 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / May 2008Interesting article on the amateur photographer hysteria
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm  SignaturePhil Stovell, Hampshire, UK > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm Read That a Few hours ago Its been happening for some years and does not get any better. If you travel By train you will have noticed a lack of train spotters at the end of Platforms these days SignatureTrev You can always tell a Yorkshire man, But you can't tell him much. >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm > >Read That a Few hours ago Its been happening for some years and does not get >any better. If you travel By train you will have noticed a lack of train >spotters at the end of Platforms these days I note that, under 'Furtive Photographs', it says "but a police investigation found they had acted correctly because he appeared to be taking photographs covertly". As it not actually illegal to take photographs, how can there be a difference between 'covert' and 'overt' photography? SignatureIan >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >photographs, how can there be a difference between 'covert' and 'overt' >photography? It also begs the question why a terrorist would draw attention to himself by taking covert photographs if it was perfectly legal to take them openly? SignaturePaul Giverin British Jet Engine Website:- www.britjet.co.uk My photos:- www.pbase.com/vendee > I note that, under 'Furtive Photographs', it says "but a police > investigation found they had acted correctly because he appeared to be > taking photographs covertly". As it not actually illegal to take > photographs, how can there be a difference between 'covert' and 'overt' > photography? Note also that it was a police investigation into the action of the police in which the police found that the police had acted correctly. No surprises there. SignatureMike >I note that, under 'Furtive Photographs', it says "but a police >investigation found they had acted correctly because he appeared to be >taking photographs covertly". As it not actually illegal to take >photographs, how can there be a difference between 'covert' and 'overt' >photography? Perhaps the best way to do it is for a photographer to apply to a court for an order declaring that it is legal to take photographs in a public place. I don't know which court one would apply to and what the procedure is but I suspect on seeing a court order, Plod would back off smartish. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if a photography magazine made the application and the judgment could be published. SignatureAlasdair. >>I note that, under 'Furtive Photographs', it says "but a police >>investigation found they had acted correctly because he appeared to be [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Perhaps it would be more appropriate if a photography magazine made > the application and the judgment could be published. Also when the court asked why you are wasting their time then you could reply that the police are going around saying that it is illegal to use a camera without a permit. MB PS> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm PS> PS> Write to your MP to ask him/her to sign Austin Mitchells early day motion http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=35375&SESSION=891 My MP wouldn't sign it but wrote to the minister of state at the home office. So at least I have a letter to carry around, from the Rt Hon Tony McNulty on home office stationery, that states "There is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place" Do write to your MP about the matter. The EDM now has 131 signatures, and looking at other EDMs, this seems to be a lot. Make it more. Find your MP at http://www.parliament.uk/people/index.cfm -- Alan http://blog.clifford.ac/2008/03/photography-in-public-places.html ( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned. However, unless this a very old message, a "tuna" will swim right through. ) Alan Clifford <sardines@purse-seine.net> posted >My MP wouldn't sign it but wrote to the minister of state at the home >office. So at least I have a letter to carry around, from the Rt Hon Tony >McNulty on home office stationery, that states "There is no legal >restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption >of privacy for individuals in a public place" Actually, it would be great if you could put that letter up on a website somewhere for others to download. It could be really useful. SignatureLes Invalides > Alan Clifford <sardines@purse-seine.net> posted > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Les Invalides Ah, but the copyright in the letter belongs to the sender. So you'd need his permission. >> Alan Clifford <sardines@purse-seine.net> posted >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Ah, but the copyright in the letter belongs to the sender. So you'd need his >permission. No need. If ever there was such a thing as "Fair use", this is it. > > Alan Clifford <sardines@purse-seine.net> posted > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ah, but the copyright in the letter belongs to the sender. So you'd need his > permission. IANAL but I'm pretty sure this would be covered by the Freedom of Information Act. > Alan Clifford <sardines@purse-seine.net> posted >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Actually, it would be great if you could put that letter up on a > website somewhere for others to download. It could be really useful. But It may not stop the Official hounding you off the scene, He just says your Breaching the peace -- Trev You can always tell a Yorkshire man, But you can't tell him much. >> Alan Clifford <sardines@purse-seine.net> posted >>> My MP wouldn't sign it but wrote to the minister of state at the home [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But It may not stop the Official hounding you off the scene, He just says > your Breaching the peace In such circumstances could the official actually be guilty of breaching the peace? This whole issue is something that has been brewing for a long time now. About 8 years ago, Staffordshire Police appointed a new head press-officer by the name of Margaret Kirk. She visited several regional daily newspapers in the Staffordshire area - one of which was mine. Our editor called me in for a chat with her, to tell her of some of the problems I had had over the years. I'd had many - mainly at RTAs being told that I cannot take a photo of it etc, when there is no law at all stopping me. We had a long chat and I suggested to her that I get hold the US National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) guidelines for Police/Press relations and we "English-ise" them. That I did and we adapted them for UK use and Staffordshire Police's then Chief Constable, John Giffard, endorsed them. Every serving Staffordshire policeman/woman was given a copy. Things genuinely did improve and I found much less problems at major incidents. It's quite ironic that these same guidelines were taken by other people and effectively claimed as 'their own' and submitted to the likes of the NUJ etc. Me, I'm not really bothered - I don't have any need to claim that I was the first to do this, I'm just happy to have done my bit. SignatureNeil Barker > This whole issue is something that has been brewing for a long time > now. About 8 years ago, Staffordshire Police appointed a new head [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > told that I cannot take a photo of it etc, when there is no law at all > stopping me. Interesting. We had a very nice RTA here a few months ago when I was at work, a stolen car swerved to avoid another vehicle and ended up upside down in a hedge at the end of our road.............my wife decided to take a few snaps but was prevented from doing so by Plod who told her effectively what you've said, i.e "you can't do that, it's against the law". Now my wife is naive and took Plod at face value (I'd have told him to go away) but it makes you think who it is exactly who's instilling this false information into coppers on the streets? Or do they make it up as they go along? >> This whole issue is something that has been brewing for a long time >> now. About 8 years ago, Staffordshire Police appointed a new head [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Or do they make it up as they go along? Neil Was refering to Card carriying members of the press. Not Gawkers no offence SignatureTrev You can always tell a Yorkshire man, But you can't tell him much. > Neil Was refering to Card carriying members of the press. Not Gawkers no > offence None taken. But for future reference, my wife's offence was...........? >> Neil Was refering to Card carriying members of the press. Not Gawkers no >> offence > >None taken. > >But for future reference, my wife's offence was...........? None of course; Trev was making the same mistake some cops make: thinking 'card-carrying members of the press' are any different to Joe Citizen in terms of what rights they have. (and that can cut BOTH ways; I've heard of cases where media have been prevented from filming, whilst random people who happened to be passing by were free to use camera phones much closer to the incident) Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within' > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:59:07 -0700 (PDT), Juan Kerr > <juan.kerr@bluebottle.com> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > free to > use camera phones much closer to the incident) Have they got a case against the police for loss of earnings? Otherwise I just hope they charge the full going rate if the police ever want any copies of photographs from them. MB >> Neil Was refering to Card carriying members of the press. Not Gawkers no >> offence > > None taken. > > But for future reference, my wife's offence was...........? "Breach of the Peace" or "Failing to do as she's bloody well told" (Ways & Means Act). SignatureMike >>> This whole issue is something that has been brewing for a long time >>> now. About 8 years ago, Staffordshire Police appointed a new head [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> effectively what you've said, i.e "you can't do that, it's against the >> law". The only RTA that I have been seen in recent years was before digital cameras became as common place as now so I asked the police if they wanted some pictures before the brigade cut up the car to remove the trapped driver. Of course we have to be PC now, they are RTCs not RTAs. MB >>> This whole issue is something that has been brewing for a long time >>> now. About 8 years ago, Staffordshire Police appointed a new head [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Neil Was refering to Card carriying members of the press. Not Gawkers no >offence What earthly difference does that make to what the law has to say on the matter? Both are gawkers, its just that one of them gets a wider audience to gawk at their pictures than the other. SignatureMike_B In article <3267f71c-f725-4ea4-adcc-1cdb2e8e4232 @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, juan.kerr@bluebottle.com says... > We had a very nice RTA here a few months ago when I was at work, a > stolen car swerved to avoid another vehicle and ended up upside down [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Or do they make it up as they go along? It does seem so at times, yes. For future information, your wife was perfectly free to photograph that RTA and any policeman telling you otherwise needs re-educating. There is no law that prevents photography in a public place - bar the common sense things concerning military installations and the like, but they're not 'public' places as such. If ever I get that response I stand my ground and ask them what law prevents me - you'll find that they can't give you an answer, because there is none! You just have to be prepared to stick it out, for it is they that are in the wrong, not you. In future, ask to speak to his superior at the scene and failing that, ask for his badge number and make an official complaint - people need to realise that it is not they that are in the wrong. SignatureNeil Barker > In article <3267f71c-f725-4ea4-adcc-1cdb2e8e4232 > @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, juan.kerr@bluebottle.com says... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > common sense things concerning military installations and the like, but > they're not 'public' places as such. The nearest such plce to me has notices around it saying something like "No photography". However, surely that applies to what you are photographing rather than where you are photographing from? That is, if I stand nearby, point the camera away from the restricted site and snap a friend walking down the pavement, that would surely be legal. Whereas if I point the camera into the site, even if I am on private land (e.g. a house and garden adjoining the site), it would be illegal. Or is this far too simple an understanding? SignatureRod Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious onset. Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed. <www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org> > The nearest such plce to me has notices around it saying something like > "No photography". However, surely that applies to what you are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if I point the camera into the site, even if I am on private land (e.g. > a house and garden adjoining the site), it would be illegal. Not necessarily. Just because there is a "no photography" sign, does not always make it illegal - I could put one up outside my house, but it would have no validity at all. It all depends on what it is and where it is and isn't an easy one to give a yes/no answer to. SignatureNeil Barker >> The nearest such plce to me has notices around it saying something like >> "No photography". However, surely that applies to what you are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > validity at all. It all depends on what it is and where it is and isn't > an easy one to give a yes/no answer to. Indeed - I did specifically mean MoD (or whoever) official "Official Secrets Act" notices. SignatureRod Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious onset. Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed. <www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org> > In article <3267f71c-f725-4ea4-adcc-1cdb2e8e4232 > @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, juan.kerr@bluebottle.com says... > For future information, your wife was perfectly free to photograph that > RTA and any policeman telling you otherwise needs re-educating. But they won't be, at the most she will get a proforma letter of apology from the police. MB >> In article <3267f71c-f725-4ea4-adcc-1cdb2e8e4232 >> @m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, juan.kerr@bluebottle.com says... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > MB And after the event but still no Photos. SignatureTrev You can always tell a Yorkshire man, But you can't tell him much. Alan Clifford <sardines@purse-seine.net> observed >PS> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm >PS> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Find your MP at http://www.parliament.uk/people/index.cfm Thanks for that. Spoke to my MP this morning. He said he'd sign. Mike [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] SignatureMichael J Davis <>< Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused the meaning of "discussion" with "digression". <>< >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm I noticed this; "In May last year, Thames Valley Police overturned a caution issued to photographer Andy Handley of the MK News in Milton Keynes, after he took pictures at the scene of a road accident. " To have overturned a caution, they must have issued one in the first place and the professional photographer involved must have accepted the caution. One can't help wondering what the caution was, and why it was accepted. SignatureMike_B >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >place and the professional photographer involved must have accepted the >caution. The police will often trick people into accepting a caution because most people don't realise they are accepting they are admitting to having committed an offence >One can't help wondering what the caution was, and why it was accepted. Police trickery. They are institutionally corrupt > The police will often trick people into accepting a caution because > most people don't realise they are accepting they are admitting to > having committed an offence Accepting a caution also means acquiring a criminal record. That's sort of implied in what Alang wrote, but I think it's worth emphasising the point. For some alleged offences, a caution will also result in being placed on the Sex Offenders' Register (or whatever it's called this year). See Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. PS> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm PS> PS> I think I might have a go at making a "photographer's licence" in this sort of style: http://evolution-control.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:ar tistic-license&catid=44:blog&Itemid=79 SignatureAlan ( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned. However, unless this a very old message, a "tuna" will swim right through. ) > PS> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm > PS> > PS> > > I think I might have a go at making a "photographer's licence" in this > sort of style: http://evolution-control.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:ar tistic-license&catid=44:blog&Itemid=79 Looks a great licence, I sometimes make up informal identity cards but I've never got round to using one yet. Roger In MsgID<Pine.LNX.4.64.0804220206440.18695@malander.clifford.ac> on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:08:12 +0100, in uk.politics.censorship, 'Alan Clifford' wrote: >PS> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm >PS> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >http://evolution-control.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:ar tistic-license&catid=44:blog&Itemid=79 Would you grant me a pedant's licence? It's spelt 'nocturnal' :-) Dave J. DJ> In MsgID<Pine.LNX.4.64.0804220206440.18695@malander.clifford.ac> on Tue, DJ> 22 Apr 2008 02:08:12 +0100, in uk.politics.censorship, 'Alan Clifford' DJ> wrote: DJ> DJ> >On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Phil Stovell wrote: DJ> > DJ> >PS> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm DJ> >PS> DJ> >PS> DJ> > DJ> >I think I might have a go at making a "photographer's licence" in this DJ> >sort of style: DJ> > DJ> >http://evolution-control.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:ar tistic-license&catid=44:blog&Itemid=79 DJ> DJ> Would you grant me a pedant's licence? DJ> DJ> It's spelt 'nocturnal' :-) DJ> DJ> Dave J. DJ> Unfortunately not. The example artistic licence was in fact using artistic licence in the approach to spelling. SignatureAlan ( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned. However, unless this a very old message, a "tuna" will swim right through. ) > DJ> Would you grant me a pedant's licence? > DJ> > DJ> It's spelt 'nocturnal' :-) > Unfortunately not. The example artistic licence was in fact using > artistic licence in the approach to spelling. I think you get a free orthographick licence with every artistick licence. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.