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 (http://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:PDT_Xtremez_42:

[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)]

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-:handclap: 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.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3104/2561860828_1e2f301735_o.jpg

[John(Zappa)]

Patrick t Thanx for the advice :PDT_Piratz_26:
PhillipG- Very good:handclap:

[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?
:unibrow:

[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/showthread.php?t=4300&page=8

[A.D.W]

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/showthread.php?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]

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]

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]

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 :PDT11

[PhilipG]

Just had a look and it's deffo there on your photostream page and it's had 31 views :PDT11

Thanks.
Ged can't see it, either, so it's not senile decay on my part. :PDT_Piratz_26:

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

[Samp]

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]

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')

:PDT11
His picture got older. :)

[steveb]

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


I thought Sports centers, swimming baths were council owned ?
As for changing rooms, :-), the mind boggles

[PhilipG]

I thought Sports centers, swimming baths were council owned ?
As for changing rooms, :-), the mind boggles

It depends on your definition of "public".
I suppose the Council own public pavements.

Changing rooms!! Ged!!! :PDT_Piratz_26:

[steveb]

It depends on your definition of "public".
I suppose the Council own public pavements.

Changing rooms!! Ged!!! :PDT_Piratz_26:

Dis is true. In Anfield cemetery one of the signs states that
photographs are not allowed without permision.. I allways thought
that taking pic,s from a public, ie, everyone is allowed, place was OK
however, I was asked to stop taking pic,s of a public event, think it
was the lord mayors parade or something by a PCSO, told him to go away

[Ged]

Yes changing rooms. It says no cameras allowed - not that I ever would like -but i've seen dozens of 'pre-ban' photos of footy teams players celebrating in the changing rooms or footy players kits hanging up - yet mobile phones with cameras on are everywhere including concert halls where you're not supposed to film/photograph certain 'stars' - must be difficult to police that these days.

[Patrick-t]

kevin kevin - Senior Member. Yep, I am dyslexic. But I have spotted people respond better when you post with errors in it! Even if your main post does not get posts, you keep the topic high up as people love to correct spelling errors!

[Patrick-t]

steveb steveb - when was the event you got told to stop photographing and where was this?

The cemetery is a very odd one, thanks to World War 2, but again it is a gray area now as taking names to get a Spy into the UK is a bit harder now. I hope.... Often though, most are privet property, owned by the Church Of England etc. as they are part of a Churches grounds.

Sports centers, swimming baths are not good places, but common sense should dictate that.

PhilipG :handclap: Thanks for that one! ;)

Any more?

Also any one had problems with local government officials telling you they know who are allowed to take photographs and who are not allowed.

[steveb]

[QUOTE=Patrick-t;137034]steveb steveb - when was the event you got told to stop photographing and where was this?

<<<<
The event was I think Lords mayors parade in dale street, last year

The cemetery is a very odd one, thanks to World War 2, but again it is a gray area now as taking names to get a Spy into the UK is a bit harder now. I hope.... Often though, most are privet property, owned by the Church Of England etc. as they are part of a Churches grounds.

<<<<
I like it,"privet property".
To take names you don't need a camera... The Cemetery is owned by
the council, not the church. There are sections we know designated as
Gen, CE, RC, and even Sec 17 chinese, but these are just for burials of
the persons religion.



Sports centers, swimming baths are not good places, but common sense should dictate that.

<<<<
Indeed yes, just like schools.



Steve

[Ged]

What about the school nativity play though. I used to camcorder that and glad I did now as I have tapes of my kids in their youth. Swimming baths. I do triathlons and like to record the event for posterity.

The fact that kids, schools, baths, cameras are mentioned in the same sentence should not automatically lead anyone to just one assumption.

[lindylou]

I'm glad I have a video of my son in his school nativity.

[kevin]

kevin kevin - Senior Member. Yep, I am dyslexic. But I have spotted people respond better when you post with errors in it! Even if your main post does not get posts, you keep the topic high up as people love to correct spelling errors!

Forums certainly do sport lots of pedants. I often get caned for mistakes on other forums (no, not that sort of cane and not that sort of forum) and just couldn't resist challenging your post when I saw your occupation!

Good topic and some interesting replies.

[snappel]

I'm a bit confused. The campaign is for 'photographers rights in public places', but most of the incidents I've heard about have occured when the photographer already had the rights, but the security guards or Police were not aware of the law.

So would it not be better to have a 'campaign for a better-informed Police force'?

[Ged]

I feel like purposely going to snap where i'm gonna get some grief so I can tell them where to go.

[snappel]

I agree. I'm fed up with hearing stories from harassed photographers that end with 'reluctantly I complied...'. Incidents like that just bolster the cops' assumption that they're acting lawfully and encourage them to do it again.

Say NO to social compliance!!

[Samp]

I feel like purposely going to snap where i'm gonna get some grief so I can tell them where to go.


Take some snaps of the 'jobsworth' who is making up the rules as they go along, Then post them on the internet to show everyone what an idiot looks like.

(but if I bump into you sometime, don't take any of me!)

[GingerTheCat]

Interesting article on the subject at The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/police_photographer_stops/)



Stephen Carroll is a keen amateur photographer, with an interest in candid portraiture: "street photography", he calls it. In December 2007, he was in the centre of Hull taking photos.
Unfortunately for him, his actions were spotted by two local policemen. They stopped him in the middle of Boots and asked him to accompany them outside. There they told him that he had been taking photographs of "sensitive buildings".

[PhilipG]

Interesting article on the subject at The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/police_photographer_stops/)

The basis of that story was somebody taking photos inside Boots.
What did he expect?
I never take photos of the interior of any building without permission.

[Ged]

I took a shed load inside the World Museum last weekend. I didn't even think to ask and one of the attendants even stopped in his tracks, in case he spoilt my shot, to allow me to snap then carried on afterwards with a smile. Just how it should be in my opinion but would you deem that a public building or a private collection?

[PhilipG]

I took a shed load inside the World Museum last weekend. I didn't even think to ask and one of the attendants even stopped in his tracks, in case he spoilt my shot, to allow me to snap then carried on afterwards with a smile. Just how it should be in my opinion but would you deem that a public building or a private collection?

There is a notice which says you can take photos in the World Museum, as long as you don't use flash, so permission has been given.
Not quite the same situation as taking photos inside a shop, though. :eek:
In museums, etc., you should find out because photography isn't allowed in some.
The Stewart Bale Collection, for instance.

[lindylou]

I wouldn't have the nerve to stand taking photographs in a shop.

[Patrick-t]

kevin kevin, no insult taken...

As for schools... do not get me started!

Worse place is Sefton MBC's Press office. They do not recognize the national press identification system, used by the NUJ and other press bodies! Rights'... Free Media.... Free Speech... no chance!

[chippie]

so Boots is a sensitive building is it?

In the right place to get some cream for it then............

[PhilipG]

so Boots is a sensitive building is it?

In the right place to get some cream for it then............

That reminds me of a joke.

On second thoughts.
Perhaps not. :shock:

[taffy]

I don't suppose Google Earth asked permission to photograph all those private buildings on its web site !!!

[GingerTheCat]

Google Earth is nothing compared with Google Street View (http://maps.google.com/help/maps/streetview/)

and apparently the Google Street View Cars (http://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/01/take-a-look-at-the-vehicle-thats-taking-a-look-at-you/) have been seen in England although I don't think there are any reports of them in Liverpool yet.

Mike

[PhilipG]

Just got back from taking snaps of the Grand Princess.
Saw some of the passengers taking photos.
Of course the nearest building to the liner is "That Which Mustn't be Photographed!" :PDT10

[Ged]

Yet the Stewart Bale collection can be photographed in the central library :)

[PhilipG]

Yet the Stewart Bale collection can be photographed in the central library :)

Don't you sign that they're for your personal use, though?

Has the library got the complete Stewart Bale Collection these days?
I know they never did because the daughter of a friend was once the curator.

[phredd]

This may be of interest to those who take photos in public places.
Direct from the House of Lords >>>>>>

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-07-16a.1241.3

It is ok to publish this info as it is in the Public Domain. It is rather a long article.

Phredd

[PhilipG]

This may be of interest to those who take photos in public places.
Direct from the House of Lords >>>>>>

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2008-07-16a.1241.3

It is ok to publish this info as it is in the Public Domain. It is rather a long article.

Phredd

Thank you, Phredd.

People wanting to photograph the steam train should find this encouraging

Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a particular issue with the nation's railways, with the specialist press carrying many articles about photographers on the railway being harassed by officious security staff and sometimes station staff across the network? Will he draw the attention of the train operating companies and Network Rail to the excellent guidelines produced by the British Transport Police? They make it clear not only that photographers are welcome on the railway, but that they are also an aid to security, as they provide an extra set of eyes to spot when things are amiss.
Add your comment

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, I suspect that the practice at railway stations varies from place to place. I am aware of the issue because my daughter explained to me recently that one of her friends, who was doing a photography project, was prevented from taking photographs at Brighton station. To my mind, that seems rather odd. Railways are not public spaces in the same way that streets and footpaths are, but there is an issue here. We need to encourage a sensible approach, involving all bodies that provide public services.

[Samp]

I went into a photography shop once and made a quick sketch!!!

[danensis]

so Boots is a sensitive building is it?

You've heard of the shoe bomber haven't you?

John

[Patrick-t]

A poster on Southport Chat (http://www.southportchat.com/ has informed me and posted on that site this very interesting bit of news:-


This seems to be most unjust but it's the way the law is at the moment. Was it in Oliver Twist that "The law is an ass, an idiot" appeared?

Photographing thugs 'is assault', police tell householder snapping proof of anti-social behaviour - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036728/Photographing-thugs-assault-police-tell-householder-snapping-proof-anti-social-behaviour.html

I wonder where pictures taken on security cameras would fit into this. The law needs to be clarified very clearly on this subject, there is far too much doubt at the moment leaving only the legal profession to reap the benefit.

It is getting worse in the UK and we must start to get the message across before it is to late and some silly politician or judge, trying to make a name for them selves goes and makes a ruling about this that affects our society irrevocably.

[Patrick-t]

One other note is that what is more worrying is the report suggests he could have been braking the law, when in fact he was not braking any. If any one other than the youngsters where braking the law, it was in fact the Police in this case!

[PhilipG]

Watch Look North West on BBC today.
The Passport Office in Old Hall Street is on strike, and the news item shows lots of different views of the building.
Wasn't the BBC told that it's a Government building and shouldn't be photographed?

Yes, the situation is ridiculous.


.

[Patrick-t]

Danensis, you have fallen for the oldest miss conception ever. It is like the ID card issue, a complete red herring... Photography is not a problem, just a few miss informed people say it is and as they are in places of very limited power, people tend to think they are correct (eg:- security guards)... The true fact is that you do not need to take photos to plant a bomb... Also if you are going to brake the law and hide a bomb... you can get a camera on a phone very easily in to take the photographs with out being seen! In fact anyone who is determined will find a way to get what they need if they do not respect the law. So a dead end issue.... It is just a smoke screen....

[Gnomie]

I was taking pics of a guy protesting at the Dixie Dean statue at Goodison park. he had a banner against the move to Kirkby. He was told to move on by stewards and police, he started shouting" look what they are doing , we have no rights" so i started snapping away. I got 2 pics and a security officer(big yellow jacket guy) jumps in front of me and says " stop taking photos or i will take that camera off you" I told him to try and take it off me, and see how far he got" he called his mate over and i told them to sod off, i will do as i like. they tried to look all agressive towards me, so i laughed. After calling them the Kray twins gone wrong, they called the police over. The officer told me to move on. I asked what was i doing wrong? He replied " im not in the mood for dick heads like you, ****ing move now " not wanting to be arrested i bit my lip. nice day out though :PDT_Xtremez_12:

[Ged]

Patrick-t. I think Danensis was having a play on words laugh with you there, you know - boots, shoe :PDT_Aliboronz_24:

Tony. I think i'd have gone over and into Stanley Park, leaned over the wall and shouted smile to the copper as I zoomed in on him - then ran away. That'd have got his goat.

He probably knew quite well there was nothing he could have done regarding you photographing so would have done you for some other spurious charge to make his point.

[quincyg]

Watch Look North West on BBC today.
The Passport Office in Old Hall Street is on strike, and the news item shows lots of different views of the building.
Wasn't the BBC told that it's a Government building and shouldn't be photographed?

Yes, the situation is ridiculous.


.

and THE building that shouldn't be photographed was in clear view when they were filming the QE2 as well...one law for Auntie Beeb eh

[Patrick-t]

This is a very interesting quote...


Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour)

My Lords, the noble Lord is right: photographers have to exercise a degree of common sense and try to work with people. Perhaps that is not the right way to put it, but it ought to be the case. Photographers have to act responsibly in the public domain. Most of them do, and we should encourage that.

This suggests to the silly people need a law, if you follow recent law making. All it will take is a few silly **** who have no common sense, making every ones life a pain in the *** (eg. NOTW) to grab a few headlines and then watch a over the top reaction from up high. Just look at guns. When we had guns legally their was very little gun crime. Ban then and.... Well the stats say it all. But they still banned them and what a silly move that was. Our worry is now the issue has been raised about photography, this silly knee jurk reaction will be the next step. Eg. a banning of photographs or some think like that.

[knowhowe]

There was an interesting photography discussion here a while back entitled 'places you can't photograph'-

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3448

- in which I contributed the following:

"As, among other things, a wedding photographer of many years experience, strange to relate, some of the most difficult and restrictive places I've experienced to take pictures have been in churches on my client's weddding days! The number of times I've had a vicar laying down the law about how I can't photograph this, or that, or the other..

Considering how much money the blighters take off the happy couple for the privilege of getting married in their churches, I always thought they had some nerve.

It's not all of them, to be fair, but each has his own rules- some say do what you like, some say 'no flash photography' (in the darkest churches, naturally), some none at all except for signing the book and pictures outside the building.

A notable occasion was at a pretty little Lever church on the Wirral- that will remain nameless- where a crabby verger had given me the usual lecture, in this case, that I could only photograph the service without flash and from the very back of the church (good grief)- which I went along with. Halfway through, one of the guests leant into the aisle and snapped a quick picture. Spotting the flash, the vicar stopped in mid sentence- halfway through the 'I Do' bit- stalked down the aisle and proceeded to berate me loudly for 'disobeying his wishes' and 'showing disrepect to God' -if you don't mind- and ordered me out of the building. Pleading innocence had no effect and the herbert who actually took the picture predictably said nothing. The 'happy couple' neddless to say, were anything but as a result, but thankfully didn't blame me. They lost out on some crucial photographs though.

Interestingly, this sort of appalling behaviour, in my experience, has only ever applied to C of E churches, mind. Roman Catholics, Jews, Greek Orthodox- fine, get on with your job, so what is with vicars?

The new freedom of hotels, castles etc to hold civil weddings in their premises (where I have experienced no problems of this sort whatsoever) seems to have produced no modification of the C of E's restrictive practices, despite an obvious decline in their lucrative 'trade'...

So if you're planning a church wedding and want pictures of the actual ceremony, learn from my experience and be warned!"

[scouse smurf]

Sorry if someone has already put this

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/02/18/photographers-are-now-terrorists-in-the-uk/

[Samp]

Sorry if someone has already put this

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/02/18/photographers-are-now-terrorists-in-the-uk/

I found the film very interesting, but surely all a policeman need do would be to ask to see the pictures on the camera viewer? (I think most cameras now are digital.)