- This topic is empty.
6 Photographers assert their right to take photos in London
-
Well worth watching. Bit long though :)…
[youtube:33j8fus6]FJH9F7Hcluo[/youtube:33j8fus6]
Hi Mark,
I didn’t watch all the video, yet, but I have been keeping a close eye on developments in this area. Amateur Photographer magazine has been keeping a watching brief, and indeed has been actively campaigning, on the efforts to trample on the rights of photographers to use their cameras in public places.
I must admit it makes my blood boil when the innocent activities of decent people are interfered with in order to thwart the illegal activities of a minority of our fellow human beings.
I think we must be vigilant to prevent overzealous law makers or law enforcers from making criminals out of photographers innocently persueing their hobby or profession.
If this type of stupid policing policy had been carried out in the past a vast body of photographs documenting the past might not exist.
If certain people get their way there will be no photographic archive of certains aspects of our time for future generations to view.My opinions may sound very dramatic but I genuinly fear that unless we take a stand it may become a criminal offence to use a camera in certain public places.
That, in my opinion, would be unacceptable.
Cheers,
John.
Interesting, though it was only “security” that was causing the problems, it
was good to see that the police didnt have any problems with the photographers
contrary to what has been reported recently. Officious idiots causing problems
where there is none! Jobsworths!!Yes its great to see how the police dealt with it during the film. They were fully aware that photographing in public is fine.
I wonder are people having problems here in the Rep. with security and others similar to the UK ?
I’ve only been snapping photos for a couple of years now, but have been employed in various security positions for over 30 years, so I think that I can look at this from both sides. I think it is evident from this video, that the security people (not the police) are poorly trained & don’t know the legalities involved & although, I can understand where photography can cause problems for some companies, that doesn’t make it illegal.
Many companies restrict the taking of photographs of their premises for a number of reasons, but this doesn’t mean that by photographing it, you are breaking the law. Likewise, photographing it from a public area is totally legal & the company involved would have no control over people doing so, but there are also situations where photography could be restricted even in public areas.A photographer setting up a camera on his tripod on the pavement could be seen as a public health & safety issue by a City council official for example.
Sometimes the training of security officers is very poor & the officers knowledge of the law inadequate, but the photographer must also understand where the boundries lay if confrontation is to be avoided.Are the laws concerning public photography the same over here, if you are on public land you can take pictures of whatever you wish?
I am not sure how similar or different the laws are between here and Britain, but as far as I know, legally the likes of Garda Stations and Gardai, Army barracks, (possibly soldiers, though not sure), railway stations, and ports are not allowed to be photographed, I think due to security issues.
I was told a few years ago by a professional photographer, that the issue with Gardai and Garda stations is something to do with identifying the holding cells and possibly particular rooms, and with Gardai, being able to identify the individual officers, in case the photographs fall into the hands of criminal elements, in case these criminal eliments want to target individual Gardai or certain parts of the station building, so the stations are not supposed to be photographed even from a public footpath without the permission of the station’s commanding officer. Thats how it was explained to me.
And I presume Army barracks for a similar reason, in case ammunition, explosives and weapons stores can be identified.
Yes, anything that is visible from a public area may be photographed, but restrictions may apply. Military installations, for example, could be legally photographed, but you could end up being questioned as to the purpose of the photographs.
I suppose with Military installations, weapons stores would not be visible from a public road, and I suppose as long as there is nothing showing particularly sensitive parts, it may be ok, but as you Miki, questions could well be asked about the reason for taking the photographs. Probably the vast majority of photographs would usually be taken innocently, but they may see it that the photo’s could potentially fall into the hands of “undesirables” :lol:
Another point worth mentioning concerns shooting video. It is legal to shoot video of people in a public area, but it is also illegal to record audio of a conversation without the consent of the other party / parties. This is a tactic used by certain security / police to prevent them being filmed when they try to prevent somebody photographing them & they want to delete the footage.
recently out shooting some street stuff and took a photo of a guy who approached a near by cop to complain, the cop called me over and the guy insisted i delete photo, I told them both it was film and wasn’t likely to happen, he then insisted i don’t use the photo for anything, agian I said not likely and that I’d do what I wanted with the photo (currently on a street phot website I’m involved with), the guy complained to the cop and suggested I be arrested for invasion of privacy, the cop said (and this made my day) if you want privacy don’t walk the streets. the cop went on to explain that I could photograph whatever I wanted and was free to do so unless I was on a business premises and even then no judge in the land would rule agianst me in generality (his word not mine), I’ve even photographed in musuems and galleries with “no photography signs”, my reckoning being I would be only to happy to have my day in court if needs be to fight for my rights.
A common sense approach needs to be taken by both sides. Yes a photographer should have the right to take a photo/video in a public place but should also understand that in certain circumstances that this could lead to an invasion of privacy. It’s a stupid remark to say if you want privacy don’t go out to a public place. Would you be happier that they become prisoners in their own homes!!
The taking of photos in certain areas can also raise concerns for security. For instance, taking a photo outside a bank will obviously cause some concern for the bank’s security particullary with the amount of tiger kidnaping taking place. If security have a problem with you taking photos of their staff coming and going to and from the bank we the photographers should respect their genuine concerns. Although they have no rights to tell you to stop common sense needs to prevail here. If you really want a shot of the building then come back when the bank is closed. If a person objects to you taking a photo of them delete the photo or promise them that it won’t be developed.
On the flip side, if there are no security issues or no personal objections to havong their photograph taken then no one should have the right to ask you to stop.
The only problem that I have with this particular clip is that this was not a fair situation. These photographers went out of their way to pick certain areas of London that they knew would cause a scene. I guess they were trying to make a point. My point is that common scense should always be applied by both parties.
Regards,
Ray.
I totally agree with Ray’s comments. Common sense & courtesy would go a long way in avoiding conflict when taking photos. I have been asked by the Gardai on several occassions, what I was photographing & why. By being civil & answering the questions, I avoided any problems. I understood their concerns & I had nothing to hide. By certain people ignoring NO PHOTOGRAPHY signs & carrying on regardless, is probably one of the reasons that many genuine photographers face so many problems today. The rights of the photographer are not necessarily being violated (as in the case above) by the posting of these signs. I believe in this case that it would be more to do with security & possibly to avoid damage to artifacts / paintings. I don’t know which museums or galleries which were involved, but I would also imagine them to be private property rather than public & the owners would be totally within their rights to restrict the use of photography. As for the guy in the street, I would have deleted the image (or at least reassure him that the image was for my own personal use & would not be used or displayed publicly & probably offer him a print of the shot) just out of courtesy & maybe then, the Garda wouldn’t have needed to get involved.
I think with museums its probably really flash photography (which most p+s cameras would have on automatically) is where the concern mostly
is.np72 wrote:
I am not sure how similar or different the laws are between here and Britain, but as far as I know, legally the likes of Garda Stations and Gardai, Army barracks, (possibly soldiers, though not sure), railway stations, and ports are not allowed to be photographed, I think due to security issues.
That’s not the case at all. There are no such laws in Ireland.
However, you’ll never find images of undercover Gardai, ERC officers and such, because the press respect what they do. There is no actual law preventing the taking of such images.
Of course, if you did photograph Garda stations, army barracks and such, you would most likely be questioned.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
