Anti-photographer attitudes

shapeshifter said:
You don't understand the law.
A press photographer could quite legally walk into your garden and take photos through your window.

The only offence is that of civil trespass on the land. There is no offence statutory or civil for 'Taking Photos'

The issue of trespass and taking photos are two completely different things.
Click to expand...

Total rubbish! Check 'privacy law' and anti-stalking laws, etc. It's not laws specifically about taking photos, it's covered by other statutory and civil law.
 
the black fox said:
Guilty ... LOL. I remember many years ago going to see the remains of the Mary rose in a big warehouse place ,with signs up no photography allowed , so I just stuck it inside my jacket poked the lenses (TLR) out as we walked around looked down at the screen to focus and fired away .always a way
Click to expand...
Well, bully for you. Do you not think doing things like that makes the whole situation worse?

Why did you feel you needed to take those photographs?
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
It's worth reading the CPS guidance on the subject: Stalking and Harassment | The Crown Prosecution Service (cps.gov.uk) It's complicated and the only thing that's clear is that obtaining a conviction would depend on the exact circumstances.
Click to expand...
And how good the prosecution's barrister is and how much money they have to spend on the case.

The point I was making is that photography may well not be mentioned specifically, but other laws exist that may well apply (for good reason) and be used to prevent or restrict it. For instance, I'm not aware that there is a law that specifically says that I can't shoot someone through the head with a 45 magnum pistol, but the consequences of that action would be covered by laws for murder, attempted murder or grievous bodily harm (depending how good a shot I was) unlawful possession of a firearm, discharging a firearm in a public place, carrying an uncovered firearm in public place, etc. etc.

I think the moral of this thread is, if you are not sure where and when you can take photographs then seek advice from a suitably qualified professional or reputable legal source, not a barrack-room lawyer or someone you don't know from Adam on an internet forum. (y)
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
And how good the prosecution's barrister is and how much money they have to spend on the case.

The point I was making is that photography may well not be mentioned specifically, but other laws exist that may well apply (for good reason) and be used to prevent or restrict it. For instance, I'm not aware that there is a law that specifically says that I can't shoot someone through the head with a 45 magnum pistol, but the consequences of that action would be covered by laws for murder, attempted murder or grievous bodily harm (depending how good a shot I was) unlawful possession of a firearm, discharging a firearm in a public place, carrying an uncovered firearm in public place, etc. etc.

I think the moral of this thread is, if you are not sure where and when you can take photographs then seek advice from a suitably qualified professional or reputable legal source, not a barrack-room lawyer or someone you don't know from Adam on an internet forum. (y)
Click to expand...

And certainly not a YouTube Social Justice Warrior.
 
Mr Badger said:
but other laws exist that may well apply (for good reason) and be used to prevent or restrict it.
Click to expand...
The basic principle of English law is: what isn't forbidden is allowed.

To take your example, the forbidden action is unlawful killing.

There is no equivalent forbidden action of making an image. This being the case there are specific forbidden actions such as photographing certain installations, making obscene images and so on. To claim that you cannot take a picture through a window, you have to show a relevant forbidden action which has been established through Common Law or Statute.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
The basic principle of English law is: what isn't forbidden is allowed.

To take your example, the forbidden action is unlawful killing.

There is no equivalent forbidden action of making an image. This being the case there are specific forbidden actions such as photographing certain installations, making obscene images and so on. To claim that you cannot take a picture through a window, you have to show a relevant forbidden action which has been established through Common Law or Statute.
Click to expand...


However that isn't the point that was being made. Which was "Go take a photo! There's no law against it!".
The equivalent in this little diversion would be "Go shoot someone in the head" There's no law against it!"
 
munch said:
Well, bully for you. Do you not think doing things like that makes the whole situation worse?

Why did you feel you needed to take those photographs?
Click to expand...
Read what I wrote “” many years ago”” the fact I was using a twin lens reflex might have also been a good clue ,I estimate without remembering the exact year that it was between 35 to 40 years ago . So would you like to explain in plain English HOW it’s going to make the whole situation worse .. but at least you made me laugh , have a nice day
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
The basic principle of English law is: what isn't forbidden is allowed.

To take your example, the forbidden action is unlawful killing.

There is no equivalent forbidden action of making an image. This being the case there are specific forbidden actions such as photographing certain installations, making obscene images and so on. To claim that you cannot take a picture through a window, you have to show a relevant forbidden action which has been established through Common Law or Statute.
Click to expand...


Valid point, in most cases.

However property law is slightly different.

Access to private property is governed by licence. You may only carry out those actions as allowed by that licence.
Any other action is trespass against property at the minimum.
 
Pound Coin said:
The equivalent in this little diversion would be "Go shoot someone in the head" There's no law against it!"
Click to expand...
That's a very strange thing to have written.

There are laws against violence and how you cause the violence is incidental. There are no laws against making images except in very specific circumstances.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
That's a very strange thing to have written.

There are laws against violence and how you cause the violence is incidental. There are no laws against making images except in very specific circumstances.
Click to expand...

By that argument, then surely there are no laws against violence itself; there are laws against the act of violence (and the consequences thereof) in very specific circumstances. :rolleyes:

To be honest, I think we're just covering old ground here now Andrew?
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
there are laws against the act of violence (and the consequences thereof)
Click to expand...
If you reduce your post to just the bit I've quoted, then you're correct on that point.
 
Has this changed over the years? I don't take a great deal of photos of people, preferring buildings / landscapes etc. I've very little knowledge of the law in this respect. I once chanced on a Capercaillie in the middle of a footpath, which was reluctant to move and I got some half-decent shots. I posted them on a facebook photography page and was told it was an offence under some wildlife act. I didn't believe it, looked it up and it was right - so I removed them.

In late 2016 I had a long weekend in London, with a new camera and took photos almost everywhere. Inside tube trains, stations, big public buildings, in the street. Nobody batted an eyelid. I was just a tourist with a camera. The closest to anyone getting annoyed was this guy. You can see he's giving me the evil eye, as though to say "Is that ******** really taking a photo of me?" I moved the camera around, took a few more shots and he relaxed without saying anything.

So has the public mood shifted in the last 4 years? Could I still do the naive tourist bit, or would I now get challenged? Leicester 0559.jpg
 
j crossley said:
As far as I am aware there is no law to stop you from photographing a Capercaillie, but there is a code of conduct that says you should not approach them on foot.

As for being challenged; if someone wants to challenge you they will, regardless of whatever your photographic status is.
Click to expand...

Under the wildlife act 1981, you need a licence to photograph them (In Scotland) during the breeding season. That's when you are likely to see them, as they are quite shy otherwise. It's an offence to disturb them near a nest, and here is the bit I find difficult to comprehend - even if you don't know it is there. I didn't initially believe the guy who was telling me, but after looking into it I decided to delete the photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top