Should interest most photographers.

[Jeff.B]

I have personally been the subject of harassment by security personnel, telling me what I can and cannot do, especially when doing some street photography.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH9F7Hcluo&feature=share

jeff

 

[KIPAX]

they knew where to go to get a reaction and thats why they went... not a true reflection and to be quite honest and i think the organisors and photogrpahers must be a bunch of numpties. they are the ones at fault looking to get a reaction.

 

[TinaC]

I've never had more than polite interest in what and why I was photographing.

But then I'm a frumpy, middle aged, white woman...Also didn't stop in front of banks as they are mostly dull buildings to my eye

 

[jordanogrady]

I only watched 1/2 of this... But to be fair, the security guards have a good argument to be honest! (yes as do the TOGS) but it seems to me like they have set out to get reactions from the guards...

 

[Smeggypants]

Very interesting watching this. My shooting buddy and I went to Canary Wharf a couple of weeks ago on a shooting trip. We got approached several times by 'security' and had pretty similar conversations to the photographers had on this video.

All the security people were very polite and we received no hassle on the lines of threats to delete pictures, call police, etc.

Very interseting outside 1 Canada Sq, the big building. I took a picture thourhg the doors of the foyer and a security woman came out with her colleague all angry and dominating, asking me loads of questions ( which I refused to answer btw ), bla bla bla. In the end she calmed down and ended up being friendly. She even let take more pics of the building and we left on a happy note.

I highly agree with the approach of the snappers on this video. They are in a public place and were right to stand their ground against the security people. but obviously remaining polite but assertive.

The paranoia over 'terror nonsense' from the security people on the video is hilarious though.

 

[Smeggypants]

I only watched 1/2 of this... But to be fair, the security guards have a good argument to be honest! (yes as do the TOGS) but it seems to me like they have set out to get reactions from the guards...

You should watch to the end. The police turn up at the end and are completely on the side of the photographers and agree that they are perfectly within their rights to take photographs.

Result

 

[KIPAX]

I highly agree with the approach of the snappers on this video. They are in a public place and were right to stand their ground against the security people. but obviously remaining polite but assertive.
.

They went with the intention of provoking a response from the security people.. they even took someone to video that response. Its all been setup to make security look bad (and indeed they didnt help themselves) But i dont think responsible photogrpahers should condone the actions of these photogrpahers one single bit Thats my personal opinion

 

[mithrandir]

Interesting vid but does look like it was edited in favour of photographers.

 

[On the Huh]

they knew where to go to get a reaction and thats why they went... not a true reflection and to be quite honest and i think the organisors and photogrpahers must be a bunch of numpties. they are the ones at fault looking to get a reaction.

You are probably right Tony, but dis-agree they are numpties. It portrayed how members of security staff are not trained properly, Pleased to see the Old Bill were.

 

[KIPAX]

You are probably right Tony, but dis-agree they are numpties. It portrayed how members of security staff are not trained properly, Pleased to see the Old Bill were.

theres nothing in the video we dont already know.. so why provoke it? also it cant be a true reflection of a situation if you have gone out there to try and get a reaction.. hence my comments they are numpties for going out of there way to cause a reaction with security staff. truly stupid IMHO

 

[On the Huh]

theres nothing in the video we dont already know.. so why provoke it? also it cant be a true reflection of a situation if you have gone out there to try and get a reaction.. hence my comments they are numpties for going out of there way to cause a reaction with security staff. truly stupid IMHO

True, and the guy wearing a bright pink jumper so he stands out!
My thinking is however, if you are going to make a documentry (even an amateur one on youtube), they have done their research to get their point across to those that don't yet know.

 

[whiteflyer]

There is a little more to this than just watching a uTube video, more of the story is on the AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER website

All six photographers who took part in a street photography experiment clashed with private security officials - three of the incidents sparking police action.

The verbal confrontations were recorded for a video (above) that has been published to coincide with the London Street Photography Festival, organisers of the project.

The experiment, called Stand Your Ground, took place in the security-sensitive City of London on 21 June.

Though organisers conceded it had a 'set up feeling', the experiment aimed to 'test the policing of public and private spaces by private security firms and their reaction to photographers'.

Each photographer was accompanied by a videographer and told to keep on public land. Some used tripods and one was taking photos with a 5x4 camera.

Those taking part included Pennie Quinton, a photographer and journalist whose experience at the hands of police ultimately led the Government to abandon the highly controversial Section 44 anti-terror law.

All the photographers were stopped on at least one occasion.

During the video, security guards are repeatedly reminded about the law regarding photographing in public places.

No one was arrested and, afterwards, the attitude of City of London police officers came in for praise.

Grant Smith - an architectural photographer and campaigner who has been stopped numerous times in the past - said the police displayed 'common sense' and an 'understanding of the law'.

The video was published ahead of a panel debate, chaired by Smith, about photography in public places.

The discussions, held at a central London venue last night, included representatives of the police, Liberty and a private security firm.

Last week AP met counter-terrorism officials and police in a move that the Government hopes will ensure security officials better understand the law regarding photography in public places.

I believe the police have agreed in principle that if it can be seen on google images, earth or streetview than it's fine to photograph.

 

[Laffles]

It was irritating to watch for me, seems the guys are goading the security guards, sure they are in the wrong but all of the photographers seem pretentious and condescending.

 

[On the Huh]

There is a little more to this than just watching a uTube video, more of the story is on the AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER website



I believe the police have agreed in principle that if it can be seen on google images, earth or streetview than it's fine to photograph.

 

[Squawk]

Really interesting. Shows that the police are now much better informed on the rights of photographers, it appears the forces have actually listened to the concerns of togs and have acted accordingly.

I don't view this as a hit on security guards (though they are all still cluless on togs rights), I see it is as positive behaviour from the police. Good stuff.

 

[zilly]

so why provoke it?

Tell me how do you provoke something with stood on public property , doing something that isn't legally ethically or morally wrong??

 

[zilly]

Very interesting watching this. My shooting buddy and I went to Canary Wharf a couple of weeks ago on a shooting trip. We got approached several times by 'security' and had pretty similar conversations to the photographers had on this video.

canary wharf is private property and they are well within their right to tell you to go forth and multiply!

 

[Cheesy feet]

So basically public land = you win.

 

[cocjh1]

Interesting video. Always wondered what those brass studs in the pavement outside building were for...

 

[Jeff.B]

I agree it was something of a setup but for a reason. Thankfully it showed the police, by and large, now understand the law regarding taking photo's in public places but the security staff are not so well informed. So in this regard it has a positive message to those who train security personnel.

My confrontation with a security guard, I was told I couldn't take photo's with my camera on a monopod but it was OK hand held, when asked why he didn't know.

jeff

 

[Willo]

Tell me how do you provoke something with stood on public property , doing something that isn't legally ethically or morally wrong??

Probably by using a tripod, that will get you noticed very quickly.

I work in the City and see alot of people with DSLR's, most security won't bat an eyelid. Pull a tripod and not only will they be on to you but you'll be lunched by commuters.

 

[inkiboo]

they knew where to go to get a reaction and thats why they went... not a true reflection and to be quite honest and i think the organisors and photogrpahers must be a bunch of numpties. they are the ones at fault looking to get a reaction.

What a load of nonsense.

They weren't looking to get a reaction, they were looking to show the reaction they would get. Subtle but important difference.

If I walk down the street and someone asks me what I am doing, I don't have to justify it. Same is true with photography.

 

[Canon Bob]

Tell me how do you provoke something with stood on public property , doing something that isn't legally ethically or morally wrong??

Something can be provocative whilst still being within the law and the bounds of the perpetraitors social code so long as the subject finds it uncomfortable, suspicious or threatening.

If they hadn't expected any reaction then they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of setting up the shoots and videos....they were trying to provoke a reaction and hence were being provocative.

Bo

 

[joescrivens]

i don't think there was anything wrong with the idea behind this video, nor the actions of anyone in it. Nobody was violent or rude, everyone was polite to each other, the security guards asked a few questions, were slightly misinformed but didn't do anything stupid, the photographers weren't egging anyone on and the police acted perfectly well.

All in all I think it was good, whilst we might know this, a lot of people dont and it will just raise more awareness to people what is and isnt against the law

 

[antihero]

i don't think there was anything wrong with the idea behind this video, nor the actions of anyone in it. Nobody was violent or rude, everyone was polite to each other, the security guards asked a few questions, were slightly misinformed but didn't do anything stupid, the photographers weren't egging anyone on and the police acted perfectly well.

All in all I think it was good, whilst we might know this, a lot of people dont and it will just raise more awareness to people what is and isnt against the law

totally agree....and lets please mention the one decent security manager that actually invited the togs onto the estate

in defense of the other security people, they have probably been misinformed themselves from the higher echelons of management :shrug:

 

[jordanogrady]

You should watch to the end. The police turn up at the end and are completely on the side of the photographers and agree that they are perfectly within their rights to take photographs.

Result

Ahh I see, I'll have to watch it all.

Yeah if it's on google street maps, then why can't you photograph it...

 

[POAH]

Ahh I see, I'll have to watch it all.

Yeah if it's on google street maps, then why can't you photograph it...

google street maps is shot from a car on public roads - if you go off the public road onto private then you can be told to stop.

 

[joescrivens]

google street maps is shot from a car on public roads - if you go off the public road onto private then you can be told to stop.

the people in this video were on public property, not private roads.

 

[boliston]

I think this is a good video as it highlights the fact the the private security industry often pays very little attention to actually properly training its staff in basic UK law.

 

[SarahLee]

I wonder if you'd get the same result if you took another 6 photographers, gave them exactly the same brief in terms of location and behaviour BUT told them that the purpose of the documentary was to show how easy it is to photograph around London and how accomodating private security staff can be???

Sometimes, even if it's unconscious, your demeanor provokes the very reaction that you're expecting to get.

 

[Reidy36]

Just shows you don't need to have a brain to be a monkey in a suit. Loved the 2 in the grey suits, some quality there.
Impressed with the way the police handled it.

 

[Canon Bob]

Just shows you don't need to have a brain to be a monkey in a suit. Loved the 2 in the grey suits, some quality there.

Certainly they had their facts wrong and this is possibly due to lack of guidance/training from their superiors. They were doing what they thought was expected from them by their employers.....none of which should lead to them being labelled as brainless monkeys.

Bob

 

[Gaz Jones]

I wonder if you'd get the same result if you took another 6 photographers, gave them exactly the same brief in terms of location and behaviour BUT told them that the purpose of the documentary was to show how easy it is to photograph around London and how accomodating private security staff can be???

Sometimes, even if it's unconscious, your demeanor provokes the very reaction that you're expecting to get.

I couldn't have put it better myself. I actually thought all of the security guards were very polite about the whole thing, and the photographers could have make things much easier for themselves by being a bit more forthcoming with answers.

I know you don't have to tell them what/why you're photographing, but I always find it easier to explain your motives and then I've never had any problems. Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you never should.

All the police seemed like really nice officers in the video, and it was nice of the building manager to invite them on to the premises.

 

[ziggy©]

Don't forget that places like banks, canary wharf, government buildings are indeed sensitive places. Even though you are within your right to photograph these buildings, I think that common sense should be used.

I don't mind people taking photographs of these areas but if they do it to prove a point or just to argue with the authorities then I'm afraid we will just be digging our own grave. I fear that with all these photographers claiming their right to do what they want just because the law allows them to, the government will eventually introduce a law where sensitive areas cannot be photographed even from public places.

 

[Smeggypants]

They went with the intention of provoking a response from the security people.. they even took someone to video that response. Its all been setup to make security look bad (and indeed they didnt help themselves) But i dont think responsible photogrpahers should condone the actions of these photogrpahers one single bit Thats my personal opinion

The only people that made security look bad, was the security.


I went to canary wharf two weeks ago, which is exactly the same sort of banking area.

I went to take pictures, I DID NOT go with any agenda to provoke security. I got exactly the same reaction from 'security' as the people on this video got.

I am a responsible photographer and I see no problem in the behaviour of these photographers. They were in a public place taking photographs. They were polite to the security, but assertive of their rights.

What is the problem?

 

[Smeggypants]

Don't forget that places like banks, canary wharf, government buildings are indeed sensitive places. Even though you are within your right to photograph these buildings, I think that common sense should be used.

yes I agree about conmen sense. Common sense dictates that it's stupid to place sensitive information in your bank building that can be snapped by photographers

I don't mind people taking photographs of these areas but if they do it to prove a point or just to argue with the authorities then I'm afraid we will just be digging our own grave. I fear that with all these photographers claiming their right to do what they want just because the law allows them to, the government will eventually introduce a law where sensitive areas cannot be photographed even from public places.

You're demolishing your own point.

Where's the difference between someone snapping these areas for purely photographic purposes versus people snapping these areas to provoke a response from the security?

It doesn't matter what your agenda is, these security people are going to approach you and ask questions anyway.

What you're effectively saying is that, as photographers, we shouldn't photograph 'sensitive areas' becuase if we do then the "government will eventually introduce a law where sensitive areas cannot be photographed even from public places".

Can you not see the 'catch-22' absurdity in what you are saying?

 

[Marc]

The only people that made security look bad, was the security.


I went to canary wharf two weeks ago, which is exactly the same sort of banking area.

I went to take pictures, I DID NOT go with any agenda to provoke security. I got exactly the same reaction from 'security' as the people on this video got.

I am a responsible photographer and I see no problem in the behaviour of these photographers. They were in a public place taking photographs. They were polite to the security, but assertive of their rights.

What is the problem?

Except that Canary Wharf is private property so security are fully entitled to stop you and, if the deem necessary, ask you to stop taking photographs.

 

[inaneredstripe]

Interesting video.
Obviously set out to get some reaction from security types, but did acheive a result in the end.
Everyone was polite in setting out thei point.
Suprising how many security staff are just "doing as theyre told".
The building manager who offered to assist with better images, came as a supirse.
Nice to see the police had a better knowledge of the law, and some common sense.

 

[ziggy©]

Where's the difference between someone snapping these areas for purely photographic purposes versus people snapping these areas to provoke a response from the security?

The difference is that one is trying to enjoy photography while the other is trying to prove a point.

What you're effectively saying is that, as photographers, we shouldn't photograph 'sensitive areas' becuase if we do then the "government will eventually introduce a law where sensitive areas cannot be photographed even from public places".
Can you not see the 'catch-22' absurdity in what you are saying?

I never actually said that we shouldn't photograph 'sensitive areas'. What i said is that we should be able to photograph these areas but only for the purpose of enjoying photography. What i dont agree with is people who do it to deliberately provoke the authorities just so that they can blag about it on internet forums and blogs.

One of the photographers on that video was right up on the entrance of one of the buildings taking pictures of people going in and out the building. Now imagine if he does the same at your family house. i.e. He stands outside your house on the pavement(which is a public area) and taking pictures of your family getting in and out of the house. Would you not speak to him to try and find out why he is doing it?

The other reason these security guards (especially at canary wharf or the London Eye) insist on not allowing people with DSLR with tripods in their compounds is that it is actually against the law to take pictures of the London Eye or Canary Wharf for commercial purpose. [Probably including pictures taken from public areas]. Now i know that a lot of people like myself only take pictures just for the enjoyment but a lot of them will also sell the pictures if they are offered a price so you can understand why they try and enforce the strict no tripod rule.

I have nothing against photographers taking pictures of anything provided they are doing it just for the enjoyment and not for showing off that they can say NO to security guards just because the law allows them to.

My point is that the ability to take pictures of anything from public places is in my opinion just a loophole that can quite easily be closed if need be. If people dont abuse the privilege then we will all enjoy taking pictures for many years to come but if they do abuse that privilege then its only a matter of time.

 

[mid_gen]

Well, to me it shows that the campaigns that have been going on have resulted in the City of London Police at least being properly trained in the laws around photography. Good video.

It doesn't matter if they are deliberately looking for a reaction or not. The law is the law.