Photographer Rights

[KIPAX]

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.

if you follow the thread... the responses you are replying to refer to someone saying you have to stop taking pictures of people if they ask you to stop.. no mention of policemen

ie

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

 

[it's alive]

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.

Did you actually read my post? I think I mentioned exactly that immediately after the point that you have taken issue with . . . "(or if you are making a nuisance {different offense} and/or causing a safety issue/disturbance)."

Is quoting myself the height of hubris?

I agree entirely with your sentiment though, as I did in my post ..
"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!"

Oh no! I quoted myself again, I think I'll have to log off and have a lie down.

 

[HoppyUK]

Did you actually read my post? I think I mentioned exactly that immediately after the point that you have taken issue with . . . "(or if you are making a nuisance {different offense} and/or causing a safety issue/disturbance)."

Is quoting myself the height of hubris?

I agree entirely with your sentiment though, as I did in my post ..
"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!"

Oh no! I quoted myself again, I think I'll have to log off and have a lie down.

Sorry, yes I did read it, but the impression I got from your initial point was that you don't have to stop wheras in practise, you do! Just my poor understanding

 

[it's alive]

Sorry, yes I did read it, but the impression I got from your initial point was that you don't have to stop wheras in practise, you do! Just my poor understanding

Actually it might be my poor writing too.

We do agree though, as did most in the thread. That's a victory for common sense. Excellent.

 

[RuthG]

Busy thread! But also interesting and informative.

As a further dimension, what about photographing children at the park? A (male) friend of mine has been approached by park keepers and police telling him it is 'illegal' to take photos of children. Are they correct, or could he just carry on?

Interestingly, most parents, if you ask them nicely, are only too happy to have you take decent pics of their children - especially if you offer to send them copies of the photo.

 

[KIPAX]

As a further dimension, what about photographing children at the park? A (male) friend of mine has been approached by park keepers and police telling him it is 'illegal' to take photos of children. Are they correct, or could he just carry on?.

well thats been done to death on here.. but its not illegal.. however if your hid in a bush with a long lens taking pics of little girls on the swings (also not illegal) and her dad sees you... ya best have yer little blue laminted card of rules ready to repel him with hahaha

 

[Big_Ham]

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.

Fair.

 

[gus607]

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.

That sounds like very good "Coppering" to me.

 

[davekiddle]