It’s true it seems you can’t trust a copper to actually know the law they’re meant to be enforcing. The Metropolitan police commissioner has admitted that his police sometimes forget the law on photography (not that it’s been a high profile issue or anything), and of course the plastic police have been found to delete photographs unlawfully. None of which of course is particularly news, and is hardly surprising given that the chief constables are ignoring the Home Secretary.
But why should they worry about the law when the chances of any individual officer getting prosecuted for anything is so small they could probably take their identification numbers off and beat an innocent man causing his death in front of video camera’s and get away with it.. oh wait they did that already.
There’s a ptotest about that decision this
Friday · 12:00 – 14:30
outside the Office of Department of Public Prosecution
Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, SE1 9HS
London.
come along.
You probably won’t end up locked up for 28 days, though you might be illegally stopped and searched as that’s another law the police seem to have trouble remembering. So do be prepared.
The original of this article is over on Copyright Action, but they seem to be having bandwidth issues so I reproduce it in it’s entirety here. (reproduced with permission and all copyright and content remains © Copyright Action 2008 – 2009).
When you’ve finished reading this consider a few things:
1) The police are generally unhappy at being photographed
2) How likely is it that the ICO provisions won’t be extended to all photographers after a suitable pause?
3) If we have our photographic copyrights removed today, what protects any of our other creative rights?
4) How much luck do you think you’ll have proving a picture was yours when trying to get the fees out of the Government?
If you’ve not done so already write to your MP it may not do any good but there is an election coming so they might listen for a change.
UK Gov nationalises orphans and bans non-consensual photography in public
The Digital Economy Bill : what’s yours is ours
The end game is now in sight. The Digital Economy Bill is now expected to become law within the next 6 weeks. It introduces orphan works usage rights, which – unless amended, which HMG says it will not – will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search. That is potentially about 90% of the photos on the internet.
Continue reading »
Currently the Digital economy bill, is still trundling it’s way through parliament without any proper debate or anyone much taking a look at it. On Thursday Harriet Harman will have to explain the Government’s plans for this bill so before then write to her and ask that it be given proper time for a full debate.
This in case you’ve forgotten is the bill that will block access to websites and cut off your internet access for alleged copyright infringement whilst at the same time allow anyone to make use of your photographs for anything if they think it’s an orphan work. So big business will remove you network connection or website because you used some old clip, whilst at the same time they’ll use any photo they like because it’s an “orphan work” honest and besides they’ve paid a notional sum to the Government to allow them to use it.
Really this bill is so bad it’s not even wrong.
Via Old Holborn on Facebook and already picked up on by LegIron and Obnoxio it seems that the plastic plod still haven’t got the message about not harassing photographers. Taking photographs of Christmas festivities in that well known security hotspot of Accrington is “Suspicious” behaviour and if you don’t “volunteer” your details when stopped under Section 44 they’ll just get you arrested for anti-social behaviour instead.
Given how many public statements there have been concerning both the police and the plastics abusing their powers in this way, and despite the repeated reminders that “no laws prevent people from photographing buildings” the message just isn’t getting across. It’s almost enough to make you start to wonder if the public message we hear is actually the same one that is being given to the people in uniforms. Also Section 44 applies in designated areas only – so is a shopping centre in Accrington really a designated area or where they just making things up and is there an on-line list of all the designated areas anywhere?
You can tell that the problem with the police harassing photographers for taking pictures in public places is getting serious when 365 establishment photographer write a letter to the Telegraph (hat tip Samizdata). If things get much worse they’ll write to the editor of the Times and use green ink. Now I’m not convinced this will do much good as the disconnect appears to be between the 646 that sit and make laws and those that implement them on the streets as they see fit.
The letter quite reasonably points out that if you were up to no good, you’d probably just use google street view, a camera phone or at most a small compact of some sort and not a hulking great SLR on a tripod. They even make the radical claim that the presensce of such a visible camera might make people thing twice about doing no good in case the very visible human operator took thier photo. Which if you think about it would explain why the police (and news agencies) appeal to the public for any photo’s after major incidents. Though as various commenatators have observed the letter does smell rather of special pleading – that the police shouldn’t pick on “proper” photographers with expensive equipment but feel free to infringe the rights and liberties of those scruffy plebs with the cheap nasty cameras.
Since the anti-terrorism laws have come into force making it allowable to stop and search people, and making it an offence to take photographs “liable to be of use to terrorists”. The police, PCSO and various security gaurds have been using it as an excuse to harrass or beat photographers that have been taking pictures in public of pretty much anything. Just taking photo’s of the outside of iconic landmarks can make you a terror suspect if the local security goons take against you. Of course this has been going on for a while now and has even been debated in parliament back in April 2009 by MP’s who’ve been stopped themselves. There have also been numerous blogs and articles written about it and public demonstrations organised. The home office issued a circular in August 2009 clarifying the situation and restating that it’s not illegal to take photogrpahs in public places, nor is taking photographs on it’s own grounds (if they really think you’re a terrorist they need to use section 43 not section 44). The Met office also updated their guidelines in September also stating that generally people shouldn’t be stopped from taking photographs. Yet despite this ongoing restating of the fact that normal people are in fact allowed to take photographs in public of retty much whatever they like, photographers are still getting routinely stopped. So really I’m expecting this letter to have about as much imapct as the facebook group.
What will probably also have no effect is another demo on 23rd Jan 2010 but still we must keep trying.
Of course on the flip side of this the police are using traffic cameras to harass and limit movement of peaceful protesters as well as building up a photographic data base of people at protests, but they really hate being filmed
This just in via FitWatch, the Met have updated their guidelines for stopping and searching terrorists photographers, to clarify that they can only see your photographs if they suspect you of being a terrorist and also that they have no right to delete digital photographs or destroy film. They actually state that twice, with regards to two different sections.
There is also a Home office circular giving clarification. The hesdline of which is:
Important: Section 43 does not prohibit the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place and members of the public and the press should not be prevented from doing so in exercise of the powers conferred by section 43.
A police officer can only stop and search a person they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist under this power.
Both the circular and the Met guidelines are quite short so do take the time to read them, then save a copy in case it changes/vanishes and then make sure to tell other people.
Update: The people over at “I’m a photographer not a terrorist” are putting together a rather dandy map of “authorised” areas.
Just came across these two articles which I thought needed sharing. For anyone that thinks that the counter terrorism and other acts won’t be used to harass photographers and prevent them from carrying out their legitimate work, I’d suggest reading this little list of incidents where that has happened, and the number of commentators complaining about the same sort of thing in response to this article about a photographer lodging a complaint against the police for such behavior.
