View Full Version : Man fined for taking photograph
"Man fined for taking photograph
The fine was handed down at Edinburgh Sheriff Court
A man who took a photograph of an ill woman outside an Edinburgh bar has been fined £100 after being branded "unchivalrous" by a sheriff.
The woman had been drinking with friends in an Omni Centre bar when she felt unwell and went outside for air.
Sebastian Przygodzki took a photograph with his camera, which upset Rebecca Smith and her friends called police.
He was arrested and charged with breach of the peace, and pleaded guilty to the offence at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
Przygodzki, 28, who moved to Scotland two years ago from Krakow, told police he had spent the day taking photographs of performers at the Edinburgh festival, which was in full swing at the time.
When he came across the woman, he considered it "taking a photo of another view of Edinburgh", said his lawyer, Andy Houston. ..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm
Although I wouldn't do what he did, am I alone in thinking that this was rather harsh? I think that most people want to stay within the law, but I wonder how many people would have known that what he did was illegal? It seems disturbingly easy for someone to get a criminal record these days.
arana negra
04-Oct-08, 12:21
I simply would not have taken the photo in first place, taking photos of people in distress etc is just plain wrong to me.
I am not to sure about the law but believed that it is not the taking of the photo that is illegal, it only become illegal if you display it without written permisson of the person in the photo.
Maybe someone can tell me exactly what the law is ?
I don't take photos of people normally but would love to take some of an old spanish lady in my village but do not have enough spanish to ask her permission first. She has one of those million story faces and always dresses in black with pinnie on. A real character
I've seen 'ill' people outside pubs on programs such as Coppers etc on SKY1.
Shouldn't the film crew be charged as well?
There must be more to this story than just taking a photo fgs.
Melancholy Man
04-Oct-08, 12:50
I am not to sure about the law but believed that it is not the taking of the photo that is illegal, it only become illegal if you display it without written permission of the person in the photo.If you're in a public place, your image (as well as that of the buildings and street furniture) become freely (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/police_no_trace_of_man_wanted_over_attack_on_amate ur_photographer_in_london_news_226467.html?aff=rss ) available for non-invasive or non-covert photography. The idea that 'press badges' are needed is, like gravels in courts, from watching American television programmes.
Something which officious Police should remember next time anyone objects to fly-on-the-wall crews filming them. And, sometimes, not even Police (http://current.com/items/88856223_you_can_t_picture_this). Out of courtesy, though, I do ask individuals if I can photograph them specifically (as opposed to taking photographs which will include them).
That said, the reporting on this case is highly vague. That it was on a 'phone camera suggests it was close and personal, especially as there was a tired and emotional young woman in potentially a revealing pose.
Its not right to take peoples pictures no matter what the circumstance unless you have there permission.
I found out the hard way when putting up a fence, when the sick man from a neighbouring property came out and started to take pics of me..Creepy to say the least, no privacy in my own back garden. On speaking to police it turned out no-one is allowed to take pics of people unless given permission..
This man should never have taken her pic and i hope he has learnt a lesson from this..
Melancholy Man
04-Oct-08, 12:57
Creepy to say the least, no privacy in my own back garden.
That's not a public place.
On speaking to police it turned out no-one is allowed to take pics of people unless given permission..
If Wick Police are saying that, they're wrong.
Its not right to take peoples pictures no matter what the circumstance unless you have there permission.
I found out the hard way when putting up a fence, when the sick man from a neighbouring property came out and started to take pics of me..Creepy to say the least, no privacy in my own back garden. On speaking to police it turned out no-one is allowed to take pics of people unless given permission..
This man should never have taken her pic and i hope he has learnt a lesson from this..
Did you also have the man charged for taking your photgraph without your permission?
Filming/taking pictures which include people in a public place is perfectly legal.
This is the UK - not France with their "droit à l'image" laws....
If it was perfectly legal to take a photo of a woman in a public place, why was the man done for breach of the peace?
You made a point about the fly on the wall documentaries - the Booze Britain Cops Street Wars programmes seem to feature lasses in all sorts of 'distress' but it makes it onto mainstream TV!!!
The woman had been drinking with friends in an Omni Centre bar when she felt unwell and went outside for air.
Is this another way of saying she'd had a skin full and went outside to chuck up? What's next? Suing the local council for videotaping her on the CCTV?
Tugmistress
04-Oct-08, 14:56
Hera ya go, a link to UK Photographers Rights (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf) (pdf)
The "Model" became upset the article says, why did the Photographer, not apologise and delete the offending photo? Maybe Lothian & Borders finest were short on arrests that night [lol]
Bad Manners
04-Oct-08, 15:23
I think and i hope there is more to this than just taking the photo.
We all have to put up with the never ending use of CCTV with is watching us throughout or daily tasks the fly on the wall documentrys
This person must have taking this photo and upset both the (ILL) person and the police for this to be taken to court and for the court to fine the chap. when we are on holiday we taken photographs wich include other people not by design but by the fact they are there also so is this a crime as I have not aquired the permison to take them.
True - maybe the Bobbies Polish wasn't good enough to get the message across to stop taking the girl's pic and so to prevent the girl's friends from starting a riot they nicked the Pole to prevent a further breach of the peace?
True - maybe the Bobbies Polish wasn't good enough to get the message across to stop taking the girl's pic and so to prevent the girl's friends from starting a riot they nicked the Pole to prevent a further breach of the peace?
That could well be the answer MP, that area is a hot spot for altercations.many late night establishments and it attracts lots of drinkers, also know as the Pink Triangle for other reasons.
In the original BBC link it said " ... A man who took a photograph of an ill woman outside an Edinburgh bar ... ", which left open the possibility that her illness might not necessarily be a drink related.
But in a "Scotsman" newspaper report it says:
"A POSTMAN has been fined £100 after he took a photo of a drunk woman while she was being sick."
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Man-fined-for-taking-photo.4558618.jp
If this is the case, if she chose to present herself in public in that way then I am surprised that the authorities took her side. Being sick in a public place during the Edinburgh Festival (which attracts many tourists to Edinburgh) is not really doing anyone any favours. A lot of the comments below the article are critical of the police and the woman.
No-one knows if the girl was drunk or ill. Nobody commenting on this site knows the truth. And I know most people who are "ill" outside or inside a pub are drunk. However, you must accept there are exceptions.
When I was a teenager I attended a wedding dance in Mackays Hotel in an upstairs room with a roaring fire. It was hot, very hot but I was determined to dance as I loved dancing.
I wasn't feeling very well when I was asked up to yet another dance and although I protested I was persuaded to go up. A few minutes into the dance I collapsed in a faint and had to suffer the disdainful looks or the corny jokes instead of getting any sympathy or help except from my friends of course. Even some of them were joking which I found humiliating. No one was prepared to believe that I had not been drinking alcohol.
If mobile phones had existed then I would have probably been photographed and laughed at for quite some time afterwards. Now I know many people who drink to excess and are seen falling and vomiting don't always care; in fact it is something to be proud of!:eek:
You can hear them on Monday mornings boasting to their workmates about their escapades with absolutely no sense of shame. That's fine, that's what they want but not everyone is the same.
Melancholy Man
04-Oct-08, 18:14
Similarly, Torvaig, I was set upon in the street shortly after coming back up. The sort of thing which would normally have had the perp cringing as he woke up the next morning. Except I reported it to the Police. Boy, was he apologetic when next he saw me!
If it was perfectly legal to take a photo of a woman in a public place, why was the man done for breach of the peace?
I'd wager that even though our image is not private when in public, we still have rights. Think of reports of 'phone cameras up skirts. It's the difference between the libertarian and the libertine. Both are gits, as it happens. Just in different ways.
Also how it would look if you saw an unidentified man taking piccies outside a school.
many late night establishments and it attracts lots of drinkers, also know as the Pink Triangle for other reasons.
Let anyone who says gay men ain@t aggressive go into CC Blooms!
True - maybe the Bobbies Polish wasn't good enough to get the message across to stop taking the girl's pic and so to prevent the girl's friends from starting a riot they nicked the Pole to prevent a further breach of the peace?
Perhaps but it would have been just as easy to remove him from the situation and send him on his way without it having to go to court.
Tighsonas4
04-Oct-08, 18:23
Hera ya go, a link to UK Photographers Rights (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf) (pdf)
theres no need to ask the police just ask tuggs
shes our offical photographer [lol] tony
Tristan,
No doubt - but if the "ill" woman made a complaint against him then perhaps the cops had no option?
Hera ya go, a link to UK Photographers Rights (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf) (pdf)
Photography is quite a hobby of mine and I usually have a camera within easy reach. With all the reports recently of over-zealous but under-educated police officers abusing the Terror Act 2000 when dealing with photographers, I always have a copy of that pdf in my kit bag.
I was recently out in Glasgow after dark and saw some workmen using angle grinders to dismantle some scaffolding. They were in a cherry-picker up at a height of maybe 30ft cutting away long (5-6ft) sections of rusting poles which were then being thrown down into a skip on the street below... which was still open to traffic and fairly busy. None of them had any protective gear (hard hats, goggles, gloves) but they were all being showered with sparks. The longer I watched the more insane it seemed... so I got out the tripod and camera and started taking some pictures.
After a few minutes they came down from the scaffolding and one of them came running over the road (a dual carriageway) to ask what I was doing and who I worked for. I just told him I thought the 'sparks looked good' and off he went - but there's no way I'd have been deleting the photos if he'd asked... public place - nothing wrong with what I was doing.
I can't say that I wouldn't take a candid photo of a drunk throwing up outside a pub either. Sorry, but photography can capture a lot of information about a society and whilst I do draw the line at taking photos of homeless people for my own entertainment (a line other photographers I know have no problem crossing) if you've drunk so much you're throwing up outside a pub then you're fair game.
Another interesting article along the same lines (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/23/camera_analysis/)
Melancholy Man
04-Oct-08, 19:40
Had they demanded that you delete the piccies, I'd have asked why they were so concerned about being linked to the removal of high-price metal!
Had they demanded that you delete the piccies, I'd have asked why they were so concerned about being linked to the removal of high-price metal!
It was a weird conversation, that's for sure. The guy seemed convinced I worked for either the press or the council (he worked for the council). I thought about it afterward and concluded that either there had been some campaign I didn't know about to get rid of the stuff (it really was an old, old eyesore right in the city centre) or they knew as well as I did that they were skirting one or two Health and Safety regulations ;)
concerned resident
04-Oct-08, 20:19
To Prove a Breach of the Peace the most important thing to prove is that some one was Alarmed, Annoyed, Disturbed, by incident. As a Solicitor once told me, the police could book someone for hopping down the pavement. There is of course the Discretion of the police officers as to whether to pursue a Breach of the Peace, possibly not enough people charged that day, or Edinburgh police do not like polish people. A very sad refection of the Police state we now live in.
This is truly invasion of someones privacy. i think it is illegal to take pictures of someone without their permission and you can be charged with breach of the peace. This is why mobile phones are not allowed in hospital, privacy and confidentaility I certainly wouldnt want my picture taken in a hospital bed or anywhere else.
Talking of taking photoes and the police, himself and I were at Peterhead shortly before he died last year, and he made a video of our travels. We were chased by the police , two police cars with flashing lights, who thought we were terroists. Once stopped we were interogated, it wasn't nice. They even phoned our gp to confirm that himself was dying. Our offence.....himself had taken a bit of film of the st fergus oil terminal flame ,!!!
Fran,
She was in a public place. How is it illegal to take someones picture in a public place? Read the advice in the link provided by tugmistress...
Mobile phones were 'banned' from hospitals due to the concerns of them interfering with essential equipment - this was before nearly every phone featured cameras. Many hospitals have now changed the rule as the 'risk to equipment' has been shown to not exist now.
If the use of a camera phone is specifically banned i.e. signage states "camera phones are banned" then that is because hospitals are private property and who takes a camera into hospital apart from proud parents?
Melancholy Man
05-Oct-08, 09:17
Different posters have disputed the one about it being illegal to take photographs of members of the public. It is now time for others to desist claiming it is, or provide details of hitherto unknown legislation.
Fran, please tell us you know the difference between a public street and a hospital. Plus, your experiences in Peterhead should have heightened your awareness of nincompoops with a half-cocked understanding of the relevant legislation.
There is of course the Discretion of the police officers as to whether to pursue a Breach of the Peace, possibly not enough people charged that day, or Edinburgh police do not like polish people.
Those are both quite serious allegations. Do you have owt to back them up? Did Grampian Police mistake Fran for a Polish? None of us know precisely what happened. What we do know, however, is that it was the Sheriff Court which determined his guilt. Not the Police.
concerned resident
05-Oct-08, 10:08
We will just have to wait until it is on one of the TV channels, as local Authorities, Police or anyone who has a CCTV camera, seam to have no bother selling copies of there tapes, maybe the police are trying to keep the competition down?
Melancholy Man
Those are both quite serious allegations. Do you have owt to back them up? Did Grampian Police mistake Fran for a Polish? None of us know precisely what happened. What we do know, however, is that it was the Sheriff Court which determined his guilt. Not the Police.
The police should be the ones investigating, why there officers are wasting there time, when they are always complaining they are short of man power, and have no one to walk the beat, and the picture was not a threat to national security. And it was a nice little earner for the sheriff court, of £100.
this has happened to me, my wee girl was in her stroller and i was looking in a shop window a couple came over and pretended to be looking in the window next to me next thing i hear a "snap" they took a pic of her on there camera phone, i saw where they went and called the police, they got a warning but i could have had them charged, you do not just take a picture of someone without asking
John Baikie
05-Oct-08, 11:06
This is total nonsense! Firstly, some drunk woman being sick on the street is in my opinion causing as much of a disturbance as someone taking a picture of the event. As she is in a public place she is in fact fair game to be photographed, and this should never have gone to court. Photographing people in a public place does not require their permission. Do you think there would have been a complaint made if the 'offender' had been photographed leaving court by the press and his picture then published in a newspaper? I'm sure he wouldn't have given permission.
A couple of points though - if a guy had walked out the pub, spewed up and been photographed, would such 'chivalry' be expected?? And if the 'photographer' had not been Polish, would this have happened? Was the scene recorded by CCTV? Surely just as much an invasion of this poor womans privacy.
On the other side of things though - the 'photographer' apparently used a mobile phone for the picture. Now to me I find it a bit odd that a guy claiming to be photographing 'street scenes' would be shooting with a phone! The other point is - he plead guilty to the charge, which meant they didn't have to prove anything. I think a not guilty plea here would have resulted in a different outcome.
[...] they got a warning but i could have had them charged
Really? Did the police tell you what the charge would have been?
Whilst there is certainly a moral question to be asked of the couple and their actions would seem to fall foul of modern society's assumption that strangers around your children are to be mistrusted and feared, I fail to see what law they broke.
Interestingly, even the much-maligned Human Rights Act doesn't protect a person (adult or child) from being photographed in public:
http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2007/CHAN/oct0.1.htm
you do not just take a picture of someone without asking
That really depends on the circumstances. In your example I'd say yes, they should have asked. But that's not a legal requirement, just good manners.
One of my Granddaughters is a very good swimmer, as I had a video camera her Dad asked me if he could borrow it, to video one of her races in a pool in Leith.
He found a convenient spot to set the camera up on its stand, then all hell broke loose, the staff virtually tore the camera off its tripod, and threatened to throw my son out of the swimming baths, they did not call him a pervert, but very nearly did. Nothing my son could say would appease these "Jobs Worths". Its the rules!!! Was the only excuse they would divulge.
This is total nonsense! Firstly, some drunk woman being sick on the street is in my opinion causing as much of a disturbance as someone taking a picture of the event....
Careful - we have already been chastised for assuming she was 'off her trolley' on 'e pop.
...On the other side of things though - the 'photographer' apparently used a mobile phone for the picture. Now to me I find it a bit odd that a guy claiming to be photographing 'street scenes' would be shooting with a phone! The other point is - he plead guilty to the charge, which meant they didn't have to prove anything. I think a not guilty plea here would have resulted in a different outcome.
I don't know, with the newest camera phones having decent size sensors (up to 10mp!!) what better way to capture street life without drawing attention to your self?
I did a film course a few years ago and part of it was filming the public at various locations. It's amazing how many people get stroppy with someone with a camera - one of the girls on the course had some idiot walk past who thumped the camera lens and hurled abuse at her. By the time the course lecturer got to her the guy had gone.
So keeping a low profile sounds like a good idea!!!
John Baikie
05-Oct-08, 11:47
One of my Granddaughters is a very good swimmer, as I had a video camera her Dad asked me if he could borrow it, to video one of her races in a pool in Leith.
He found a convenient spot to set the camera up on its stand, then all hell broke loose, the staff virtually tore the camera off its tripod, and threatened to throw my son out of the swimming baths, they did not call him a pervert, but very nearly did. Nothing my son could say would appease these "Jobs Worths". Its the rules!!! Was the only excuse they would divulge.
They should have handled it differently that's for sure! Most pools however do have a sign stating permission is needed to film or photograph events. Problem is it probably wasn't made that clear. A quiet word would be all thats needed though, no need for the over the top actions. That's more likely some jobsworth wanting to feel important in front of a crowd of people.
John Baikie
05-Oct-08, 11:49
So keeping a low profile sounds like a good idea!!!
I know nwhere you are coming from, but he was supposed to be a 'photography student'. As for keeping a low profile, he was very close to her (close enough to be apprehended by drunk ladies) and using flash! Low profile to me would be other side of the steet with a long lens, no flash, and a good pair of running shoes on, just in case :lol:
You don't need young children around to be questioned by the police for having a camera with you. I was down Sandside taking photos of birds and stuff etc and the police stopped me and asked me what was on the camera.
Back in 2002 the village had a street party to celebrate the Queens Golden Jubilee - I happened to be there with my wife and took my camera along. Many villagers turned up in fancy dress and many kids were well turned out with highly imaginative costumes.
While I took plenty of pics of general scenes I found myself avoiding taking pictures of the kids. Even though I was with my wife I still felt that in the current climate an adult taking pictures of kids could be looked on with suspicion. So, I didn't take any.
That is a shame IMO that simple things like recording an event has to be overshadowed by the spectre of some evil intent.
[...] keeping a low profile sounds like a good idea!!!
Is it bad that I own one of these (http://www.lordofthelens.net/servlet/Detail?no=9)? ;)
I don't use it often in public ... but it's great for getting candid shots at family gatherings where people tend to want to pose the minute you point a lens in their direction
John Baikie
05-Oct-08, 12:03
Back in 2002 the village had a street party to celebrate the Queens Golden Jubilee - I happened to be there with my wife and took my camera along. Many villagers turned up in fancy dress and many kids were well turned out with highly imaginative costumes.
While I took plenty of pics of general scenes I found myself avoiding taking pictures of the kids. Even though I was with my wife I still felt that in the current climate an adult taking pictures of kids could be looked on with suspicion. So, I didn't take any.
That is a shame IMO that simple things like recording an event has to be overshadowed by the spectre of some evil intent.
I know exactly what you mean - I've often felt uncomfortable in similar situations, even as an official photographer at events.
I was photographing a wedding yesterday and shot a sequence of shots in church of a small flower girl who had just wandered into the aisle and was playing away, totally oblivious the wedding taking place. It was a great set of pictures, but after firing a few frames I stopped shooting because at the back of my mind I thought somebody somewhere in that church would think I was some kind of weirdo for doing it, unaware of the great pictures they made! It has become such an issue that you constantly have to think about what you are doing. Crazy!
Things have changed so much these days. The general public are very aware of the uses that perverts can make of photographs to serve their ghastly trade. I can understand parents being very protective of their children and they are right to be so in this sometimes wicked world. Perverts do not go around with a sign on their backs proclaiming their "hobby". I have no doubt that someone can find a child photogenic and wish to take a snap but the parents do not know that if the person is a complete stranger and sadly, sometimes, they are not a stranger.....
In today's world, some people are snap happy with their camera phones as they hope they will either get a good laugh with their mates or, lucky, lucky, be able to sell it to one of those obnoxious newspapers who scrabble in the grime to sell their pathetic rubbish.
The truth is, as long as there are people willing to view these things, there will be someone willing to feed their greedy little minds.
One of my Granddaughters is a very good swimmer, as I had a video camera her Dad asked me if he could borrow it, to video one of her races in a pool in Leith.
He found a convenient spot to set the camera up on its stand, then all hell broke loose, the staff virtually tore the camera off its tripod, and threatened to throw my son out of the swimming baths, they did not call him a pervert, but very nearly did. Nothing my son could say would appease these "Jobs Worths". Its the rules!!! Was the only excuse they would divulge.
And that is the shame of it Golach. A proud dad wanting to record an important part of his child's life and is treated like a criminal. All they had to do was quietly explain the rules and not go in like the riot police.
The ways of dealing with these situations should be explained to all staff involved in protecting children because in today's world where we know much more about our fellow citizens I'm afraid they are necessary.
They should have handled it differently that's for sure! Most pools however do have a sign stating permission is needed to film or photograph events. Problem is it probably wasn't made that clear. A quiet word would be all thats needed though, no need for the over the top actions. That's more likely some jobsworth wanting to feel important in front of a crowd of people.
A quiet word would have been better but as you say pools do have signs. They are one of the areas where it is very clear you are not allowed to photograph without permission.
That may been one reason for their very fast reaction. They may assume that any adult that would flaunt very clearly posted rules may be someone posing a threat to the other children.
teenybash
05-Oct-08, 12:26
What a sad fearful society we live in. Fearful that innocent actions will be misconstrued as perversion or improper........where has common sense gone when a man can be prosecuted for taking a photograph..... a relative wishing to record a young family members moment of achievment being stopped for fear.... the beauty of a little flowergirl happily playing, the photographer fearful.....
Why do we sit and watch 'reality' tv like peeping toms watching the private actions of people going about their business.
Society appears to be based on paranoia......me watching you, watching them, watching us...adum infinitum:confused
rockchick
05-Oct-08, 14:24
If a photograph is considered personal data with respect to the person(s) in the picture, it would require permission from the subject(s). There is government guidance on this subject at http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/personal_data_flowchart_v1_with_preface001.pdf
Working from those guidelines half the posts on the forum would be considered "personal data"!!!!!!
It is important to remember that the same piece of data may be personal data
in one party’s hands while it may not be personal data in another party’s
hands.
Example: At New Year celebrations in Trafalgar Square two almost identical
photographs of the revellers are taken by two separate
photographers and stored in electronic form on computer. The first
photographer, a photo journalist, takes a picture of the crowd scene
to add to his photo library. The second photographer is a police
officer taking photos of the crowd scene to identify potential
troublemakers. The data in the electronic image taken by the
journalist is unlikely to contain personal data about individuals in the
crowd as it is not being processed to learn anything about an
identifiable individual. However, the photo taken by the police officer
may well contain personal data about individuals as the photo is
taken for the purpose of recording the actions of individuals who the
police would seek to identify, if there is any trouble, so they can
take action against them.
If I have read this right a casual snap taken of a street scene (maybe even including vomiting drunks) would not be considered personal data as no attempts are made by the photographer to gain any further information on the subject/s...
Melancholy Man
05-Oct-08, 16:07
The police should be the ones investigating, why there officers are wasting there time, when they are always complaining they are short of man power, and have no one to walk the beat, and the picture was not a threat to national security. And it was a nice little earner for the sheriff court, of £100.
Once again, what cause do you have to accuse the Police of this? Specifics, please, not vague conjecture.
If a photograph is considered personal data with respect to the person(s) in the picture, it would require permission from the subject(s).
I think, based on that document, I'd be willing to stand my ground on any of the photographs in my collection.
At New Year celebrations in Trafalgar Square two almost identical photographs of the revellers are taken by two separate photographers and stored in electronic form on computer. The first photographer, a photo journalist, takes a picture of the crowd scene to add to his photo library. The second photographer is a police officer taking photos of the crowd scene to identify potential troublemakers. The data in the electronic image taken by the journalist is unlikely to contain personal data about individuals in the crowd as it is not being processed to learn anything about an identifiable individual. However, the photo taken by the police officer may well contain personal data about individuals as the photo is taken for the purpose of recording the actions of individuals who the police would seek to identify, if there is any trouble, so they can take action against them.I have no interest in identifying any of the subjects in my photographs.
So... no right to privacy in a public place, no 'human rights' protecting your image and - so long as it isn't being used to identify you - no data protection issues. Basically, unless somebody harrasses you in the process, if you are in a public place they can take your photograph.
The police (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TRZAY2V8gqU) and others in authority (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H36MnlIKNTI)often don't understand this (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM) and will use threats of prosecution to intimidate (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas&eurl=http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-protest.html) and even delete the work (http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/UK_police_order_amateur_photographer_to_delete_pic tures_at_tourist_hotspot_news_180714.html) and confiscate the equipment of people going about a perfectly legal and very popular past-time.
Rather than try to educate their officers in... oh, I don't know... the law, the met decided instead to spend their money helping to fuel the public's mistrust of the lens with this ad campaign (http://www.met.police.uk/campaigns/campaign_ct_2008.htm). During this campaign, calls to the Anti-Terror Hotline went up 68% (http://www.met.police.uk/campaigns/evaluation_08.htm#counter_terrorism). I wonder how many tourists had their collars felt as a result of over-eager James-Bond-wannabes reporting them for taking pictures of potential terrorist targets (http://www.flickr.com/photos/30965648@N02/2901688981/)? I'd ask those in the know, but it seems that it is 'CONFIDENTIAL (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/anti_terror_campaignsuspicious_p)' information... :roll:
That may be a big difference here. Many of us photograph large scenes with people in them. This photographer was photographing an individual, who was ill (from whatever means) and since this was at night a flash was probably used. I am still not sure it merited the fine but it is very much an "in your face" situation.
That may be a big difference here. Many of us photograph large scenes with people in them. This photographer was photographing an individual
No. None at all.
The photographer may have gone on to do or say something for which the police could charge him with Breach of the Peace (and given that he plead guilty I tend to think that probably was the case... or he had very bad legal advice) but whether a person is in the background of a landscape photograph or is the main subject in a portrait photograph makes no difference to the legality of taking that photograph in a public place.
Personally, if the police ever want to have words with me for legally taking photographs I think I'll politely and courteously decline to cooperate. I could do with £1500 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RrmP4MwHTKw) in compensation - I've got my eye on a nice new lens ;)
I got caught up in the whole "burning Jeep into Glasgow airport" thing. A mates mother took ill during the incident and we moved her to anoher part of the departures lounge to give her some space.
In the midst of it I noticed someone begining to take a pictue of her. In no uncertain terms I told him where to go. I said it loudly enough that he took shame and slinked off. I expect that he was ready to text it to Sky news on some other "news" channel.
....later on it turne out that he was an off-duty fireman
Have to say that I couldn't care less that it was in public space. Common sense says that an off-duty fireman of any respectible peson would not have atempted such a thing.
No. None at all.
The photographer may have gone on to do or say something for which the police could charge him with Breach of the Peace (and given that he plead guilty I tend to think that probably was the case... or he had very bad legal advice) but whether a person is in the background of a landscape photograph or is the main subject in a portrait photograph makes no difference to the legality of taking that photograph in a public place.
Personally, if the police ever want to have words with me for legally taking photographs I think I'll politely and courteously decline to cooperate. I could do with £1500 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RrmP4MwHTKw) in compensation - I've got my eye on a nice new lens ;)
I see what you are saying, but if you read the photographer's rights link that tugs posted there would be a fine line between taking a photograph and harassment. If the person asked the photographer to stop and he continued would be harassment, or already being in an ill state had a photographer stuck his lens and flash in their face could also easily be construed as harassment.
Have to say that I couldn't care less that it was in public space.
The departure lounge at Glasgow Airport isn't a public space. It belongs to BAA and, as such, BAA can prohibit or allow photography as they see fit. In fact, they prohibit it unless you have a permit:
"All filming and photography within the airport requires a permit. Generally, a request must be made at least two working days before the required date. Security will remove anyone filming and photographing without this permission." BAA Glasgow (http://www.glasgowairport.com/portal/controller/dispatcher.jsp?CiID=2a29f4afd0c82010VgnVCM10000014 7e120a____&ChID=cbe9d03d3d682010VgnVCM100000147e120a____&Ct=B2C_CT_GENERAL&CtID=448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____&ChPath=Home%5EGLA%5EAbout+BAA+Glasgow%5EMedia+Cent re%5EMedia+Library)
Even then, it is my understanding that as this is not a public place you have the right to expect some privacy and, therefore, can object to being photographed even if the photographer has a permit from BAA.
In the midst of it I noticed someone begining to take a pictue of her. [...] I expect that he was ready to text it to Sky news on some other "news" channel. [...] Common sense says that an off-duty fireman of any respectible peson would not have atempted such a thing.
You raise an interesting point. I love taking photographs and fully appreciate the important role that journalistic photographers play in recording historic events (both the good and the bad). But I despair when I go to a site like BBC News, read a hastily-scrawled article about something terrible and find, at the bottom, a request for "Your pictures of video".
I got so incensed reading the BBC's articles during and immediately after the attacks on London in July 2005 that I wrote a letter of complaint. Of course I got the standard fob-off. Shortly after they started to show footage from a mobile phone taken by somebody who was in one of the underground trains that was bombed!
I don't know what about it bothers me more. The complete degradation of journalism now that grainy footage from mobile phones is more important than the imagary of a good article? That there is an expectation that we, the Joe Six-Packs and Hockey Moms (:roll:), will do the legwork for these organisations... for free? That it seems like half the population are now running around with one hand firmly clasped on their mobiles waiting for a good disaster so they can get their fifteen minutes?
I think a little of all three.
In a situation like the attack on Glasgow Airport "This would make a cracking photo" should be well below "What can I do to help" on the list of first reactions. More so if you're an off-duty fireman. Okay, so he - like you - would likely not be allowed to offer any assistance at the actual scene... but if you were dealing with somebody who obviously looked to have been affected by the attack (and I assume she did or why would she make a worthy photograph?) "Are you okay?" would be more sensitive than "Say cheese!"
Horses for courses. Somebody throwing up outside a pub with some mates - smile please. Somebody struggling during a terrorist attack - let me lend you a hand.
[..] there would be a fine line between taking a photograph and harassment. If the person asked the photographer to stop and he continued would be harassment, or already being in an ill state had a photographer stuck his lens and flash in their face could also easily be construed as harassment.
True, true... personally I'd use a long enough, fast enough lens to avoid blinding them with flash but as this guy was using his mobile he could have been prancing about within a few feet.
As for being asked to stop... depends who the subject is and why I'm taking the photo.
I was in George Square (Glasgow) a few weeks ago and saw some Litter Wardens closely 'escorting' an old homeless man out of the area. He'd done nothing wrong - other than not look like the more affluent Glaswegians hanging about this tourist area - so I took out my camera and started to keep tabs on them. They spotted me and left, leaving the old guy to go about his business. Had they asked me to stop I'd have asked them to stop what they were doing.
I might, from a suitable/safe distance, take a picture of somebody heaving outside a pub. If their friends saw me and asked me to stop I'd look very embarrassed, apologise and go on my way.
I love taking photographs and fully appreciate the important role that journalistic photographers play in recording historic events (both the good and the bad). But I despair when I go to a site like BBC News, read a hastily-scrawled article about something terrible and find, at the bottom, a request for "Your pictures of video".
Blame the rise in citizen journalism for it - "We-Media" where everybody can see their work on national TV, even if it is out of focus, highly pixelated, low resolution video!
Bloggers are another group who think that because they 'publish' their thoughts or opinions online they qualify for the title of "journalist".
I visit a large expo every year and have to laugh at the teenagers wandering around with 'Media" badges on. They maybe have a website and so they think they qualify for media passes. Meanwhile real publications are restricted to the number of staff they can register.
[disgust]
[disgust]
Seconded. [disgust]
This is just another example of a "catch all" piece of legislation being used as a sledge hammer to crack an egg. Committing a "Breach of the Peace" simply means that we do not like what you are doing but there is no particular law against it so Breach of the Peace will do.
The "excuse" for charging the photographer was, no doubt, because the drunken, sorry unwell, woman and her friends became agitated and made a fuss over it.
If simply taking the photograph was to commit an offence then the paparazzi and half the press photographers and TV News Crews would all be serving time.
This is just another case of something which has slowly been creeping into the way justice is being interpreted, you do not know you have committed an offence until somebody decides you have.
It is a tendency which is growing and is one which needs watching carefully because the growing attitude that you are deemed to be up to no good until you prove otherwise is a dangerous road to tread. In effect it says you are guilty of being a potential criminal and it is up to you to prove your innocence which is a direct reverse of British Justice since before we dispensed with trial by ordeal.
North Light
06-Oct-08, 10:06
This case is difficult to comment on because one doesn't know all the facts, the comments that can be made though are that it is not an offence to take a photograph of a person in a public place, the document link given by Tugmistress for "UK Photographers Rights" is worth following, this is an excellent document and one I refer to.
I have stopped short of carrying this document, but having also been stopped on Sandside by the CNC and asked what I was doing, who I was etc, and hence have considered carry the document in my camera bag.
If any of you are concerned about the the apparent crack down on photography in public places by the police can I suggest that you sign this petition:-
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Photogrpahy/
You don't need young children around to be questioned by the police for having a camera with you. I was down Sandside taking photos of birds and stuff etc and the police stopped me and asked me what was on the camera.
I assume that you, like North Light, were stopped by the CNC?
As their website states -
Civil Nuclear Constabulary Officers carry the same powers as regular Home Office forces and The Energy Act 2004 sets out the powers of members to the CNC.
The powers and privileges of a Police Constable are as follows;
* Physical presence at every place comprised in a relevant nuclear site
* Physical presence within 5 kilometres of such a place
As Sandside is within 5k of Dounreay I guess they were entitled to ask you?
Or perhaps as the beach is polluted with radioactive material they were concerned for your safety (another aspect of police work - safety of the public) if you were just a tourist, and not a local, and therefore unaware of the contamination.
I may be wrong here but isn't Sandside beach closed? I seem to recall a news report somewhere featuring the owner of the beach being interviewed - he was highly annoyed as he had been barred from his own property due to the particles found there.
Hmm, seems all access to the beach was barred -
Monitoring of Sandside has been suspended since May.
Local estate owner Geoffrey Minter barred access to the beach after losing patience with the UKAEA's efforts to come up with a plan to deal with the contamination.
link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6927351.stm)
North Light
06-Oct-08, 12:02
MadPict,
Sandside beach is fully open, there are notices advising of the risk of particles, although there is nothing to advise you that you are potentially committing an offence if you take a photograph including Dounreay.
Personally I take what I hope is a common sense attitude to this, if I can download an image from Dounreay's own web site, http://www.dounreay.com/ that provides more detail than the image I am taking I will take the photograph.
If I wanted to take photographs of Dounreay that featured more information I would contact the publicity departments of either UKAEA or the NDA.
But there is something rather incongruous about being asked what you are doing on a remote beach in the North of Scotland by an heavily armed Police Officer.
We digress though, my concern is that there does seem to be an apparent clamp down on the taking of photographs in public places by individual photographers, and sadly a very poor understanding of the law relating to photography by some members of the establishment.
Thanks for clarifying the status of Sandside - the news items I have found are a year old now. I'm packing my bucket and spade and NBC suit!!!
While your point about photos of Dounreay is valid, one aspect that has to be considered is that of someone possibly monitoring the activity of the security personnel. That monitoring may include taking photos or video, an innocent pastime in normal times, but who knows what the threat to Dounreay, if there is one, has been spotlighted by security surveys?
I guess if you have nothing to hide, being asked politely by a duly appointed person as to your presence is OK. If they are rude, aggressive and shove an MP5 up your nose then that is different...
Yes, agree that taking photos now is almost impossible without some jobsworth sticking their hand in front of your lens...
Maybe we should all submit DPA requests to all the holders of CCTV footage that we suspect we might be on. Shops, councils, fuel stations, hospitals, schools - I read that we are the most heavily filmed society in the world!!!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.