Photo printing and the law?

Boltrig

Boltrig

Suspended / Banned
Messages
24
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Heres the situation:

A good friend of mine told me about this:

Reverend Scapegoat said:
I got a text yesterday from a mate who's found himself in a bit of a bad situation...

He used to regularly play airsoft, but has been unable to do so much recently for various reasons.
Anyway, his mother in law was supposed to print some pics of my mate's kids for him, but instead of using her home printer she took the CD to Boots.

On the CD along with the family photos, there happened to be some old airsoft pics... And therein lies the problem.

Some smartarse member of Boots staff saw guns and camo, and a pic of a battery that they later claimed they thought was a bomb, and called the police.
And the poor woman ended up being held for three hours, and interviewed in full view of the general public with the "offending photos" on screen for all passersby to see.


A number of aspects of this strike me as being wrong - Any chance of some comments from any serving members of the force, to pass on, please?
Click to expand...

Now I was in asda just recently getting some pictures printed for my application portfolio. They included some photos from my UKCM events and a few from airsofting. Not one comment from the asda staff. I didnt even think that the photos might have raised an eyebrow.

How is it right that counter staff can see (as said) guns and camo and phone the law? For all the staff knew, the folk in the photos could have (and did have) any number of legitimate reasons for looking like they did!

Im hoping that some of the members here would be a bit more in the know about the laws and ethics surrounding photo developers than airsofters.

Thanks!
 
Now, just for a moment, let's turn the whole thing around - the member of staff ignored the photographs with guns and so forth and passed over the photographs, and off you go and shoot randomly at people in the local boots store. Everyone says "how come the stupid idiot member of staff in the asda did nothing when they saw photographs of guys sporting guns?"

Sure, it might not feel fabulous for the old dear who is stopped, but thank goodness for such vigilance that the member of staff is demonstrating. At least it was just a simple mistake.

Just one perspective on the situation.
 
ZoZo said:
and off you go and shoot randomly at people in the local boots store.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone have their airsoft equipment with them? Let alone someones mother in law.

There are any number of reasons for someone to legitimately want a photo of themselves toting a weapon.
Im the site photographer for an airsoft company. I get a lot of people looking for themselves in my photos and videos so they can have a copy. I even get people asking for me to specifically tail them for a game to get pictures.

Theres no doubt squaddies want photos printed taken on a tour of duty.

Even peoples holiday snaps when theyve gone rifle or clay pidgeon shooting.

I cant think of one realistic reason for any criminal element to want a photo of themselves where the printing is handled by a stranger.
 
I was trying to suggest why it's worth looking at the alternative perspective - you're taking it too literally :lol:
 
Fair enough. I suppose the sight of guns is enough to make some people over - react. If I was working in a photo printers, Id probably ask what they were up to - and where I could join in! :P
 
Have you any expamples of the pics you had problems with?

Without seeing them, we cant really establish whether the airsoft guns could
have been mistaken for real guns.

We really need to see what the print operator was looking at & decide then if
we would have called the police or not.
 
I'm with ZoZo, if I worked at a photo printers and thought something didn't quite look right, I'd ask others opinions and see what they thought should be done about it.

If I was worried that the people in the images were dealing with 'real' weapons, for no real reason, then I definitely wouldn't consult the person having the images printed.
 
I have to agree with Zoe's perspective on this.
Back in 1993, a week after the failed attempt to blow up Warrington gas works, i noticed some shopping bags left unattended so approached security in the centre to report them. When the officer and i went to look at the bags a guy came runing over shouting. Even after explaining my concerns the guy told me i should mind my own F*****g business.
A couple of weeks later a bomb exploded claiming the lives of two youg boys.
That Saturday i was running late because my yougest was sick in the car and we arrived two minutes after the explosion outside boots chemist.

Be Vigilant

Roy
 
I was about to pass a comment but I paused to think and decided to get clarification. What's the difference between airsoft and paintball? And the difference between guns used, if any?
 
ZoZo said:
Now, just for a moment, let's turn the whole thing around - the member of staff ignored the photographs with guns and so forth and passed over the photographs, and off you go and shoot randomly at people in the local boots store. Everyone says "how come the stupid idiot member of staff in the asda did nothing when they saw photographs of guys sporting guns?"

Sure, it might not feel fabulous for the old dear who is stopped, but thank goodness for such vigilance that the member of staff is demonstrating. At least it was just a simple mistake.

Just one perspective on the situation.
Click to expand...
I disagree most strongly with this. If the muppet counter staff cannot differentiate between photos of someone enjoying airsoft and a terrorist then they shouldn't be operating the photo processing equipment for they haven't the required brain cells. There is a world of difference between the two scenarios and if the staff member couldn't see that then they shouldn't be in a customer-facing position.

I can just imagine how that Boots staff member would react if a grandfather brought in a picture cd of his grandchildren.
 
Tricky one.

There are so many grey bits with this.
-Airsoft guns look to realistic (ok unless they, have the legally required 'hue'), but there are circumstances where you can have the black etc.
-Unless you have much of a clue about these things, a bunch of people looking heavily armed is kinda a bit wtf!! Why do they have so many guns?!
-99% of people havent got a clue about firearm law in this country, so they instantly call the police.
-Although most legally owned firearms are the generic hunting rifle/shotgun look, you can get ones which you cant differntiate between them and military grade hardware, and they scare people.

I think the best way to comment would to be to see a picture. If there was 20 odd people all with realistic klanashnikovs, faces covered, obv not in the service, no markings e.g. player 6 team 8. Then yes, I would be a bit wtf. If you hadnt got a clue, then yeah fair enough to call the fuzz.

If it was 1 person normal clothes with a shotgun or something on holidays thinking im a macho man, woohoo. Its obv their not out to fight a war, you call the police on the photo. Im sorry. Your a moron.


So yeah, if that makes sense, very very very very very grey without seeing the relevant photos!
 
Yeh - and a terrorist is going to hand his photos into Boots. Right!

In the same way they use DSLRs when carrying out reconnaissance.
 
The moment that the lab person asked for clarification from the police then it becomes a police matter. It's not "some muppet counter staff" that should be vindicated. It appears that the police felt the need to talk to the customer for three hours - I'm sure supposed muppet had nothing to do with that. It is tricky - I've had to call the police because some idiot actually took photo's of themselves doing coke and the buck fell on me as I was the one processing the pictures...there are some absolute dumbasses out there!
 
2blue4u said:
In the same way they use DSLRs when carrying out reconnaissance.
Click to expand...

This is my argument on 'im not a terrorist im a photographer etc etc'

So are you telling me that none of these heavily funded al qaeda terrorists, or people who are prepared to die wont spend £1000 on a camera...

Well if the police werent allowed to stop anyone with a DSLR, then all people doing recon would buy one, as the fuzz wouldnt stop them...


fair shout on going to boots though.. but some people could be that stupid!
 
Jayst84 said:
The dodgy bit I think, is the woman being held for three hours, and interviewed in public with the photos on show.
Click to expand...

This was the comment I had originally intended to make. Why did it take the police 3 hours? I know paintball guns are easy enough to identify but I wasn't sure if there was a difference with airsoft guns.
 
I cannot believe that the woman was detained by Police and questioned in public - even for 10 minutes, never mind three hours.

On the subject of terrorists using DSLRs. Can I ask if anyone has seen any evidence of photographic reconnaissance having been carried out prior to a terrorist act - anywhere in the world?
 
1209018Medium.jpg


1209032Medium.jpg


1209123Medium.jpg


These arent the actual images in question, but theyre indicative of the kind of photos taken on any given skirmish day.

What im after is the kind of thing joodles posted. joodles said that (s)he had to call the police because someone handed in photos of substance abuse. Is that an actual law or ethical thing that processing staff are obliged to call in illegal activity? I can understand calling in images with absolutely no reasonable cause to exist (illegal porn etc) but images that the processor knows nothing about and is a little bit suspicious of. Does it really warrant calling the cops?

The reason I didnt come to that conclusion is that, as I mentioned earlier, I had similar airsoft and costuming photos printed and not an eyelid batted in my direction.

If theres any serving Police officers or lawyers on these boards, any info on the legality / suitability of the 3 hour interrogation in public would be much appreciated too.
 
I would presume that since it was done in public, it wasn't actually an interview. As far as I am aware, an interview is defined as being in private and being recorded, it should be carried out at a Police station with the investigating officer present, along with the defendants lawyer. There is no need to be arrested for that to occur either (they could be invited).

What it sounds like is that she was detained for 3 hours so the officer could gather evidence.

Airsoft is a military simulation sport. The guns and equipment used are copies of what the armed forces would be seen with, or in some cases, what opposing armed forces or militias may be seen with. In some cases, they will use explosives, not all of the equipment will look like a toy or be painted in bright colours.

Airsoft is a self-regulating sport, players must apply for licenses to purchase the replica firearms without brightly coloured paint. They must also have a current license if they wish to obtain and use explosives.

So with that explanation it is completely legal in the United Kingdom for a player to be seen sporting a replica AK-47 with a bomb in his hand. Of course, the image would have to be taken at either their home (which would be on their registration) or at a registered Skirmish Site (as defined by the Home Office).

Taking all of that into account, I believe that the Boots member of staff was out of line. Yet another Joe Blogger who does not know the law of the land, yet attempts to see their incorrect assertion enforced.
 
Coldeh said:
They must also have a current license if they wish to obtain and use explosives.
Click to expand...

They dont even need to have that. The only restriction on pyrotechnics suitable for mil-sim events (airsoft, paintball) is that the buyer is over 18.

Any devices that necessitate a license are far too powerful for the skirmish site.

I can completely understand your point of view, though. Its exactly what I think!
 
Boltrig said:
They dont even need to have that. The only restriction on pyrotechnics suitable for mil-sim events (airsoft, paintball) is that the buyer is over 18.

Any devices that necessitate a license are far too powerful for the skirmish site.

I can completely understand your point of view, though. Its exactly what I think!
Click to expand...
Sorry license isn't the correct wording for it. They need to be registered with their shop to purchase the explosives.

But my point really is this, it is completely legal for someone to be seen with an AK-47, with a face mask, using a bomb as a juggling ball.
 
I don't see what the problem is here, if the Boots employee was unsure of the legality of what was contained in the pictures then they were quite right to call the Police, it doesn't make someone a "muppet" just because they aren't fully up to speed on the latest trends in hobbies.

Plenty of terrorists have done things equally as stupid as hand incriminating photos into Boots to be processed, look at the guy who returned to get the deposit back on the rental van used in the 1993 WTC bombing.....
 
This type of occurrence is a direct result of the climate of fear that has been whipped up in this country. I completely disagree with the actions of the Boots employee, yet sadly I'm not surprised by it.
 
There's been quite a few cases recently of people using real semi automatic guns to kill in schools and other places around the world. People are uneasy with the interest some have in guns, I do!

I've used Airsoft rifles (my brother and my step-son both have them (I've a couple at home) although I'm not that keen on them really. They really look real and they'd be easily mistaken for real guns by most people.

I'm just glad that the police were called to check this out. Sorry for the woman but better checked than not imo.

The fact people own these guns leaves them open to any member of the public feeling jittery when they see them.
 
sammyd56 said:
This type of occurrence is a direct result of the climate of fear that has been whipped up in this country. I completely disagree with the actions of the Boots employee, yet sadly I'm not surprised by it.
Click to expand...

I can't rememberif it was law or just company policy, but when I managed a camera shop back in the dim and distant we had to alert the police to any processed images we felt were "inappropriate".

Having said that, many pictures that didn't merit a second glance back then, such as a parent in the bath with their baby, would probably be deemed to merit police investigation nowadays....
 
EOS_JD said:
The fact people own these guns leaves them open to any member of the public feeling jittery when they see them.
Click to expand...

Granted. I can understand someone feeling jittery when theres a Realistic Imitation Firearm in the vicinity and its not an appropriate setting (convention, skirmish, private home) but when its simply pictures of said RIFs, thats when I feel they cross the line to over-reaction.
 
Pictures of the guns though on someones card or camera means they have come into contact with them. So getting that checked is perfectly reasonable imo.

Maybe the way it was done is questionable. But still it's reasonable and right to do what the guy did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top