- This topic is empty.
Stand up and take notice
-
I knew this was taking part but Sky news have reported on it. It’s the “I’m a Photographer, not a Terrorist” meet in London. Nice to see the publicity and it being positive for a change.
Alan.
Hi Alan,
There has been quite a campaign in the UK to highlight the situation with
regard to the harassment of photographers.
Amateur Photographer magazine has news on the campaign every week.Between restrictions on photographing certain public property, issues concerning
including children in photographs and now the so called anti-terrorism measures
photographers in the UK are having a dificult time.Given our legislators tendancy to mimic regulations of other countries it’s probably
only a matter of time before a reason is found to start harassing photographers here.It seems to me that political figures by their very nature have an inbuilt desire to restrict
the free flow of information especially where that information might cast them in a bad light.Instance changes in freedom of information legislation, the new blasphemy laws and constant
bleating about protecting the private lives of public figures.The recent speech by our Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism and the hullabaloo over the
scramble for photographs of witnesses in the current high profile murder case illustrates
the ongoing battle between those who believe the public have a right to know and those who
might prefer to keep certain things well hidden from public scrutiny.What has all this to do with amateur photography?
At the moment I seem to be free to take photographs in public places except of course where
the law says otherwise.
There are of course certain restrictions which could be described as using common sense.
I shouldn’t harrass anybody, cause obstructions etcI have been taking photographs in public for a long time and I have never been asked to account
for my movements or motives.I would like to keep it that way.
There are lots of articles available on photographers rights.
I found the PDF on this site, even though it concerns the UK, an interesting read.
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2″ onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;Cheers.
John.
One of the aims of terrorism is to prevent the public from enjoying their freedom while going about their daily lives. The restrictions being imposed by the police could therefore probably be classed as State sponsored terrorism. If they spent more time looking at people who are actually comitting crime etc, it would be a safer place to live in, but then again, they are probably afraid to tackle those guys. :evil:
But can anyone see the irony in restricting people taking pictures in public places…but introduce scanning at airports where people are seen in their barest condition.
Terrorism has the world gone mental…seems like they’ve won.
Alan.
I apologize for bumping this thread, but it looked like the right place to post this :-)
Earlier today I was at Mahon Point (Cork) shopping mall with my girlfriend, and I had my camera with me, though I wasn’t taking any picture there. While I was away for less than 5 minutes, my girlfriend was checking out the pictures I had taken earlier and she was immediately approached by a security guard who told her she couldn’t take any picture. She replied she was simply looking at pictures taken earlier, but the security guard told her again she couldn’t take any picture inside the mall, and then left. All of this happening while people where taking lots of pictures at each other with their cameras “hidden” in their mobile phones. Isn’t a shopping mall a public place? Is there a law in Ireland that clearly states it’s illegal to take pictures in shopping malls (I didn’t see any sign stating it)?
What happened to us is a small thing compared to what we’ve heard happening in other places, and we didn’t make a big deal out of it, but I left feeling something was wrong about what had just happened.Shopping malls are generally treated as places where you do need permission to shoot…not that I agree with that at all but that’s how it’s seen as it’s owned by a private company.
However, I reported some boy racers who were doing donuts in a leisure centre carpark to a Sergeant friend of mine but I suggested that as they weren’t on public roads that they probably could do nothing about it. His reply was that any place that the public have access to is deemed a public place and as the gate was open this was deemed a public place (this was 1am by the way). So the law is sort of on your side…but I wouldn’t bother in a mall myself. Best get out your 10mp cameraphone. ;-)Alan
irishwonkafan wrote:
Best get out your 10mp cameraphone. ;-)
Definitely, if I had one :D
As i wrote before, we didn’t really make a big deal out of it, mostly because in fact I wouldn’t take pictures in a place like that anyway. I guess what bothers me is the attitude of the ones responsible for “security” in those places, and the hypocrisy that goes with it. All you need to do to be harrassed by some people is just a camera, no matter what you’re doing with it; the only requirement is that it needs to be bigger than a mobile phone. And all because of “security”. That’s so stupid…Yes, it is stupid-
But not as stupid as arguing with those charged with protecting the private property you’re photographing on.
They will be given very simple instructions, no photography-Obviously, photographing with a mobile phone isn’t photography, that’s telephony-
but you never know, someday, maybe their bosses will tell them to prohibit that as well-Wonka, never knew you were such an ardent shopper…
jb7 wrote:
not as stupid as arguing with those charged with protecting the private property you’re photographing on.
True, that’s why I didn’t go back to the security guard and ask why photography was not allowed, though I was tempted to go back and ask them where the “no photography” sign is (I checked, there’s nothing like that).
I saw a guy with a video camera today at the mall, he was shooting some people, possibly friends/family. Why wasn’t he stopped? I guess the security issue is “no photography or video recording” in case you’re some kind of terrorist/criminal trying to get some intel/info on the place, perhaps to later use them to plan a bombing/robber/etc. So, for such a purpose, what’s the difference between a video camera, a mobile phone camera, and a dslr?
Obviously, photographing with a mobile phone isn’t photography, that’s telephony-
but you never know, someday, maybe their bosses will tell them to prohibit that as well-It’s the next logical step in the process, but I don’t think the mobile phone industry would allow something like that.
Security guards, on the ground, are just dong their job-
if you were to ask them for a reason why photography is not allowed,
most of them wouldn’t know the answer, they don’t have to-The reason why photography isn’t allowed in malls is far more basic,
it’s to protect commercially sensitive information-
merchandising, design, layout, pricing-
this was the case long before mobile phones, or even digital cameras.People with the equivalent of a mobile phone camera-
a 126, a 110, a disc camera-
they wouldn’t be bothered, but security was always asked to look out for professionals-
and professionals use real cameras.The same rules apply to anywhere security is present- concerts, for example-
whole recordings on video are allowed, as long as the camera is small enough,
but wave something heavy with a prism on top,
and pretty soon you’ll be discussing photography with a man wearing an earpiece.francesco my mother is in her mid 60’s and this same thing happened when she used her point n shoot to photograph the escalator in Dundrum Shopping centre.
while the law is on their side, the guy was very rude and being on her own, while the rest of us were elsewhere, she was quite afraid.
best not to shop where people rudely enforce stupid rules, spend your cash elsewhere.
jb7 wrote:
Security guards, on the ground, are just dong their job-
if you were to ask them for a reason why photography is not allowed,
most of them wouldn’t know the answer, they don’t have to-True, they don’t have to, but i guess it would be in their interest to at least have a plausible answer, since they might be asked something like that. Anyway, you’re right, they’re doing their job, and if that means making sure that people don’t take pictures inside the mall, it’d be stupid to question their job.
The reason why photography isn’t allowed in malls is far more basic,
it’s to protect commercially sensitive information-
merchandising, design, layout, pricing-
this was the case long before mobile phones, or even digital cameras.I know, I remember seeing “no picture” signs everywhere in Italy, especially when there was the first big wave of tourists from Japan and everyone was freaking out about them copying italian designs. Now no one cares anynore, unless someone goes into a shop and takes pictures of everything inside. Still, i can’t see the difference between photography inside a mall and photography in the middle of a street with dozens of shops…isn’t commercially sensitive information quite abundant there,too?
The same rules apply to anywhere security is present- concerts, for example-
whole recordings on video are allowed, as long as the camera is small enough,
but wave something heavy with a prism on top,
and pretty soon you’ll be discussing photography with a man wearing an earpiece.actually, i’ve seen people being taken away at some concerts just because they were using their mobiles to snap some pictures, so…
Fintan wrote:
best not to shop where people rudely enforce stupid rules, spend your cash elsewhere.
Just because the rules are stupid, I can’t allow them to change my habits. As I wrote before, not a huge deal for me at all, it was just weird being asked not to even check some pictures on the back of a camera, I guess.
well i personally don’t like to put money into the very pockets of the people that make and enforce these rules
Fintan wrote:
well i personally don’t like to put money into the very pockets of the people that make and enforce these rules
Fintan, I do understand it and I respect your choice. I don’t think putting money in their pockets is the same as agreeing with those rules, mainly because I don’t think they are the ones who came up with those rules in the first place (actually, I’m pretty sure many of those in charge of enforcing those rules don’t even know why they’re doing it). I like to think there are other ways to change things, and other ways to give voice to one’s dissent. Or maybe I’m just too naive..
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
