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

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby BrigitDoon » Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:25 am

Press Gazette >>

Photo mag gives away Terrorism Act lens cloth

5th July 2010

by Dominic Ponsford

Weekly magazine Amateur Photographer has urged its readers to know their rights by giving them a free lens cloth which details police guidelines on intervening under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Amateur Photographer editor Damien Demolder said: “I am not exaggerating when I tell you that hardly a day goes by without some correspondence from a reader that chronicles a situation in which a photographer has been prevented from enjoying his or her hobby.

“Many police officers and police community support officers still believe that taking photographs in a public place constitutes a suspicious activity and warrants that person be stopped, questioned, searched and sometimes even detained.”

The lens cloth details the guidance provided to all police staff by the head of Specialist Operations for the Metropolitan Police Service.

More >>
UXB
BrigitDoon
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 4232
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:03 pm

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby minxy » Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:13 pm

It will all come out in the wash!
User avatar
minxy
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby Glesga_Steve » Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:13 pm

Another crazy story from The Sun
A WHEELCHAIR-bound photographer has been banned from taking shots of FLOWERS in a park - after council chiefs claimed it could breach HUMAN rights. Amateur snapper Alister Smith wrote to check it was okay to photograph the blooms near his home in Cambuslang. But a South Lanarkshire Council official knocked back his polite request - claiming they could be SUED by other park visitors who might appear in his pictures without consent.

Flower enthusiast Alister - who suffers from arthritis and uses a mobility scooter - had thought asking permission would be a simple formality. The stunned 54-year-old said: "I couldn't believe it when I got an email back. It was a categorical no. Citing human rights legislation is absolute nonsense. I don't want any photographs of people. All I want is to take pictures of the plants and the wildflowers. I thought by going down the official route I was doing the right thing."

Alister, who was a newsreader for BBC Scotland and Radio 3 in the 1980s, will now have to struggle to travel further for his photographs. He has been given the okay by Glasgow City Council with a similar request for their parks. He added: "I had to retire through ill health. Photography is one of the few hobbies I have where I can get out the house. I decided to seek permission because a friend was accosted by two rangers at a park for taking pictures. I don't want park attendants coming up and thinking I'm a terrorist or a paedophile."

Last night a South Lanarkshire Council spokesman said: "If a photographer takes a photograph of an individual they must give consent to its use. It opens the council to complaints and possible litigation. It is potentially an infringement of other people's human rights." But they said Alister's request to snap "flora and fauna" COULD be met. The spokesman added: "Taking pictures for personal family use is not a problem."
User avatar
Glesga_Steve
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:46 am

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby BrigitDoon » Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:53 am

Scaremongering.

South Lanarkshire Council stage an annual photography competition. I've never had any trouble with park wardens. On the contrary; they're a friendly bunch.

PC-gorn-maaaad-innit? Usual Scum rubbish.
UXB
BrigitDoon
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 4232
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:03 pm

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby Late to the Party » Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:11 am

It's probably just some desk-jockey getting their knickers in a twist. Who actually writes to the council to ask if they can take photos of the flowers in the park?!
Late to the Party
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:29 am

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby BrigitDoon » Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:23 pm

I had to go into town and pay the council tax this morning so I thought I'd mention it to them. I took a copy of the Sun article with me and a short letter asking for clarification. The look on her face as she was reading the article was priceless. I thought the page was going to catch fire.

Anyway, she's faxed it off to the relevant department and with a bit of luck, they'll tell me their position on the matter.
UXB
BrigitDoon
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 4232
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:03 pm

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby gap74 » Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:36 pm

The Sun?

That would cut no ice, the fearsome Rutherglen Reformer have it on their front page...

http://www.rutherglenreformer.co.uk/rut ... -27128504/
User avatar
gap74
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 12:33 am

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby BrigitDoon » Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:05 pm

A spokesperson for South Lanarkshire Council said: “If a photographer takes a photograph of an individual that is the individual’s personal information and they must give consent to its use.

“It would be very difficult for the council to ensure that consent has been given therefore it opens the council to complaints and possible litigation.

“It is potentially an infringement of other people’s human rights as they have a right to privacy in their daily life and it is also a breach of the data protection act.”

Data Protection Act 1998, Section 36:

Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual’s personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/uk ... 80029_en_1
UXB
BrigitDoon
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 4232
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:03 pm

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby busdriver » Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:45 pm

If practicing this purely as a hobby it would appear he neednt have even asked Glasgow City Council either, see this extract from their rules for public parks:

THE CITY OF GLASGOW DISTRICT COUNCIL
CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982
MANAGEMENT RULES REGULATING PUBLIC PARKS, GARDENS, OPEN SPACES AND
PLACES OF PUBLIC RESORT OR RECREATION


PART XII MISCELLANEOUS AND GENERAL

53 No person shall take photographs, including wedding party photographs, film or make
video or sound recordings for commercial or promotional purposes in any park or
building therein without having obtained prior written permission from the Director.
The Director reserves the right to levy a charge for any of the foregoing activities and
to require any party undertaking such activity to sign and return to the Department
any form of indemnity as may be required.
Reguloj por la gvidado de sagxuloj kaj blinda obeemo de malsagxuloj.
busdriver
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:24 am
Location: La plej alta konkreta konstruaĵo en Maryhill.

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby Dexter St. Clair » Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:11 pm

Image

The Police are causing that much damage to tax payers at least one legal firm has appointed a specialist.

The well known and highly respected National Union of Journalist member David Hoffman, who is represented by Chez Cotton, head of the Police Misconduct Department at leading civil rights law firm Bindmans LLP, has received £30,000 damages today from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis.



Injured snapper gets payout from the Met
A press photographer has received £30,000 damages from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police after being injured in an unprovoked attack by a police inspector. NUJ member David Hoffman was covering the London G20 protests on 1 April 2009. He was carrying professional equipment throughout the event and had his press card clearly visible around his neck. NUJ reports that despite being out of the way and not interfering with any police operation, the inspector in full riot gear ran towards the photographer and hit him in the face with a shield, fracturing his teeth. As well as paying compensation and the cost of extensive dental work, the Met police commissioner also apologised and confirmed the force's recognition that journalists have a right to report freely. David Hoffman said: 'I'm really grateful for the support of the NUJ and the skill and tenacity of Chez Cotton, my solicitor at Bindmans. But without the good luck of the amateur video that showed the attack, the police behind it would have got away unchallenged - as is generally the case. The size of the award indicates just how strongly the Met were determined to avoid having the facts examined publicly in a court of law.' NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear said: 'No journalist should be singled out by the police and the police service has no legal powers or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict photographer's work. Journalists have a duty to record and report on public protests as well as the behaviour of the police.' The union leader added: 'David's case is a shocking example of police brutality and totally unacceptable. We believe that attacks on working journalists are attacks on democracy and on society's ability to make informed decisions.'

NUJ news release.

Bindmans LLP news release.

The Guardian.
"I before E, except after C" works in most cases but there are exceptions.
User avatar
Dexter St. Clair
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6252
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby Doorstop » Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:42 pm

Most excellent.

It's nice to see the other side of the coin for a change.
I like him ... He says "Okie Dokie!"
User avatar
Doorstop
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6015
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:07 am
Location: Guarding the Key to the Pie cupboard.

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby The Egg Man » Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:26 pm

Spotted on Facebook with apologies for the lack of punctuation.

"Dear Evening Times Newsdesk Around 4pm this evening I took the attached photo of my 4 year old daughter looking cute on the back of a vespa seat at an ice cream bar inside Braehead shopping centre in the middle of a shopping trip. Having just bought her some new jigsaws we were going to go look at some clothes shops but never managed to continue our shopping trip. Walking down the shopping mall ...a man approached me from behind as I was carrying my daughter in my arms. He came from behind me, cutting in front of me and told me to stop. That was quite a shock as I am wary of people with crew cuts and white shirts suddenly appearing in front of me, but then realised he was a security guard. He then said I had been spotted taking photos in the shopping centre which was 'illegal' and not allowed and then asked me to delete any photos I had taken. I explained I had taken 2 photos of my daughter eating ice cream and that she was the only person in the photo so didn't see any problem. i also said that I wasn't that willing to delete the photo's and there seemed little point as I had actually uploaded them to facebook. He then said i would have to stay right where I was while he called the police, which seemed as little extreme. My daughter was crying by this stage, but I said that was fine I would wait and began to comfort my daughter who was saying she didn't like the man and wanted to go. After about 5 minutes two police officers arrived. The older police officer was actually quite intimidating in his nature. He said that there had been a complaint about me taking photos and that there were clear signs in Braehead shopping centre saying that no photographs were allowed. I tried to explain that I hadn't seen any clearly displayed signs and that I had taken 2 photos of my daughter. As i was trying to explain he said I was interrupting him and that I should remain quiet until he had finished speaking to me. Not wanting to distress my daughter further, and to allow him to finish I let him continue. At one stage i was reassuring my daughter that everything was okay, only to be told I wasn't listening by the officer. Once he had finished, i then started to explain again my situation, only for the officer to start speaking again. Apparently different rules of respect apply when someone other than a police officer is speaking. I explained that that far from being aggressive when the security guard came over, the way he approached me was threatening and intimidating. I was told that was my word against his. Although this didn't seem to be the case when the security guard alleged that I was threatening when I had a 4 year old in my arms and waited patiently for the police to arrive. The police officer than started to say that there were privacy issues around photographs, to which I said yes and in a busy shopping centre I waited until only my daughter was in the shot. I explained that I was happy to show him the photos although not sure under what authority he could ask me to delete the photos. He then said that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was quite within in his rights to confiscate my mobile phone without any explanation for taking photos within a public shopping centre, which seems an abuse of the act. He then said on this occasion he would allow me to keep the photos, but he wanted to take my full details. Name, place of birth, age, employment status, address. Had I not had my daughter with me, and the fact that we are trying to bring our daughter up to respect and trust police officers, I may have exercised my right not to provide those details. My view is that up until that stage the police were using powers their stop and account powers. I had done that so would have been within my rights not to give further details, however I chose to give the details. The police officer also said that the security guard was within his rights to now ask me to leave Braehead Shopping Centre and bar me from the premises which I was happy to oblige. Four things that are truly ridiculous the whole photo situation. How many people have taken photos of their children in Build-a-bear or on rides and attractions in Braehead? The police officer even thinking of making reference to the Prevention of Terrorism Act; wondering how many shoplifters got away while my act of terrorism was being dealt with; and the fact that i was clearly shopping and intended to continue shopping at a time when retail sales are at there lowest for over a decade. I guess Braehead shopping centre must be bucking the trend! I am quite happy to be contacted further regarding this story, and happy for the story to be published. My contact details are *********** 0r ***********. Although not sure whether Braehead would allow a photocall in the shopping centre."
I hear the people sing.
The Egg Man
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:07 pm

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby BrigitDoon » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:04 am

This is the sort of poor behaviour we've come to expect from the Metropolitan Police Service, not Strathclyde. I wrote to Strathclyde a couple of years ago to ask for clarification about their policy and they said that they'd never had any involvement in any such incidents as this nor did they have any policy of using anti-terrorist powers to engage with photographers. They were keen to emphasise their laissez-faire approach to photographers.

Neither the police nor the shopping centre have any authority to force anyone to delete photographs; they are intellectual property and the destruction of such would require the authority of a court. A year or so ago, one of the photography magazines included a lens cloth with details of photographer's legal rights printed on it. It goes with me wherever I take my camera.

Photographers are of use to the police, particularly where the ubiquitous CCTV cameras fail to pick up a crucial moment in the development of a crime. They're not reluctant to recognise our usefulness in such circumstances.

If you have the time, I encourage you to challenge both Braehead and Starthclyde about this and a letter to Amateur Photographer and the Evening Times wouldn't go amiss. This is a disturbing development.
UXB
BrigitDoon
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 4232
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:03 pm

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby Mark N » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:43 am

Flickr-ing me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dogdriller/
User avatar
Mark N
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Mount Florida

Re: Taking Photographs - The Legal Perspective

Postby BrigitDoon » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:06 am



Like most shopping centres, we have a ‘no photography’ policy in the mall for two reasons. First, to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers. as we are sure shoppers would not want strangers taking photographs of them or their children while they were in the mall.

It's not a private members club. It is a public space where people have no expectation of privacy (see PCC Code of Practice, clause 3) - they would have difficulty in challenging a journalist under these circumstances.

It is not uncommon for those intending to make some kind of attack to take photographs of their intended target as part of their planning before the event.

The usual excuse, never backed up with evidence. It's an urban myth.
UXB
BrigitDoon
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 4232
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:03 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest