Goverment restricting use of Photography

Vinny

Vinny

Suspended / Banned
Messages
423
Edit My Images
No
hehe that got your attention huh?

I read somewhere that somebody had heard a rumour that the government was poised to restrict photography in the street.

Reading various articles today I stumbled upon this one where the government has responded to a partition opposing.

Details from link above say:

Thank you for signing the petition on the Downing Street website calling for the Prime Minister to stop proposed restrictions on photography in public places.

This petition has already attracted over 60,000 signatures from people who obviously share your concern. Not surprisingly, the idea that the Government might be poised to restrict your ability to take photos has caused some puzzlement and even alarm.

We have therefore decided to respond to this petition before its closing date of August, in order to reassure people.

The Government appreciates that millions of people in this country enjoy photography. So we have checked carefully to see if any Government department was considering any proposal that might possibly lead to the sort of restrictions suggested by this petition. We have been assured this is not the case.

There may be cases where individual schools or other bodies believe it is necessary to have some restrictions on photography, for instance to protect children, but that would be a matter for local decisions.

In fact, Simon Taylor, who started the petition, has since made clear that he was not really referring to Government action or legislation. His main concern appears to be that photographic societies and other organisations may introduce voluntary ID cards for members to help them explain why they are taking photographs. Again, any such scheme would not involve the Government.

We hope this re-assures you and clears up the confusion.

:) :woot:
 
So next meet at London Eye then folks? LOL!!!
 
Not this again. You'll note that the government aren't doing anything to restrict the use of photography. It was all a misunderstanding.
 
Hi Cathy - it was a joke with Gary about another thread going on at the same time regading the London Eye :)
 
It often is a misunderstanding. People are too fast to blame the Government for all their problems. Too much worrying. I don't care about restrictions or any of that rubbish, just get on and take the photos. If you get caught, deal with it. Maybe my experiences have made me blase, but take it from me - you can get away with a lot.

Those gov.uk petitions are a curse though. I don't know who got that ball rolling, but I dare say a fair amount of taxpayers' money is wasted employing civil servants to trawl through all the dross.
 
does that mean the government cant take pictures of us on the street? As they dont have our permission.
 
Vinny said:
So next meet at London Eye then folks? LOL!!!
Click to expand...

It may not be that funny. There is an article in either Photography Monthly or Practical Photographer about a photographer being stopped under anti-terrorist laws for photographing the London Eye using a tripod. It's interpetation of the law is frightening and could potentially prevent you from photographing anything.
 
rgrebby said:
does that mean the government cant take pictures of us on the street? As they dont have our permission.
Click to expand...

The government is exempt it "has your best interests at heart" :suspect::shake:
 
rgrebby said:
does that mean the government cant take pictures of us on the street? As they dont have our permission.
Click to expand...

You don't need permission to take someone's photo, the permission is for using the photo.

The other area of law that applies is Data Protection and images on CCTV are exempt are they are being used for the detection of criminal activity. Even if they weren't the DPA only requires proper registration and use of the data.
 
Norwall said:
It may not be that funny. There is an article in either Photography Monthly or Practical Photographer about a photographer being stopped under anti-terrorist laws for photographing the London Eye using a tripod. It's interpetation of the law is frightening and could potentially prevent you from photographing anything.
Click to expand...

Certainly would not prevent me from photographing anything. Who interpreted the law? A security guard? Was it an excuse one wonders?

Under current law then yes, the security guard could move you on for using a tripod on the basis that a) it is a possible obstruction or b) because the area is private and therefor the owners are liable for any damage to the public thus preventing it. Yes its an excuse but an excuse none the less.

Okay, I am guessing it is not beyond the realms of some sickos to make some sort of weapon with what looks like a very long lens on a biggish camera. Upon inspection (which would be covered under Anti-Terrorism laws) this would be found out to be true or false, and its a sad situation when found out to be false to not allow the continuation of photography at that point.

I am sure somebody, somewhere, in the corporate heights of responsibility, realise that peoples photographs are not just fond memories, but free advertising for them going forward!
 
Vinny said:
Certainly would not prevent me from photographing anything. Who interpreted the law? A security guard? Was it an excuse one wonders?

Under current law then yes, the security guard could move you on for using a tripod on the basis that a) it is a possible obstruction or b) because the area is private and therefor the owners are liable for any damage to the public thus preventing it. Yes its an excuse but an excuse none the less.
Click to expand...

It was an article the the current months Photography Monthly. The photographer was detained by Police Community Support Officers for using a tripod after being spotted on CCTV. None of the other people taking photo or videos were given the same treatment. the implication was that the tripod was the reason she was stopped.

The legislation makes it an offence to "possess or take a photograph containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". Just about covers anything.

It is a very good article about where you can and can't take photographs and what permissions you need. Well worth a read.
 
I dont mind telling you I photographed at the back of Brighton Police station, perhaps naively, it's boundary wall is particularly odd but with interesting texture, rusty rollers at the entrance, riot vans above and urban sprawl behind. It made for a very interesting image imo. Within 3 min I was stopped by a couple of bobbies, and although I was not prevented taking further photographs, I got my collar felt as they took my details and checked me out. Current legislation is potentially very oppressive in the wrong Governments hands, which is what folk have been warning against for years, particularly since some of the knee jerk Daily Mail type tosh that has passed though both Houses pretending to be well thought out Legislation.
Whilst we all need protecting to some extent from insane terrorists, we also need protecting from insane Governments, and I've seen more insane Governments than terrorists in my lifetime so far........
 
Norwall - cheers, I will pick up a copy of the publication today and read it, interesting.

J Gordon - I am sorry, but if I understand you correctly, a couply of bobbies taking my details and asking what I have been doing and why is not going to prevent me from taking photographs in the future, nor annoy me. As long as they are doing their job, asking me what I am doing, why I am doing it and accepting my reasons that I am fine with it - almost happy at them taking a valid interest. If, on the other hand, they happen to be a jumped up jobsworth, well, then it gets very interesting doesn't it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top