Photographer Rights

Kryptix

Kryptix

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,730
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone got any text that summarizes briefly what you are allowed to take pictures of? A sort of 'photographers bible' or something.

I'm sick and tired of getting stopped and questioned and not being able to put my argument across. If I ould show them something physical they may take me more seriously. I can't remember laws to quote and so on.

For example, a few weeks ago a police car pulled over a biker on my road. I got a picture of the whole scene as I know the biker and the police man came and took my camera off me saying I'm not allowed to take pictures of them, and asked me how I'd like to have my picture taken when doing my job. I had to nod and agree for ages until I got my camera back as he was threatening to seize it for evidence of him speaking to the biker, and he said he's perfectly within his rights to do that...? :shrug:

Most of the time I probably am in the wrong, like in car parks taking pictures of friends cars... A few times a security guard has said it's private property and we need to leave. No argument really.

But yeah, I've read that some photographers carry around a piece of paper with their rights on it to show the police/security/whoever that they're entitled to do that.

I took a picture of a guy doing a trick on his BMX the other day and he came up to me and told me to delete it and it's illegal to take pictures of people without their consent... I don't know the law well enough to argue it. :(
 
you sound like a candidate for the unluckiest photographer in the country... i know loads of photographers that never get questioned yet here you are sick of it.

my question is... all these poeple who take you to task.. showing them a bit of paper you printed off your computer saying you have the right... do you think they will stop and say... oh right sorry.. please carry on .. or do you think they wont be interested in what you printed off and could have wrote yourself?

unless on private property you cant take whatever pics you want.. thats it.. feel free to print it out but personally.. i wouldnt bother :)
 
Cheers for the advice mate, but yeah, I do! I'd like to quote a law and hear his response to it. It's easy enough you saying 'you can take whatever pics you want..' but me telling the police officer 'KIPAX on Talk Photography said I'm allowed to take whatever pics I want' isn't going to help much. :(

I don't expect it to do wonders, but I'm sure it'll help and I've heard others saying it does help. :)
 
is this what you're looking for - uk togs rights?

You can grab a copy from my website via the above link. But as kipax says, carrying a bit of paper often won't make any difference. Your confidence and memorised knowledge might though.

If you are often dealing with one constabulary you might find it helpful to contact the chief constable's office asking for copies of their policy and training documents. Your enquiry will get referred to an appropriate officer and carrying and producing a letter or email from them will usually carry far more weight than anything else (unless you can produce ID with a higher authority and tell said copper to go forth and mutiply as politely as you deem fit for the occasion :lol:).

hth...
 
Kryptix said:
Cheers for the advice mate, but yeah, I do! I'd like to quote a law and hear his response to it. It's easy enough you saying 'you can take whatever pics you want..' but me telling the police officer 'KIPAX on Talk Photography said I'm allowed to take whatever pics I want' isn't going to help much. :(

I don't expect it to do wonders, but I'm sure it'll help and I've heard others saying it does help. :)
Click to expand...

I also think a piece of paper will do you little good in those situations.
Both times they were wrong and you suspected that was the case. Personally I would read that urban 75 article a couple of times and have the confidence to use the info.

To both the police officer and the bmx rider saying something along the lines of 'I am well within my legal rights to take photographs of anything or anyone while on public groud' is enough. To the police officer you take their name and badge number then ask them to verify with HQ and to the BMX rider you have to make a judgement call on what to do after correcting them about the law.
 
Kryptix said:
but me telling the police officer 'KIPAX on Talk Photography said I'm allowed to take whatever pics I want' isn't going to help much. :(
Click to expand...

hehe :) sorry what I was trying to say was that i dont hold much faith in a bit of paper or a laminated card against someone who wants you to stop taking pictures... richardthesane has it bob on IMHO
 
Kryptix said:
the police man came and took my camera off me saying I'm not allowed to take pictures of them, and asked me how I'd like to have my picture taken when doing my job.
Click to expand...

He's not allowed to do that, you are allowed to photograph him and how you would feel about being photographed is irrelevant.


Kryptix said:
I took a picture of a guy doing a trick on his BMX the other day and he came up to me and told me to delete it and it's illegal to take pictures of people without their consent.
Click to expand...

It isn't illegal if you were in a public place.


Try this: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php





Steve.
 
about the police officer thing, it is illegal to photograph a policeman without prior consent from his super intendant,

why do u think they want the guy who took the picture of the dumbass copper who quit the other day it's cos it's against the law.


the bmx rider also has a point ask you to delete it but bit sad as a bmx rider should love to have his picture taken, did he fall off by any chance?
 
Upcomingstar13 said:
about the police officer thing, it is illegal to photograph a policeman without prior consent from his super intendant
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Providing that the photographer was in a public place then it is perfectly legal and does not require permission from anyone.


Steve.
 
Upcomingstar13 said:
why do u think they want the guy who took the picture of the dumbass copper who quit the other day it's cos it's against the law.
Click to expand...

That's a completely different matter. Section 76 of the Terrorist Act states that it is an offence to take a photograph of an officer which is likely to be of use to a person planning an act of terrorism.

A photograph of a police officer talking to a motorcyclist is nothing to do with planning an act of terrorism.




Steve.
 
Upcomingstar13 said:
about the police officer thing, it is illegal to photograph a policeman without prior consent from his super intendant,

why do u think they want the guy who took the picture of the dumbass copper who quit the other day it's cos it's against the law.


the bmx rider also has a point ask you to delete it but bit sad as a bmx rider should love to have his picture taken, did he fall off by any chance?
Click to expand...
Crikey... you are so wrong here.

You really do need to get your facts in order before you start making posts such as this. This is massively erroneous, and so with all due respect, please ascertain the facts and research your knowledge prior to offering advice to members here.
 
oh ok as i have been tought that taking photographs of policeman due to matters of security

but my bad if i am wrong, i only wanted to put my two pence in but i guess it only worth one pence
 
this was taken from a website written by the british journal of photography

Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.


The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who ‘elicits or attempts to elicit information about [members of armed forces] … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. ‘Who is to say that police officers won’t abuse these powers,’ asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week.

Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.

According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis ’shouldn’t have taken that photo, you were intimidating me’. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallée.

Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers’ Association. ‘The incident lasted just 10 seconds, but you don’t expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from your neck,’ Tallis tells BJP.


i said that it was considered illegal,
 
fine then i siad it was illegal nd oh look it is. dont mean to sound cocky or anything but i was right. if you can get stopped for it, it makes it illegal.
 
If you are standing on a public thoroughfare and are not taking shots of obvious military establishments (or nuclear convoys) then you can shoot what you like.

The only exception to this is Trafalgar and Parliament Squares - where you would be surrounded by hundreds of tourists doing what tourists do :thinking: :shrug:
 
Upcomingstar13 said:
fine then i siad it was illegal nd oh look it is. dont mean to sound cocky or anything but i was right. if you can get stopped for it, it makes it illegal.
Click to expand...


No you don't sound cocky at all, you sound like someone who hasn't got a clue.

Being stopped for something does not make it illegal.

May I respectfully suggest that you do some research and learn the law.
 
Upcomingstar13 said:
fine then i siad it was illegal nd oh look it is. dont mean to sound cocky or anything but i was right. if you can get stopped for it, it makes it illegal.
Click to expand...
and where in your earlier post does it say it is illegal?
 
From Mr Upcomingstar13's post: which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism

Which is the same as I stated in my post and has nothing to do with photographing a police officer talking to a motorcyclist or walking down the street or chasing a burglar or helping an old lady cross the road, etc. etc.


Steve.
 
Verbatim from another post along similar lines:
The relevant parts for photography are 76.1.1 and 76.1.2

(1) A person commits an offence who—
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii) a constable,

which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b) publishes or communicates any such information.

(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offense under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase a recent and very well written BBC article - the concern is not for the high level policing of this law, its intentions are well understood. The concern is that junior officers and those without the experience to exercise correct judgement and restraint could use this law in ways it had not been intended.
 
Upcomingstar13 said:
fine then i siad it was illegal nd oh look it is. dont mean to sound cocky or anything but i was right. if you can get stopped for it, it makes it illegal.
Click to expand...

You were not right because you took it out of context. The act makes the photographing of a police officer illegal only under one condition. i.e. the condition of being likely to be of use to a person planning an act of terrorism.

It does not make a blanket illegality of all photographs involving police officers.


Steve.
 
One other point relating to this. A police officer is not allowed to ask (or demand) that you delete images.

There are various reasons for this. First of all it's illegal.

But mainly you need to apply some logic:

1. If you were doing something illegal then the images are evidence and a police officer would not/should not be asking you to destroy evidence.

2. If what you were doing was perfectly legal then there is no problem and no reason to delete anything.

Also, a security guard/land owner cannot make you delete an image even if you were trespassing or were in an area where photography was banned. All they can do is ask you to leave.


Steve.
 
Graham_RM13 said:
For once an "interesting" debate...

It starts half way down page 4 and goes on to page 5

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090401/halltext/90401h0004.htm

Or you can watch it

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/VideoPlayer.aspx?meetingId=3747&st=11:00:00

If stopped you can quote from this. On second thoughts quoting an MP could seriously reduce you credibility.
Click to expand...



If any person chooses to take the time to read or print this conversation out, it could prove beneficial. I have read it and it is now a lot clearer and yes, I shall carry the print of manuscript on me with camera, as with other relevant matter. Thank you for your research. I feel happier about our CORRECT rights
 
Graham_RM13 said:
On second thoughts quoting an MP could seriously reduce you credibility.
Click to expand...

Especially one engaged in a debate on April fools Day :thinking:

Interesting links btw. thanks for posting them. It was a good read, albeit already expressing much of what is already in the public domain. Clearly this remains an issue for the police and how they use such legislation, rather than government or public intent!
 
LMAO

"It would be a particularly audacious terrorist who disguised himself as a Member of Parliament, given that there are a limited number of them and they can be easily identified"
 
From this Police Officer's point of view the new law changes nothing. You can take photos of me in public all day long.

To try and stop you would be unprofessional and potentially unlawful. There are however situations where taking photographs of Police Officers could land you in trouble. If you are persistently getting in the way of an Officer trying to do his duty then you can be arrested for obstruction.

If you are causing harassment, alarm or distress to someone because of your behaviour then you can be arrested under section 5 of the public order act.

There are of course loads of offences that you could possibly commit but very very few of them simply by taking photographs.

One thing to be aware of when of when shooting though is that if you record something in your shots that could be evidence. Police then have the power to seize your camera or memory card to secure that evidence. So if you see terrorists having a tea party don't let a copper see you taking pictures of them or your camera may be in the Police property system for decades.

Incidentally I was in the park on my beat the other day and saw a photographer setting up, I wandered over and asked what he was shooting, not because I was in any way trying to stop him or bother him but because obviously I'm interested in photography. He was very reluctant to speak to me and 2 people he was shooting came over and stated they had "come to save him" as though I was about to cart him off. I gave up in the end and walked away but even hung around the park for half an hour in case one of our local scrotes tried to nick his (very nice) gear.

I suppose the point is that it works both ways, not all photographers are terrorists and not all coppers are evil instruments of the state trying to suppress civil liberties. Whenever I see a tog they're more likely to get a copper watching their gear for half an hour than me hassling them.
 
So if you were involved in a public order operation and you were part of a cordon instructed to not let people out without deleting their memory cards, ID'ing them and having FIT photograph them, even though their only 'crime' was to take up their entirely legal right to peacefully demonstrate, would you obey or would you stand up for their legal rights?
 
bit off topic druid, and its unlikely a copper would be told to do something illegal so perhaps not a question best asked (answered really) in a public place

*edit* It is appreciated that not all coppers spend their time ****ing off photographers for fun, its just that we read and hear of so many problems that it becomes something you think about. So see a policeman and immediately worry that there's gonna be a confrontation so get defensive, which makes confrontation more likely imho

(that should have made sense but I couldn't do the idea justice, hopefully someone will interpret it for general viewing :D)
 
david1701 said:
It is appreciated that not all coppers spend their time ****ing off photographers for fun, its just that we read and hear of so many problems that it becomes something you think about. So see a policeman and immediately worry that there's gonna be a confrontation so get defensive, which makes confrontation more likely imho
Click to expand...

Exactly. 99.99% (or more) of all officers will use common sense just as Dave W has posted. You only get to hear about the exceptions to the rule.

It's the same as everything else in the media. Not much point in reporting every case of houses which were not burgled the previous night or youngsters in the street not causing trouble.


Steve.
 
Druid said:
So if you were involved in a public order operation and you were part of a cordon instructed to not let people out without deleting their memory cards, ID'ing them and having FIT photograph them, even though their only 'crime' was to take up their entirely legal right to peacefully demonstrate, would you obey or would you stand up for their legal rights?
Click to expand...

Is this not getting just a little boring now?

Would it make you happier if I admitted being a fascist thug that beats people for fun?

Regards your question no I wouldn't because that order would be unlawful and therefore I am not required to obey it but carry on with your personal mission, it's obviously so important you have to infest every thread with it.
 
I haven't read all the responses, but I'll just put across my experience.

If it's on public ground by and large you're ok expect some areas of London IIRC.

You are allowed to take photos of people in a public space, however if they ask you to stop you must stop. If you continue after they've asked you to stop this is harrassment. I'm pretty sure I read this stuff in a mag a while back. They cannot delete stuff from your camera or remove cards. If I'm wrong please correct me.

I got hassle last time I was at the dogs.(I know it's ok to photograph there, I sent them an email). Maybe you just need to perfect your **** off stare. :D
 
Big_Ham said:
I haven't read all the responses, but I'll just put across my experience.

If it's on public ground by and large you're ok expect some areas of London IIRC.

You are allowed to take photos of people in a public space, however if they ask you to stop you must stop. If you continue after they've asked you to stop this is harrassment. I'm pretty sure I read this stuff in a mag a while back. They cannot delete stuff from your camera or remove cards. If I'm wrong please correct me.
Click to expand...

You're wrong (you did ask :)). You actually need not stop even if asked unless you are in an area that is deemed 'sensitive' or on private property without permission (or if you are making a nuisance {different offense} and/or causing a safety issue/disturbance).

I suspect that the most reasonable grounds for forcing you to cease photographing in public would be for safety/nuisance. Areas of a sensitive nature are uncommon, admittedly more common in London.

My personal view would be to cease anyway unless there was an image I really had to get (unlikely). It's just not worth the bother!

I got hassle last time I was at the dogs.(I know it's ok to photograph there, I sent them an email). Maybe you just need to perfect your **** off stare. :D
Click to expand...

That sounds like private property. Good work on getting prior permission, pity that the location didn't communicate it well :lol: or they didn't give you a pass/letter to hold.
 
Big_Ham said:
You are allowed to take photos of people in a public space, however if they ask you to stop you must stop. If you continue after they've asked you to stop this is harrassment.
Click to expand...

Completely wrong.

Can you imagine Victoria Beckham in the back of a limousine surrounded by press photographers?

VB: "Please stop".

PRESS: "Oh, alright then".




Steve.
 
it's alive said:
You're wrong (you did ask :)). You actually need not stop even if asked...
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? Not stopping may not be an offence in itself, but surely you would then be liable to arrest for obstruction, or obstructing an officer in the execution of their duty or whatever it's called. If you just blank a police officer and walk off, you are liable to maybe a more serious offence. It's also confrontational, and immediately puts up a barrier, when whatever the problem is could be amicably resolved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top