[The magazine spells "apologize" with an S. British spelling perhaps? But it seems both spellings are correct.]I think this might be a good page to carry with you for street photographers, at least in the UK, in case a policeman or security guard tells you that you are not allowed to photograph in a public place.
It is a scan from Professional Photographer, the February 2008 issue.
With the possible exception of France, which has some privacy laws, I think the whole of the Western world pretty much has full "freedom of cameras" in public places.
Quote: a spokesman from the Bureau of Freelance Photographers says:
"[...] in a public place you are allowed to photograph anyone or anything you like. Ironically, it's often the police who aren't clear about this."
17 comments:
In South Britain they spell a lot of words differently ;-)
"In South Britain they spell a lot of words differently ;-)"
South? You think in North Britain they use the American spelling?
The British spelling is much older than US, the nation. Don't you think it would be more correct to say it is the Americans who spell it differently, rather than the Brits?
"Police apologised"?
I guess the police are civilised.
In Great Biritain.
But don't get me started about what the police in Lebanon are like. Three of them are under trial right now for killing a citizen in a shooting... over a matter of passage priority at a crossroad! It was a scene worthy of a not-so-cheap "action movie".
European police isn't perfect. But please do appreciate what you have. Including the right to complain, in a regime where officials assume responsibility for their acts.
You know that Bush vs Laden LCD game photo I posted on my blog a while ago? I had to "steal" the shot in a supermarket. "No photos allowed", I was told. Security reasons, it would seem.
As if taking a close-up snapshot of their merchandise to tell people about it could help me plan a terrorist bombing!
Morons.
Just to get my full revenge, I have a couple more pics I snatched thatday, that I'll post one day.
End of rant already.
A country where paparazzi have the right to exist undoubtedly has some moral issues, but at least this proves it's a free country.
Honestly, it's like living on a different planet over here.
Hey, perhaps the bobbies thought that Phil Smith guy looked like an employee of BLIDI: Bin Laden International Demolitions Inc.?
"I had to "steal" the shot in a supermarket. "No photos allowed", I was told."
Same here, and probably in most of the world. I was stopped from photographing in a shopping centre by a security guard.
UK Photographers Rights is probably a more useful piece of paper to carry around.
A shopping centre is likely not a public place but a private place open to the public so they can tell you to stop photographing and leave. Still, you don't have to go back, do you?
"but a private place open to the public so they can tell you to stop photographing and leave."
This is true, which is why I did not put up a stink. In private places, the owner has the last word.
And I'd bet that preventing you from taking pictures in a shopping center has little to do with security, but rather is a marketing issue. They wouldn't want you to steal "their formula".
The really worrying thing for me is that the Police in England and Wales (can't say about the rest of the UK as I don't know) are constantly calling for more and more powers. Or at least their higher echelons are, I don't know if the Police out on the streets agree. Things like stop and search, detention without charge or trial - under the guise of "prevention of terrorism" - more officers routinely armed and so on. If the average "Peeler" on the street can't get something like a professional (press) photographer's right to take photographs in a public place correct, how likely are they to handle those powers and others they already have properly?
Now I should stress that on the whole I think our Police Forces do well with the resources they have, and they're certainly a lot more accountable than in many other countries as Pascal has already pointed out. In addition your average Bobby does a hard job that I wouldn't and probably couldn't do. The trouble is the Law is such a complex issue it's not really surprising mistakes like the ones mentioned in the article take place.
Eolake said...
"I had to "steal" the shot in a supermarket. "No photos allowed", I was told."
Same here
Well, YOUR country doesn't have a bi-monthly subscription on random bombings since the end of 2004.
(Lowly Westerners, eat your hearts outs!)
"In private places, the owner has the last word."
You mean the security mall belonged to that security guard?
I think I'm in the wrong line of business!
"In addition your average Bobby does a hard job that I wouldn't and probably couldn't do."
I got the same feeling from following the news in France. Their restraint during some urban riots forces my respect.
"I got the same feeling from following the news in France. Their restraint during some urban riots forces my respect."
When the press is around, that is. One of the first things I was told on my first trip to France is "You don't want to deal with the police here."
TTL,
Sorry about the tardy reply. EO said "apologize" with an S. British spelling.
My intent was to call to attention his S.. He wanted to tell us it was apologise. We all know that S. is an abbreviation of South.
The spelling throughout the UK is reasonable consistent, however vocabulary is not, nor is pronunciation.
Now to all...
The only place I've been called to order for photography was in Stanlow, a large refinery (as in the O.M.D. song), Shell security objected. Oh, and taking a picture of a taxi which was in the yard, not on the street.
I took photos at the Heathrow station of the Heathrow Express, and was later told that due to increased security measures I wasn't meant to be taking photos at transit hubs.
If you've ever been in Paddy's Wigwam (aka The Mersey Funnel or St Luke RC cathedral, Liverpool) you will know it has some of the most amazing glass work in the lantern. I sought and was granted permission to photograph in there. Some churches object even to non-flash photos.
Well, Bert, considering they got liberally shot at, and yet there wasn't a single civilian casualty, I think not even a single round fired back apart from tear gas, I'd say the restraint is on the police's side regarding the 2005 riots.
Just yesterday evening, was the verdict for the trial of three rioters who ambushed a police car and injured an unarmed policewoman by shooting at her with a rifle. Clear case... and great leniency from the spineless judge! The General Attorney asked for 9 months, the shooter only got 3, while both his accomplices went home scott free.
And yet the police don't shoot back. While suicide rates are soaring among their ranks...
You know what the ordinary French citizens have been complaining about for years? "The criminals have more rights than their victims." I'll spare you the many, many true stories that made the TV news.
I can tell you this: the firemen in France don't want to deal with the difficult neighborhoods. They frequently get ambushed when they try to go there help the people put out a fire. Same with ambulances and taxis sometimes. France is far from a B&W securitarian dictatorship, many criminal and drug gangs rule these neighborhoods, and the inhabitants are afraid to mention a word about THAT or there'll be dire retaliation. Of the painfully lethal kind. Omerta in Gangland, mi amico.
When I hear teenagers complaining on TV with a straight face that they should have the right to push weed (saw them myself!), and I see that "folkloric custom" of setting fire to the cars OF THE MODEST PEOPLE LIVING IN THESE VERY AREAS, sometimes just to celebrate New Year's Eve ("only" 287 cars burned this Jan 1st), I find it very hard to put all the blame on the State for being "fascist". Too many juvenile delinquents behaving like total moron jerks and then complaining they get "no respect".
Last I heard, Col. Kaddhafi went up and started giving France a lecture about "Human Rights in the french suburbs". By Allah, he left me in stitches! That guy, what a humorist!
The truth is, it's the rule of intimidation, and not from the State. If a reckless car thief gets himself killed while chased by the police, they get the blame for "forcing the poor juvenile delinquent into speeding", and there are systematic riots and car arsons ensuing. I've seen dozens of examples.
Me, I've never had anything but good things to mention so far about the french police. Their standards are supposed to be impeccable, and from my experience they follow them better than in the majority of countries.
Then again, I abide by the law, and I grew up in Beirut, so maybe my standards are relatively lower than those of, say, a Swiss citizen?
;-)
Trust me, in Lebanon you really don't want to deal with the police or need them, if you're just an ordinary citizen. Now, if you know people high up or have a Western passport, things are stunningly different! (sigh)
A few years ago, all the Civil Defense trucks (the national Fire Dept. in Lebanon) were gathered in the capital to use the water cannons against peaceful demonstrators complaining of the lack of civic liberties. At the very same moment, square miles of forests were going up in smoke because there was nobody left out there to fight the summer fires.
If I was counting on the French police to preserve my safety and respect my rights, I'd feel extremely privileged. Now "trigger-happy cowboys" are tolerated THERE.
Pascal,
First of all, I will say that I have followed the advice given to me, and never had anything to do with the French police, so perhaps I shouldn't comment at all.
But I do feel that you might be, voluntarily or not, confusing discipline with restraint. The situation with the poor neighborhoods in France is highly political, and firm directives were clearly issued for the handling of the uprisings that you mention.
Now, it is not for me to judge these issues, but the strong right-wing tendencies that have been observed in France for the past decade or so do reflect the dissatisfaction of most of the French (those that I know, at least, and I am no right-winger) about the wimpy attitude of their leaders on the said issues.
For my part, all I can do is hope that some decent solution path is found soon, for there will be much more troubles to come otherwise. It is a sad state of affairs, for sure.
The French do love their country, and have elevated their way of life to an art form. It is truly heartbreaking to see how a few trouble-makers take advantage of political leniency to try to ruin it all.
Well spoken, Bert. I think we are in agreement.
I really wouldn't like to see the right-wing extremists in France get to power one day. They'd be catastrophic in EVERY way.
So, to change subjects, what distinction do you make between restraint and discipline? I'm curious.
Would you consider, for example, that the latter means "following orders of restraint at one given time", as opposed to always applying it? That restraint is SELF-discipline, from within?
"So, to change subjects, what distinction do you make between restraint and discipline? I'm curious.
Would you consider, for example, that the latter means "following orders of restraint at one given time", as opposed to always applying it? That restraint is SELF-discipline, from within?"
Once again, you have taken the word from my mouth. I humbly bow to thee.
Then let us take a hint from the Japanese: when they mutually bow to each other, they always do it in turn. That way they don't bump their noggins together.
:-)
"when they mutually bow to each other, they always do it in turn"
Shit! Now we have to enter a contest to see who bows first!! ;-P
Post a Comment