Olympus UK E-System User Group
Olympus UK E-System User Group

Join our unique resource for Olympus Four Thirds E-System DSLR and Pen and OM-D Micro Four Thirds photographers. Show your images via our free e-group photo gallery. Please read the e-group.uk.net forum terms and conditions before posting for the first time. Above all, welcome!


Go Back   Olympus UK E-System User Group > Out of Focus area > The lounge

The lounge Relax, take a break from photo and camera talk - have a chat about something else for a change. Just keep it clean and polite!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 2nd March 2012
Patchwork Patchwork is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 256
Thanks: 19
Thanked 25 Times in 20 Posts
Likes: 24
Liked 11 Times in 6 Posts
Photography in public

This article was published in my camera club newsletter -

SECURITY FIRMS SENT ‘EMAIL’ ALERT
Photographers have broadly welcomed guidance issued to the private security industry,
designed to target over zealous behavior by officials who suspect them of plotting terrorists
attacks.
Photography and Hostile Reconnaissance was drawn up by the British Security Industry
Association (BSIA), with input from the UK Government and counter-terrorism police.
On it’s website, the BSIA urges it’s 570 members to distribute the rules to more than
75,000 security officers it represents nationwide.
Among key points outlined in the rules is: ‘Security guards cannot delete images or seize
cameras, nor can they obstruct individuals from taking photographs’.
The Royal Photographic Society said ‘It is promising to see the BSIA providing a clear
statement of the law for their members which clearly affirms the right of photographers when
they are on public land, to take photographs of any building or person’.
The guide makes clear that restrictions may apply to privately owned buildings and that
the guards have the right to ‘politely request that he or she ceases to take photographs‘ and ‘use
reasonable force if necessary to remove people who fail to comply.
The document urges guards to adopt a ‘courteous manner‘ when approaching photographers.
A spokesperson for the Bureau of Freelance Photographers stated ‘We can only hope this
guide is widely distributed to officers on the ground so that we may get fewer instances of
photographers being wrongly stopped from taking photographs’.
Architectural photographer Grant Smith from the ‘I’m A Photographer Not A Terrorist’
campaign group, also involved in the Home Office talks, stated that ‘I think it is an excellent
guide and am pleased our concerns were given consideration’.

Key Points:
*The size and type of cameras are not, in themselves, indications of suspicious behavior.
*If an individual is in a public place photographing or filming a private
building, the security guards have no right to prevent the individual from taking photographs.
*Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places.
*Security guards cannot delete images or seize cameras, nor can they obstruct individuals from taking photographs.


To view the guidance enter BSIA in your search box. (This is an extract from AP magazine)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 2nd March 2012
mark_airey's Avatar
mark_airey mark_airey is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South Lakes, Cumbria
Posts: 56
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Photography in public

Makes for interesting reading, doing most of my photography at night & on my own I have been visited by the police on a few occasions and these sort of things are worth knowing although the police have been fine once I explained that I wasn't using my camera, tripod and lighting gear to steal lead from the church roof

Also worth a read IMO are this........

http://stirlyn.co.uk/photography-law...-and-trespass/

and this.......

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 2nd March 2012
theMusicMan's Avatar
theMusicMan theMusicMan is offline
E-3 Enthusiast....:)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Wales
Posts: 5,878
Thanks: 143
Thanked 267 Times in 178 Posts
Likes: 8
Liked 30 Times in 19 Posts
Re: Photography in public

Nope - no restrictions apply to 'privately owned buildings' if the photographer is on public land. How, I ask, is a security guard to - and I quote from the above "‘use reasonable force if necessary to remove people who fail to comply' - from where will they remove them from...?

Once again, this sort of literature shows the level of intellect of the security industry. Some over zealous security guard will read that and think... 'hmmm, that chap is taking photos of my governors building, he shouldn't be doing that. That smashing document I read from the BSIA the other day suggests I can use reasonable force to stop him doing that'

... can you see where this is going.

If that is what was written in their document, then it is ill informed, and extremely ambiguous to say the least.
__________________
John

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 2nd March 2012
Nick Temple-Fry's Avatar
Nick Temple-Fry Nick Temple-Fry is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 4,395
Thanks: 17
Thanked 190 Times in 142 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Re: Photography in public

Quote:
Originally Posted by theMusicMan View Post
Nope - no restrictions apply to 'privately owned buildings' if the photographer is on public land. How, I ask, is a security guard to - and I quote from the above "‘use reasonable force if necessary to remove people who fail to comply' - from where will they remove them from...?

Once again, this sort of literature shows the level of intellect of the security industry. Some over zealous security guard will read that and think... 'hmmm, that chap is taking photos of my governors building, he shouldn't be doing that. That smashing document I read from the BSIA the other day suggests I can use reasonable force to stop him doing that'

... can you see where this is going.

If that is what was written in their document, then it is ill informed, and extremely ambiguous to say the least.
John

I posted a link/thread about this last year, you can see the document in full at
http://www.bsia.co.uk/web_images/Sec..._guide_002.pdf.

The comment about Reasonable Force relates to a photographer who is on Private Property where photography has been expressly forbidden.

If an individual is on private property, s/he may not take photographs if such activity is expressly prohibited or requires a permit which has not been sought or granted. In this instance, a security guard may inform the individual of the restrictions and politely request that s/he ceases to take photographs or film. The security guard could request that the individual leave the premises and could use reasonable force if necessary to effect this.

Nick
__________________
Nick Temple-Fry

Medicine as a science ranks somewhere between archaeology and economics.

www.theChurchPhotographer.co.uk 90 Churches -- Fairford St Mary's, exceptionally splendid
www.temple-fry.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 2nd March 2012
Patchwork Patchwork is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 256
Thanks: 19
Thanked 25 Times in 20 Posts
Likes: 24
Liked 11 Times in 6 Posts
Re: Photography in public

Quote:
Originally Posted by theMusicMan View Post
Nope - no restrictions apply to 'privately owned buildings' if the photographer is on public land. How, I ask, is a security guard to - and I quote from the above "‘use reasonable force if necessary to remove people who fail to comply' - from where will they remove them from...?

Once again, this sort of literature shows the level of intellect of the security industry. Some over zealous security guard will read that and think... 'hmmm, that chap is taking photos of my governors building, he shouldn't be doing that. That smashing document I read from the BSIA the other day suggests I can use reasonable force to stop him doing that'

... can you see where this is going.

If that is what was written in their document, then it is ill informed, and extremely ambiguous to say the least.
John - I read it differently to you (which in itself show there is ambiguity!)
With regard to restrictions on private property I take this to mean restrictions on the taking of photographs whilst the photographer is on the private property, such as a museum or shopping mall etc, and that security staff have the right to use reasonable force to remove someone from the private property if they continue flount these restrictions, but the security staff have no right to view or delete images.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 2nd March 2012
theMusicMan's Avatar
theMusicMan theMusicMan is offline
E-3 Enthusiast....:)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South Wales
Posts: 5,878
Thanks: 143
Thanked 267 Times in 178 Posts
Likes: 8
Liked 30 Times in 19 Posts
Re: Photography in public

Nick and Patchwork: yep, fully understand this... but... this is not what is written above. There is no reference to the photographer being on private land... the quote is...

"The guide makes clear that restrictions may apply to privately owned buildings and that the guards have the right to ‘politely request that he or she ceases to take photographs‘ and ‘use reasonable force if necessary to remove people who fail to comply."

My point relates to the intelect of some security guards who would interpret that text as simply taking pictures of private buildings. The text makes no reference to if the tog is on public or private land... so some dimwit security guards (rather like the ones we see regularly on youtube harassing togs etc) would understand that from reading that, it matters not that the photographer is on public land, if he/she is taking pics of a private building, they can be stopped.

The text/document is ambiguous.
__________________
John

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 2nd March 2012
Patchwork Patchwork is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 256
Thanks: 19
Thanked 25 Times in 20 Posts
Likes: 24
Liked 11 Times in 6 Posts
Re: Photography in public

Quote:
Originally Posted by theMusicMan View Post
Nick and Patchwork: yep, fully understand this... but... this is not what is written above. There is no reference to the photographer being on private land... the quote is...

"The guide makes clear that restrictions may apply to privately owned buildings and that the guards have the right to ‘politely request that he or she ceases to take photographs‘ and ‘use reasonable force if necessary to remove people who fail to comply."

My point relates to the intelect of some security guards who would interpret that text as simply taking pictures of private buildings. The text makes no reference to if the tog is on public or private land... so some dimwit security guards (rather like the ones we see regularly on youtube harassing togs etc) would understand that from reading that, it matters not that the photographer is on public land, if he/she is taking pics of a private building, they can be stopped.

The text/document is ambiguous.
Thanks for the link to the pdf Nick. John below is part of the text from the document from the BSIA which I think makes the situation clearer.

• If an individual is in a public place photographing or filming a private building, security guards have no right to prevent the individual from taking photographs.
• If an individual is on private property, s/he may not take photographs if such activity is expressly prohibited or requires a permit which has not been sought or granted. In this instance, a security guard may inform the individual of the restrictions and politely request that s/he ceases to take photographs or film. The security guard could request that the individual leave the premises and could use reasonable force if necessary to effect this.


Paul
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 2nd March 2012
Chrisspencer Chrisspencer is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Newcastle Tyne & Wear
Posts: 204
Thanks: 11
Thanked 16 Times in 15 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 3 Posts
Re: Photography in public

Using "resonable force" is if I was on public land "assault"...
Unfortunatley even the majority of Police Officers on the beat do not know the law concerning the taking of photographs in public areas etc...
I was stopped for taking photographs in a park by a "community police officer", there was almost no-one around except a couple of dogs.
I politley asked the "officer" to state what laws I was breaking...and he said "taking photo's in a public place .... I couldn't stop laughing :-) and walked away.
ho-hum....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3D Photography stevednp3 Foto Fair 0 11th January 2012 04:28 PM
Pen E-P1 public debut Thursday 25th June Ian Announcements 1 25th June 2009 10:46 PM
A Public Apology to Chillimonster jima The lounge 0 6th January 2009 12:28 PM
Photographing in public places, do you feel you stand out? theenigma The lounge 25 7th March 2008 05:49 PM
Question: Are BR Stations public places...? theMusicMan The lounge 46 11th February 2008 03:08 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:37 PM.


© The Write Technology Ltd, 2007-2019, All rights reservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger