Police order photographer to delete pictures

it was a plasticv policemen. they are useless.... and dont even know the law half of them.... ive taken photos of them without their permission in town..... and she cudnt force him to delete them, as he was not breaking the law. he should have said no and then taken it up as i just read the law on taking photos in the street is not illegal at all :(
 
you can always delete them, then use zero assumption to get them back:lol:
 
There's no way I'd delete them. They can arrest me if they like, but on sheer principle I will not delete photos. And I'm not into all this 'delete and recover later' crap - rights like this need to be stood up for.

Calmly and politely respond: "I know my rights, and I'm afraid I cannot do that, officer."
 
There's no way I'd delete them. They can arrest me if they like, but on sheer principle I will not delete photos.


100% agree. I shoot carnivals and the like in summer (crowds are a must) and so far only funny looks from the police.. But one day.....
 
it was a plasticv policemen. they are useless.... and dont even know the law half of them.... ive taken photos of them without their permission in town..... and she cudnt force him to delete them, as he was not breaking the law. he should have said no and then taken it up as i just read the law on taking photos in the street is not illegal at all :(

Ashers:

I know the law south of the border is different but believe me taking photographs on public can be illegal. To say it is 'not illegal at all,' is not strictly correct.

I can only go by the law in Scotland (of which I have a fair bit of knowledge). A complaint would have to be received before the Police take action, unless of course the Police were the target of the offence.

In general up here, taking photographs in public in itself is not a crime but as I said it can be, dependant on the perception of those people being photographed and the circumstances. Unsolicited photographs can constitute a Breach of the Peace, but it is a very grey area, compounded by human rights legislation as well.
 
As i understand it, you are under no obligation to delete that shot is yours now and no one has the right to dlete it but you, if you so wish.
 
I find it very interesting that the police only pick on those with SLR cameras. I agree with the others though. Refuse to delete the picks let them arrest you and then take you to court the press would have a field day and the photos would become extreamly public. Although as a side line im sure PCSO don't have the power of arrest - could be wrong though .
 
What is the difference between a PCSO and a police officer?

PCSOs do not have powers of arrest, cannot interview or process prisoners, cannot investigate crime and do not carry out the more complex and high-risk tasks that police officers perform.


Direct from the horses mouth http://www.policecouldyou.co.uk/
 
I was under the impression forcing you to delete pictures was a form of assault? Also if it did go to court they would want the pictures anyway as they would be considered evidence.
 
'A spokesman for Lancashire Constabulary was not immediately available for comment when we contacted the force about the incident this morning'

LOL. I bet! Too busy finding out what the law on the subject is.
 
Ashers:

I know the law south of the border is different but believe me taking photographs on public can be illegal. To say it is 'not illegal at all,' is not strictly correct.

I can only go by the law in Scotland (of which I have a fair bit of knowledge). A complaint would have to be received before the Police take action, unless of course the Police were the target of the offence.

In general up here, taking photographs in public in itself is not a crime but as I said it can be, dependant on the perception of those people being photographed and the circumstances. Unsolicited photographs can constitute a Breach of the Peace, but it is a very grey area, compounded by human rights legislation as well.


If the person being shot is in a private place and has a fair expectation of privacy then it IS illegal. however if the person is in a public place, and doing things plainly in public view, then there is no expectation of privacy and therefore taking photographs is not illegal and whilst it may be morally and ethically correct to get a persons permission it is not a legal requirement!
Fi
 
Wear a yellow Hi Viz jacket. That way you are certainly not being covert
 
Refuse to delete the picks let them arrest you and then take you to court the press would have a field day and the photos would become extreamly public.

By which time you will have been arrested, your DNA will have been taken, to be on file forever, camera confiscated as evidence to be returned "sometime".

I agree rights need to be stood up for, but it's pretty late for that. The time was when these ridiculous laws were being railroaded through. I'm not sure getting arrested is the best approach if it results in cutting off my nose to spite my face. I'd rather delete the pics, take names, and follow it up with a complaint.
 
There's no way I'd delete them. They can arrest me if they like, but on sheer principle I will not delete photos. And I'm not into all this 'delete and recover later' crap - rights like this need to be stood up for.

Calmly and politely respond: "I know my rights, and I'm afraid I cannot do that, officer."

It may be crap, but it would diffuse the situation and you still have your images. Situations like this can escalate if neither side is prepared to move.
 
38,000+ CCTV cameras in the UK and they want you to delete your shots....... somebody's having a laugh! No confiscation, no deletion..... take me to court!

Emily Pankhurst, come back and we'll give you a camera! :thumbs:
 
By which time you will have been arrested, your DNA will have been taken, to be on file forever, camera confiscated as evidence to be returned "sometime".

I agree rights need to be stood up for, but it's pretty late for that. The time was when these ridiculous laws were being railroaded through. I'm not sure getting arrested is the best approach if it results in cutting off my nose to spite my face. I'd rather delete the pics, take names, and follow it up with a complaint.
You would have been falsely arrested, when found innocent and it is highly likely you would be, your DNA, prints etc would have to be destroyed, your file would not exist, your confiscated camera would have been returned, in good order or a claim would be forthcoming, and your pictures would be intact as they would need to be kept on the media on which they where first captured, for evidential disclosure. A Court would only order the pictures removed from your memory card if the photographs where of a indecent nature or a dilibrate invasion of a persons privacy and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. However I do agree that there is sometimes a point where it may be worth considering complying with an officers request, but remember it is not a requirement:thumbs:
 
You would have been falsely arrested, when found innocent and it is highly likely you would be, your DNA, prints etc would have to be destroyed, your file would not exist, your confiscated camera would have been returned, in good order or a claim would be forthcoming, and your pictures would be intact as they would need to be kept on the media on which they where first captured, for evidential disclosure.

You should take a look at the most recent laws - your DNA samples will NEVER be deleted, irrespective of whether you're innocent or not.

Different in Scotland (thankfully), but in England that's the case.
 
By which time you will have been arrested, your DNA will have been taken, to be on file forever, camera confiscated as evidence to be returned "sometime".

I agree rights need to be stood up for, but it's pretty late for that. The time was when these ridiculous laws were being railroaded through.

What ridiculous laws? No laws compelling you to delete photos when asked have been railroaded through or otherwise yet. So surely, by your own argument, we should be standing up for our rights now?
 
Didn't one of the monthlies run a bit in its news section about this, highlighting what the police can do and what they can't do?

Might be worth printing it, keeping it with your kit and referring to it if the unfortunate arises?

As far as I'm aware, they can't force you to delete shots.
 
If the person being shot is in a private place and has a fair expectation of privacy then it IS illegal. however if the person is in a public place, and doing things plainly in public view, then there is no expectation of privacy and therefore taking photographs is not illegal and whilst it may be morally and ethically correct to get a persons permission it is not a legal requirement!
Fi


Not quite so. If the taking of a photograph (or any action by someone) causes a member of the public annoyance or alarm (full definition of the Scottish Common Law crime of Breach of the Peace available on request;)) then it may be a Breach of the Peace. As I said earlier it is a grey area and sometimes common sense has to play it's part but sometimes doesn't. All depends on interpretation, perception and ultimately it is for the Courts to decide if a course of conduct constitutes a BoP.

Hope this clarifies.:thumbs:

PS. In Scotland a BoP can be committed anywhere, it is not restricted to public places.
 
thats coz scots are all aggressive and drunk ;) lol but in england u cant be done for it... it says so in the photography mag law bit so... lmao
 
What ridiculous laws? No laws compelling you to delete photos when asked have been railroaded through or otherwise yet. So surely, by your own argument, we should be standing up for our rights now?

Ridiculous laws giving police such powers (or confidence in the erroneous belief they have even more powers than they have), as well as no recourse in the case powers are overstepped. Ridiculous laws that DNA evidence is gathered, and will not be deleted even if the person was innocent, and/or the arrest was wrongful.

Those were the ones I was referring to - sorry if it wasn't clear, I didn't mean to imply any photography laws were involved. I do think rights need to be stood up for, but it's potentially at a significant cost to the individual, since so many rights and so much freedom has already been conceded. Given that, exactly how to go about standing up for your rights becomes potentially critical.
 
thats coz scots are all aggressive and drunk ;) lol but in england u cant be done for it... it says so in the photography mag law bit so... lmao

Aye yer right so ye had better stay south of the border where yer safe.:lol::thumbs::lol::thumbs:
 
You can pretty much ignore PCSOs, just be on your best behaviour if the real plods turn up.
 
I have been stopped twice recently by the poice whist taking photos. The first was in London when I was stopped while taking pictures of the Houses of Parliment. Apparently I was in the wrong place to take pictures (opposite sideof the river?????) . The second was locally when taking pictures of the A3 when it was flooded.

Both times the police said it was for anti-terrorist reasons. But they simply asked if they were for personal use and allowed me to carry on.
 
I have been stopped twice recently by the poice whist taking photos. The first was in London when I was stopped while taking pictures of the Houses of Parliment. Apparently I was in the wrong place to take pictures (opposite sideof the river?????) . The second was locally when taking pictures of the A3 when it was flooded.

Both times the police said it was for anti-terrorist reasons. But they simply asked if they were for personal use and allowed me to carry on.

As I stated earlier - Common Sense approach by the Police, but does not always happen.
 
I have been stopped twice recently by the poice whist taking photos. The first was in London when I was stopped while taking pictures of the Houses of Parliment. Apparently I was in the wrong place to take pictures (opposite sideof the river?????) . The second was locally when taking pictures of the A3 when it was flooded.

Both times the police said it was for anti-terrorist reasons. But they simply asked if they were for personal use and allowed me to carry on.

Houses of Parliament - terrorist target - plausible
A3 floods - terrorist target - they gonna parachute ducks in or what? :thinking:
 
My reply to the PCSO would have been...." Sorry can't do that as this camera is new to me and I don't know how to and I have my instruction manual at home"
 
Back
Top