Advice to photographers in Uk

[Michael-IIIf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another example

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[spylaw4]

Another example

 

I was going to say "unbelieveable" but regrettably this is just what we need to stand up to.

 

I hope he does press charges against the security guards.

[farnz]

I agree, Brian, I hope he presses charges; I'd have thought that false imprisonment would do nicely for starters. "I'm detaining you, I'm detaining you!"

 

On a brighter note I see that parliamentary signatories to EDM 1155 have jumped from 131 to 158 today.

 

UK Parliament - Early Day Motions By Details

 

Pete.

[rob_x2004]

Friggin poms. The way you guys treat each other its no wonder youve got problems. Same as the last vid someone linked to, a fair amount of the trouble seems to relate to how the photographer handles the situation. The beligerent "its my right" brigade doing its best to escalate a situation that could have been handled by anyone with half a brain.

 

Sorry. It would not have happened to me.

[farnz]

Friggin poms. The way you guys treat each other its no wonder youve got problems. Same as the last vid someone linked to, a fair amount of the trouble seems to relate to how the photographer handles the situation. The beligerent "its my right" brigade doing its best to escalate a situation that could have been handled by anyone with half a brain.

 

Sorry. It would not have happened to me.

What would you have done differently, Rob?

 

Pete.

[DTD]

From the look of it he was in a shopping centre – these are often not 'public' spaces – and so the owners have the right to not allow photography.

 

Doesn't allow security guards to detain you/touch you etc though.

 

One positive thing about the difference between public and private is large numbers of pub landlords are barring our dear Chancellor Alistair Darling in protest about him increasing duty on beer.

[spylaw4]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good point DTD. It struck me after I made my posting above that perhaps that might be the case. Something the photographer should check at the Town Hall to see if the "street" is designated public highway, before he takes it further.

[earleygallery]

Friggin poms. The way you guys treat each other its no wonder youve got problems. Same as the last vid someone linked to, a fair amount of the trouble seems to relate to how the photographer handles the situation. The beligerent "its my right" brigade doing its best to escalate a situation that could have been handled by anyone with half a brain.

 

Sorry. It would not have happened to me.

 

Rob,

 

If someone asks me not to take photos in a private area then I apologise and put the camera away - as has been said the incident above could be within a private area/shopping arcade in which case the security guard can tell the guy to stop but can't detain them, unless he was making a citizens arrest maybe?

 

If someone asks me not to take photos in a public area I'll tell them exactly where to go! (if they asked me not to photography them, I would probably agree, I don't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable or angry).

[farnz]

I've just checked on how EDM 1155 is doing and noted that were now up to 177 MPs' signatures.

 

In order of the number of signatures this places us at number 17 out of a total of 1,520! Please keep on lobbying your MP if he or she hasn't already signed!

 

Pete.

[fulito]

Being this one an international forum, I would add a disclaimer about the legality of photographing people in public places. In Spain, for instance, it is ILLEGAL to photograph non-public people in the streets without their consent, because as much as the photographer owns the rights to the picture, non-public (i.e: non-famous) people own the rights for their own image.

 

Regards,

Julio.

 

By the way, here is something I posted over on RFF, in response to an initiative over there to form a pro-photography action group.

 

This is a "Communications Wheel". I normally use it to define what the core message is in a sales campaign, and who the stakeholder areas and individuals are. The Wheel can have any number of "segments" - this particular one has worked out to six, in my mind.

 

How to read it:

 

The "core message" is, unsurprisingly, at the centre. This is the common, simple message that we want to present to the world. It should be clear, unambiguous, and easy to remember. Too many threads in the core message dilutes its' impact. Too much complexity makes it "opaque".

 

Each segment is a "stakeholder area". In a sales campaign I would include in this area the name of the director, company officer, etc. responsible for that area.

 

The bullet points in red are the "drivers" - the key attributes for that stakeholder - what they want, what motivates them.

 

The bullet points in green are the "filters" - the words and behaviours that we should use with that stakeholder to tailor the core message to meet their drivers, and to neutralise and satisfy them.

 

A stakeholder may of course fall into more than one segment, depending on their behaviours. You may therefore encounter a "curious" or "aggressive" police officer or bar owner. Their primary stakeholder behaviour and our response to it is "modified" by their secondary stakeholder behaviour.

 

I am NOT putting this up as a finished product, or as the last word. This is a straw man - a means to an end. This should provoke further throught and discussion.

 

 

Your thoughts?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[earleygallery]

Being this one an international forum, I would add a disclaimer about the legality of photographing people in public places. In Spain, for instance, it is ILLEGAL to photograph non-public people in the streets without their consent, because as much as the photographer owns the rights to the picture, non-public (i.e: non-famous) people own the rights for their own image.

 

Regards,

Julio.

 

Julio - are you certain about this? I suspect that the law is in fact that it is OK to take the photograph but illegal to use it for commercial purposes without the persons consent.

 

By definition, if this was not the case, it would be illegal to use a camera in public full stop (how do you take a photo of a monument/building/public event without including members of the public in the frame?).

 

Please could you check/post the relevant information - link to a site where it states the law?

[fulito]

James,

 

Here is a link to the particular law I was referring to. I am afraid it is only in spanish, because this is a local Spain law:

 

Ley Orgnica 1/1982, de 5 de mayo, de Proteccin Civil del Derecho al Honor, a la Intimidad Personal y Familiar y a la Propia Imagen.

 

In particular, it states that even taking the photograph is already an intromission in the private life of individuals, even when they are in public places. However, cameras can be used in public places, and it is legal for strangers to show up in the pictures taken provided they are not the main character of the picture. For instance, if you're taking a picture of the Sagrada Familia temple, and a bunch of tourists show up in the corners of the frame, then that is ok. Same thing if you're taking a picture of your wife and some other people show up there. But if you're doing street photography, when it is usual that one or two or three individuals are the main characters of the picture, then even taking the picture is illegal.

 

My own disclaimer: I am not a lawyer so I may be misinterpreting the law. It seems very clear to me, but with laws, one never knows :-).

 

Regards,

Julio.

 

Julio - are you certain about this? I suspect that the law is in fact that it is OK to take the photograph but illegal to use it for commercial purposes without the persons consent.

 

By definition, if this was not the case, it would be illegal to use a camera in public full stop (how do you take a photo of a monument/building/public event without including members of the public in the frame?).

 

Please could you check/post the relevant information - link to a site where it states the law?

[earleygallery]

Thanks Julio,

 

I can't read much Spanish but put this into Babelfish and have a typcially 'rough' translation.

 

I see the following paragraphs;

 

Five. The pick up, reproduction or publication by photography, film, or any other procedure, of the image of a person in places or moments of its private life or outside them, except for the cases anticipated in the eighth article, two.

 

Six. The use of the name, the voice or the image of a person for advertising, commercial aims or of analogous nature.

 

(8.2)

Two. In individual, the right to the own image will not prevent:

1. Its pick up, reproduction or publication by any means when one is people who exert a public position or a profession of notoriety or public projection and the image attracts during an act witnessed by notary public or in opened places the public.
   
2. The use of the cartoon of these people, in agreement with the social use.
   
3. The graphical information on an event or public event when the image of a certain person appears merely like accessory.

Again, this does appear to relate more to the publication or commercial use of someones image.

 

Perhaps someone who knows the law in more detail can comment?

 

Certainly I have never had a problem photographing in Spain, so I find it odd that I have been doing something illegal but have never been challenged for it.

 

Edit: Indeed, just reminded by another thread, how does the law - if you are correct - allow for the use of CCTV in Spain?

[fulito]

Well, my interpretation from the same paragraphs is that one cannot actually take the picture unless the people is accessory (not main character) or they are well know (famous) people :-).

 

I've also taken street pictures in Spain with no problems at all, my understanding is that most people don't really know the rights they have by that specific law and therefore think pictures from them can be taken in public places, so they never complain.

 

I may be perfectly wrong interpreting the law, I admit it. Yet I keep my suggestion of adding a disclaimer to the original table, because there may be another countries where, regardless of doubts in the interpretation of the law, it may actually be illegal to take pictures from people.

 

Regards,

Julio.

[jmr]

Just had an email from my MP, Tom Levitt. He's agreed to sign the Early Day Motion, as I asked - a little bit of democracy in action. Made me feel a bit better

[spylaw4]

I cant recall if this link has been published on this thread. The guide was written by Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip.L.P., LL.M, who is a lecturer in law at Heriot Watt University, with particular experience in Information Technology Law, Intellectual Property Law and Media Law.

It seems that things may sometimes not be as black & white (!) as we may think.

 

Interesting about Spain as I'm going in early June; isn't there something like this in French law?

[bill]

Foreign Secretary Miliband responds to photography concerns news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums

 

Interesting...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[earleygallery]

I've had a further response from my acting MP who referred the matter to the prospective candidate for my constituency. No response yet from the Home Office (who must apparently respond to my request for information within 20 working days) or Austin Mitchell !!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[farnz]

Just had an email from my MP, Tom Levitt. He's agreed to sign the Early Day Motion, as I asked - a little bit of democracy in action. Made me feel a bit better

He's signed as promised and we're up to 180 signatures.

 

Pete

[spylaw4]

He's signed as promised and we're up to 180 signatures.

 

Pete

 

By my (possibly faulty) reckoning that's nearly 30%!