Private use and social media

DemiLion said:
Likewise, my experience is hardly armchair. I took a course for press photographers that centred on media and photography law. Following that I was the press and PR photographer for a large (non metropolitan) police force, which included advising on public order matters.
Click to expand...

So you took a photography course and then went on to advise the Police on public order? Am I missing something here but how on earth does someone who works/worked as a photographer start telling the Police how to control a riot or facilitate a large scale public demonstration that may have the potential to turn violent?
 
Phil V said:
Have you noticed how much detail google street view obfuscates.

And the bit in bold isn’t what I was saying was incorrect. That isn’t what you posted, you posted...
If that includes the windows it includes the windows and whatever you can see through them

Which is where you pushed your luck and became funny.:p
Click to expand...

Please tell me which bit of law stops me standing on the public highway outside your house and taking a photograph of said house. Streetview leaves much visible, including the view into my front lounge which was taken by the camera car.
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Lets look at this example:

The back of an Ambulance is 'deemed' as a public place under certain criminal laws in the UK. You assume that if the door is open you are free to take photographs of the occupants. This is not correct.
As Mark quite rightly points out the Public Order Act 1986 covers the behaviour of people in Public Places but it also covers the behaviour of Public to private and private to public.
Section 5 of the Public Order Act covers harassment/alarm/distress and it's 'judgement' is what any reasonable person who is present at the time would consider as causing the harassment/alarm or distress (the actual person doesn't have to be present). You could be/probably would be arrested for committing this offence as I would certainly expect a Court to rule that photographing an injured person in the back of an Ambulance is likely to cause harassment,alarm or distress.
Following this I would seize your camera as it is 'the article used in the commission of the offence' and could also contain evidence you were in fact taking those pictures. I would then ask for a destruction order for your photographic equipment, if found guilty the Court can issue that order (Yes it has happened and the Courts usually issue orders the Police ask for.)

Section 19 of the Police and Criminal evidence Act 1984 covers the seizure/retention of Property and is very 'wide ranging'.

Likewise the Public Order Act doesn't just cover Public Places - e.g. you can not display a racial sign in your house that is visible from a public place.

I can give examples where your understanding of the Law is incorrect but I don't think the thread would benefit from 'showing you up'.

It all comes down to common decency at times - would you be happy with some 'tog' shoving his/her lens into the back of an ambulance whilst the life ebbed from one of your loved ones?

You are trying to generalise and you simply can't; there are numerous occasions when you could be breaking the law by assuming that because you are in a public place you are 'free' to take pictures of what you want.



Please provide the 'statute law in public spaces' that it is in direct conflict with?
Click to expand...

Section 13 of PACE and the Magna Carta.
 
Andrew Smith said:
Please tell me which bit of law stops me standing on the public highway outside your house and taking a photograph of said house. Streetview leaves much visible, including the view into my front lounge which was taken by the camera car.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if your arrogance is blinding you to the obvious or you simply have no imagination.
Can you really not think of anything you might photograph through my windows that would be illegal?
Wow.
 
Phil V said:
Can you really not think of anything you might photograph through my windows that would be illegal?
Wow.
Click to expand...
It's his RIGHT, Phil. Don't argue. Remember, Magna Carta.
 
Phil V said:
I don’t know if your arrogance is blinding you to the obvious or you simply have no imagination.
Can you really not think of anything you might photograph through my windows that would be illegal?
Wow.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the guy could argue with himself. When numerous people are questioning your knowledge about something, and you continue to spout the same line, the cause of the problem is likely closer to home.,
 
Why is it when travelling abroad, even to communist countries I have never ever had this problem. It it a unique british thing that makes people into "JOBS WORTH" when given a uniform or position.
 
realspeed said:
Why is it when travelling abroad, even to communist countries I have never ever had this problem. It it a unique british thing that makes people into "JOBS WORTH" when given a uniform or position.
Click to expand...

Abroad is a broad church.

Male has no photography near the National Guard HQ at the harbour, Riyadh has several buildings/locations which you cannot photograph, coastguard boats in Kato Pathos have signs on them saying 'no photography,' but I'm playing devil's advocate as there are definitely countries which seem to be more relaxed about it.
 
I had a couple of moments in Kazakhstan and at least in the UK all you get is a bored jobsworth or people feigning outrage at the perv with a camera.
 
realspeed said:
Why is it when travelling abroad, even to communist countries I have never ever had this problem. It it a unique british thing that makes people into "JOBS WORTH" when given a uniform or position.
Click to expand...
How often have you photographed abroad compared to in the UK. If you photograph 95% in the UK and 5% abroad and of that 95% of the time have been stopped say 5 times then it suggests you just got lucky abroad not to have been challenged at least once, assuming you even found places that have security and with no expectation of wanting to be photographed (e.g. I expect the security at the Eiffel Tower wouldn't challenge)
 
Gogster said:
I empathise.

It’s only a few months ago I discovered The South Bank Centre owns a considerable distance of the promenade in front of the building, to the river wall.
Click to expand...
Ah yes and they do challenge photographers along there
142505337.jpg

142505338.jpg
 
I don't know why anyone is bothering as Andrew believes he is right and won't listen, just calls everybody 'so wrong'.
The fact he's completely wrong on so many points and is trying to justify himself is funny. There's no arguing with a self rigteous Internet hardman/keyboard warrior
Andrew Smith said:
I am fully aware of my responsibilities. I also stand up for my rights. You seem willing to know-tow to anyone who claims authority. I don’t.
Click to expand...
 
Byker28i said:
Ah yes and they do challenge photographers along there
142505337.jpg

142505338.jpg
Click to expand...

The South Bank... promoting the arts, there's Tate Modern just further along with their photography exhibition...

Was he giving his oath of allegiance in the second shot?
 
Fraser Euan White said:
Andrew - section 13 PACE relates to search warrants and what can be seized; I'm not sure of the relevance of this as no search warrant is required? If you are arrested at a location (Home address) the Police can search those premises under Sec.32 PACE and seize what they want in relation to the Offence you are arrested for. I think quoting 'Magna Carta' is getting rather silly?

Like I said originally; taking photographs in public places is unlikely to get you into trouble BUT there are numerous laws which you could contravene that to take the attitude 'I'm 6ft6" and built like a 'brick s*** house so I will do what I want in public' makes you far more vulnerable to breaking these laws!

Looking at the OP - if he was on Private Land then security guard is within his rights to ask you to stop taking photographs - if you refuse he can not seize any of your equipment, ask to look at what you have photographed etc. but he can ask you to leave and if you refuse he can use reasonable force to eject you - I would suggest a Polite approach (even if he is a rude jobsworth) may alleviate these issues in a high proportion of incidents.

You Said:


This again is wrong - harassment laws do not cover a sequence of at least 2 events - it is a Course of Conduct and does not have to apply to a singular person.

This is a true example:

In a town in Cheshire there was a particular High End Boutique that 'footballers wives' visited on fairly regular occasions. One day a photographer decided he was going to stand outside and photograph people going into and out of the shop, he was in a 'public place' and the persons he was photographing were also in a public place.
The Shop manager contacted the Police to make a complaint about the photographer and told the Officer that he believed the actions of the photographer were stopping customers entering the store.

The Photographer was asked to move but took your attitude and refused so he was subsequently arrested for Harassment. He pleaded Not Guilty again using the same 'attitude' as you but was Convicted by the Courts and lost his equipment. The investigation showed that the Stores takings on that Saturday the photographer was there were significantly lower than other similar days and the CCTV also showed the reaction of people outside the store to being photographed.

On another day in a different Court it could also be found that the 'Course of Conduct' was reasonable (e.g. Paparazzi outside a London Cinema on a first night showing of a film)

Common sense and courtesy probably would have avoided the whole situation; just asking the store manager may well have received a positive response - we will never know but it costs nothing.

Again - Every case is individual - It can not be given a blanket response as to what you can and can't do.
Click to expand...

People should remember, breach of the peace, when you start to get chopsy, has a huge scope and a miniscule burden of proof.
 
Gogster said:
The South Bank... promoting the arts, there's Tate Modern just further along with their photography exhibition...

Was he giving his oath of allegiance in the second shot?
Click to expand...

From the little I overheard it was the standard this is private property and you need a permit for a commercial shoot type talk.
His mate wasn't helping, just photographed the whole encounter :D
142505339.jpg
 
Andrew Smith said:
So you took a photography course and then went on to advise the Police on public order? Am I missing something here but how on earth does someone who works/worked as a photographer start telling the Police how to control a riot or facilitate a large scale public demonstration that may have the potential to turn violent?
Click to expand...


Frankly I've had enough of trying to talk to your terminally thick skull. I just hope that anyone who reads your posts can see what utter drivel they are.
 
point a camera at a house where you just " happen " to be able to see whats going on through a window your into the realms of voyeurism which happens to be an offence, not to mention if pointing a camera in that way causes alarm or distress to the whoever " happens " to be on the other side of that window is another offence
i'l guarantee there's all sorts of offences that could be strewn from such an act

the way i see photography is there might not be a law that stops you taking a photograph in a public place but there is no law that says you can either
there's a lot more legislation that can prevent you from photographing particular instances or places than there is allowing you to
 
Andrew Smith said:
My reference to the security guard was his interaction with me whilst I was standing in a public space, not on private land. Perhaps you should also address your comments to all the other armchair lawyers on here?
Click to expand...

That is the problem. There are so many armchair lawyers on here. It happens all the time when the question of copyright comes up as well.

As far as security guards are concerned , they can be their own worse enemy. I had an experience of a very arrogant one on a beach in south wales, near a steel works. There was no sign of a barrier between the two to denote change of ownership. He appeared out of the blue and started getting bolshy - the usual things, "you can't photograph this from there, hand over your camera, I've called the police" I stood my ground, not believing anything he said. And I was right - the police never turned up, and I carried on taking photographs. It all ended happily enough and he gave me a lift back to my vehicle in his!

In my limited experience actual police do realise that it is a difficult issue and can be more sensitive - eg those who approached me while I was photographing a nuclear power plant from the coastal footpath. Decent police will have had training in how to deal with members of the public. Jumped-up security guards are different kettle of fish.
 
Phil V said:
I don’t know if your arrogance is blinding you to the obvious or you simply have no imagination.
Can you really not think of anything you might photograph through my windows that would be illegal?
Wow.
Click to expand...

I’ll ask again. Please state what law prevents me from standing on the public highway outside your house and taking a photo of said house.
 
Andrew Smith said:
I’ll ask again. Please state what law prevents me from standing on the public highway outside your house and taking a photo of said house.
Click to expand...
You know you mentioned inside my house from outside, you’re too late to change your point now.

You’re trying to bully the wrong crowd Andrew ;)
 
Phil V said:
Have you noticed how much detail google street view obfuscates.

And the bit in bold isn’t what I was saying was incorrect. That isn’t what you posted, you posted...
If that includes the windows it includes the windows and whatever you can see through them

Which is where you pushed your luck and became funny.:p
Click to expand...

Andrew Smith said:
I’ll ask again. Please state what law prevents me from standing on the public highway outside your house and taking a photo of said house.
Click to expand...

AFAIK and as Phil said taking a picture of the house is not acting illegally but (and I await those with insight to post as needed) then it comes down to context ~ i.e. why are you taking the picture, was your intent to capture the occupants and/or the contents and what is your history i.e. is this the first time or one of many times that you have taken pictures of 'this' house. Are there not laws against voyeurism, harrassment, intimidation.....???

AFAIK UK law is based on case law i.e. prior precedent....................is the reason you are taking the picture covered by such case law???

Waiting to learn!

Edit ~ re Google Streeview ~ their intent is mapping and guidance not access to personal 'data'. I thought the obfuscation of faces & car number plates was done by computer (i.e. way too much for all manual intervention) and if they inadvertently miss something, once advised, they will act to obscure it ~ so the fact that you can see inside your own house..............if that concerns you for whatever reason tell them to 'correct the view'! Do not use their automated systems as a reason for you to cover your 'interpretation' of UK law or the lack of it.
 
Last edited:
@Box Brownie
No, my point was he suggested it was OK to photograph whatever he could see inside the house.
Andrew Smith said:
If that includes the windows it includes the windows and whatever you can see through them
Click to expand...

He’s backed away from that now, but seems to think we don’t understand the significant difference between that and just photographing ‘my house’, he’s wrong.
 
Last edited:
It carries more weight in the US Supreme Court than it does over here. Virtually all of it has been written out of our law.
 
Andrew Smith said:
So the owner of Buckingham Palace is going to object to me photographing it and that would mean I fall foul of privacy laws? Nope......
Click to expand...
As long as you have a Royal Parks photography permit, you'll be okay. Not sure there's any view from the Queen's Highway, unless you can grab one through the trees on the number 22.
 
Gogster said:
We have, several times. Read my posts.
Click to expand...

No you haven’t, all you have quoted is a lot of laws that could in certain, extremely rare and highly unlikely circumstances apply. Please state a specific law that says it is illegal for me to take a photograph of someone’s house.
 
Andrew Smith said:
No you haven’t, all you have quoted is a lot of laws that could in certain, extremely rare and highly unlikely circumstances apply. Please state a specific law that says it is illegal for me to take a photograph of someone’s house.
Click to expand...

And what are your thoughts in regard to context ref posts #149 &150

You set some context by stating in an earlier post that any such exterior (legal) pictures would include equally legal visible room contents ~ it is this latter part where you expose yourself to law breaking.......but which law in my understanding would require a complainant and going to court action, no???
 
Andrew Smith said:
No you haven’t, all you have quoted is a lot of laws that could in certain, extremely rare and highly unlikely circumstances apply. Please state a specific law that says it is illegal for me to take a photograph of someone’s house.
Click to expand...

Yes we have, I state again, right to privacy HRA §8, it's an principle and evidential breach - so you would go to court and argue as to why you were taking photographs warranted the breach, it's a special circumstance restriction, you'd likely lose without lawful authority.
 
Andrew Smith said:
No you haven’t, all you have quoted is a lot of laws that could in certain, extremely rare and highly unlikely circumstances apply. Please state a specific law that says it is illegal for me to take a photograph of someone’s house.
Click to expand...
The rarity of the circumstances is irrelevant.

You made the blatantly stupid statement that you could shoot inside my house without breaking any laws.:police:

You know you were wrong, because there’s many things that may be illegal, now you’re blustering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top