BFP Campaign For Photographers Rights in Public Places

[Patrick-t]

I have just done a report in this weeks issue of Southport & Mersey Reporter about the issue regarding taking photographs in public places. I am very interested in getting more stories about people's experiences, both good and bad, when it comes to taking snaps over the region. The story started after we have received 6 reports about photographers having problems in Southport, Crosby and Liverpool over the last few weeks. I often have public and other people asking why I am taking photos, but more for the fact they want to get the photo or get our paper than to be a problem, but I have had it happen to me once last year. I was stopped by a lady and it was only when I produced my press ID that she left me alone.

Anyway, in a nutshell, the Bureau of Freelance Photographers, like other groups including the NUJ have been spotting a large rise in problems photographing people in public. As a response to the rise in complaints from Photographers, the BFP has issued to all its members a Blue Card that is designed to help inform people about the rights the public have and also the rights the photographer has. The BFP's say that:- "As part of our campaign for photographers' rights we have sent all our members a 'Blue Card'. The card is designed to help our members inform the public about the rights photographers have on taking pictures in public. We have done this after getting so many complaints from our members who have informed us about members of the public and the police telling them they could not take pictures in public. We hope that members can now show this card to people like security guards, police officers and other official people who have in resent years have been stopping our members and in some cases ordering members to delete images. So far more than 200MP's have signed an Early Day Motion condemning the police for harassing photographers in public places and want a major initiative to take place to tackle this problem. Even the editor of Amateur Photographer has been on the BBC Breakfast News to highlight this issue. Sadly the longer this situation goes on, the more miss informed the pubic is going to get."

What I would love to know is, have any of you had problems, if so from who, where and when. Also do you know about this issue and what are your views on it.

Our full report about it can be found via going to our site at:- http://www.southportreporter.com/348/348-10.shtml

Also the BFP's website is:- www.thebfp.net

Please post on here or email us via our email address on Southport Reporter.

Thanks, I look forward to your posts!

[John(Zappa)]

I myself have never had a problem. I either give the people funnier looks than they give me or just take the pic and run like hell.
I don't understand how some people are stopped. I tried to take pics of the "Red Light" area in Amsterdam and that was hard going,not by police but by the "Ladies of the night" (Some where big and hard lookin'). It is in the rules that you can't photograph them but I always thought that rules where meant to be broken

[Ged]

I once tried to photograph them John and as a sweetener I said 'come on, haven't you got lovely brown eyes' - 'they're blue' she said, mind you my eyes were at chest height.

The police ended up grappling with her and when she grabbed his todger he said she was only making it harder for herself. She got done for receiving swollen goods in the end.

[PhilipG]

The key word here is public.

As long as you're in a public place, it's legal to take photos.
Having said that, (and I like to think of myself as an amateur photographer), I respect people who don't want their photos taken, because I wouldn't like mine to be taken without my knowledge.

Apart from Government buildings, and private property, I think the hysterical outburst is that children are nowadays deemed to be unphotographable (is that a word?).

If images of children are not allowed, why are they allowed to be seen in public?

[John(Zappa)]

Originally Posted by PhilipG

The key word here is public.

As long as you're in a public place, it's legal to take photos.
Having said that, (and I like to think of myself as an amateur photographer), I respect people who don't want their photos taken, because I wouldn't like mine to be taken without my knowledge.

Apart from Government buildings, and private property, I think the hysterical outburst is that children are nowadays deemed to be unphotographable (is that a word?).

If images of children are not allowed, why are they allowed to be seen in public?

Ged- Very good
Phillip I agree with everything you've said.
The P C police now say that taking pics with kids is bordering on being a peado.
If that was the case years ago we'd have lost a tremdous amount of good pics of street kids. These children will have nothing to look back on.
What about video. Do the same rules apply?

[Patrick-t]

PhilipG. Government buildings are very much of interest to me. If you have had a problem, do tell! Also children, are allowed to be captured on photographs, but their are odd rules to watch out for. Thanks for the feed back.

John(Zappa), European law is very odd... I have an International Press standing and I know quite a few laws in Europe. They are in fact often very hard to understand, especially the French who have copyright issues all over the place! I would check the rules before doing shoots in some places as you could find you self locked up in jail. Eg. Do not photograph plains or airports in Italy. plane spotting, may be misunderstood (particularly near military sites) and you can be jailed as a spy!

[PhilipG]

Government buildings.
There is the ludicrous situation of the Criminal Records Bureau, exactly next to the Cruise Liner Terminal on Princes Parade, and facing the river.
You are not allowed to take photos of it because it's a Government building.
If you're taking a photo from the river, or the Wirral side, of anything at the terminal you can't avoid getting this building in shot.
(It's crap architecture, anyway!)
The situation was made even more ludicrous when the Ark Royal, which itself is ultimately owned by the government was in Liverpool.
Everybody was taking photos of the Ark Royal with nobody dreaming of saying it's Government property, and you're not allowed.
What about the Houses of Parliament, the home of the Govenment?

This is the Malmaison Hotel.
I like the architecture, especially the windows.
I'm not responsible for the reflection.
This is a photo of the Malmaison Hotel.

[John(Zappa)]

Patrick t Thanx for the advice
PhillipG- Very good

[kevin]

Sorry to be the pedant, but I'd be more impressed by a newspaper editor who knew the difference between: 'resent' and 'recent'; 'miss informed' and 'misinformed'; 'plain' and plane'.

I know we all type quickly and make mistakes, myself included. Just surprised that an editor makes the same type of errors.

Trained at The Guardian, perchance?

[Ged]

There are now of course public places where we can't photograph too. The swimming baths, Sports centre changing rooms etc.

[PhilipG]

My photo of the two lads on the Superlambanana has vanished from my flickr site.
It's #154 in the SLB thread.

It's a crazy world!

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/sho...?t=4300&page=8

[A.D.W]

Originally Posted by PhilipG

My photo of the two lads on the Superlambanana has vanished from my flickr site.
It's #154 in the SLB thread.

It's a crazy world!

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/sho...?t=4300&page=8

I can still see it.

[Ged]

Yes, it's still on the Yo site and so it should be but flickr seem to have removed it from their site.

[PhilipG]

Originally Posted by A.D.W

I can still see it.

But can you still see it on my flickr page?
I can't.

I can still see it on this site, and a SLB flickr group requested it and it's still visible there.

I never did learn to link my photos back to the flickr site.

Edit.
Thanks, Ged.

[A.D.W]

Originally Posted by PhilipG

But can you still see it on my flickr page?
I can't.

I can still see it on this site, and a SLB flickr group requested it and it's still visible there.

I never did learn to link my photos back to the flickr site.

Edit.
Thanks, Ged.

I found the picture on your flickr page in the 15th June 2008 section.

[PhilipG]

Originally Posted by A.D.W

I found the picture on your flickr page in the 15th June 2008 section.

I logged on as somebody else, and yes, I can see it.
But I can't when I'm me.
Odd!

[quincyg]

Just had a look and it's deffo there on your photostream page and it's had 31 views

[PhilipG]

Originally Posted by quincyg

Just had a look and it's deffo there on your photostream page and it's had 31 views

Thanks.
Ged can't see it, either, so it's not senile decay on my part.

Anyway, it appears like another sort of flickr glitz, so I'm not too concerned now I know it hasn't vanished completely.

[Samp]

Originally Posted by PhilipG

I logged on as somebody else, and yes, I can see it.
But I can't when I'm me.
Odd!

Maybe when its on view, your not there, and when your you, it is somewhere else? ( Be careful the picture does not start getting younger! You might start turning into a Lambbanana. Remember what happened to 'Dorian Grey')

[PhilipG]

Originally Posted by Samp

Maybe when its on view, your not there, and when your you, it is somewhere else? ( Be careful the picture does not start getting younger! You might start turning into a Lambbanana. Remember what happened to 'Doren Grey')

His picture got older.