• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

News: The travesty continues ...

John Angulat

pro member
I must admit the situation has eased up a bit here in New York City.
The greatest amount of "harassment" you'll find will be around U.S. Federal buildings (and U.S. Marshals).
Admittedly, there's not much of photographic interest there, unless you're specifically capturing architectural images.

Remarkably, the NYPD has eased up tremendously and there's seldom a hassle on the street. Virtually every officer I've encountered has been polite and courteous.
The NYPD even went so far as to issue an internal directive that clearly defines one's right to photograph in public places.

NYPD Operations Order 14: http://www.lightsimage.com/forum/NYPD_Op_Order14.jpg

Hopefully the U.K. will follow suit.
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
It's hard to know how bad things are over here. there is certainly a lot of anecdotal evidence. Although I have been hassled once, it was by private security guards working for the government (I photographed the outside of the MInistry of Justice - somewhat ironic really) who were acting a long way beyond their very limited authority. Still, one was a lot bigger than me and quietly intimidating. I now have a copy of their policy provided in a letter of almost apology by the head of security for the Ministry, so if it happens again I will explain how they should behave.


Quite apart from the polcie/security approach to photographers, there is an insidious undercurrent of media and public opinion that suiggests that anyone photographing somehting they wouldn't, and particularly children (even there own if playing sport with others!) is somehow very dubious, criminal and that the police shold be called. This is then backed up when the police make statements suggesting that calling them was the best course of action and that they want any information so they can investigate. There are not many people who are willing or able to go public and remind people that no crime has been committed and that our legal system suggests that you are considered innocent until proven guilty.

Sorry for the rant. It's not all bad in the UK, but there are some concerns cerrtainly.

Mike
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
In the name of protecting our "Free" society!

Quite apart from the polcie/security approach to photographers, there is an insidious undercurrent of media and public opinion that suiggests that anyone photographing somehting they wouldn't, and particularly children (even there own if playing sport with others!) is somehow very dubious, criminal and that the police shold be called. ......


There are not many people who are willing or able to go public and remind people that no crime has been committed and that our legal system suggests that you are considered innocent until proven guilty.

It creeps along, an invasion on our feeling of being free. We cannot camp many places, people clam the sand in front of their beach homes in somehow theirs, (not true bur they still get security guards to harass beach photographers).

It's amazing how people yell "Freedom!" and then lock up the last remaining species in zoos, cover the place with concrete and feel they have the right to photograph us but not the other way around!

So it's important to wake up the public. I make a point of continuing to shoot when asked by a security guard not to based on some law. I just make it obvious that I'm ignoring them. I'll take one step on to "for sure-public pavement" and continue shooting to make a point. Each time the police come, they educate the arrogant guards. Big thing is never to block passage or confront anyone with hostile behavior.

If, however, a private citizen doesn't want their picture take, then that's fine, I'll almost always delete it for the sake of good manners and kindness.

As a sign of the times, one right wing school district has pulled Webster's Collegiate Dictionary from the shelves as it investigates the rather full descriptions of sexual terms including oral habits. The dictionary is, BTW, the one the school still uses to train for the spelling bee national contests, LOL!

This is all right wing obsession with control!

All in the name of "Freedom!"

Asher
 
Still guys, it could be worse. You might be a documentary photographer living in Uzbekistan

Here

Hi Mike,

You're right, things can be worse indeed. That however only strengthens my disgust of governments that abuse the rights of their citizens. It usually starts relatively innocent, like "when you are innocent, then you don't have anything to hide", and the next thing is that the definition of what's innocent is changed. It's a gradual process, and we should protest against it all the way.

Cheers,
Bart
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
Hi Mike,

You're right, things can be worse indeed. That however only strengthens my disgust of governments that abuse the rights of their citizens. It usually starts relatively innocent, like "when you are innocent, then you don't have anything to hide", and the next thing is that the definition of what's innocent is changed. It's a gradual process, and we should protest against it all the way.

Cheers,
Bart

I agree. There was nothing humorous about my posted link.

Mike
 

Paul Abbott

New member
Mike, I was in and around City Hall today, pointing my camera everywhere yet I never got pulled up by a 'jobsworth'. Have things eased up, I won't hold my breath.

The thing is, when I got my section 44, they just left me in the vicinity free to carry on taking pictures, which I did do.

Meanwhile, i'm trying to capture Tony Bliar and make a citizens arrest, so that I can get that £9000 on offer. LOL
 

John Angulat

pro member
Bart,
That is seriously scary. Thank you for sharing this with us.
I'm relatively ignorant of UK law and I'm at a loss to understand "anti-social behavior", ASBO's etc.
Can some of our UK members help me with an explanation?
Is this something that can be claimed (ant-social behavior) by a law officer for any transgression, real or imagined?
 
Bart,
That is seriously scary. Thank you for sharing this with us.
I'm relatively ignorant of UK law and I'm at a loss to understand "anti-social behavior", ASBO's etc.
Can some of our UK members help me with an explanation?
Is this something that can be claimed (ant-social behavior) by a law officer for any transgression, real or imagined?

Hi John,

I'm not sure if it has something to do with the British Victorian history, but it is seriously sick, relative to today's standards (we do live in 2010, don't we?). BTW, the guy subjected to the police brutality did everything right. He didn't waver any of his rights, he asked the right questions, and he protested against things that may happen folowing his arrest. Of course he was acquitted. He should claim a public apology and financial compensation for being detained for 8 hours!

The only way out is a resolute protest against this ill-informed behavior of public officials and the general public. Lack of education will result in more of this.

People have gone bonkers, somebody please educate them, take a stand against this type of abuse. Protest against this to your representatives in office, or bear the consequences!

Cheers,
Bart
 
Hi folks,

I found this information as issued by the UK government:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/publications/home-office-circulars/circulars-2009/012-2009/

For those engaged in photography in public places in the UK, it might be helpful to have a printed copy at hand, in case the info didn't trickle down the command chain.

Only when there is a reasonable suspicion that a person is a terrorist, or when you are in an "Authorised area", is viewing of one's images allowed. Therefore the obvious questions when requested to show one's images are: Is this an authorised area (and if so, under which directive)? If answered negatively the followup question becomes: Do you have a suspicion that I am a terrorist? If answered affirmatively, then one should ask what that suspicion is based on.

Cheers,
Bart
 

ErikJonas

Banned
I have not read every post in this thread but have read enough that this seems rather crazy...I mean it seems like something right out of Monty Python "anti-social behavior".....From a photographer taking pictures and you laugh and the show goes on but this is no Monty Python show.....

I remember when i was up in the North Cascades taking pictures of the Diablo damn at dusk and i remember thinking i was glad i was not of some arabic decent as i could just see trying to explain no i'm just a photographer to someone with the law....

But this is way extreme...Anti-social behavior...Still kinda funny....Is Monty Python still alive?...This would be great material for him...My favorite Monty Python is still "The Art Of Not Being Seen" but like i said this anti-social behavior with the photographer has Monty Python written all over it....
 
And at the same time Google street keep on snap me, myself and I in the avenues of Brighton...So if you're a terrorist, it's safer to learn a bit of computer... not so much though - instead of facing the police officers. Oh! they do that already? Then, forget it!
 

Andrew Stannard

pro member
That's a scary video in the link to the Guardian site.

I have to say that I've never had any problem in the UK - but then I'm not photographing in the cities that much. I'd also have to say that I am relatively ignorant of the law in my own country! If someone did stop me I wouldn't really know my rights - so Bart, thanks for the link.

All that said, I can't help but feel the photographers in the clip would have been better off just explaining what they were taking photos of and why they were doing it. They were obviously doing no wrong, so why bother 'hiding' anything. A friendly and forth-coming discussion with the officer might well have allowed them to continue with their picture taking.

Just my views,
 

Mark Hampton

New member
That's a scary video in the link to the Guardian site.

I have to say that I've never had any problem in the UK - but then I'm not photographing in the cities that much. I'd also have to say that I am relatively ignorant of the law in my own country! If someone did stop me I wouldn't really know my rights - so Bart, thanks for the link.

All that said, I can't help but feel the photographers in the clip would have been better off just explaining what they were taking photos of and why they were doing it. They were obviously doing no wrong, so why bother 'hiding' anything. A friendly and forth-coming discussion with the officer might well have allowed them to continue with their picture taking.

Just my views,

Andy,

I used to make pictures where I found them... Until one day a hysterical child on a bus said I had made an image of her younger sibling... I had been making images of the dirt and condensation on the windows... a flash had bounced and that was it ....the bus was stopped and the police called...

after 45 mins and a look at my phone (which had pictures of my son on it) I was let free... but tbh the police attitude was %%%%... try explaining to most people that you make images of windows... they look at you as if your mad!

What a world !
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
This bill would, in effect, render any outside photography illegal (except maybe at state parks).
(1) A person who enters onto a farm or other
11 property
[bold added ADK]where legitimate agriculture operations are being
12 conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an
13 authorized representative of the owner, commits a felony of the
14 first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083,
15 or s. 775.084, Florida Statutes.
16 (2) A person who photographs, video records, or otherwise
17 produces images or pictorial records, digital or otherwise, at
18 or of a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture
19 operations are being conducted without the written consent of
20 the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner, commits
21 a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.
22 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, Florida Statutes.
23 (3) As used in this section, the term “farm” includes any
24 tract of land cultivated for the purpose of agricultural
25 production, the raising and breeding of domestic animals, or the
26 storage of a commodity. [Bold added by ADK]
27 Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2011.


This must be directed against the folks that record cruelty to animals in farming operations especially of chickens and pigs. However it's chilling to all photography!

It does specify "enter", so one could photograph the farm from a road.....perhaps!

The other bad point is the idea that if they are storing some commodity then that building cannot be photographed either.

How about if there's a right of way through a farm?

Asher
 
Hi Folks,

It's a never ending story.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ip_white_paper.pdf

While it is packaged as a better protection of copyrights, just to make sure, it's the government that's going to define "illegal" (of course after the bill has been passed). And guess who's allowed to spy a bit more on the people to determine if it is (il)legal ...?

I can't help but feel that Cablegate also has something to do with it.

Cheers,
Bart
 
Hi Folks,

It may seem like a never ending attempt to discredit photographers, and it is.

A person who possesses or distributes a record which produces a photographic record occurring at an Iowa crop operation commits the offense of crop operation interference and is guilty of the following:
a. For the first conviction, the person is guilty of an aggravated misdemeanor.
b. For a second or subsequent conviction, the person is guilty of a class “D” felony.

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&frame=1&GA=84&hbill=HF589

Do write to your representatives ..., have them stop the criminalization of photography.

Cheers,
Bart
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Folks,

It may seem like a never ending attempt to discredit photographers, and it is.



http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&frame=1&GA=84&hbill=HF589

Do write to your representatives ..., have them stop the criminalization of photography.

Cheers,
Bart

what about satellite imagery ?

This would stifle the public right to know about cruelty to animals, growth of illegal drugs or use of illegal labor practices. Essentially, it provides protection of farmers for no defendable reasons.

Asher
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Deleted

I have deleted this post.

Because I think this thread belongs in a different section. This is a political discussion.
 
I have deleted this post.

Because I think this thread belongs in a different section. This is a political discussion.

Hi Fahim,

I can move the thread if I knew a better forum for it. Any suggestions?
When I started it, I thought about Provocative thoughts, but it's about the day to day menaces, and the ones in the making, to innocent photographers, and the silliness(!) of the situations we can get into, so Layback Cafe seemed more appropriate.

I have been stopped by security personnel while shooting architecture from a public road, but nothing bad happened because I knew my rights, and he also understood that I did. I think it is important to know what is, and what isn't permitted, whether by copyright law or other law. It was even part of my training as a professional photographer, I had to learn it if I wanted to not fail that part of the exams.

Law and politics are linked, and we can try and help weed out the silliness by speaking up. For that one needs to be aware of the situation, and understand that things can be changed (for better or worse), which is also what this thread is about. The London police have now understood and instructed their personnel that photography should not be regarded a terrorist activity, so protesting does help to unleash common sense.

I'm open for suggestions on moving the thread to another forum if that makes more sense, but also recognise that there is a lot of silliness to laugh about. Serious fun.

Cheers,
Bart
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
.... i remember thinking i was glad i was not of some arabic decent as i could just see trying to explain no i'm just a photographer to someone with the law...

Well Bart, if not political, it is definitely getting too personal for comfort!!
Keep me /us out of this!!

Thank you Erik for calling us ' decent '. This lad knows what he's on about for sure.

On the other hand, he did refer to Monty Python...
 
Last edited:

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Asher,

(1) A person who enters onto a farm or other
11 property
[bold added ADK]where legitimate agriculture operations are being
12 conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an
13 authorized representative of the owner, commits a felony of the
14 first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083,
15 or s. 775.084, Florida Statutes.

16 (2) A person who photographs, video records, or otherwise
17 produces images or pictorial records, digital or otherwise, at
18 or of a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture
19 operations are being conducted without the written consent of
20 the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner, commits
21 a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.
22 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, Florida Statutes.

23 (3) As used in this section, the term “farm” includes any
24 tract of land cultivated for the purpose of agricultural
25 production, the raising and breeding of domestic animals, or the
26 storage of a commodity. [Bold added by ADK]
27 Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2011.​

It does specify "enter", so one could photograph the farm from a road.....perhaps!
Not so - subsection (2) is not dependent on the predicate of subsection (1).

Best regards,

Doug
 
Top