Photographer stopped from taking beach photos

It wasn't quite as bad as they make it sound, the charity findraiser wasn't a public event, the photographer was portraiting a hiker who was climbing a mountain / walking the sahara for charity with the beach as the setting. The point of the article still stands of course..
 
Just another "jobsworth" I suppose. Nevertheless we should oppose this kind of thing at every opportunity, otherwise it becomes the "norm".

There are times that it's just not right to take photographs, either morally or legally, but we should never back down to stupid bureaucracy.
 
I have photographed wind/kite surfers on this beach and didnt have a problem...perhaps it was his day off...:lol:
 
The more we resist public opinion by insisting on 'our right' to take photos anywhere we choose, the more likely it is that legislation will be brought in to prevent it. Rightly or wrongly, public opinion is against this and regardless of the letter of the law, that's what counts.

If members of the public are upset by someone taking photos, and it is usually quite obvious when this is likely to be the case, then don't do it. The alternative is that resistrictions on public photography will be introduced. This is already happening in lots of areas.

If indeed this is just unwarranted public paranoia, it will pass. But I don't think it is - it is driven by the internet and the fear that photos will be distributed worldwide, for uncontrolled consumption, in seconds. Not so much to do with taking pictures as such, more their distribution and potentially abusive purpose.

You can call it unfair, unjustified, unwanted, unecessary, ludicrous health & safetly nonsense, political correctness gone mad or whatever, but a few self-righteous photographers getting stroppy with officials or members of the public, will only make things worse.

If we are sensible, keep a low profile and avoid conflict, we will be allowed to go about our lawful business unrestricted. The alternative is that we get formally stopped with OTT blanket restrictions.
 
HoppyUK said:
The alternative is that resistrictions on public photography will be introduced. This is already happening in lots of areas.
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of this? I wasn't aware of any.

I mean actual legal restrictions, not jobsworths mis-reading the law.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Do you have any examples of this? I wasn't aware of any.

I mean actual legal restrictions, not jobsworths mis-reading the law.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Yes, restrictions imposed by local council.

There was a thread on here about it a few months ago (which of course I can't find now) where the council had installed an artificial beach and fairground in a city centre. Caused quite a stir. There were other examples cited too, I think.

Signs erected to say that cameras were banned and the only photos allowed were by the official photographer. This was not a money making venture, it was to appease sensitive mums and encourage families.

Of course completely unenforceable and the official photos posted on the website were at least as potentially 'harmful' as anything anybody else could have done :shug: But wander around there with a big white lens at your peril :eek:
 
HoppyUK said:
the official photos posted on the website were at least as potentially 'harmful' as anything anybody else could have done
Click to expand...

By that I assume you mean absolutely no potential for harm whatsoever.


Steve.
 
He added: "We do ask that any organisation or professional wishing to use council-owned land for commercial photography or filming to seek permission beforehand and provide evidence of public liability insurance. This is standard practice in the industry."
Click to expand...

interesting but this is the main thing
should you be a pro looking to make money on council property then it's a lot different to shooting your dog on the beach or friend doing a spot of surfing.
And it's not prohibited but simply that permission is required.
 
Steve Smith said:
And probably not legal.

It sounds more like some smart idea a council employee had. Just putting up a sign doesn't make it legally enforceable.


Steve.
Click to expand...

No, not specifically illegal. You'd need legislation for that (I know you know that ;) ) but just a clear sign of the times (haha). You see 'no cameras allowed' in all sorts of places, like swimming pools, where ten years ago there was no restriction.

Steve Smith said:
By that I assume you mean absolutely no potential for harm whatsoever.


Steve.
Click to expand...

No harm at all! You could call it marketing, making mums and families feel safe. Apparently, that is what parents want these days and given the predisposition of our leaders towards anything that panders to popular whim, it could be made law in a trice.

The point I make is that a lot of people feel uncomfortable about the snooping power of modern cameras, coupled to the universal access to broadcast now granted to all of us via the internet. If we push our minority 'rights' against the will of the majority, those rights will be taken away.

Just don't upset people, whether they are right or wrong in our opinion, and we can all carry on as normal. That's all.
 
Looks like they only reference organisations or professionals ?

Interesting stance, but I guess understandable...

Cheers

MIP
 
So am I right in thinking that if you walk on the road/path/drive/lane or whatever next to the beach, with a long lens, no-one could stop you?
That would make the by-laws a farce, wouldn't it?
 
Am I right in thinking that below high watermark is crown property? therefor not subject to local council rules.
 
Unfortunately, this seems to be a sign of the times we live in. This case reminds me of when I was at a public theme park (the Ulster-American Folk Park) last year.

When I was taking a tour guide from the counter, the woman behind the desk, on seeing my camera bag, told me that no photography of children was allowed. It's kind of difficult to take pics at a tourist attraction without some kids in the background. Especially when there are organised school trips to the park.

It started me thinking.....if this was the case when I was a lad, my parents wouldn't have the priceless (to them) family album, full of pics of me growing up. I'm pretty sure most members on here have similar family albums.

I appreciate the thinking behind these restrictions, but do they have much of an effect the real offenders, ie paedophiles, who seem to exchange and take their sordid pics/movies behind closed doors ? Granted, some of them probably do take candid pics in public places, but I suspect they are in a minority.

If people, both legislators and public alike, show common sense, then perhaps these new laws will not be necessary.
 
ST-PHILIP said:
If people, both legislators and public alike, show common sense, then perhaps these new laws will not be necessary.
Click to expand...

IMHO that is the key phrase in all of this. As others have said above, walk away from confrontation. If we (photographers) argue too loudly, the powers that be are likely to bring in some prohibitive law or directive to ban photography in public places
 
To be honest I don't believe any government would attempt to ban Photography, it would be political suicide given the amount of photographers out there and I'm including holidaymakers, mums and dads, amateurs and pros even mobile phone cam shooters in that. It's a vast market of which the government takes a very healthy slice, imo exactly the reason they have never banned angling
 
Some interesting replies here :cool: I still can't seriously understand the councils take on this when they say that 'commercial photography' needs permission and insurance and that they have a duty of the safety to other beach users ... ! What is the risk to other beach users .... ???
 
Some officials seem to equate "big camera and lens" with "pervert", whereas anyone doing anything dodgy or sneaky would use a compact or camera phone.
 
HoppyUK said:
If we are sensible, keep a low profile and avoid conflict, we will be allowed to go about our lawful business unrestricted. The alternative is that we get formally stopped with OTT blanket restrictions.
Click to expand...

If only that were the case. I belong to a group of hobbyists that tried that tactic for more than a decade, with assurances from central government that they had no plans to introduce legislation that would affect us.

Since 2000 three wide ranging laws have been enacted which have all but decimated our hobby. Why? Because those who would see us prevented from carrying out that hobby countered our low-key stance with a high profile anti- campaign.

The unfortunate consequence is that these new laws affect every person in the UK, whether they want to engage in that hobby, or not. Any legislation intended to prevent photography in public places will likewise affect every person in this country - whether they own a camera, or not - and will be yet another nail in the coffin containing our freedoms.

<puts soap box away>
 
Bristolian said:
Since 2000 three wide ranging laws have been enacted which have all but decimated our hobby.
Click to expand...

Which laws are those then?

It seems to me that the only restrictions are those caused by ill informed officers or officials mis-representing the actual laws.


Steve.
 
Splog said:
What is the risk to other beach users .... ???
Click to expand...

I often wonder this when I read any posts on the subject of public liability insurance for photographers.

Just what is the risk to the public of raising a small box up to your eye and putting it down again?

And why would a commercial photographer need this insurance but an amateur can do the same box moving procedure without any perceived risk to the public.


Steve.
 
HoppyUK said:
The more we resist public opinion by insisting on 'our right' to take photos anywhere we choose, the more likely it is that legislation will be brought in to prevent it. Rightly or wrongly, public opinion is against this and regardless of the letter of the law, that's what counts.

If members of the public are upset by someone taking photos, and it is usually quite obvious when this is likely to be the case, then don't do it. The alternative is that resistrictions on public photography will be introduced. This is already happening in lots of areas.

If indeed this is just unwarranted public paranoia, it will pass. But I don't think it is - it is driven by the internet and the fear that photos will be distributed worldwide, for uncontrolled consumption, in seconds. Not so much to do with taking pictures as such, more their distribution and potentially abusive purpose.

You can call it unfair, unjustified, unwanted, unecessary, ludicrous health & safetly nonsense, political correctness gone mad or whatever, but a few self-righteous photographers getting stroppy with officials or members of the public, will only make things worse.
If we are sensible, keep a low profile and avoid conflict, we will be allowed to go about our lawful business unrestricted. The alternative is that we get formally stopped with OTT blanket restrictions.
Click to expand...

Hi Hoppy, :)

If we do nothing articles like that will have not been written and the council will have its way without our consent!…all seems quite clear to me, we must stand up for our rights. …. Its not as if we haven’t seen these slippery ploys before through out our history, its all the same game.

I'm actually quite shocked when people talk like this …your talk of foresight, but to me its all paranoia, fear, and institutionalised society control.

Since when, does doing nothing get you what’s yours….

I wasn’t sure how to get across how strongly I felt against your opinion …but luckily we have another member who said it all for me.



Bristolian said:
If only that were the case. I belong to a group of hobbyists that tried that tactic for more than a decade, with assurances from central government that they had no plans to introduce legislation that would affect us.

Since 2000 three wide ranging laws have been enacted which have all but decimated our hobby. Why? Because those who would see us prevented from carrying out that hobby countered our low-key stance with a high profile anti- campaign.

The unfortunate consequence is that these new laws affect every person in the UK, whether they want to engage in that hobby, or not. Any legislation intended to prevent photography in public places will likewise affect every person in this country - whether they own a camera, or not - and will be yet another nail in the coffin containing our freedoms.

<puts soap box away>
Click to expand...


:clap::clap:

The writings on the wall guys.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Hi Hoppy, :)

If we do nothing articles like that will have not been written and the council will have its way without our consent!…all seems quite clear to me, we must stand up for our rights. …. Its not as if we haven’t seen these slippery ploys before through out our history, its all the same game.

I'm actually quite shocked when people talk like this …your talk of foresight, but to me its all paranoia, fear, and institutionalised society control.

Since when, does doing nothing get you what’s yours….

I wasn’t sure how to get across how strongly I felt against your opinion …but luckily we have another member who said it all for me.

:clap::clap:

The writings on the wall guys.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply do nothing, I think we should stand our ground with common sense resistance, but I do believe that making a fuss and protesting loudly will do nothing but harm.

I certainly don't believe there is any conspiracy going on, or any "institutionalised society control". That sounds more like paranoia on your part. It seems to me to be driven by mothers and parents who, rightly or wrongly, fear for the safety of their children. That is the driving force, but health and safety jobsworths seem to have jumped on the bandwagon. And councils, too - it is politically popular.

IMHO, what we are seeing is not primarily an attack on freedom to take photos, but to their distribution on the internet, and by mobile phones. But you can't stop that, so anger is directed at photographers as the perceived problem. It makes no sense at all, and clearly it is mobile phone cameras that are the pervert's weapon of choice, but public opinion is not driven my logic.
 
Ah with you now then Hoppy, I got a bit passionate this morning.

I don't think their any conspiracy going on either... its all plainly obvious that society is making these changes, including your first statement if you don't mind me saying ...I do think its important we all help to correct the bandwagon jumpers at every chance, otherwise we will see our freedoms narrowed year after year ..who cares if that means making a fuss, anyway is better than no way isn’ it..

Your opinions about why are interesting, for use on the internet. I've not thought about that aspect.

For me, its about how deep the institutionalised ideas go, like for example ...Last year my 15 year old son ( bright lad) argued with me about an aspect on photographing people. ...he was adamant that he'd recently been lectured at school about laws on what was and what wasn't allowed. (It was in the press a lot last year and so the school had had a talk to the kids about it) ...He thought he was right ...but is was so wrong it was shocking.
So I wrote to his photography teacher and asked for clarification of what they are teaching in this respect, his reply confirms their error and they are correcting it. ... but hey, its too late ... theres already a whole generation that believe the wrong thing.


:bang: :help:
 
Fair comment FB :)

The thing that I'm getting at, and this is only an opinion of course, is that there is a groundswell of public opinion that objects to being photographed in public. Modern photography can be very invasive, and combined with the power of the internet, is open to abuse in ways that have not been previously possible. And this does happen, even if very rarely. (I've read it in the papers, so it must be true :D )

I think it is the combination of those factors that is causing concern, and this obsession with peadophilia is just one facet of it. People feel snooped on, which they are uncomfortable about; they see it as a form of antisocial behaviour, an abusive invasion of privacy. Especially when they subsequently have no control over what happens to those images.

The fact that this activity is very rarely anything remotely illegal doesn't make it morally right. People don't like it, and the fact that so may people think it actually is illegal (there are lots of posts on here saying exactly that) suggests to me that a lot of people would quite like it to be illegal.

You are a biker (like me). A noisey irresponsible hooligan, speeding everywhere, scaring old ladies, causing accidents and generally flouting the law at every turn. That's the common public perception. You must be familar with how public opinion applies blanket judgement on the basis of blind prejudice, but if there's the smallest grain of truth in it, we all get blamed.
 
Yeah of course very aware, that’s a damn good comparisons I must say.
Have you ever seen many programs like TopGear but with bikes instead? No because it would likely ruin our fun... I can't think of any other reason anyway!

Of course, we could also argue that cars where not dissimilar to bikes, full of young hooligans hacking around, only everyone uses them, so to ban them is just daft in comparison.

Can we not make a closer comparison of photography to cars, we have tourism, CCTV as a good starting point, then the press and fine art photographers adding to the mix.

Banning photography, like banning cars, is a little too far isn't it....

I can also draw a comparison with traffic restrictions and photography.
In London today, compared to twenty years ago say, cars are being forced out of the centre, no longer do you have the free use of the roads, you pay to cross them and parking at the side of the road will cost every time. You are being watched! and you will be forced to pay one way or the other.

That traffic resemblance seems more like photography, gently squeezing the parameters down, until suddenly we're not allowed to take photos of anything or even ourselves on a public beach anymore.

I agree their are combining factors with peoples perception, reference to the internet and paedophilia is common, Morally, hmmm, who exactly is saying to me what’s Moral anymore, because, right now, my opinions of the powers that be (and half the population - I say cynically) are far below my own standards. ...and their not that high! lol. ...then theirs the CCTV moral argument included in that too...

I personally don't think we should be dissuaded from our objectives because of the upset it may cause, (In a polite and thoughtful manner of course) …they're not going to make it illegal ...not before cars anyway. :gag: :shrug:
 
From what I am reading the Photographer was in fact doing a commercial shoot . Therefore, he probably did need a permit, and as it was a commercial operation, Public Liability insurance is a standard requirement.

OK a bit OTT by the beach patrol, but I've photographed in and around Pool several times, and had no problem what's so ever. In fact I've never seen a beach patrol
 
Chappers said:
and as it was a commercial operation, Public Liability insurance is a standard requirement.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you can legislate public liability insurance as a requirement when in a public place.

Not sure why you would need it either.


Steve.
 
The beach is probably deemed as council property and is subject to council bylaws

Public liability covers you for a multitude of sins, possible damage to beach property, to someone falling over your equipment and breaking a leg
 
blakester said:
IMHO that is the key phrase in all of this. As others have said above, walk away from confrontation. If we (photographers) argue too loudly, the powers that be are likely to bring in some prohibitive law or directive to ban photography in public places
Click to expand...

Yes, keep quiet; don't complain; accept the rulings of every petty little authority figure; don't stand up for your rights; believe everything in the Daily Mail...
 
Chappers said:
The beach is probably deemed as council property and is subject to council bylaws
Click to expand...

The beach is a public place. I can go onto a beach with exactly the same equipment as a professional photographer and take pictures without needing insurance.

Insurance is a practical thing and either it is needed because of a perceived risk or it isn't. The professional or non-professional aspect of an activity should not be a consideration.

What about all those other obstacles people take onto beaches like bags, footballs, barbecues, deck chairs, etc.? Where is their insurance?


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top