Had my first run in with the police today

I view that differently, it's my job to photograph racing events, but if someone is injured or killed those pictures won't go anywhere, save a police investigation.

I'm not sure whether the OP is a press photographer or just happened across an accident and decided to take pictures of it.
 
Mike Hoyer said:
While I agree with it's your right to take pictures in public, aren't you taking it a bit far?

It's a sensitive situation, people are probably hurt, last thing they probably want is randoms taking pictures of them. It annoys me when you see an accident and people are there there with phones and cameras trying to get pictures.

Seems like you took some pictures, were told to stop a couple of times, but kept on going. Why not just stop once you've got a couple, and leave it at that?
Click to expand...

Because stopping when they asked would've been a false admission that I was there to cause problems and that I was wrong to be there in the first place. I was standing among the rest of the onlookers, except I wasn't just snapping pics from my phone, I was carefully picking shots that told the story without intruding on the victims right to dignity.

I was there maybe 25 minutes, and I took 17 pictures. Does that sound excessive to you?
 
If the police had any sense at all they might just realise that copies of the photos could perhaps be useful to them after the event when investigating by identifying the positions the vehicles came to rest.
God knows who some of these modern plods think they are in making some of the aggressive approaches that are being reported with increaisng frequency.
I've never come up against them (yet!) however I always carry my BFP membership card and the laminated rights card they produced together with my $$$ insurance. Hopefully that would be enough to convince them I was serious about what I do with a camera! Then again . . . . .
 
There will always be nay-sayers in terms of photographic tragic events. I've had my fair share, especially on here too.

Document as you see fit, and don't let the negative comments of few dint your confidence, either.

You handled the situation better than I'd imagine I could, and came away with the pictures too.
 
leave1 said:
Because stopping when they asked would've been a false admission that I was there to cause problems and that I was wrong to be there in the first place. I was standing among the rest of the onlookers, except I wasn't just snapping pics from my phone, I was carefully picking shots that told the story without intruding on the victims right to dignity.

I was there maybe 25 minutes, and I took 17 pictures. Does that sound excessive to you?
Click to expand...

Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. If it was obvious that your actions were causing distress to others then maybe you should have stopped when asked. Sometimes it's not about whether you are doing something legal or illegal, but doing the right thing.
 
Mike Hoyer said:
I view that differently, it's my job to photograph racing events, but if someone is injured or killed those pictures won't go anywhere, save a police investigation.
Click to expand...

Its the same in public. If an investigation is required, then pictures (any pictures) become an invaluable part of the investigations as it did with the Glasgow airport incident a few months ago.

If the general public stopped taking pictues, be it on a mobile phone, P&S, or a DSLR then investigations would become a lot more time consuming and difficult.
 
i dont see what the probs is,photo wether on the track, road, showing the carnage,death injuries etc, ?
its life
 
Philx1979 said:
Surprised the policeman didnt take the camera off you,
Click to expand...
He can't. Not without arresting him first. And there's no grounds for an arrest.



Mike Hoyer said:
It annoys me when you see an accident and people are there there with phones and cameras trying to get pictures.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that a number of bystanders were making use of their mobile phone cameras - and I'll have a wager that the plod didn't approach them.

The only person that was totally out of order was the policewoman who grabbed the camera strap in an attempt at grabbing the camera. I'd make a complaint against her for assault. And write a letter to the local chief plod re some re-training of his staff.
 
Chillimonster said:
Its the same in public. If an investigation is required, then pictures (any pictures) become an invaluable part of the investigations as it did with the Glasgow airport incident a few months ago.

If the general public stopped taking pictues, be it on a mobile phone, P&S, or a DSLR then investigations would become a lot more time consuming and difficult.
Click to expand...

Much like the Train Bombings in London. Strict rules about photography and what not, then all of a sudden the Police are asking anyone who did take anything down there, to come forward and help the investigation! :bonk:
 
Its a shame you got that initial response form the female cop. From my part a lot of cops see photographers as press and the equate press to people who want to drop you in it to get a story and make themselves look good. This does not excuse the initial response or the misguided requests from the rest. If they thought they were correct they would have locked you up and siezed yor kit, which would havwe been a bad move on there part. Its approx 1200 quid per hour of unlawful detention at the last count.

Yes we do have a right to take photo's and you did that sensitively and appropriately. The fact that the MOP went off on one is something else - unless he was a relative/witness etc and then I would expev them to behave out of the norm.

I am going to see what procedures my lot have for informing officers about photographers rights, but to be honest, there are higher priorities i suspect, not that that helps photographers doing ther jobs. "Why don't they know this kind of thing chapter and verse?" - honestly its not that important for everyday policing so to speak but with the digital age, I think it needs to be highlighted!
 
Grant said:
Much like the Train Bombings in London. Strict rules about photography and what not, then all of a sudden the Police are asking anyone who did take anything down there, to come forward and help the investigation! :bonk:
Click to expand...

:thinking: What strict rules about photography?

The only places you cannot take photographs in the UK, when standing on public land, is military and nuclear installations, Trafalgar Square and some other place in London (it might be Parliament Square). The irony is that these last two are always full of tourists and their cameras.
 
2blue4u said:
:thinking: What strict rules about photography?

The only places you cannot take photographs in the UK, when standing on public land, is military and nuclear installations, Trafalgar Square and some other place in London (it might be Parliament Square). The irony is that these last two are always full of tourists and their cameras.
Click to expand...

I was told no photography on the tube lines? Even asked to stop photographing on one.
 
fabs said:
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. If it was obvious that your actions were causing distress to others then maybe you should have stopped when asked. Sometimes it's not about whether you are doing something legal or illegal, but doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly what i was thinking.
 
You deserve a big pat on the back for keeping your cool and standing up for your rights! Good on you.
 
fabs said:
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. If it was obvious that your actions were causing distress to others then maybe you should have stopped when asked. Sometimes it's not about whether you are doing something legal or illegal, but doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

So that's reason to stop taking pictures? I appreciate where you're coming from, but I think you're misguided slightly. It was a member of the public who had nothing to do with it. He was just standing WITH ME watching the same scene I was. Exactly where do his feelings figure into it? Why should I, for one minute consider the feelings of a man who expresses his emotions with violent outbursts? If he had such a problem with people gawping at this event, then what was he doing there with me?

The only other people who had a problem were four uniformed police officers who all independantly approached me. None of them knew of the others. Only one was truly discourteous to me. As I was leaving, I called to one officer and pointed out who had taken my details, and that he should contact me if he feels my pictures could be of help to any ongoing investigation. He, at least, seemed genuinly thankful.

I think you're kind of playing devils advocate just for the hell of it. I wasn't diving over barriers and setting up a flashes and reflectors, demanding that the victim wake up for their coma and give me a smile(The victim wasn't in a coma, that was just a joke). I just took some shots of the wreckage, stayed well back, further back than some members of the public, even.
 
2blue4u said:
:thinking: What strict rules about photography?

The only places you cannot take photographs in the UK, when standing on public land, is military and nuclear installations, Trafalgar Square and some other place in London (it might be Parliament Square). The irony is that these last two are always full of tourists and their cameras.
Click to expand...

You can't take photo's in Trafalgar and Parliament Squares for commercial use without a license but there's no other restriction there - though use a tripod and you're automatically deemed a 'professional' for some reason :thinking:
 
leave1 said:
So that's reason to stop taking pictures? I appreciate where you're coming from, but I think you're misguided slightly. It was a member of the public who had nothing to do with it. He was just standing WITH ME watching the same scene I was. Exactly where do his feelings figure into it? Why should I, for one minute consider the feelings of a man who expresses his emotions with violent outbursts? If he had such a problem with people gawping at this event, then what was he doing there with me?

The only other people who had a problem were four uniformed police officers who all independantly approached me. None of them knew of the others. Only one was truly discourteous to me. As I was leaving, I called to one officer and pointed out who had taken my details, and that he should contact me if he feels my pictures could be of help to any ongoing investigation. He, at least, seemed genuinly thankful.

I think you're kind of playing devils advocate just for the hell of it. I wasn't diving over barriers and setting up a flashes and reflectors, demanding that the victim wake up for their coma and give me a smile(The victim wasn't in a coma, that was just a joke). I just took some shots of the wreckage, stayed well back, further back than some members of the public, even.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not misguided or playing devil's advocate. I'm looking at an argument from different angles. I think what I said was valid, sometimes there are more important things to think about than your rights to take photographs.
 
Grant said:
I was told no photography on the tube lines? Even asked to stop photographing on one.
Click to expand...

As long as you are not using flash or a tripod you can photograph on the underground. I have never had any problems and I am doing it all the time. If you are intending to use flash or tripod you would have to get a permit.

Nigel
 
Mike Hoyer said:
While I agree with it's your right to take pictures in public, aren't you taking it a bit far?

It's a sensitive situation, people are probably hurt, last thing they probably want is randoms taking pictures of them. It annoys me when you see an accident and people are there there with phones and cameras trying to get pictures.

Seems like you took some pictures, were told to stop a couple of times, but kept on going. Why not just stop once you've got a couple, and leave it at that?
Click to expand...
You miss the point(s) completely.
Did anyone who was actually involved take any interest in the photographer. No. The people who were causing a problem had nothing to do with those for whom it will be a sensitive situation.

Were the poice right to act the way they did? No
Was an unrelated member of the puclic right to act the way he did? No
In fact the police and the member of public broke the law. Did leave1 break the law? No.

I kno who in my opinion occupies the moral high ground here (Since you took the moral line)
 
Shutterman said:
As long as you are not using flash or a tripod you can photograph on the underground. I have never had any problems and I am doing it all the time. If you are intending to use flash or tripod you would have to get a permit.

Nigel
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, do you know where you got the source of this information?

I'm not disregarding it, I'd just like to say more than 'Well this one guy on a forum said I can' :D
 
welly said:
You deserve a big pat on the back for keeping your cool and standing up for your rights! Good on you.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind words. Thank you to everyone else as well. I didn't realise there was such animosity towards photographers. I must admit, I'm guilty of giving the odd *tut* when caught in the lens of someone taking pictures, but now I work behind it, I can fully appreciate that he's not the gustapo trying to invade my personal life and destroy me.

If I've learnt one thing from this experience it's that I need a longer lens. And possibly some boxing lessons :)
 
KayJay said:
Yeah, but don't photographers have moral obligations too? You can still get the shot without taking things too far.
Click to expand...

I am always trying to learn more about this art, and would welcome any explanation of where I took things too far. I kept the victims out of the shots, I didn't use a flash, I never once strayed beyond the barrior, or leaned over it, I used my longest lens so that I would be well out of everyones way, and I eyed my shots away from the camera so that I wasn't constantly staring through the viewfinder. I only ever raised my camera when I saw the shot. I took 17 pictures in 25 minutes and then I left. The rest of the time I was standing back, being quiet and respectful to all around me.

Oh, and I also put my phone on silent.

There's always more to learn, and if you think there's anything I could've done differently, let me know. It's my intention to avoid conflict in this profession as much as possible. I don't want to annoy people.
 
I didn't mean to imply that you were taking it too far, it was more a general statement that photographers need good judgment when approaching this type of thing.
 
Leave1 , it's not the shot I'd ever want to take (I'd be quite happy if they banned them from the newspapers) but I'd hope that if I was ever in such a position I would have the decency & control to behave such as you did .
 
There seems to be a lot of discussion on this subject. Ranging from "Well done, good shot" to "happy to seen this sort of thing banned from newspapers.

At the moment we live in a very voyeuristic place.

Police Camera Action
Blues and Twos
Cops with Cameras
Seaside Rescue etc etc etc

The only difference here is the above programmes have the cameraman on board the Police car, Ambulance helecopter. In just about every programme showing fly on the wall police work, there is a scene with a member of the public having a go at the camera by trying to push it away. The Police usually step in to protect the camera.
 
Guys, wait a minute. The policewoman who tried to grab the camera has a friend and they will be posting on here in a bit, so everyone be nice. I've heard that this friend knows Ricky's mate, and it's all gonna kick off.......
 
:lol:

lawrie29 said:
Guys, wait a minute. The policewoman who tried to grab the camera has a friend and they will be posting on here in a bit, so everyone be nice. I've heard that this friend knows Ricky's mate, and it's all gonna kick off.......
Click to expand...
 
leave1 said:
If I've learnt one thing from this experience it's that I need a longer lens. And possibly some boxing lessons :)
Click to expand...

Ricky's mate can probably help you out there :boxer:
 
fabs said:
Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. If it was obvious that your actions were causing distress to others then maybe you should have stopped when asked. Sometimes it's not about whether you are doing something legal or illegal, but doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

Your persistence, even though the police and the other fella were legally in the wrong, added tension to a no doubt already traumatic situation.
 
I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying that even though the MOP and the police officer who assaulted me were completely in the wrong, I should've just left so as to not further annoy them.

Standing my ground purely based on their reaction to a problem that didn't exist was the wrong thing to do in this case and the correct thing to do was bow to brute force and accept that the photograher is always in the wrong.

Something doesn't seem right there, but I'll just agree with you, anyway :)

How about if the policewoman has just approached me calmly and explained that she felt it was inappropriate to take pictures of the scene, and would I mind moving on. I could've then explained that I wasn't there to document anything other than the scene itself and in no way intended to trivialize the seriousness of the situation. I could've further explained that my pictures wre freely available to the police at their request. If she still felt it inappropriate to take pictures, I'd have been in a much more understanding mood.

Perhaps if her initial reaction wasn't one of conflict, I wouldn't have been forced to stand my ground. Given that her first move was to physically assault me, I feel I had absolutely no alternative but to stay there and get what I came for. Which was harmless, but ultimately thought provoking pictures.
 
There was a "lady" reporter on one of the local rags who use to scan emergency service frequencies for bad RTA`s, she would then scoot off with her tog to photograph them.To say she was disliked by the Amb.Pol and Fire is a massive understatement.

Anyway, she turned up to one just as the fire lads were dragging a victim out of a wreck, this guy only had a few tendonds holding his head on, tog was there taking pics and she was getting in the bloody way of everyone. She then looked at the head and realised it was her husband...............Sympathy from anyone at the scene.............:shake:

Just be careful, it could be one of yours next time.
 
That pretty much sums it up, yes.

You were asked to stop four times and nearly punched, I might have made my excuses and left a little earlier. Some battles just aren't worth winning.

You want to document the story, not be the story.
 
fracster said:
There was a "lady" reporter on one of the local rags who use to scan emergency service frequencies for bad RTA`s, she would then scoot off with her tog to photograph them.To say she was disliked by the Amb.Pol and Fire is a massive understatement.

Anyway, she turned up to one just as the fire lads were dragging a victim out of a wreck, this guy only had a few tendonds holding his head on, tog was there taking pics and she was getting in the bloody way of everyone. She then looked at the head and realised it was her husband...............Sympathy from anyone at the scene.............:shake:

Just be careful, it could be one of yours next time.
Click to expand...

What the...?

I'm sorry, what?

Wow, just wow.
 
RichardtheSane said:
You miss the point(s) completely.
Did anyone who was actually involved take any interest in the photographer. No. The people who were causing a problem had nothing to do with those for whom it will be a sensitive situation.

Were the poice right to act the way they did? No
Was an unrelated member of the puclic right to act the way he did? No
In fact the police and the member of public broke the law. Did leave1 break the law? No.

I kno who in my opinion occupies the moral high ground here (Since you took the moral line)
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this, you did well in holding your stance and acted totally reasonable! Well done, Sir :clap:

welly said:
Ricky's mate can probably help you out there :boxer:
Click to expand...

:lol::lol:

fracster said:
There was a "lady" reporter on one of the local rags who use to scan emergency service frequencies for bad RTA`s, she would then scoot off with her tog to photograph them.To say she was disliked by the Amb.Pol and Fire is a massive understatement.

Anyway, she turned up to one just as the fire lads were dragging a victim out of a wreck, this guy only had a few tendonds holding his head on, tog was there taking pics and she was getting in the bloody way of everyone. She then looked at the head and realised it was her husband...............Sympathy from anyone at the scene.............:shake:

Just be careful, it could be one of yours next time.
Click to expand...

Ouch :(
 
I'd like to see some proof of fractsers story. It sounds like you could swap her profession with pretty much anything media related and have the same story.

I'm pretty sure emergency crews wouldn't let someone close enough to the body that they would be able to identify the face. I don't want to call bull***, but if his head was only being held on my a few tendons, there would've been surely enough blood to cover his face. That means the reporter would've had to have been inches from him to indentify him.

Also, wouldn't she have recognized the car he was driving? She would've known instantly just by the car. Sounds like the story is horribly embellished for maximum impact. Which isn't fair, really.

Also, which local rag is posting pictures of mutilated corpses in it's pages? I've never seen anything like that in a newspaper.

sorry, I don't believe a word of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top