Photography in public in the media again.

A

AliB

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,762
Edit My Images
No
Thankfully not the sensationalist drivel that seems to pass for news these days but do have a read at this article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/01/google.searchengines

An Asian writer based in London trying to have his photo taken for his book. The photographer in question being white and female. Obviously they are a threat.:cuckoo:

It's the statement from the Met that is shocking though "Cameras are more dangerous than guns"

Wouldn't you just love to get about 2000 togs all with dslr's in the centre of every town? just for a day.

Edit, I've sent the link to Austin Mitchell MP who raised an early day motion in the House of Commons in an attempt to draw attention to the treatment of photographers in public.
 
I don't want to appear to be wearing my tinfoil hat, but the terrorist laws ,more and more, are being used on the general populace in an ever widening array of situations.
 
I have to admit that if I had been the tog I'd have been calling the Police myself. Security Guard has absolutely no right to go sticking his hand in front of her camera and preventing her from going about her lawful business.
 
Orwell maybe got the year wrong, but ..............:shake:

Mike.
 
no offense to the law or the police but they dont understand the rights photographers have to my knowledge its our right to take pictures of anything public unless stated other wise. i heard of one account where a photographer was stopped and had his equipment confiscated it was then later nicked, his £10,000 equipment was nicked after police confiscated it !!!!!!!
oh and in that article they make up for having to look an idiot in a fluorescent jacket by saying "it doesn't need batteries" few well thats a relief.....lol
 
Ok number of thing stuck me in just the first few sentences.

a security guard on patrol around the piazza
Click to expand...
That to me would suggest that it was private property and the security guard had every right to stop them, even though it does say
But this was an open, public place, commonly full of tourists taking each other's pictures.
Click to expand...
it may have seemed public, but could quite easily not have been.


Even the folks at Australia House descended on us after we had set up the tripod
Click to expand...
You use a tripod in a public place (especially in London) and you are going to get moved on. Not terrorism crap just health and safety - it has been that way for years.

to be honest it just reads as if it is written by someone slightly bitter who seems to randomly quote things without giving any sources....seems very much like sensationalist drive to me :(
 
There will always be some restrictions and rightfully so. Military installations and other such sensitive sites I have no problem with. But for him to go sticking his hand in front of her lens like that is just absurd and when she tried to move he did it again. That's when I'd be getting on my mobile. It's harassment and should not be tolerated.

Unless it's a pretty genuine terrorism threat then they have no right to go confiscating kit and all seized property has to go in a register and be signed in and out if it so much as moves! How the heck did it get nicked?
 
Zak Millard said:
no offense to the law or the police but they dont understand the rights photographers have to my knowledge its our right to take pictures of anything public unless stated other wise. i heard of one account where a photographer was stopped and had his equipment confiscated it was then later nicked, his £10,000 equipment was nicked after police confiscated it !!!!!!!
oh and in that article they make up for having to look an idiot in a fluorescent jacket by saying "it doesn't need batteries" few well thats a relief.....lol
Click to expand...


I think they understand the law, I allso think they just want to make life as difficult as they can for anyone with camera enjoying them selves, it`s a case of I`m a security guard/ pcso you`ll do as I say.
 
it was at a public event i believe and the police just pulled him over and took his stuff then where supposed to be "looking after it until the-event had finished" some one in the mean time snuck up to where they had been keeping t and basically walked away with it lol poor guy ten thousand pounds!
 
poacher said:
I think they understand the law, I allso think they just want to make life as difficult as they can for anyone with camera enjoying them selves, I`m a security guard/ pcso you`ll do as I say.
Click to expand...

yeah good point lol they just dont seemed to understand taking a picture in a non-high risk area doesnt mean your a evil. lol
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
That to me would suggest that it was private property and the security guard had every right to stop them, even though it does say
Click to expand...

Doing a bit of wikipedia-ing:

Covent Garden Market and Piazza was bought by Capital and Counties in August 2006 for £421 million. In March 2007 CapCo also acquired the shops located under the Royal Opera House.[5] The complete Covent Garden Estate owned by Capital and Counties consists of 550,000 sq ft (51,000 m²). and has a market value of £650 million
Click to expand...

So although it may seem like a public place, apparently it's privately owned. The attitude of the security guard sounds pretty awful, but he was well within his rights I believe? Someone point out if I'm wrong?

Chris

Edit: Here's the article
 
i think even if it is private security should have respect and consideration. dont you?
 
Zak Millard said:
i think even if it is private security should have respect and consideration. dont you?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, I don't understand why he couldn't have approached them in a courteous manner, informed them that they were on private property, and as such had no right to shoot there. But he didn't. Just making a point that if the photographer and the guy being photographed had called the police for harassment, things really wouldn't have gone their way!
 
that would have funny getting the security guy done for harassment. but i cant see how just because she had a d-slr she was the biggest threat, if lots of people go in and take pictures surely a terrorist would use a less conspicuous compact camera???
 
AliB said:
Military installations and other such sensitive sites I have no problem with.
Click to expand...

I agree with this but the Government appear to be a little confused with their decisions and common sense.... you can't photograph our secret sensitive and very dangerous military bases...oh by the way, we are going to privatise our nuclear bases :thinking:

Seriously, privatising nuclear bases!!! What next, a joy-riding Trident? :lol:
 
If it was private property then they are simply trespassing and they should be asked to leave. He should have stuck to the rules and not gone obstructing them like that.

It is a point to consider however that we only get one side of the story, perhaps he did.

How are we supposed to know what is private and public property though? Canary Wharf, now Covent Garden. Yet if you google Covent Garden Photos there are tons of them!
 
yeah and how is she supposed to know any way as far as i know there arent any signs saying "private no trespassing" or "no photography" are there?



sorry didnt realise youd post that lol
 
Jimmy_Lemon said:
Ok number of thing stuck me in just the first few sentences.


That to me would suggest that it was private property and the security guard had every right to stop them, even though it does say

it may have seemed public, but could quite easily not have been.



You use a tripod in a public place (especially in London) and you are going to get moved on. Not terrorism crap just health and safety - it has been that way for years.

to be honest it just reads as if it is written by someone slightly bitter who seems to randomly quote things without giving any sources....seems very much like sensationalist drive to me :(
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. I thought that, too.
 
Well that's one way to stop us. Just make all council owned property private and job's a good un.
 
youd barely be able to step any where.
 
"Cameras are more dangerous than guns"


guns dont kill people cameras do :lol:
 
Photographers who wish to photograph in the pilot area will be required to first register at Charing Cross police station bringing either a driving license, passport or birth certificate, and by paying an administration fee.

After registration, which can take up to 28 days, photographers wanting to photograph on the street will have to again attend either Charing Cross police station to be issued with a thin fluorescent waistcoat fitted with an RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tag which is to be worn over other clothing.

The police source close to the project told EPUK: “RFID is a proven, cheap commercial technology that is used widely by supermarkets. We really don’t see why anyone who has nothing to hide will not carry a tag and we don’t forsee any objections from responsible photographers.”

I think this is where this came from

http://www.epuk.org/News/836/met-to-relax-london-photography-restrictions
 
You did see the date on that article didn't you ;)

Edit: Just to clarify, I meant the date on the article poacher linked to!
 
Good post Poacher, I found the same info when I went hunting.

My question is simply are we as photographers supposed to research every single photo opportunity well in advance so we can ascertain whether or not a particular street is deemed private property or not and find the relevant authority to apply to, Oh and pay our dues too of course.

Railway stations, you have to apply for.
Canary Wharf, you have to apply for.
Covent Garden apparently you have to apply for.

Are we suddenly blessed with psychic abilities?

As for the date, I didn't consider it too relevant because it's almost one a week at the moment.
 
AliB said:
As for the date, I didn't consider it too relevant
Click to expand...

The 1st April!

Very relevant in this case! As is the big orange stamp just below it saying 'EPUK April Fool'!

But it's a valid point, private places that don't allow photography (some shopping places) have signs up saying no photography, but if it's a public looking place with no signs I honestly don't know how anyone is supposed to know where they stand!
 
:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:
 
Ok Jimmy I get it. Do you suggest we all ignore people being stopped from photographing in public or should we just stop posting about it so you don't get a headache? :razz:

:D
 
AliB said:
Ok Jimmy I get it. Do you suggest we all ignore people being stopped from photographing in public or should we just stop posting about it so you don't get a headache? :razz:

:D
Click to expand...
The point is, surely, that they weren't photographing in public.
 
Just to throw something in the mix -

What do you call a public place? A place where the public are free and encouraged to convene OR a place that is publically (or at least not privately) owned?
 
The latter, but private places open to the public obviously have certain legal requirements etc that a private place not open to the public may not. In particular, H&S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top