UK Photographers rights

Lifeboat1721
24th January 2009, 20:00
Hi Guy's you may want to take a look at this (H)
and don't forget to read page TWO.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

Ian

andysk
27th January 2009, 18:17
Interesting, thanks for posting Ian

Cheers

Andy

ChasD
18th February 2009, 16:34
Just in case camera jockeys out there may be unaware, with effect from
16th February 2009 (last Monday) under Section 76 of the 2008 Anti Terrorism Laws, it is now a criminal offence to take photographs of 'any subject which may be of value to a terrorist' . There is no definitive list, however it can include any road, street or motorway, any public building bridge or utility, or any public official or law enforcement officer whether apparently by accident or design. If you Google 'section 76 2008 photograph'
there is plenty chat about it. I guess it also includes ships/canals/and allied subjects especially warships. But that's a guess.

Regards ChasD

andysk
18th February 2009, 18:30
The attached article appeared in the Daily Telegraph of Monday 16th Feb.

Pay particular attention to Col 4, Para 2 about the Cleveland photographer.

I think we need to be very concerned, not just about this particular incident, but about just where it might lead

(Mods - I'm not sure if this is posted in the correct place, please feel free top move it as appropriate)

treeve
18th February 2009, 19:58
A distinct can of worms and openers for any abuse of 'lawful' interference. Just how is a photographer supposed to act if there is a RN ship in the distance of an otherwise perfect scene of harbour or bay? With digital material, it is quite feasible to get an infiltrating military jet in the sky of your delightful country scene. I remember in the 1980s it was an offence to take pictures of military establishments, ships, canals, bridges etc in the satellite states. At least that was the official view. Policeman disappears from view and out came the cameras, after all - all they wanted to photograph was the old town ... This could reach Orwellian Blackness of Control. Most of which is quite insane, as Google and other services online give just about all the information anyone could get as to military and other information, maps, numbers, armaments.... Access to Information Acts ... it is all available as it should be. This is not a Police State .... yet?

Geoff_E
18th February 2009, 21:15
I seem to remember that this is the Govt. which thought they could "ban" hunting?

let's face it, there are more people with cameras than there are police to arrest them. If we all go out taking photos at the same time what are "they" going to do?

cboots
19th February 2009, 01:43
A couple of Sundays ago I was out on my bike down by Point Gellibrand, by the mouth of the Yarra (Melbourne) where there is a single tanker berth. Noticing that there was a vessel in discharging, I went down as far as the security gate to take a look, as I have done many times in the past. I'd no sooner stopped when a "rent a cop" emerged from the gate hut and told me that I was in a secure area - despite the fact that I was still on a public highway. I pointed out that I was not intending to go any further and was simply looking at the ship. He muttered something about regulations and started reaching for his radio. Being as he was rather large, and did not look like he had passed out phi beta capa in civil rights from the security wallahs' college, I biked it out of there fast. And I did not even have a camera and shudder to think what would have happened if I had, probably still be in some cellar somewhere in a foreign land where they send you for rendition getting water boarded. That is the price we all pay for going along with politically generated paranioa.
Incidentally, I have downloaded the piece and will read it with interest, as I do have a camera. Thanks to Ian for posting it for us.
CBoots

rickles23
19th February 2009, 06:51
G'day,
During my last trip to the UK I was taking some video of HMS Victory and was told to stop as it was a Naval base.
So I went outside to the bus stop and took the video I wanted there with the Navy guys looking on!

Regards

gaelsail
21st February 2009, 20:10
Where does all this fit with the Google (Earth or maps) van taking pictures at street level to go online with their satellite images & maps. It's a while since I heard anything about this; is it still happening? or was it 1st April when I originally heard about it?

Frank Holleran
21st February 2009, 21:26
Its still going on...Google Earthed the other day down to street level....the van must have gone up our street on a Tuesday, cause the rubbish bin is still out side my house and my truck is still parked up...got a shot of the woman over the road with her shopping bags....no body came knocking on my door to ask permission to take pictures of my house at street level.(Cloud)

treeve
21st February 2009, 22:06
Would Landranger OS maps be of any use to the terrorist, maybe they should not sell them in shops, or any dictionaries, or holiday guides, or provide passports, or allow ships to dock or aeroplanes to land ... maybe investigate all swans on the wing, or swallows heading for Africa ..... On second thoughts, ever heard of vigilance and common sense anyone?

andysk
22nd February 2009, 09:54
..... This is not a Police State .... yet?

Sorry to disabuse you Treeve, but we are, in all but name !

ChasD
22nd February 2009, 12:40
Where does all this fit with the Google (Earth or maps) van taking pictures at street level to go online with their satellite images & maps. It's a while since I heard anything about this; is it still happening? or was it 1st April when I originally heard about it?

I use the 'Googly street thingy' quite regularly, it's excellent for finding your way out of strange airports (always the most difficult part) - having 'driven' the route a few times on the computer, everything is familiar and recognisable when you come to do it in real life. Unfortunately the concept terrifies the security obsessed.

treeve
22nd February 2009, 22:15
I still consider that we are not living here in a Police State (though I do appreciate your meaning). We do not live in fear of instant removal to a camp of doubtful purpose and outcome, nor are we beaten to a pulp in the street.

There are a number of photographs in the public domain taken by Forces photographers of what may be described as having potential for abuse. It all makes a mockery of any applied restrictions to the public.

andysk
23rd February 2009, 14:15
I still consider that we are not living here in a Police State (though I do appreciate your meaning). We do not live in fear of instant removal to a camp of doubtful purpose and outcome, nor are we beaten to a pulp in the street.

There are a number of photographs in the public domain taken by Forces photographers of what may be described as having potential for abuse. It all makes a mockery of any applied restrictions to the public.

I agree Treeve about not being dragged off the street and being beaten up, but we are the most 'surveilled' society in the world in the UK now.

A interesting statistic :

Croydon, Surrey, UK (population in 2001 - 331 thousand) has more CCTV cameras monitoring and recording people's movements than New York, USA (population in 2001 - 19 million)

You have to ask why.

Some years ago I attended the Bonfire celebrations in Lewes East Sussex, an occasion when perhaps half a dozen local bonfire societies parade around the town commemorating in their own way the Gunpowder Plot. The crowds are huge for such a small town.

Before the parades started, the police came up and down the road filming all the spectators, not just those on the street, but also those in the first floor windows of the buildings along the street. Not just once, but twice. When asked politely about why this was being done, the answer was a shrug of the shoulders and keep on filming.

The only possible reason for this data collection exercise is 'just in case'. There is no need for the info now, but we'll collect it and keep it just in case it might come in useful someday. Just like all the other proposals for collection of date on individual's web browsing, emails, mobile phone calls, driving patterns (ANPR). Also, from last week, all 'private' (ie) in store, pub, shopping precinct, transport station etc, CCTV footage HAS to be made available to the authorities on demand. No argument or excuse.

Add this to the change a few years back to make almost all offences in the UK arrestable, so the national DNA database could be expanded on the sly. (Your DNA is taken, but if you are subsequently released without charge, it is not destroyed, ever.) Soon all children will have their DNA recorded at birth So the restrictions the UK Parliament want to put on the National DNA Database are being circumvented surreptitiously.

End of Rant, sorry !

Geoff_E
23rd February 2009, 16:27
Don't apologise - a very eloquent rant! All the more so because it's true.

andysk
23rd February 2009, 17:31
Don't apologise - a very eloquent rant! All the more so because it's true.

Thanks, but I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I feel better for it !!!

Cheers

Andy

Virgo
23rd February 2009, 18:20
The attached article appeared in the Daily Telegraph of Monday 16th Feb.

Pay particular attention to Col 4, Para 2 about the Cleveland photographer.

I think we need to be very concerned, not just about this particular incident, but about just where it might lead

(Mods - I'm not sure if this is posted in the correct place, please feel free top move it as appropriate)

Another 'win' for Islam. We may as well convert now and save them the bother of giving us a hard time until we do.

treeve
23rd February 2009, 20:11
I absolutely agree with you; if the police can film 'us' why can't we film them? After all if an undercover agent was in there, he should be doing his job and remain as an undercover officer; mind you, they appear on British TV in so called 'fly-on-the-wall' reports and in news items, albeit pixelated or perhaps even 'fuzzed'. Just what would a foreign or internal trouble maker do with such images? Accuse them of bad acting? To the subject of surveillance, to be honest, our police are much maligned and accused of not performing to match idiotic requirements and they also have to meet those targets within a specific and tight budget, with highly limited staff. Much easier to save the coppers on the beat in the thick of it, by installing cameras. Personally they can film me as much as their little hearts desire, and have as much DNA or fingerprints or identity cards as they like - it does not bother me at all, sice a) I have done nothing wrong or likely to do so and b) it makes me feel somewhat safer that there are records being held that will hopefully lead to wrongdoers being charged and banged-up. As to the statistics, maybe you could also offer the number of street attacks and incidents as well as murders etc to really compare figures in context. The US police are even more tied as regards litigation. This is an insane world in some respects, but the more surveillance there is the safer I feel. Just as long as it does not become Big Brother and the Thought Police. The police are often accused of not being fully prepared and some sleezy lawyer gets obvious criminals off the hook by deviously squirming through loopholes of very often ill-prepared cases drawn up by the police. In any crowd situation, I would be much happier that the authorities were actually prepared and 'on my side'. @andysk - Never apologise for a rant, too many appear not to have an opinion, you are one of the fortunate ones - you feel and think.

treeve
23rd February 2009, 20:20
....Another 'win' for Islam. ??
I am not at all sure that any of this has the slightest to do with Islam; more like Western Paranoia; as far as I can see there is no great rift between The Qu'ran or The Holy Bible; the rift develops from megalomaniacs and militancy, with a very firm heart of extremism; that is rife in any religion or politics, and the end result is dreadful to behold. If Johnny Public believes all the hogwash, he is swept into the raging torrent down over the waterfall and on to the rocks below, with no chance in between to actually sit and consider the participants or what the True Belief is for each and every faction and believer.
This is not a Holy War - it is a war of the political and the media coupled with those in the commercial world. We are looking in the wrong direction, all of us.

Colgrace
23rd February 2009, 20:32
Well I'm just gonna carry as previous, see y'all in jail folks!!!

Pat Kennedy
23rd February 2009, 20:36
I agree Treeve about not being dragged off the street and being beaten up, but we are the most 'surveilled' society in the world in the UK now.

A interesting statistic :

Croydon, Surrey, UK (population in 2001 - 331 thousand) has more CCTV cameras monitoring and recording people's movements than New York, USA (population in 2001 - 19 million)

You have to ask why.

Some years ago I attended the Bonfire celebrations in Lewes East Sussex, an occasion when perhaps half a dozen local bonfire societies parade around the town commemorating in their own way the Gunpowder Plot. The crowds are huge for such a small town.

Before the parades started, the police came up and down the road filming all the spectators, not just those on the street, but also those in the first floor windows of the buildings along the street. Not just once, but twice. When asked politely about why this was being done, the answer was a shrug of the shoulders and keep on filming.

The only possible reason for this data collection exercise is 'just in case'. There is no need for the info now, but we'll collect it and keep it just in case it might come in useful someday. Just like all the other proposals for collection of date on individual's web browsing, emails, mobile phone calls, driving patterns (ANPR). Also, from last week, all 'private' (ie) in store, pub, shopping precinct, transport station etc, CCTV footage HAS to be made available to the authorities on demand. No argument or excuse.

Add this to the change a few years back to make almost all offences in the UK arrestable, so the national DNA database could be expanded on the sly. (Your DNA is taken, but if you are subsequently released without charge, it is not destroyed, ever.) Soon all children will have their DNA recorded at birth So the restrictions the UK Parliament want to put on the National DNA Database are being circumvented surreptitiously.

End of Rant, sorry !

This is just a guess, but the bonfire celebrations in Lewes are different than any others held in England because the various bonfire societies in Lewes burn effigies not only of Guy Fawkes but of the Pope. Marches and parades are held which feature banners proclaiming 'NO POPERY'
Because there is legislation in place in the UK making it an offence to incite racial or religious hatred, I have no doubt that the police were filming in order to ensure that if anyone was in breach of this law, they had evidence to prosecute.
Pat

cboots
23rd February 2009, 23:09
Thanks are due to Andy for spelling it out for us, and thanks to to Treeve for, quite possibly unintentionally, showing us just how they get away with it. You see all of the justifications that he makes in his post for the gross invasions of personal liberties and privacy are precisely those made by the KGB, Stasi, Gestapo, Savak, and any other agency of state suppression that has ever existed. The Stasi never arrested anyone who was not an enemy of the state; no honest soviet citizen had anything to fear from the KGB. I recall an occasion during my seagoing days, ashore in what was then the Soviet Union, having a discussion in the Seamen's Club with some Russians and the issue of internal passports came up. "But how would the authorities keep track of where you are without some form of personal identification?" they asked incredulously. "Precisely," I replied, "What business is it of the state where I am?" Well, how times have changed.
I am aware that we are straying dangerously off from matters nautical but I do think that all who have contributed to this thread ought to read Orwell's 1984, and if you've already read it, read it again. It contains all the warnings that we need.
CBoots

Steve Farrow
24th February 2009, 10:36
Well put CBoots!........and drifting back to things more nautical, I have been photographing on and around the docks near where I live (Grimsby and Immingham) for many years and have always had a keen interest in all types of shipping, particularly fishing vessels. ABP withdrew all visitor and photographic passes from 1st July 2004 under the International Ship and Port Security Code. Only commissioned photographic work could be carried by professionals for either ABP or Tenants of the Port Estate, with proof of such work supported by written evidence.
The Fish Docks in Grimsby are owned by ABP but managed by Grimsby Fish Dock Enterprises who have a more relaxed view of things and do issue permits on condition that cameras are not pointed at anything ABP!
Last week, I was taking some photo's of old buildings on the Fish Dock, about to be demolished when I was stopped by a security guard. I showed him my pass but he informed me it was the wrong type! Apparently, I would need to contact the port master at Immingham and arrange for a suitable one. After spending so many years in that particular dock, I felt quite bitter about this so I called the Port Master. His attitude was to the point and said this is private property and we don't want Joe public wandering around our docks.
I told him that I had worked for ABP for seventeen years and was known to them. Being a marine artist that specialised in ship portraits, the ban would be a real problem. I pointed out that in air ports, photographers were vetted and issued with passes containing their details along with a photograph, to which he replied, "We haven't the man power to deal with that." He said a pass could be arranged for a certain time an a specific date, but under no circumstances must ships be photographed!
The ports have always been private property and I respect that, but the owners have always been flexible, but no longer.
On this site, the problems won't be so apparent, but shipping sites involving present day traffic could have huge implications. We, as photographers are becoming frustrated at more and more do's and don'ts as to what we can point our lenses at. If this attitude had prevailed years ago, this and other sites could not exist!

Steve

andysk
24th February 2009, 18:51
Unfortunately the 'powers that be' who collect this information, or who want to, do not seem to be able to control it, in terms of who has access and what they do with it.

The number of occasions when data has been 'lost' by civil servants and government contractors is probably far more than has ever reached the press. Probably by a factor of 100 or more according to some sources.

I have no objection IN PRINCIPLE with, for example, a DNA database, but my consent to that presupposes an element of integrity and expertise in those who are collecting, maintaining and using the data. It is those last three that are singularly lacking.

My private life is just that, private. It is no business of anybody that I buy a six pack of beer on a Friday, together with 4 apples, a copy of the local newspaper and a Mars Bar to sit in a layby beside the A40 somewhere.

Coming back to Steve's comments, a few years ago Railtrack got very shirty about train-spotters on their stations, deeming them a security risk. Until, that is, it was pointed out to them that they were the very people who would spot anything unusual by virtue of the fact that they were always there.

Sorry if I have strayed 'off topic' but relevant ? Perhaps ....

Pat Kennedy
24th February 2009, 19:26
I was recently "bothered" by the docks police on the Birkenhead dock estate while taking a photo of the Arklow Fame.
They were not concerned that I was taking pictures of ships, they just wanted to know who I was and why I was there.
Once I explained they were happy and let me get on with it. I did not detect any change in their attitude from that of dock police 30 years ago, they were just doing their job, and I dont have any problem with that.
Pat

John Rogers
24th February 2009, 19:27
In my opinion its much to do about nothing. Like other members have posted,Terrorist can buy maps,and Goggle maps,you can even buy the blueprints and building plans. In the army they still use camouflage,a waste of time because heat seeking cameras and infra red will detect the best hidden soldier, vehicle, or building,plus satellite cameras can read a license plate on a car. Rant over.

John.

jmcg
24th February 2009, 19:57
CCTV

Following a burglary last week, having it installed on Thursday/Friday. 4,300 to protect us from the low life. The Police who attended made it clear to me that had I been in at the time and physically tacked this low life (something I would feel very comfortable with) it "might" just muddy the waters. The police chap was bigger in stature than I am but fully understood what a "good kicking" meant to that type of low life.

Unfortunately, modern IT provides a ready source of information for all sorts of unsavoury characters. Mobile phones are always used by gangs of burglars "cruising" in cars while other gang members are plundering your property.

I'm in favour of cameras and all other lawful methods to support our police in doing their job. However, I feel we are losing the battle and it would appear that the low life have more "rights" than good folk.

BW

J

BobClay
24th February 2009, 20:03
mmmmmmmm ... 4 apples eh ? ..... and a Mars bar ..... mmmmmm (inputs info into security computer).

[=P]

quietman
24th February 2009, 20:17
Just wondered if I took a photo of a ship and a policeman deemed it a security risk and wiped it off my camera would he in fact be commiting a crime 1 by destroying evidence of a crime 2 as the photograph would be my copyright would he infact be destroying my property. I know its a silly thought but no sillier than some laws.

Pat Kennedy
24th February 2009, 20:24
An acquaintance of mine was once arrested on board a Greek Ferry by plainclothes policemen for taking a photo of a merchant ship at anchor off Piraeus.
His camera was confiscated, and after a night in the cells he was escorted to the airport and deported.
Thats paranoia
Pat

treeve
24th February 2009, 20:29
That is an excellent point - intellectual property resides with the creator, the fact of pressing the button at an observed and composed scene, and storing that balanced picture, I would imagine would come under a property definition. On top of which it would be the destruction of the evidence that proved your innocence of it perhaps being claimed as an offence by someone who has more clout in a court of law. Worth consideration that ...

quietman
24th February 2009, 20:29
Can only assume there was something on that ship the police were aware of.

treeve
24th February 2009, 20:34
More than likely a watched cargo ... I have taken any number of pictures of Greek vessels, standing next to the police in one case ....

andysk
24th February 2009, 20:35
An acquaintance of mine was once arrested on board a Greek Ferry by plainclothes policemen for taking a photo of a merchant ship at anchor off Piraeus.
His camera was confiscated, and after a night in the cells he was escorted to the airport and deported.
Thats paranoia
Pat

What about the UK aircraft enthusiast group a few years ago who were invited to a Greek air show, then arrested for taking pics of the aircraft ! Got a lot of press coverage with the trial etc.

Bob, what I didn't say was that they were toffee apples, and the Mars Bar was deep fried !

That'll screw them up !

treeve
24th February 2009, 20:36
OK - here is a question ... anyone tried Kite photography? Excellent views by all accounts, but just how would that fit into the privacy and CT Laws? Standing in a public place, no trespass, no entering of classified areas ...

Pat Kennedy
24th February 2009, 20:39
More than likely a watched cargo ... I have taken any number of pictures of Greek vessels, standing next to the police in one case ....

The ship in question as I recall was the Europe I which had at one time been Blue Funnel's Memnon.
Pat

BobClay
24th February 2009, 20:47
mmmm ... deep frying a Mars bar ... clearly an anarchist. (Makes note).

You also have to wonder where this leaves webcams? ... of which there are hundreds dotted about ....

it's a minefield.

jmcg
24th February 2009, 20:56
Privacy will fly out of the window if this Government ever gets its way with email monitoring.

Now that is something we all have to worry about!

Pat Kennedy
24th February 2009, 21:04
I wish someone would monitor my e-mails, I got one yesterday off the FBI saying they had identified $7.2 million belonging to me and would I please let them have my bank details so they could pay me!!!
When the money comes I plan to share it out amongst SN members.
Pat

jmcg
24th February 2009, 21:31
Nice one Pat! Was it a PM?

J

Pat Kennedy
24th February 2009, 21:37
John,
It made a change from the usual Nigerian scams and the pharmaceutical ones promising eternal hardness!!
Pat

andysk
25th February 2009, 00:04
mmmm ... deep frying a Mars bar ... clearly an anarchist. (Makes note).

.....

it's a minefield.

(Security computer, on loan from Dept of Health, blows up)