Is it time the authorities classify photography?

blue max

blue max

Messages
1,350
Edit My Images
Yes
Due to the number of incidents, is it time that photography is classified once and for all?

Either make it:

1. A perfectly harmless passtime.
2. To be tolerated unless there is a complaint.
3. Illegal as there can be no 'harmless' reason to take pictures.

Discuss.

Graham
 
Its not 'photography' the authorities have a problem with!
 
odd jim said:
Its not 'photography' the authorities have a problem with!
Click to expand...

You are probably not wrong Jim, but I am keen to steer away from the usual direction of thinking there is some sort of organised unofficial view. Rather whether it is time for them to speak out on their position. I am amazed that they seem to not know how to deal with it. I would love them to say it's fine unless there is evidence of any law breaking (substantiated).

I'm starting to feel like I am taking a chance using the camera in a public place.

Graham
 
blue max said:
You are probably not wrong Jim, but I am keen to steer away from the usual direction of thinking there is some sort of organised unofficial view. Rather whether it is time for them to speak out on their position. I am amazed that they seem to not know how to deal with it. I would love them to say it's fine unless there is evidence of any law breaking (substantiated).

I'm starting to feel like I am taking a chance using the camera in a public place.

Graham
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
I agree, but I think you need to be very careful what you wish for with this one
 
blue max said:
To be honest, if they want to ban it, then so be it. I'll flog my stuff and get a moby.

I really can't tolerate this 'threat' that we live under.

Graham
Click to expand...

is that not all a bit melodramatic??

Here's a question......how many people here have actually been stopped and questioned by the Police for taking photographs?
 
blue max said:
You are probably not wrong Jim, but I am keen to steer away from the usual direction of thinking there is some sort of organised unofficial view. Rather whether it is time for them to speak out on their position. I am amazed that they seem to not know how to deal with it. I would love them to say it's fine unless there is evidence of any law breaking (substantiated).

I'm starting to feel like I am taking a chance using the camera in a public place.

Graham
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the evidence be the photos taken by a tog, how would they get this evidence if they don't stop you.

Actually isn't what you suggest exactly what the official view (law) is now :thinking:.

I do think some clearer fact based guidance on why you can be stopped would be good; perhaps something along the lines of traffic law where if you are stopped in a car you have to have commited a moving traffic offence or there be a properly sanctioned police random stop opperation.
 
Craig_B said:
is that not all a bit melodramatic??
Click to expand...

Yes, but it has become more uncomfortable with a camera these days.

Too many people have a view about what you are doing or going to be doing.

You can buy a mini HD Video camera that will shoot over an hours worth of HD footage. I would have thought that would be so much more useful for terrorists or whatever else.

But still we are 'suspected' of doing no good. Why?

Graham
 
SimonTALM said:
Actually isn't what you suggest exactly what the official view (law) is now
Click to expand...

Sadly, it seems if you are challenged and don't play ball, you are a 'suspect'.

If you went up to a person with an umbrella. Asked if they intended to stab someone with it. Asked for id and then called the police if none was offered, would the police just laugh or arrest the person under crime prevention.

Why is it acceptable to view a camera in a sinister light?

Graham
 
I think the photographers that are probably viewed with most suspicion are those who go out on the street and wander about looking for something or someone interesting to get a pic of. Put yourself in the shoes of Joe Public. How does that look?

Now if you are there setting up a tripod to take a specific picture of something it looks less dodgy but I can fully understand when people think a photographer is acting strange sometimes.

If you were out and saw someone with a video camera filming you while you are minding your own business wouldn't you wonder why he was doing it?

I'm not saying we shouldn't do street photography - just that we need to understand the perception of others and if they speak to the police who then come and speak to us we need to handle the situation like civilised adults instead of putting up barriers and making things worse.
 
I was questioned by PSCOs for taking photos of a bike stand. For the note I wasn't even taking photos , i was spooling the roll of film through the camera. I didn't want to make a scene in the middle of the high street or explain that to them so gave them my details.

sid
 
i think paranoia is setting in i,ve never been stopped by the police, even taken some photo,s of them. it,s just some peoples attitude when they get stopped, if you give the police a crap answer to their questioning then expect some flack back. rant over nothing else to say on the matter:popcorn:
 
AndyB said:
I think the photographers that are probably viewed with most suspicion are those who go out on the street and wander about looking for something or someone interesting to get a pic of. Put yourself in the shoes of Joe Public. How does that look?
Click to expand...
AndyB said:
Now if you are there setting up a tripod to take a specific picture of something it looks less dodgy but I can fully understand when people think a photographer is acting strange sometimes.

If you were out and saw someone with a video camera filming you while you are minding your own business wouldn't you wonder why he was doing it?

I'm not saying we shouldn't do street photography - just that we need to understand the perception of others and if they speak to the police who then come and speak to us we need to handle the situation like civilised adults instead of putting up barriers and making things worse.
Click to expand...

The London bombers all used backpacks, I wonder how many people with those are stopped as terrorists suspects?
 
Be out in the open and obvious - I am - and I've never had a problem - even photographing police at or near scenes of accidents or crime.
 
Absolutely not. Encouraging governments to "classify" something like photography, in return for supposed benefits, means recognising their right to control and regulate an activity that is perfectly legal and has nothing to do with them.
 
I don't think that there should be the prejudice over people who use DSLRs. People should view DSLRs as a better camera than a P&S doing a better job (usually :lol: ). Sadly it's not like that, people want things to be compact and tiny, obviously you can't have a compact and tiny DSLR so that's maybe, why we stand out like a sore thumb - and maybe that general people with a camera don't think about things such as composition, they just snap away.
 
I am with Martyn on this one.

As with the Police. We EMPLOY them, they do not control US.

Stick up for yourselves. How many on here already have said they just rolled over for a quiet life? NO NO NO. Learn your rights and stick up for them. The Po Lice have no right or business to stop you unless you are doing something likely to cause a breach of the peace or put someone else in danger.

Those who set up tripods to do traffic trails on MOTORWAY bridges, for instance. I can understand them getting questioned, (me) but they are normally pretty good about it. Out an dabout round town, you more likely to come across a Peeler that is new to the job....all the Bobbies jobs have been taken by the more experienced, who have transferred out of it!

There is no law which says you cannot photograph in a public place. The trouble is more and more of this land is being bought and is privately owned - then you are dealing with the owners and if they say "no photography" that is their right. Like you saying, "no muddy boots in the house"....

Grow a bit thick skin and a spine folks. Tell these nosey bloody cap wearers to go and find something useful to do.:bat:
 
MartynK said:
Absolutely not. Encouraging governments to "classify" something like photography, in return for supposed benefits, means recognising their right to control and regulate an activity that is perfectly legal and has nothing to do with them.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 
I have nothing to hide and am a law abiding citizen. I couldnt care less if they stop me and ask for my details. I will give them and be on my way.

But then again, I am an ex-copper myself so I understand what its like to be on the "other" side of the public.
 
jamesoliverstone said:
I have nothing to hide and am a law abiding citizen. I couldnt care less if they stop me and ask for my details. I will give them and be on my way.

But then again, I am an ex-copper myself so I understand what its like to be on the "other" side of the public.
Click to expand...

I agree if I don't have nothing to hide there is nothing to worry, is the same in the airport is a bit uncomfortable when they do all the search, belt, shoes, etc but I feel more safe in the plane
 
jamesoliverstone said:
But then again, I am an ex-copper myself so I understand what its like to be on the "other" side of the public.
Click to expand...

Me too but I don't honestly think I would be quite so keen on giving my details. I don't see whay my movements should be recorded just because I have a dslr. You don't find that happening to everyone carrying a mobile phone and some of those are 8mp now. So where do you draw the line? I don't see how the mere presence of a slightly larger black box can automatically elevate us to suspects.

I was stopped by a security bod in Leeds two years ago and told that I could not take pics of a public ice rink from a public place because of the "Kiddie porn Laws" You could just about make out specks on the ice rink because I was actually photographing the town hall!

I happily showed him the pic so he could see how small the ice rink actually was but then told him that no I would not stop and do please carry on and call the Police, I would be more than happy to explain that what I was doing was perfectly legal to the Chief Constable or the High Court.

He soon left. :thumbs:
 
So much righteous indignation being aired in these cop threads, to the point that some of it frankly sounds a bit pompous. ;)

The vast majority of these stop incidents involving photographers seems to be CPSO officers -an auxilliary unit supporting the police. They're not police officers and have very limited powers and a pretty basic amount of training.

Whether they're a good thing or not I have my doubts, but I'm sure the vast majority of them are public spirited people doing their best to provide a service to the community. If they approach you I'm sure it's well intentioned, if a tad over - zealous, and a little common sense and good humour would go a long way. I'm as jealous of my rights as the next person, but being asked to identify myself doesn't switch me into Mr Angry mode.

Yes - CPSO staff are supervised by the police and I'm sure they're given suitable advice following complaints of this nature.
 
i was stopped by mall security as i snapped a few obscure abstracts in the lowry outlet
i showed them to the guy..he smirked..and i offered to delete them
he said...just dont take any more
i didnt
we chatted...then i went for a urinary event and had a costa coffee afterwards..washed my hands

i went outside and photographed the lowry theatre..no one came up

same happened in tesco around 25 years ago as i was photographing the fruit and veg for abstract reasons..i was told no photography in the shop..

i think photography is a menace to some people by its obscurity and seemingly sinister way we peer into a box and dont let anyone see the image...although nowadays you can

i hope the new police charter keeps up the pressure on ASB
 
If you were in a Mall which is private property then they can ask you to stop. They can't make you delete any images though and you shouldn't offer this - the images are evidence of what you've been shooting after all. Ditto Tesco.
 
swanseamale47 said:


The London bombers all used backpacks, I wonder how many people with those are stopped as terrorists suspects?
Click to expand...



I was !! - Myself and three buddies all met up at Liverpool Street Station early on a Friday morning some years ago. We were on our way to the beer festival and I had a backpack containing a ladies coat (I'm not a cross dresser, I was dropping it of at the wife's office on the way), and was stopped pretty much as soon as I put my ticket through the barrier. Got a lot of questions about who I was, why I wasn't at work and more importantly why I had a ladies coat in my rucksack (I think they were wondering what I'd done with the body !). My mates were absolutely wetting themselves, especially when I got given my Section 44 docket. Thank the lord I never had my camera on me.

I don't believe for one second that based solely on appearance I fit any of their profiles for Terrorist suspect, but they must have disliked something about me - And this was before the London Bombings ! :shrug:
 
yoby said:
I was !! - Myself and three buddies all met up at Liverpool Street Station early on a Friday morning some years ago. We were on our way to the beer festival and I had a backpack containing a ladies coat (I'm not a cross dresser, I was dropping it of at the wife's office on the way), and was stopped pretty much as soon as I put my ticket through the barrier. Got a lot of questions about who I was, why I wasn't at work and more importantly why I had a ladies coat in my rucksack (I think they were wondering what I'd done with the body !). My mates were absolutely wetting themselves, especially when I got given my Section 44 docket. Thank the lord I never had my camera on me.

I don't believe for one second that based solely on appearance I fit any of their profiles for Terrorist suspect, but they must have disliked something about me - And this was before the London Bombings ! :shrug:
Click to expand...

Hmmmm too much information I think. ;)
 
CT said:
Whether they're a good thing or not I have my doubts, but I'm sure the vast majority of them are public spirited people doing their best to provide a service to the community. If they approach you I'm sure it's well intentioned, if a tad over - zealous, and a little common sense and good humour would go a long way. I'm as jealous of my rights as the next person, but being asked to identify myself doesn't switch me into Mr Angry mode.
Click to expand...

I agree. If anyone does get approached by a PCSO and asked to stop doing something which you know is perfectly legal then you should politely ask them to call the station for confirmation.

Getting angry will not help - it may even get you charged under the Public Order Act (breach of the peace) although this is not an arrestable offence.


Steve.
 
i think the general public are just gullable and it all boils down to "thats a good camera bet it takes nice photos" this is the phrase that has actually made the publice fearful.

if i was a terrorist or peadophile then i would be more inclined to use a camera phone or a compact camera so i blend in. i would have to be an idoitic option to pay a fortune for a camera and take it outside for the risk of getting caught in the act. just doesnt make sense:thinking:

and as i will explain when people see a big camera they know its serious and thats when they get concerned. they would catch about 90% more peadophiles and terrorists if they dont just go for the obvious big camera = danger equation.
 
Did you know about 'stop and account' as well as 'stop and search'? I didn't until I read this article in the Independent

I've only once had a brief interlude with the Rozzers (does that show my age??!) over photography. Frankly, if I'm approached on that 'stop and account' pretext, I'll smile sweetly and exercise my right not to provide the info.

For the most part, I think the fear of being stopped is much greater than the reality, but when it happens its a major deal for personal freedoms. If nothing is said, then its carte blanche for the police and the hobby bobbies to carry on as if they are in the right. Photographers should be able to continue to make social documentary about the world we live in. If we stop doing that, then its a major loss in all sorts of ways.
 
I have said this before and will keep saying it any self respecting terrorist will not draw attention to themselves with something like a 1DS mk3 and a white 70-200 f 2.8 they will use a mobile phone in inconspicuously get the shots they want,Or they will go and buy a bloody postcard of the building they want to attack
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top