posts: 12295
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Pitt Street

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby gap74 » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:18 pm

Indeed - if it's a crime to lack chivalry, then I'm in for a life sentence....
User avatar
gap74
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:33 am

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby AlanM » Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:07 am

The guy plead guilty and as such I wouldn't read too much into it.
Who needs a six pack....when you've got a keg!!!
Image
User avatar
AlanM
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:59 am
Location: Knightswood

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby Apollo » Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:05 am

AlanM wrote:The guy plead guilty and as such I wouldn't read too much into it.


Can you explain that?

We're not talking about someone that smashed a bottle in someone's face and admitted it - this is a Breach of the Peace charge, which is down to someone's opinion as it is little more than a catch-all charge when they can't find an actual offence on the books nowadays.

The chap is a Polish immigrant, arrested by the police after taking a photograph in a public place, presumably carted off to jail, or at least a police station for a period, then made to appear in court.

He may or may not be a fluent English speaker, and probably doesn't understand Scots Law.

His lawyer was probably assigned and saw nothing of merit (money/fee) in the case and wanted rid of it as quick a she could so advised his client to plead Guilty and get a quick fine and be done with it. Pleading Not Guilty could have started a crusade, and there's no money in crusades unless you attract sponsors and donations.

Maybe there's something more serious here, and the Sheriff is one of that happy band that sees Polish immigrants as job-stealers or similar, and got a chance to teach one a lesson, and has abused his position.

I personally think much can be read into this, and more than I have mentioned.
User avatar
Apollo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2284
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: Glasgow

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby AlanM » Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:07 am

As the chap plead guilty there was no legal test, and with a guilty plea the Sheriff had to impose some form of punishment and make a statement condemning his actions.

If he'd plead not guilty and as he hadn't actually done anything wrong the chances were that he would have been found not guilty as the prosecution would have had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he had placed the victim "in a state of fear and alarm" - not an easy task

I'm sure that he wasn't fully aware of Scot's Law and was poorly advised but I meant that from a photographer's point of view that we shouldn't read too much into this conviction
Who needs a six pack....when you've got a keg!!!
Image
User avatar
AlanM
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:59 am
Location: Knightswood

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby onyirtodd » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:31 am

AlanM wrote:As the chap plead guilty there was no legal test, and with a guilty plea the Sheriff had to impose some form of punishment and make a statement condemning his actions.

If he'd plead not guilty and as he hadn't actually done anything wrong the chances were that he would have been found not guilty as the prosecution would have had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he had placed the victim "in a state of fear and alarm" - not an easy task

I'm sure that he wasn't fully aware of Scot's Law and was poorly advised but I meant that from a photographer's point of view that we shouldn't read too much into this conviction


I'm not so sure. Sheriff Kenneth Hogg said.............. "The lady concerned was entitled to her privacy and not to have a passing stranger take a photograph,".


That sounds as if anyone else dischuffed at having their picture taken could make the same complaint and expect the courts to be supportive.
238 to 127. All in all a good afternoon's work
User avatar
onyirtodd
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:40 pm
Location: a car park near you

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby Dexter St. Clair » Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:49 pm

onyirtodd wrote:I'm not so sure. Sheriff Kenneth Hogg said.............. "The lady concerned was entitled to her privacy and not to have a passing stranger take a photograph,".


That sounds as if anyone else dischuffed at having their picture taken could make the same complaint and expect the courts to be supportive.



And it's all thanks to max mosley
"I before E, except after C" works in most cases but there are exceptions.
User avatar
Dexter St. Clair
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6255
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby Peetabix » Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:12 pm

onyirtodd wrote:
AlanM wrote:As the chap plead guilty there was no legal test, and with a guilty plea the Sheriff had to impose some form of punishment and make a statement condemning his actions.

If he'd plead not guilty and as he hadn't actually done anything wrong the chances were that he would have been found not guilty as the prosecution would have had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he had placed the victim "in a state of fear and alarm" - not an easy task

I'm sure that he wasn't fully aware of Scot's Law and was poorly advised but I meant that from a photographer's point of view that we shouldn't read too much into this conviction


I'm not so sure. Sheriff Kenneth Hogg said.............. "The lady concerned was entitled to her privacy and not to have a passing stranger take a photograph,".


That sounds as if anyone else dischuffed at having their picture taken could make the same complaint and expect the courts to be supportive.


Surely in a public place your privacy means fuck all. It's not like the guy was doing an upskirt or jumping up and down in front of her face (I hope he wasn't anyway). It's a strange one. Won't stop me from capturing some drunk arsehole right enough.
User avatar
Peetabix
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:15 pm

Next

Return to Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests