Is Martin Parr correct!? Should we fight back?

We should fight back. English people are very famous for their conservatism. If there would be any laws like this in the US or Canada I would hand myself and give my cameras to charity! Hope this will never happen!

P.S. Stupid f*ed up British parlament! Give the power back to queen for God sake! :0)
 
Sorry chaps, I should have decorated my post with smileys - it was intended to be as 'serious; as any other post I read or tap out here.
 
there is another way, but it aint pretty.

All street photographers should adopt the following dress

baseball cap - John Deere or Winchester
shorts - not too short, not too long, loose at front, tight at rear.
white gym shoes, with white socks , no other colour
complete with a really loud hawaiian shirt
you wont blend in with stealth but everyone will think you are just another ...........? tourist;)
 
As pointed out by Roger, it is quite unclear in France right now. But I would say that if your street photography does the following :
- respects human dignity
- is taken in public places
- is an artistic expression mean
- and not aimed at making huge profits out of a picture.

Then you pretty much risk nothing legally. The current laws are the result of the paparazzi exagerations, not of the street photographers that document life.

On another point, what pisses me a lot more is to see French Photography magazines not publishing a single French street photography because of fears of legal actions. Yet, at the same times, they have no problems in publishing pictures of miserable kids from India or Africa (knowing the risk is zero). That is such a huge hypocrisy and even shameful I would say.
 
Last edited:
I think some of the answers here are brash and confrontational. Better to be armed with an authoritative document of just what a photographers rights are. carry it with you and be prepared to brandish it on any occasion. Most people, police and security staff included, do not know and are not actually trained to know what the legal position is.
I found (and carry a document (abbreviated) like this. You might find it in a Google search. <nswphotorights.pdf> or you'll find it here - <www.forsterdigitalphoto.com/files/nswphotorights.pdf>.
It relates to just one State in Australia and was prepared by a lawyer who is also a photographer. There would be differences in other jurisdictions, but armed with something like this you can be calm, confident and factual. Only if it is not accepted do you need to "demand arrest" but I've never found anyone willing to try to over-ride what is clearly an informed legal opinion. You can see the doubt as they read it!
 
There's a lot in a smile and body language. If you say 'Tough' while smiling and looking confident, it's very different from scowling or looking guilty or aggressive. The last time I had an real hassle was, incredibly, in Arles at the Rencomtres 2009, when some woman demanded that I delete a picture I'd taken of her. She followed me for maybe 50 metres, and indeed tried to stand in front of me and block my path. I just walked past her.

I reckon I've had aggressive grief from others about three times in 40+ years; objections from security staff, police, etc., about the same number of times; and non-aggressive objections, about the same again.

Cheers,

R.
 
Leigh Youdale said:
Most people, police and security staff included, do not know and are not actually trained to know what the legal position is.
Click to expand...

The "police and security" know all right! They're simply trying to control people without making it look too obvious. It's a cheap ploy to make people like you accept orwellian-type laws.

I wonder why the camera makers aren't involved in all of this. They do, after all, make tens of billions of euros selling us all of this crap.
 
George9 said:
@ Roger Hicks.

I think you should check, and get up to date on the situation there.

I was with friends in Brittany this summer and they tell me it is as I said.
And not just people, but property too.
Each person owns the droit de l'image on himself and his property, this makes it a nightmare for their son who shoots stock images for post cards and such like.

edit:
For Berlusconi and the rest, this is not the case, as they are public figures and are legally fair game.
Click to expand...

This really is a very important subject.

But think how crazy owning the "droit de l'image" of one's self is, when some scientist can patent certain genes that you may have, if he finds them.

And on the same subject, I am absolutely furious that our political systems allow companies like Monsanto and Syngenta to patent genetics on plants and, if by some twist of fate, some of the genetic material enters the stock of seed of a normal farmer, he is liable for damages.

I'm off the subject. But these issues seem to me to at least be related.

JP
 
It is true as a fact in Italy street photography is dead. Ok, you can take pictures on public place but the you cannot do anything with them. Just keep closed in your album. You cannot publish on internet, on a newspaper or even in an exhibition in your local photoclub. Of course you can do it at your risk, but if by accident the subject discover this and desire to give you trouble he just need a lawyer. I think the problem arose when first mobile telephone made possible to take pictures and publish them (easily) in intenet and many people have been found to be in embarassing situation (on the beach instead to be in bed sick as they believed in office, with a girlfriend at a bar instead to be in office making extrahours etc etc). Not nice but this is the law.
robert blu
 
But, Roger has a point.

What if I take a street picture in Italy, like I recently showed in one of my posts about developing Neopan 1600. This server is based in the US, I think. Can the Italians really come and "get me" for this outside of Italy?

JP
 
wgerrard said:
Here's a question that requires a lawyer:

If you are arrested or detained on suspicion of being a terrorist taking pictures, would the police be required to show what evidence other than seeing you take pictures led to their action? After all, during the hour when that BBC photographer was taking pictures of St Paul's surely other, perhaps many other, people took very similar pictures. What else about his behavior compelled the volunteer police employee to single him out? It cannot have been the photography because he was far from unique in that regard.
Click to expand...

not a lawyer but, in most places in the UK:

The police can stop you and ask you to account for your actions if they are “acting with reasonable grounds for suspicion.” but If you ask they must explain why, and on what grounds.

They can search you for “prohibited articles” and seize them, drugs, guns or whatever, if you felt you had been treated unfairly legal redress would be through the complaints procedure, or mitigation in a court case

They cannot take other items, memory cards or film say, as that would be an “aggravated assault” and is more than their jobs were worth as that could be pursued in the courts

However, where the BBC chap was he would be in the Westminster Exclusion Zone (The Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act, 2005) and I expect covered by Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 too. So he is pretty much screwed, if you argue that one there’s a possible 28 days of detention before they need bring charges or release you, anyway to end on a cheerful note 95% on the section 44 applications are in London, us hardy northerners are mostly OK
 
Last edited:
JPSuisse said:
But, Roger has a point.

What if I take a street picture in Italy, like I recently showed in one of my posts about developing Neopan 1600. This server is based in the US, I think. Can the Italians really come and "get me" for this outside of Italy?

JP
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the correct answer to this question is, probably not ! It's a complicated world !
robert
 
yanidel said:
As pointed out by Roger, it is quite unclear in France right now. But I would say that if your street photography does the following :
- respects human dignity
- is taken in public places
- is an artistic expression mean
- and not aimed at making huge profits out of a picture.

Then you pretty much risk nothing legally. The current laws are the result of the paparazzi exagerations, not of the street photographers that document life.

On another point, what pisses me a lot more is to see French Photography magazines not publishing a single French street photography because of fears of legal actions. Yet, at the same times, they have no problems in publishing pictures of miserable kids from India or Africa (knowing the risk is zero). That is such a huge hypocrisy and even shameful I would say.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is indeed sickening hypocrisy. But of course, sickening hypocrisy in newspapers and magazines is far from unique to France. In fact, I'd say that the French are rank amateurs at it, next to some English-language publications.

And, @ JP Suisse, yes, they can try to come after you -- if they can find a lawyer stupid enough and arrogant enough to pursue the case. I think they'd have such a hell of a job enforcing a judgement outside Italy that even a rich man would find it difficult to get such a lawyer.

Cheers,

R.
 
Sparrow said:
However, where the BBC chap was he would be in the Westminster Exclusion Zone (The Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act, 2005) and I expect covered by Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 too. So he is pretty much screwed, if you argue that one there’s a possible 28 days of detention before they need bring charges or release you, anyway to end on a cheerful note 95% on the section 44 applications are in London, us hardy northerners are mostly OK
Click to expand...

I was in the same location near the Tate and shot several frames of the bridge and St Paul's about 6 weeks ago. The South Bank from Westminster Bridge to Southwark and beyond was crawling with camera-wielding tourists, many armed with expensive DSLR's and long lenses. Standing on the South Bank and pointing a DSLR at Parliament or St Paul's is not particularly unusual behavior.

So then, under Section 44, the police have no legal obligation to tell the BBC photographer or a court why he was singled out from all the other photographers taking essentially the same photo? What was there in his behavior, other than use of a camera, that generated their concern? It seems that in such circumstances use of a camera would, in itself, not be sufficient reason for a visit by the cops.

Is there anything in Section 44 that requires additional allegedly suspicious behavior, or does the act assert that mere use of a camera is suspicious? If the latter, what are the chances for a legal challenge to the act? Can Section 44 be challenged, or must the entire Terrorism Act be challenged?

[EDIT: I think my point is that, whether or not someone supports theSerious and Organised Crime and Police Act or the Terrorism Act, it ought to be agreed that police need to have the training required to identify suspicious terror-related behavior. The seemingly random warnings to photographers taking mundane photos in mundane locations would indicate that training has not been provided, which, frankly, is considerably more worrisome.]
 
Last edited:
JPSuisse said:
But, Roger has a point.

What if I take a street picture in Italy, like I recently showed in one of my posts about developing Neopan 1600. This server is based in the US, I think. Can the Italians really come and "get me" for this outside of Italy?

JP
Click to expand...
Just went to flickr and made a search on "italy people". I got 109'000 pictures, 99% probably of those are probably posted without permission.

Do you really think this risk is even worth bothering ?

As I said above, I am sure that if you respect the dignity of people, there is no chance you will ever get prosecuted.
 
wgerrard said:
I was in the same location near the Tate and shot several frames of the bridge and St Paul's about 6 weeks ago. The South Bank from Westminster Bridge to Southwark and beyond was crawling with camera-wielding tourists, many armed with expensive DSLR's and long lenses. Standing on the South Bank and pointing a DSLR at Parliament or St Paul's is not particularly unusual behavior.

So then, under Section 44, the police have no legal obligation to tell the BBC photographer or a court why he was singled out from all the other photographers taking essentially the same photo? What was there in his behavior, other than use of a camera, that generated their concern? It seems that in such circumstances use of a camera would, in itself, not be sufficient reason for a visit by the cops.

Is there anything in Section 44 that requires additional allegedly suspicious behavior, or does the act assert that mere use of a camera is suspicious? If the latter, what are the chances for a legal challenge to the act? Can Section 44 be challenged, or must the entire Terrorism At be challenged?
Click to expand...

I don’t know, it isn’t being applied like it says in the act, and until a photographer gets convicted and it’s tested on appeal I doubt anybody knows


PS, they get more powers under 44, they can do a pat-down search open your outer clothing check pockets and bags iirc but it’s purely on anti-terror grounds, and if asked they must site “threat of terrorist attack” as cause.

The policeman must be the same sex and although you can’t resist actively you can offer passive resistance and you are not compelled to account for your actions give a name or address or be photographed, in theory that is
 
Last edited:
Reflect on some of these statements whilst you are sat in a cell for half a day with you equipment confiscated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top