Policeman say Not shoot

[RomasG]

I live in England recently. Tonight I did the night of the city with friends. Unfortunately the session ended the police. Came to our called ID. After signing our names and said that we can not shoot. Is there a UK ban photography in public places (even if only for shooting panorama of the city without people or parts)? If a police license, which can be a challenge. Thank you in advance.

[karenoliver]

No there isn't any ban on photography in a public place. I'm pretty sure they should not have told you to stop photographing. What were you photographing specificallly? Where was this?

Kaern

[RomasG]

shot in the city center, Luton. Yesterday was a big fog and the city looked really impressive. Unfortunately where the photoshoot took photos of the church was closed.

[Stormsong]

Were they police or security officers? If you are on private property, for example, if you are on the pavement outside the Gherkin (Swiss Re building) or One Canary Wharf in London, the security guards will tell you to stop taking photographs. If you refuse, they can call the police to remove you as you are trespassing on private property.

The police will then ask for your details, but unless you have been taken into custody, you do not need to give your details. If you are asked for your ID and details, ask for the police officer's name and which police station they are based at. Failure to give you their details is also an offence. If they do not give you their details, ask for their force number and note it down. This number is usually visible on the shoulders of the police officers' uniforms. I usually carry a pen and paper in my camera bag just in case, although I have not yet had to write down any details.

Also note that Police Community Support Officers (these are volunteers and not employed as full-time officers and are identified by the wearing of high visibility jackets with the words 'Police Community Support Officer' on them) do NOT have the authority to tell you to stop photographing. They have to be in the presence of a full-time member of the police in order to tell you what you can and can't do!

There is also some confusion about shooting public buildings - sometimes you are required to get a commercial licence because there is the thinking that you will sell your pictures of these buildings and make money from them. These days a lot of churches are considered to be private property as well. In the instance of police approaching you and telling you to stop photographing, be polite, explain what you are doing (taking tourist photos) and walk away.

Regarding your rights as a photographer in public places, there is useful information here:
http://photographernotaterrorist.org/

I hope I have not confused you further, RomasG, with all this information, but it is important that photographers know their rights - and the rights of the police too in dealing with photographers.

Regards,
Denise

[pavman]

[QUOTE=

Also note that Police Community Support Officers (these are volunteers and not employed as full-time officers and are identified by the wearing of high visibility jackets with the words 'Police Community Support Officer' on them) do NOT have the authority to tell you to stop photographing. They have to be in the presence of a full-time member of the police in order to tell you what you can and can't do!


Regards,
Denise[/QUOTE]

correction PCSOs : they are full time employees and are fully trained they just do not have the right of arrest and require a police officers to do the arrest! Cheers Peter V

[Cathus]

Oops,

there is some misunderstanding going round regarding police/PCSOs, powers & committing offences.


Police Community Support Officers are not volunteers. They are not police officers; they are civilians with different roles, responsibilities & powers though they sometimes overlap. They are fully trained employees of the local police authorities.

PCSOs do have powers which they can enact without a police officer being present, for instance, they can direct traffic & pedestrians, they have the power to demand the name & address from anyone acting in an antisocial manner, they can confiscate alcohol & tobacco, they can issue fixed penalty tickets for some minor offences & they can seize vehicles from people using them anti-socially.
They can also detain people for up to 30 minutes until a Police officer arrives if they are suspected of committing an offence. you might call this a mini power of arrest.

It is not strictly true that you do not have to give your name & address unless you are taken into custody. If you are suspected of an offence which can be as minor as litter & you decline to give your name & address you will likely find yourself on a swift visit to the local nick while the police make enquiries as to your identity as they are entitled to do to anyone who cannot be dealt with by service of a summons, obviously without your ID they can't serve a summons & therefore can detain you for the purpose of dealing with the matter either by finding out your ID or taking you to court the next morning to be dealt with for the offence for which you've been stopped.

Whilst the regulations might say the officer should identify themselves to you this is generally only when they arrest you, a detained person is entitled to know the name & station of the person who is arresting them (though there are exceptions), if they are merely questioning you it is a matter for the officer whether they wish to divulge this info, in most cases you might say that to do so would just be polite, even if they don't this is not an 'offence' per se in the same way is it would be for, say a driver, refusing to give his name & address to an officer; Officers can be identified by their collar numbers & most forces now have name badges also. Oh, and they don't have to provide you with a pen & paper to write down their details (another often held misconception)

Regarding 'commercial licences' I think there is some misunderstanding here too. Commercial licences are required in just a few places, Trafalgar Square & Parliament Square in London are two, these are issued by Westminster Council, I believe who require commercial photography in those areas to be licenced, so they get some cash, they are required under local byelaw. People often think photography is restricted in these areas & this is not the case.

Save for certain military establishments, there is nothing to stop photography of public buildings from a public place. Security & other organisations may tell you that the building is copyright, however, whilst the plans may be copyright to save other architects from designing similar buildings, the image itself is not. The design, copyrights & patents Act has a section specifically exempting the reproduction of photographs of buildings from protection under the act, this also applies to works of art in public such as statues.

Where the confusion comes in is with model releases, or should I say building releases. This is where you take a photo of a building with the intent of selling the photos. A release merely protects the person publishing the image from being sued by the owners. It is not a legal requirement but you will have problems if you try to sell certain shots through image libraries who demand a building release to protect themselves once the image is published on their site & subsequently sold. It is not required to photograph the building. Should you make money from selling shots of buildings without permission it would be for the owner to sue you & may not be worth the risk if you are doing it commercially, if you're not then you have no worries.

This is my understanding.

you can read what the Met Police say about photography here: http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

[KeithT]

I believe that since the recent airline package bomb discovery we have been on some sort of higher terrorist alert situation. The Government, as indeed all Western Governments, are extremely concerned over this, whilst most of us just go about our daily lives as though nothing has happened. Unfortunately this will mean security taking a tougher line, especially when they see a man or woman with a camera taking pictures in what is essentially a sensitive area. We know we are innocently taking pictures for our hobby, but the police etc don't. It can only help our hobby if we understand this and help the police in any way possible by making our images available for scrutiny if they ask and by keeping our eyes and ears open and reporting anything that strikes us as odd.

I believe that by understanding the position of the police and security firms, that this helpful attitude can only do our photographic interests a big favour. By not alienating those who might have the power to stop us going about our chosen craft in a peaceful and innocent manner and gain their respect. Just a thought.

[amk1977]

We are the most surveilled nation on earth. According to a Daily Mail article in August 2009, there was 1 camera for every 14 people in the UK. A massive 4.2 million CCTV cameras. China, a well know police state, had a mere 2.75 million camera for its population of 1.3 billion. You literally cannot walk around London without being on a security camera that tracks your every move.

The government doesn't mind pointing cameras at us, but it doesn't like them being pointed at them and they always play the terrorism card in order to justify doing anything with regards to stomping all over our civil liberties and it NEEDS TO STOP!

Harassing photographers is at best pointless and at worst, absurd. If a terrorist wanted to plan something, they could go on to google street view, where they can wander about in cyberspace at liberty, taking in the layout of London or any other major city, drawing zero attention to themselves, rather than standing on a street corner in the city, DSLR in hand taking pictures of landmarks, with 100 CCTV cameras watching and tracking them. They could take close up pictures from inside a vehicle or use a hidden camera to achieve their aims.

We were told that the West was attacked because we were free. Well I ask you, who has done more to take away our freedoms? Terrorists or the governments? There are countless examples of anti-terrorism laws being used and abused by county councils to surveil residents in the UK. Spying on their day to day lives and it gets worse and worse. Paying citizens to spy on each other and reporting it to the authorities. It bears an alarming similarity to the old East German Stasi. We are very much in danger of heading down a path from which we may very well never return.

[Cathus]

it's very easy to get swallowed up in the clamour to claim our rights are being trodden over right left & centre.

It's not usual to get stopped by the police & told to delete your photos, the only reason you hear about it is because it doesn't happen every day; it's a news stories & news stories are stories of the unusual.

I've never been stopped by the police & none of my photography mates have & we have taken hundreds of thousands of photos between us. The only people I know who have been stopped are the occasional person on a forum (but the vast majority haven't) & the stories in AP & the Daily Mail. So let's not all get hung up on the sensationalistic side of the issue.

I also don't think there are 'countless' stories of councils abusing surveillance. There are some, but they are the exception, not the rule.

As to 'they' don't like us pointing our cameras at 'them' I bet there are more people in these forums who have shots of police officers either going about their business or happily posing with tourists or other people, than there are photographers who have had a bad experience.

Lets not forget, there are millions of people taking photographs up & down the country, how many cases, can you honestly specifically recall where the police have overstepped the mark, 20, 50, 100?

This is one of my pet subjects, indeed, I've written to my local MP & chief constable on the subject & have replies from the Home Office & police chief. I feel some balance is called for all round in our approach.

[KeithT]

Well, my take is if anyone thinks they are hard done by in this country, they can always move to China, or India, or perhaps Russia. These countries are so obviously freer places to live in.