Video and photography in public

meyouus · 26-04-2011, 12:30

anyone can take video and photos of anyone else in public places

am i right or wrong?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep_54LSDZmk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LMKB...eature=related

Rich · 26-04-2011, 12:33

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

Detailed explanation of UK law surrounding the subject, in't Google grand?

rickiethecat · 26-04-2011, 12:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

Detailed explanation of UK law surrounding the subject, in't Google grand?

Yes because everything on wikipedia is 100% correct isn't it?

AFAIK we all have the right to privacy so people can't just storm up to you in the street and take your photo without permission but they can take a photo of say a view or a building even if you just happen to be in shot.

meyouus · 26-04-2011, 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law

Detailed explanation of UK law surrounding the subject, in't Google grand?

so why is this happening?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt2xuUsP9pQ

alchresearch · 26-04-2011, 12:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by meyouus

so why is this happening?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt2xuUsP9pQ

Well considering the video is a year old, and that most police forces and the officers have been "re-educated" as to what can and can't be done you'll find it starting to happen a little less.

There's an interesting PDF here:

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/u...srights-v2.pdf

meyouus · 26-04-2011, 12:58

and why is this happening?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWe2Q...eature=related

alchresearch · 26-04-2011, 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by meyouus

and why is this happening?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWe2Q...eature=related

You mean "why did it happen"?

Again its over a year old. Things have changed since then. The ACPO issued a directorate to all police chiefs to pass on to all their officers.

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

meyouus · 26-04-2011, 13:12

i beleive or have the suspition to beleive? whats that mean?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiPJ2WkAekw

truman · 26-04-2011, 13:14

meyouus..you're not vResistance/truthlogic in disguise are you?

meyouus · 26-04-2011, 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by alchresearch

You mean "why did it happen"?

Again its over a year old. Things have changed since then. The ACPO issued a directorate to all police chiefs to pass on to all their officers.

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

uptodate one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL2Z5BcN4io

auto98uk · 26-04-2011, 13:20

meyouus - the answer has already been given in the thread.

It is perfectly legal, but police officers seemingly did not understand the law, so one of the Chief Constables had to issue instructions to their officers about it.

Some still misunderstand it, but the answer to your OP is yes, you can take pictures and video in public places.

WeX · 26-04-2011, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickiethecat

Yes because everything on wikipedia is 100% correct isn't it?

AFAIK we all have the right to privacy so people can't just storm up to you in the street and take your photo without permission but they can take a photo of say a view or a building even if you just happen to be in shot.

if that were true, there would be no such thing as the paparazzi.

alchresearch · 26-04-2011, 13:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by meyouus

uptodate one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL2Z5BcN4io

That seems to be more about the cyclist questioning the policeman's ignorance of the law in general and the cameraman's refusal to produce any ID rather than a problem with the photography.

Its a shame the matter of the cameraman actually riding through a red light has been ignored though.

TJC1 · 26-04-2011, 13:50

There was confusion and suspision when the counter terrorism act was issued 2008, essentially it is OK to photograph or video any building or individual.
If the police have reason to suspect you are using the material for terrorist purposes they have powers, but photographing a building is not a good enough reason. Thats why photographers are complaining.

mj.scuba · 26-04-2011, 17:22

I think at one bit one of the main photography magazines were producing a little card you could hand to the police outlining the rights of the photographer. As it's already been said, it's probably a better situation now but it might still be worth having one of those cards to hand just in case.

simonj · 26-04-2011, 22:34

Can somebody correct the thread title please? I thought that anything concerning photography of pubic areas was banned on SF

sibon · 26-04-2011, 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonj

Can somebody correct the thread title please? I thought that anything concerning photography of pubic areas was banned on SF

Sorted. You just can't get the trolls these days

Geezer Innit · 26-04-2011, 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickiethecat

AFAIK we all have the right to privacy so people can't just storm up to you in the street and take your photo without permission but they can take a photo of say a view or a building even if you just happen to be in shot.

You only have an expectation of privacy in a private place, not in public. Someone can't storm into your house and take a photo of you on the bog, but they can take any photos they like of you in the street.

Rand Hobart · 27-04-2011, 00:24

The law allows you to take a picture of anyone or anything ( with some terrorist target exceptions) as long as you are in a public place. However, the police have used "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace" in the past in situations where people have become irate at having their picture taken, especially parents with kids. (which, as is say, are legal to take.)
I am a keen photographer and want to stand up for my rights, but have to accept that things have changed forever with digital manipulation and the Internet. Once the shot is taken it becomes the sole property of the photographer, the subject having no rights to the image. This never used to be a problem when the odds on you seeing your image used where very small, but now with the net an image or video clip can go viral in hours. Add kids to the mix and things can soon get violent.
Street photography used to be an enjoyable pastime, but now it is an open invitation to be accused of terrorism, perversion or paedophilia.
A big problem is police and pcso's who do not know the law and are on a power trip. But worst by far are security guards trying to break the mindless boredom of the job by throwing their weight around. As I like to take architectural shots of buildings I have several times been confronted with shaved headed goons demanding to know what I am doing. I even had one demand that I show him some ID. When I laughed at him he threatened to call the police. I offered him the loan of my phone as I was in a public place on the public highway taking a picture of a publicly accessed building.
When Austin Mitchell, a labour MP, was at a Labour party conference a while back, he took a photo of the long queue outside waiting to get in. One of the organisers embarrassed at their incompetence being photographed called a copper over and complained. The copper then approached Mitchell (who didn't identify himself as an MP ) and asked to see what he'd taken. Being handed the camera the copper deleted the image ( TOTALY ILLEGAL ) and handed it back saying he wasn't allowed to take pictures. If this can happen to an MP, what chance the rest of us?

meyouus · 27-04-2011, 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by sibon

Sorted. You just can't get the trolls these days