UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion

I've shot tons of things on the DLR, used to jump through all the hoops to get permission (no tripods allowed, accompanied by staff at all times, limited to off peak hours, and administration fees).

Now I just show up and shoot, not been caught the last 3 times I've done it.

http://mark-reed.blogspot.com/2011/01/complaint-im-photographer-not-terrorist.html

OMG I'm a famous!

Next time you are carrying out your evildoing surveillance, pick a day without mist!

Sorry Mark but now you have posted on here they have opened a file on you. Everybody here is a dangerous threat to security.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...ice_has_great_xscape_news_305585.html?aff=rss

And it's happening again

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...errorists_say_police_news_305758.html?aff=rss

"All photographers are potential terrorists, say police"

C&P From article:

"Police routinely treat anyone seen taking pictures in public as potential terrorists, officers have told photography students during special police-led workshops.
Thirty-nine commercial photography students at Cleveland College of Art & Design have taken part in training sessions after tutors themselves fell victim to police stops.
'They [students] have been looking into the way criminals recce areas using photography, video footage and note-making,' said a college spokesman.
'Police officers are encouraged to approach anyone seen taking photographs or making notes as an effective and proportionate way to prevent and detect serious crime and terrorism.' "

What the fuck is going on over there? Has everyone in authority completely lost their mind? Are there really people who think that harassing casual photographers is going to prevent even a single act of terrorism or criminal activity?

What is the law concerning displaying other road users vehicle registration numbers in photos on the internet.
They wouldn't be the subject matter but there as part of the photo.

Thx

I can't claim to be certain that there is no law against this, but this is one of those areas where any law against it would make absolutely no sense.

A vehicle registration number is, by definition, a public piece of information. It is designed specifically to be displayed in public, and to allow people who don't know who owns any particular vehicle to differentiate one vehicle from another. Every time you drive your car on a public street, or park it in your driveway, you are displaying the license plate for the whole world to see.

"Oy! Oy! You! You with the camera!" this is so funny...

I wonder if anyone has got any advice on my dilemma - I was taking photos of groups of people in a public area with a fountain - in front of the town hall - I assume this area belongs to the city council? Anyway, loads of kids were playing in the fountain, people were sitting on the grass, etc - there are always loads of people in this area - so I decided to take shots of various random shots of people, wide shots of the whole place, as well as shots of kids playing in the fountain - it was a very hot day - after I had finished, I was stopped by 2 police officers (not uniform) and asked why I was taking loads of photos and what I was going to do with the photos - I explained it was for a photographic book competition and needed to take loads of photos in order to get at least one good shot from the shoot - overall they were OK and I just cooperated with them by searching my bag and looking at what I had shot - no action was taken in the end and didn't even tell me to delete the kids shots.

The question I want to ask is - one of the pictures I might consider using for my book - 2 kids playing in the fountain - the shot of 2 kids are not identifiable - one is got back towards the camera so you can't see the face, and the other I can make into a silhouette - I can even change the colour of clothing - there is nothing in the shot, as far as I can tell that identifies the kids (maybe only the location can be identified, but not the kids) - just in case there are any issues - I didn't have permission to photo the kids from the parents -

Can I still use this type of photo for my book competition?

thanks for that, much appreciated - there is so much ambiguity and paranoia involved, thanks.

"I don't appreciate being filmed. [...] I am the law" - Met PC D724

Is this London or north fucking Korea?

can't be north korea cos there's enough to eat here

Jesus fucking Christ!
I can see how the cop may be concerned about the embassy but he was well out of order.

Did the copper get reported?

N.B. City of London police, not the Met.

I could be slightly cynical and wonder if word got round the smaller force what was really going on, but it's good to see.

I wondered about that. Out loud. Ossifer smiled.

But it's not hard to deduce, when they had 6 photographers, each accomanied by a video camera-person, all going "OK, call the cops, then, please," that this is a test.

One of my neighbours is a CoL PC. I'll have to see if she heard anything

Police Try To Bring Wiretapping Charges Against Woman Who Filmed Them Beating A Man

Looks like US cops are similarly unenthusiastic about being filmed breaking the law.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ainst-woman-who-filmed-them-beating-man.shtml

Well, not quite.

It's not "the police" that are trying have criminal wiretapping charges brought against the woman; it's a single disgruntled cop who was disciplined as a result of the video. The legal types quoted in this story don't seem to think he has much of a chance of succeeding in his efforts to have her charged, and the spokesperson for the police department makes clear that the complaint was filed personally, and not on behalf of the police department.

Lots of backfilling by that cop toward the end.

The case was thrown out by the court

http://www.pixiq.com/article/wiretapping-law-doesnt-apply-in-massachusetts

Thanks for the update. I think it's a good result, not only in this particular case, but for the precedent it sets in Massachusetts. The idea that police should be protected from being filmed or recorded when performing their duties in public is very problematic, and i think the DA's decision that they have no expectation of privacy in such situations is heartening.

The most depressing part of the whole story is that a cop who participated in a brutal beating that left the victim with "nearly every bone in his face broken, teeth knocked out and partially blinded in one eye" was only suspended for 45 days.