Anyone interested in taking photographs in public places should see this. [YOUTUBE]FJH9F7Hcluo[/YOUTUBE] 10/10 for the Police, 0/10 for Private Security monkeys.
Surely the difference lies with whether you want to broadcast/sell any pictures then you need permission, plus you need permission to photograph/film on privately owned areas. Otherwise feck off!
Brilliant! I fully understand that people can get edgy (particularly in London) about terrorist threats, but some application of common sense, as displayed by the Police would stop any hostility. The Building Manager at around the 11:00 mark was quite refreshing too, actually inviting them onto the private land after the cold reception from the idiotic looking rent-a-cop in his white hat. I`ve only ever been approached once, by a Traffic Warden of all people! Tried to tell me taking pictures in the street was against the Terrorism Act because the number plates of passing cars would photographed...errr...p*ss off! This was the shot... ...oddly he didn`t have anything to say about my car being parked on the pavement!
Incorrect. If you are stood on public ground, you can photograph almost any building you choose, and are free to sell or publish those images. This was exactly the point being made in this video. To me, the only thing missing from the video was the Photographers pointing out that we are constantly being filmed by these buildings - and we have no idea who they are. Below passages are quoted from http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/ "Private Property - Owners of property do not normally have the right to prevent someone from taking photographs of their property from a public place such as a public highway, (though see below for issues of national security). There is also no general restriction on taking photographs while on private property, provided the photographer has permission to be on the property. However, the owner has the right to impose whatever conditions he wishes on entry to his property, including a restriction on photography. Photography is prohibited by the conditions of entry to many museums and stately homes, for example, and by most concert venues." Restrictions on Photography in Certain Public Places - There is a prohibition on taking photographs in Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square in London. The prohibition only applies to photographs taken in connection with any business, profession or employment, so that tourist photographs, for example, would be allowed. It is possible to take photographs in the Squares for business purposes, provided written permission is obtained from the Greater London Authority. A hefty fee is payable. The same prohibition (on commercial photography) applies in the Royal Parks. Again, permission can be obtained and a fee is charged." Out of common courtesy, most Photographers on assignment seek permission before shooting buildings, and the shoots are usually arranged in advance - but these same photographers go back out and shoot personal / exhibition work without seeking consent all the time, and are free to do so. They are also free to publish or sell those images, at any time.
I think to be fair most of the photographers could at least go and explain or let the building management / security guards know what they were up to first. It appears in the vid that some of the photographers are actually on the private land to start with, so they should have asked to see if there were any restrictions in place. A bit of common courtesy would not go a miss. It put the security guards on the defensive from the outset, especially when they were trying to converse and understand who the people actually were whilst being filmed themselves. I would be pished off if you tried to film me in uncomfortable circumstances, whether it was legal or not. The guards were just trying to do their job and cover the grey area of the perceived terror threat laws. I am sure folk would moan if some shady people were allowed to case the place for other reasons then carry out some terrible deed. Just seemed to me like the film was made to try and look for conflict to arise, and then waste police time to sort it out.
If they are generally taking photos in that area, they are under no obligation to inform private security firms of their activities. For example, if a photographer were to point an ultra-wide-angle lens down a street full of banking HQs, they would not spend the rest of the day explaining their actions to every custodian of the buildings that appeared in their photographs. If they have been commissioned by a magazine or other client to photograph a specific site, then the standard protocol (out of courtesy, not legal obligation) is to make contact with resident security staff and make them aware of their presence. I agree, to an extent. A few of these photographers didn't do the best job of representing themselves. You're entitled to feel however you like about being filmed, but if you wrongly stand in the way of somebody else doing something they're free to do, don't be surprised if they turn a camera on you. It should be clear from the vid that your average Security Guard in London doesn't actually know their job. Neither does the fool that has instructed them to go and get rid of a bloke with a camera standing on the opposite side of the street. They are not the law, they don't know the law, and it often takes little experiments like this to enlighten them. Note that in the cases where Police were called (rather than waiting for a passing beat Bobby), the call was not made by the Photographer. The Photographer already knows that there's no need to call the Police, and waste their valuable time.
Amusing vid, but it's got militancy written all over it. I can see both sides, but at the end of the day security are not Police trained. The calibre of individual will be lower and sending in 'on message' togs to cutely run rings round them is easily repeated in any arena where knowledge differentials exist. I wouldn't want to see legitimate photographers being impeded in their work, but if they are allowed to run amok and create more space than a society is wise to afford them in times of terror threats, then they themselves will become a cover for the exact problems our authorities have every right to worry about. I do not care about the public property line - diving into the Square Mile of the City is bound to get attention. Merrill Lynch, Broadgate etc and the like are absolute top tier business locations which certain factions of society dream of flattening. Photographers should thus always expect questions and be reasonable in return.
I am too tired to reply properly, but the photographers knew and planned what they were doing in that situation, the buildings and security staff had no prior knowledge so did not. So the guards went out to try to establish who and why they were there. It is awkward trying to communicate with people you do not know in the middle of a busy and noisy street with them all moving around and filming at the same time. I don't feel any of the situations saw the guards being overly zealous. I am off to bed as I have to get up early for a long drive to spend the day taking pictures and filming N/B's house tomorrow.
Interesting to hear people's views on this. Having taken thousands of pictures in the 10+ years I've lived in London (and encountered resistance and curiosity doing so), I wouldn't personally be inclined to question a photographer clearly going about their business. Maybe that makes me biased. I do think that some people's sense of 'vigilance' can be somewhat misplaced though, which is the main reason I posted the video. Chris, you're right - Private Security are (ordinarily) not Police trained. Perhaps it's time the gap between those two organisations was closed up a bit, and higher qualifications were required for those Security staff. Otherwise, they aren't worth their paycheck. I don't personally know any Photographers that have deliberately entered into a combative situation with either Police or Private Security, but as with any profession there are usually some bad apples. The Photographers in the video, whilst not the most accomplished of communicators, were acting in a civilised manner in my view. Danster, the point being made by this video is that our streets are indeed free public spaces. The private businesses that line them can rest assured that the Metropolitan and City Police are out there, cruising around in 5-Series BMWs with a boot full of Heckler & Kochs, watching their backs. The businesses are also free to install five, ten, twenty, even a hundred CCTV cameras all over their buildings, pointing wherever they damn well like. A Private Security Officer can sit in his Private Security Office and remotely control any of these cameras, and survey anything he chooses, for any amount of time. He is free to record and retain that footage. But, this person is not responsible for physically 'policing' the public streets outside that business. He is not qualified to do so, he is not privileged to act on behalf of the Police. Sure, if you're bothered by anything occurring in the street outside your workplace, you can go and exercise your curiosity - but unless that activity is illegal, there's probably nothing you can do about it. You can ask somebody to stop what they're doing, but if they know they're legally entitled to be doing whatever it is, then don't be surprised if they carry on doing it. Works both ways, so if you ever get hassled by somebody wanting you to put your camera away in a public space, you can remember this thread
Higher qualified security staff will cost more. In this economic environment, it who's paying, and even when it improves, who's going to justify? The next step up are Commity Officers. Firstly, photography is not a profession. Secondly, they were civilised, but they were discretely conducting an interview, posing the right questions for pass/fail answers, for the camera. For the purposes of the vid, it certainly had the positive effect of illustrating to all the cross section of knowledge, but the the other hand it was a bit clandestine. This is innacurate. The Police do not have it all covered, which is why they appeal for public alertness at all times. There is no time for apathy, fear licences private security proactivity, whether misguided or not. But when you give a thicko - sorry, but I'm being to the point - a remit to survey the perimeter of a building, and act on activity it doesn't understand, expect the responses to be fairly binary, authoritarian and potentially inaccurate, as we saw. However uninformed, they are alert and to be credited as such. No, but we can put a man from the Taliban in his Afghan clothes on the same street, with a camera, and claim the same. Provided he can reason his presence up to the edge of the letter of the law, his presence is thus fine? Then we can disguise him, put him in Western clothes, and continue to argue the case, toeing right up to the line? The security guys are right to ask questions in their binary ways, the Police then use their judgement. They both need to be close to the photographers to assess the situation, and make those judgements. Dialogue is inevitable. This is fair enough, but as said above, it's not right to infer a militant line on this. People should enjoy their photography, but we should not create more space than a society is wise to afford them in times of terror threats, and thus personal approaches should and will continue to be used by security and the Police to exercise pressure on folk who should have no fear of their indentites being noted. I can understand the frustration of photogrpahers being approached and shuffled around by the authorities - and it would grate me - but it doesn't give them higher status than localised or national security
All good Chris, as I said I'm genuinely fascinated to hear people's views on this. It's clear that these exchanges will continue to take place, simply because privacy is such a contentious issue - but I'm glad a light is thrown upon the legal aspects of it from time to time. I'm not the militant-type myself, never have been. Neither do I go pointing cameras at strangers or into private areas just for the hell of it. But there may come a time when a request is made to prevent me taking a photograph, that I deem unreasonable. And in that case, I reserve the right to recall this thread
I am just outside N/B's house now. Taking loads of pics and filming inside whilst looking through his windows. His neighbours came out to have a word, but I told them to feck off as it was all legal and above board. They kicked off so I had to deck a couple of them for sticking their nose's in my business.
Can you see any useful long lenses? I had a coded call for a 'research piece' last night and just cannot get close enough! Ta!
Of course I was obeying the laws of the land. Well I say "I", but was actually in a disguise. I gave my name as Pastor Ventil and was wearing a full Toyotec fancy dress outfit including a hoody with 16v FTW! on the back. The only offence committed was advocating the over use of valves, and creating the 4 pot holes in the road where the VR6 engined car I had used was parked.
if it was illegal how does google earth street view get away with it? [YOUTUBE]XJBQG0Wh-S0[/YOUTUBE] Mark Thomas on the subject
See how [strikethrough]Holy[/strikethrough] "powerful" valve surface area can be . You get places that mere [strikethrough]valveage[/strikethrough] mortals dare to go. At least you where well anchored.
