veggiesosage:

Hi Abers, somewhat unusual circumstances but HERE is a story about when a tog was successfully rosecuted for obstruction.

Hi Andrew,

Yes I can accept that the police can swing things in their favour to remove what they would see as a nuisance or impediment to their operation by making charges of this nature. I don't think I have a problem with that if the photographer won't co-operate and is deemed to endanger anyone or anything.

I return to my original question posed to Admin.

Has anyone ever been successfully prosecuted for taking pictures in a public place?  If so under what section of the law was the charge brought and what was the sentence/outcome?

 

P.S. Whay's a TOG in photographic terms? My grandkids call me a TOG, Tottery Old Git.

 

---

WEB SITE: Wonders are many and none is more wonderful than man. New pics added.
DCM

Tog = phoTOGrapher

Its quite a worrying case that one because the chap concerned is a respected photojournalist who just happens to have specialised in photograhing alternative lifestyles and protests and did at one point sue the olice for malicious rosecution...but I'm sure the decision to prosecute had nothing to do with any of that.

Again, more related rather than answering your question but did anyone notice that JK Rowling won her appeal against the decision that it wasn't a breach of privacy to publish pics of her son? LINK

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website. My DCM gallery. flickr toy

I think there are two parts to this question.

The first part PC 6380 Matt has already answered and I am quite happy with police stop and search laws, and how they apply to me. (basically if I am in the street they have the right to stop and search me simple!!) Like Peter says above stay calm, explain the situation and comply with the officers request. Delete the images if required and then recover them when you get home with the available softwear.Most plod won't know you can do this. But above all, keep cool and live to fight another day!! accecpt that it is now the society we live in.

{it might also help that like Matt I too have a warrant card (of sorts) and when I flash that, my uniformed colleagees generally go packing!!}

Part 2... However, what does make my blood boil is the jumped up snotty security guard who thinks it is his/her/its duty to harass, restrain and then assault members of the public: has happened in Sunderland ( or simular.. there was a thread on here but I can't find it now) recently. It's that part of the "law" that I want clearing up so that I know when I am assaulted I can make legal representation to have the idiot prosecuted!!

Sarge

---

"Winston {Churchill} your drunk" -" Yes Madam !! - but you're ugly - and I will be sober in the morning"

049:

The first part PC 6380 Matt has already answered and I am quite happy with police stop and search laws, and how they apply to me. (basically if I am in the street they have the right to stop and search me simple!!) Like Peter says above stay calm, explain the situation and comply with the officers request. Delete the images if required and then recover them when you get home with the available softwear.Most plod won't know you can do this. But above all, keep cool and live to fight another day!! accecpt that it is now the society we live in.

Sarge - in respect of Stop and Search: if that is the law then as a law abiding citizen I shall obviously, under protest, comply with it although I shall use every legal means available to me after any incident to challenge what I have been subjected to if indeed I feel it has been unjustified or unfair.

Regarding the deletion of image: absolutely no way whether recoverable later at home using software or not. If the Police, Security Guard and anyone else do not have the authorisation to do this under law then there is no way I shall give up what rights I have as a citizen - what few still remain. The authorities may well have the power to sieze any equipment I might be carrying if they have a justifiable reason but I have yet to hear that they also have the right to delete any of my personal data or insist that I do it on their behalf. Please tell me your are joking in hinting that you would be prepared to accept this infringement upon your civil rights so easily. Forget anything that I said in an earlier post regarding recovering images - it was said very much tongue in cheek. When push comes to shove I can shove along with the best of them. If anyone knows differently of course then I am all ears - or eyes as it's the internet.

---

Click Me

I was also going to say that I will refuse to delete any images I've taken unless they get a court order - or whatever is required.

---

Mark

Digital Photo Group
My Website

Ne nuntium necare

We're all skirting round the issue arguing about what's right or wrong but the real issue is that we need something with us so we can present to ignorant security person in lieu of the fact that we do not have a warrant card to use in defence.

Maybe an Aide Memoir or a "pocket guide to law and photography" that we could carry with us would be sometthing useful for this mag to produce. It's hard for some ignorant security person to continue an arrogant stance just because they have a uniform when harrassed photographer can advise them of their rights and also inform said ignorant security person what penalties they could suffer if they continue to infringe our rights.

Whilst not a fool proof solution i feel such an item would certainly balance the equation a bit.

Andew

---

My Gallery

049:

Part 2... However, what does make my blood boil is the jumped up snotty security guard who thinks it is his/her/its duty to harass, restrain and then assault members of the public: has happened in Sunderland ( or simular.. there was a thread on here but I can't find it now) recently. It's that part of the "law" that I want clearing up so that I know when I am assaulted I can make legal representation to have the idiot prosecuted!!

Sarge

I agree with you there wholeheartedly! The majority of incidents of this nature that I have dealt with have been down to 'over-zealous' security guards shall we say. Most public, once it is explained that it's not illegal for folk to take photographs in public are OK with it, all that is generally required is a little reassurance.

Matt

---

My DCM Gallery

Hi,

An ealier post suggested an aid memior. I'm supprised the mag has not taken this up and produced a nice laminated copy which they could then sell or give away free. I'm sure if they produced such a thing and publised this through ads or other media then the issue it's included with would be a complete sell out. It could cause them to do a complete reprint to satisfy the demand and increase the profits.

It would show that you care about your readers and the problems that they have had with over zealous security guards or the police

Come on Future Publishing how about giving your readers something that they really really want. If you were realy bright you would get one of your advertisers to supply and produce it inassociation with...Digital Camera

What do other readers think?

 

 

 

---

Guido
My Dcmag Gallery
The Search Huts Gallery

Sounds good to me guido!.....Lets see what happens.

                                            Graham.

---

My Gallery

These things do exist. Snowlock on here was telling me he got one through his Leeds Flickr group but I don`t know who produced them. I`ll check with him and advise but it would be a good idea. I`ve a pirnt off of three sides of legal advice in my camera bag in case of further challenges but would like something more permanent.

---

My DCM Gallery

TBPITW
19th/20th January & 10/11th May 2008

The Sirimo guide is often recommended and you can print it out and carry that with you. However, I've read accounts from people saying that when they produced it it was pretty much waved aside. You have to remember the people who cause these problems are already somewhat about their own level of power and knowledge and tend not to be put off about pieces of paper put in front of them.

The problem with DCM producing a guide is that there is no such thing as a 'pocket sized guide to photography law' thats fit for purpose. Not least because there is no real such thing as a 'photography law'. The various laws that can potentially affect photography are drawn from all sorts of legal areas such as property and access law, copyright, public order and national security. The Sirimo guide is a brave attempt at pulling all this together but it takes up 2 pages of fairly small type, despite being massively simplified. There's also the problem that laws change over time and I don't know if the guide is still up to date. Mind you, the authors regularly respond to enquiries on their site so I suspect they would have flagged up any significant changes.

DCM did write a fairly lengthy article on the issue a while back so you could carry that around as an alternative. But I think a laminated pocket guide is a bit much to expect from anybody, unfortunately.

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website. My DCM gallery. flickr toy

I think you would be best served by carrying a baseball bat, and using it to knock some sense into these numbskulls.  

---

SK
The Best Photographer in the world 4th November - 5th November 2006 & 17th-18 November 2007
Oldboy’s Gallery

Does anyone know (because I don't), is this area covered more by civil law, for example trespass, or criminal law??

Just had me thinking.

---

My DCM Gallery

Its both. For example normal trespass and pretty much all property/access is civil law but say obstructing the highway is criminal. A security guard pushing you about could be assault which is criminal but if you sued him for damages that would be civil. Like I say its a rare old mix up.

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website. My DCM gallery. flickr toy

matty6380:

But let me say this.....if you want to come to my area when I'm on shift you wouldn't get hassled by me or my colleagues that's for sure (other than me asking for tips and guidance of course!).

Matt

 

I will echo that statement.

I have never harassed (or even spoke to a photographer), or dont know of ANY other officer to do so. One exception to this was a known peado who was taking photos of children in a public swimming baths through the window.

If i saw a photog taking photos, i would probably go over out of interest as a photographer to speak with them, especialy if they had a big white lens.

 

It would be interesting to know how many on this board have been harassed (or even just spoken to), or personally know someone who has been? I bet there isn't many. I still dont see this as being a big a problem as people would have you believe. Matt hit the nail on the head. Its scare mongering by the press. There are literaly thousands of people out there taking photos, and maybe one or 2 get stopped. This reaches the press and then photogs want to leave the country or pack up their hobby and believe that they are being persecuted.

Most the time the police act upon what they have been told. A complaint may have been received about a photog, and they HAVE TO act on it, and speak with them. There will always be the case of some jobsworth not having a clue what they are talking about (every work place has one).

 

To 049...

The police DONT have the right to stop and search you. They can talk to you and you can tell them to get lost if you want. However, if they beleive that you may be doing something you shouldnt be, then they do have the right. This may be from information received from someone, or from what they have observed or know. If they want to search you, then they have to cover certain points. These have the acrynym (spelling?) of GOWISE (G grounds for search, O object they are searching for, W warrent card if not in uniform, I identity, S station attached to, E entitlement to a copy of the search record). It actually has an LY++ on the end, but i cant remember what those stand for now.

As far as i'm concerned and probably most other officers, is that you are allowed to take photos of almost anywhere in 'public'. There will always be the exceptions to this. However, if someone doesnt want their (or their families) photos taken, then you should respect their wishes.

 

MATT