An interesting read from the British Journal of Photography for those of you taking photos in the UK;

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=836675

Why are you always full of doom and gloom, nearly every thing you ever post is bad news or scaremongering  The majority of British photographers will never be effected by these new laws.

What do you do?  Just look and try and find new ways to try and scare the law abiding members.

Gee Thanks Fred255!

And BTW....I take offense to your comment  "nearly every thing you ever post is bad news or scaremongering".

If you take a look at each of my 1546 posts here you will see that is certainly not the case.

Furthermore, I made NO personal comment regarding the link provided...nor did I say it was (or wasn't) "doom and gloom"

Anyway...if you don't wish to read it....feel free not to go to the link.....

OK...I'm going  to stop this before it goes any further..

This sort of behavior is NOT going to be tolerated in this forum.

We are adults here and I  expect ALL OF US, to behave as such.

"Members and users are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is constructive and respectful of others at all times. Additionally, we hope that each member/user will work to facilitate a culture of collaboration and positive reinforcement, so we can all share our passion for art while developing our personal ambitions, and friendships."**
**

Now...

Subjects like this, do pertain to us as photographers.

However, since it is a sensitive subject.. I expect EVERYONE to conduct them selves in  manner that is respectful to each other.

To understand this I would need understand the pertaining laws to even be able to comment

on such a law..

I wonder how this would play out in the US as it pertains to the First Amendment

It seems from one section the actual law may not be clear on this matter

A Cleveland Police spokeswoman explained: 'If seen in suspicious circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police officers and asked about their activities. Photography of buildings and areas from a public place is not an offence and is certainly not something the police wish to discourage. Nevertheless, in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent, police officers are expected to engage and seek clarification where appropriate.'

The statement echoes the Prime Minister's answer to a petition signed by more than 5700 people. Gordon Brown reaffirmed, last week, that the police have a legal right to restrict photography in public places.

'There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places. However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or raise security considerations,' Downing Street says.

'Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the chief constable of the relevant force.'

Thanks Bruce;

I posted this as it does contain a current factual link of interest (and perhaps some concern) to all photographers.
Perhaps folks in the UK who have been following this and are more familiar with the new law would offer their comments, thoughts and experience.

Attached Link: 'Authority' paranoia over photography in London

well, I have been following news of such kind whenever it crops up though I've not had any first-hand experience of being told to stop taking photos (except when being deliberately cheeky in museums and such places hehe).... it seems a pretty 'grey' area at the moment and I think the whole thing essentially boils down to a few things

1. the fact the UK has become something of a police state, one which is also on constant high alert for suspected terrorist activity ... I suspect many innocent photographers/film makers are stopped and questioned in public places so the fuzz can be seen to be doing their job 'diligently' as they pick on easy targets
2. on one hand the government claims it does not want to dissuade photographers from taking pictures in public places, and on the other they're encouraging more stops and questionings... so far these have ostensibly been a huge waste of time for all involved... there's no law to stop the person taking photos so such encounters are more likely to be justifiably disputed, leading to arguments and increased animosity towards the police, who in an effort to get their point across may rise to such bravado as 'I am the law' so as not to be undermined.... the majority of the time there's no solid legal ground on which to argue, so such a confrontation is likely to just be a big wind-up and pain in the rear...
3. the law may have been considered (in my slightly cynical mind) to free up hundreds of work hours for police officers, who can slip a legitimate legal threat into the early stages of stopping a photographer/movie maker, meaning less of the wasted time disputing... they'll be able to just send them on their way or bundle the 'guilty' party into the van for a ride downtown, in much less time than before...

I doubt this is likely to affect anyone outside of a major city though...

... oh, and I actually wanted to post 3 links... don't think I've posted one on the forums before, do we have the option of just the one attached link per post? anyway, below are much more 'amateur' vids but which show more of the issue at street level...

<span style="font-family:Arial;"><a href="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=z86z2WlqJws">http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=z86z2WlqJws</a> - Met police make up the law<br></br><a href="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=z86z2WlqJws">http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8py1-EW94Hc</a> - 'I AM the law!'<br></br></span>

Thanks for sharing your personal experience Adam..

You can add as many links in a thread as you wish..

Just use the  tools on the right hand side..

(I'll make your links HOT)

ah, nice one Bruce, hadn't seen that little 'insert link' button.. cheers for sorting the links

Jailed for maybe ten years...where.The prisons are already over crowded.

And ten years...killers in England get less than that and are out in three years.

Just a bit more legislation from the government to let you know Big Brother is watching you.

Generally I find it's not policeman that are the problem - it's security guards. Give some people  a floresent jacket and a maglite torch and they think their robocop.  Yet they never stop people taking photos with mobile phones .

Security guards sometimes also know less of the law than a policeman or may not be given correct instruction by their employer.  And, at least in the USA, public and private are two different places.  

When in England I was hesitant to shoot a photo in the airport. After asking, I was told to take any photos I wanted.  Of course, discretion is always desirable.

gradient I'm sorry if I offended you that was not my intention.

DONT PANIC......it is yet another bit of knee jerk legislation which is added to the huge number of new rules and laws tangling up the life of Brits. Evry week I must break at least six laws of some kind or other often without knowing,this one about the taking  of pics is unlikely to make much difference. Since WW1 there have been laws about not taking pics of prisons, war department(now MOD) property and equipment ,but generally these are no longer enforced. I had a good laff when a prosecution was a failure cos someone published a pic of the Post office tower in London. The security services highlighted the role it played in a comms system called Backbone designed to enable cold war bunkers to keep in touch after the bomb.They made a big mess by getting publicity due to the court case.
Nowadays there is a website where you can read all about govt places and it keeps me in the clear for taking my aerial pics http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan-turnbull/SECRET-BASES/

When i first came to london i didnt know what all the buildings around whitehall were, so i was walking down the road and a large building which looked good for a photo presented itself... i stood there for a good few minutes taking different angles.  Then i walked past the side door... to the Ministry of Defence...! didnt get stopped, most definitely got CCTV'd i would expect - nothing happened.

Exactly.  These laws are brought out, but are not enforced. Most photographers can go about there hobby and will never be stopped for it.  Now if you go and start taking photos at a riot or something like that, that's when you may run into trouble. 

In my mind, I would wonder, why don't they want me taking pictures?

They must be doing something wrong..

:tt2:

Where I live, our local TV stations encourage people to share video and still..

They call it :You News TV"

I can see not allowing photo's of military bases..

Then again..I can go on Google earth and count the number of jets on the ground at the base near my home in Virginia

they seem to be much more paranoid on your side of the pond..

I do remember a member posting a while back about being questioned for taking photo's with a tripod in Washington DC.

I do know for a fact..that because of an e-mail I had sent  a specific location near me was blurred out on Google earth..

Seriously..

I asked a person I know, (who works for a very large Military contractor) about a
Air force site on a hill near me..
There seemed to be a lot of activity at a site that is "not in use"

Then right after that a series of stories appeared in the paper about how the site was abandoned and the some of the gear was being sold as scrap.

Ahh..don't panic..I understand that.  Yet, the law is on the books and may be enforced if it is determined necessary even if  not in the opinion of others.

I grew up in a nuclear city, the really first one anywhere.  On some roads were signs telling there is no public access and stay out.  I did stay out.   Today, some of those roads are open but others are still very closed to unbadged and security cleared employees.   The need for that I  do understand.    When near these places, I don't shoot pictures even from a distance.  For one, the scene is not particularily photogenic and for two, I don't want some security guard deciding he has a right to take my camera when he likely does not...even if digital on a removable flash memory.

I have wondered who gets the satisfaction from an essentially unenforced regulation being law in the first place.

BTW, Bruce, great story of the "unused" military base.

Fred, thanks for mentioning the Snapshop Gallery in your sig..I did not know it was there.  That is a place to put my sneaky quick photos.

One small note about my "story"

This was via an e-mail exchange..a private e-mail exchange..

Not his business e-mail

Maybe that is why "Operation Dipper" is taking place in the UK.....they'll be using cardboard cops to enforce these new laws....

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Cardboard-cops-to-police-the.4775694.jp

And even more madness from lawmakers, this time in the US....a new bill being proposed to enforce cellphones with cameras to emit a noise when taking an image;

http://techfragments.com/news/318/Tech/New_Law_Will_Require_Camera_Phones_to_Click.html

For those that  think too much fuss is being made over all these new laws... remember that every erosion of our freedom is a victory for terrorists.....

Like a lot other laws, this new law is vague, and thats the problem both for the photographing public and the police. It's more or less down to the judgement of the officer who is evaluating the situation and his or her mindset. And we all know that some cops are just... Well, A-------s ! Some are okay..

Governments also use terrorism as an excuse to pass draconian laws through without real debate, something that they have already done many times in the UK in recent times (remember the DNA database for all who have been arrested and had their DNA taken and kept on that database, even if they were wrongly arrested) ! 
And anyway, terrorism is not the major threat facing the world as they would try to have us believe. I'm more concerned about habitat destruction or population growth than terrorism, and so should all governments be, but they have no real answer to those problems because they are acceptable consequences of 'successful economc growth'. Governments fear any damage to that ideal, so thats why these pathetic laws get passed. I'ts fear that drives through these laws, fears that I do not share with the elected parties. Criminalising ordinary citizens who photograph public buildings is a trillion times less effective at stopping terrorism than (among myriad other things) invading foreign countries under the false pretense of trying to find WMD right !!!!!??

The UK is also the most 'watched' nation in the world via CCTV, so their is a real stink of hypocrasy here too !

Regards... Shaun.

Good points made, Shaun. In the USA, for instance, some of the laws concerning firearms affect everyone while the object of the law is the criminal, the one who will disregard the law in the first place.  Some feel safer or like a positive move has been made to write yet another ineffective regulation.

I have found in some instances (not in the UK) that simply asking a guard or someone associated with a building or other object, the answer is sometimes, "Yes, take pictures as you wish".  With museum exhibits, of course that is different circumstance and within the rule of the institute but still ask, "Is it ok to photograph if no flash is used?"  At one exhibit I am told no photos allowed and at another, ok with no flash.

Maybe the cops think anyone thats got the strength to lug around the average photography kit, makes us strong enough to carry a rocket launcher :)

Seriously though in the few cases that have come to court, the real bad guys have all used mobile phones, or basic camcorders, nothing even close to anything that looks professional.

As for UK laws actively forbiding photography there is another one = the airshows act - which stops you from snapping away outside the show ground.

But out of all the shows I go to only Shoreham actively upholds it. Buts it's not the cops who get the nark on. Everytime I've seen it happen it's always been a bunch of people wearing military clothing, who guide the vistors into the event. Though considering some of these people belong to a organisation called Frontiersman, which in the past has had links to right-wing group it's not unsurprising they don't like cameras :) 

I often photograph local events, and for my City & Guilds [Social & Documentary Photography] did one of the last major CND/aldermaston demos, and never found any major problems. I've always found the cops to be OK.

OK, they are not always that friendly, the Met is the worse bunch, but most of the time thats fair enough because they have a job to do. Not worrying about photographers inability to understand basic road safety :)  

I was apprehended for taking photographs in a very modern (Africa standards) business mall in Pretoria, South Africa, called the Menlyn centre. I refused to quit taking photographs of staircases and other architectural features. I resisted being taken into custody and asked that the management explain to me why I was being treated like a criminal. Long story short, I exchanged mail witn their public relations and practically told them to go where it's a much warmer climate. The only (logical) reason they could supply me with was that criminals plan and do reconnaissance by taking photos. Yeah right! A "criminal" carrying a brick size Nikon of which the serial number could be photographed by the surveilance cameras a mile away...

I think most of these so called laws serve only one purpose and that's to jeopardize the law abiding citizen carrying a big camera whereas people can take photos with cell phones almost unnoticed.

Sad to know that freedom everywhere is curtailed by the very people who should protect it at all costs and rather address the CAUSE of the criminal acts causing headaches.

Hi Piet;
Regarding your "incident" at the mall....I suspect that it was private property, in which case, the mall owners could in fact ask you to stop taking photos and/or leave the premises.

BTW, I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence.

John: They are a public company and listed if I am not mistaken. So, it's not the government owning it and then I guess all property could be classed as "private". Be as it may, with respect to their rights too, it just felt like going to the Kruger National Park, capturing a Rhino to be stopped and told Rhino's are highly endangered species and therefore should not be photographed.

A mass demonstration is planned for Monday, Feb 16th at New Scotland Yard in response to the new law that takes effect that same day.
It will be interesting, as part of the demonstration area includes the "parliamentary exclusion zone".....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/12/pap_the_police/

Quote - A mass demonstration is planned for Monday, Feb 16th at New Scotland Yard in response to the new law that takes effect that same day.
It will be interesting, as part of the demonstration area includes the "parliamentary exclusion zone".....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/12/pap_the_police/

I wait to see how massive it is, i sit opposite scotland yard at work...

Maybe i should take a photo of it ... hehe

Well get a few photos for us

Will have to be camera phone stuff... not taking my slr out to take a photo of that - i'd probably collapse in laughter at the irony...

ah go on, you'll be pleased you did later ;)
give the phone camera to a work colleague and get them to use that on you taking the photo of the protest.... or is that just headed too far towards chronic irony?

I live in the Uk actually 12 miles from where the photographer was questioned in Ceveland .Our camera club are setting up a meet with the police along with other clubs in the area in responce to this new law. Our club take local photos landmarks and so forth for a charity calendar of which submissions go in this week as a competion .Im going out tomorrow to take some shots for it with the wife as witness just in case lol :o)

Mick

 Didnt see it in the end (didnt have time to even walk the 30 meters from my office round the corner to the "front entrance"  to scotland yard and it didnt pass my window), but according to the evening paper there were "hundreds"  i think mainly NUJ so Journalists (figures really considering they are most likely to fall under the law)... bbc website has it too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm

An interesting comment from the link Rich provided;

"Mr Vallée also pointed out that members of the Royal Family were part of the Armed Forces.

*"Are we going to be stopped from photographing them?" he said."

*Again...I think the "intent" of this new law is understood and acceptable....but the loose wording and it's inherent broad implications are what is troublesome.

Surely that just means the queen as head of state etc, and then those who took up duty in the armed forces? or is it truly every member of the royal family?

interesting - because i'm fairly sure we are all members of the royal family in some respect - how far removed from the throne do you have to be?

There is a quite distant link to a recipient of the Royal Order of the Garter in my family..perhaps I should not take self portraits if in the UK.. : )     

Rich, thanks for the link.   Interesting stuff...and photogs will sometimes get into trouble while others will be more cautious or less obvious.