Exclusive Courses: www.blackbeltbarrister.com/ Watch Next: Ring Camera Court Case: Must You Remove Yours? | BlackBeltBarrister czcams.com/video/1RVpQJJ_BHQ/video.html TV Licensing Part 2: Agent Visit | BlackBeltBarrister czcams.com/video/i_bqIbVT6a0/video.html Why Is There a Gap in The Roundabout Sign? | Things you didn’t know about signs | BlackBeltBarrister czcams.com/video/rGfoDGc_jVI/video.html Parking Charge Notice Explained | BlackBeltBarrister czcams.com/video/Zy3MY_j7JYw/video.html Is the Highway Code Law? | Can Cyclists Run Red Lights? | BlackBeltBarrister czcams.com/video/tO69N9G_9Iw/video.html NHS Selling Access to YOUR Data - HOW TO OPT OUT | BlackBeltBarrister czcams.com/video/q04W1xV5TNM/video.html UK Knife Law and Everyday Carry Pocket Knives that are Legal | BlackBeltBarrister czcams.com/video/5bVknOv19_w/video.html Can You Take Photographs In Public? Can You Film In Public? Terrorism Searches | BlackBeltBarrister czcams.com/video/ZZ5d7TVNYUs/video.html
Hi 👋ok I have just started following you on the strength of following Voice of Reason. Your really interesting and helpful 🙂👍 Thanks for your professional advice 👍
A photographer does not have to follow dpa/gdpr the onus is on the company or who you are taking a photograph of to make reasonable modifications to hide their data or private info.
@@BlackBeltBarrister There is nothing in between pure and simply a photographer weather working for bbc or tabloids or just a hobby does not have to follow dpa/gdpr how does someone recognise what is private data if they don't work there or know, this only becomes an issue for them when for example as we see on youtube videos being re-uploaded with blurs because the company says "hang on a minute that's some of our private info there can you remove it"
As a retired police officer I still remember one of the first lessons taught during initial training - Courtesy is an essential quality and one which will smooth many a path....
The best that most coppers can manage now, with a view to being polite, is to start with 'Mate...' What happened to 'Sir/madam'? American cops use it - and it's never seen as servility; quite the opposite in fact - giving respect in that way demonstrates that you expect it in return.
Unfortunately, courtesy doesn't seem to be taught at training school anymore, "hello mate" doesn't really make a decent courtesy standard. The police are a public service, paid for by the public. Therefore, I personally think that training in courtesy should be at the top of the list, Using Sir/Madam, please/thankyou. And certainly not to be feared as they seem to take great delight in. The wearing of blacked out Union Flags, prohibited as this is defamation of our national flag, it is red, white and blue, if they wish to fly it then fly it loud and proud. In reality, the police do not need it to complete their job. I think they are just trying to copy the military, and as an ex service man, they aren't doing themselves proud. I'd take any serving or ex service member far above the not so good British Bobby. Sorry rant over.
@@gordonday8771 Your Wrong! Courtesy is taught at home, at all in most cases! Every child learns 80-85% Of everything they are Ever going to learn in life by the time they are 6 years old! So it is taught (or not) by the parents/parent with care! My sister runs a preschool nursery attached to a school. It takes rising 4's. 60 per in take, 30 mornings & 30 afternoons. About 1/3 of them have to be refused! They are not clean or dry, in the day!!! Others cannot speak properly, just make noises! More stand in front the TV & cry when does not get turned on! Some cannot sit for 10-150 minutes to have story read to them. worst of all some have no teeth just stubs or stumps! It is horrendous? I blame the Government! Well everbody else does for everything else!
True, but in the digital era there's also no perception of respect for others especially when the end result gets people posted all over the internet. It's about time something was done about.
There are three types of privacy. Absolute, reasonable, and none. Absolute is in your own home or in public conveniences. Reasonable is in a public situation but where you might be having a private conversation on a park bench, or using an ATM. None is where the public are milling around aimlessly.
@@poodle559 Yes it's time the police started following guidance and stoppped using section 43 against people who they know are not terrorists, Police are out of control and should be brought to book.
Um… the police always lie by saying you filming security entrances and cameras to test their weakness.. Meanwhile, these same entrances and cameras can be seen on Google Map! 🙄
@@leathleyg5995 Section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, gives you a the definition of a "public place". Most of the auditors and im sure some photographers know this act....
As a full time photographer for the last 48 years, I can say this is very good information and advice. If considering an update it would be worth mentioning that it will be illegal to photograph breastfeeding in public without permission. This is included in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill going through Parliament, January 22.
True and add that hé s speaking only about Brits, and that other country s might and Will have different laws around copyright and portrait rights.😄 As example, in The Netherlands we have different laws by Which copyright and portrait rights are different.
They actually bothered to include this specifically? Good god, what minds they have. If you are doing something or indeed anything, in a PUBLIC place, surely you might expect to be photographed?
Correction: everybody has the right to ask you for a copy of the picture of film. They don’t have a right to receive it. Those two things are fundamentally different.
I wondered about the language here too. Surely everyone also has the right to ask you to delete your pictures as well. It's just that you can say no. The right to ask a question isn't the same as the expectation that someone must do what you ask. I am not a lawyer and I suspect the language makes sense if you are.
I don't think this is true. There is no right codified in law for a stranger to approach you and to ask for a copy of the picture. Though it isn't illegal.
@@shmoola this is under English law, you don’t need a right “codified in law” to do something like ask somebody a question. This is under the legal maxim of "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed". You would need to have had that right removed (e.g. restraining order) to not be able to ask the question. My original post was because the barrister got this wrong in the video and presumably meant to say that nobody has the right to receive the picture or film (unless covered by the GDPR, DPA etc.). Everybody can still ask and the photographer can ignore them if they wish. It’s scary to hear the suggestion that something has to be allowed by law to do it, presumably you are not English to have such an opinion. That’s not how English law works.
Thank goodness for photographers, especially the public using mobile phone cameras to capture what would otherwise happen without evidence. Thank goodness for people videoing the police and wrongdoers everywhere. To an extent, thank goodness for the surveillance society which takes out pictures on every street and road everywhere. Certainly with some safeguards and in a civil society. As for the people who take exception to being photographed in public, they need to grow up, because like it or not they are being continually photographed covertly whenever they venture out in public in the urban setting. The visible human photographer should be the least of their irrational phobias.
"Thank goodness for people videoing the police and" going home and editing out all their own cop baiting bits to make viewers think it's all the cop's fault..................they do it ALL THE TIME with traffic stop yt vids in america to make the cops look racist.....have seen hundreds of them posted like this , that is until the cops started to post their own befor/during/after vids which proved a completely different chain of events
Blog excellent, it disseminates the facts in an understandable manner. As a street photographer since the 70s had many years experience; in the last 10 or so years, the hostility towards photographers has increased significantly. Ironic given the number of 'official' but private security cameras filming 24/7 Strangely never been challenged if on public land using a high end mobile phone ---- use a more expensive looking designated camera such as a DLSR people get very agitated and openly challenge you often in a very aggressive way. Cant make it out, not bothered by having there image recorded but dislike me using a SLR. The nonsensical situation was highlighted once when a police officer was instructing those with SLRs to stop taking photos, at the very same time ignoring many filming and taking stills with phones; when this was highlighted to the Officer in question, response was that could not stop phone use as everyone has such, but cameras are 'professional' and 'not allowed'.
I’ve had people complain I was invading their privacy when they happened to walk through the background of a photo of a public sculpture or an event (e.g. a demo).
Don't you just love it when Police make up laws that don't exist, almost the same as judges who make up crap just because they don't like the person in court.
Criminal Acts (crimes) leave a victim and should contain a witness. No crimes are ever committed but 'auditors' like intercoursing with Constables, which is never recommended. It's best to simply exercise that common law right to remain silent and never verbally intercourse with them. Like sex, verbal intercourse requires mutual consent.There is no benefit to ever intercourse with them..
I'm a pro photographer and I am often asked to record events taking place in schools. It is quite common for a (very) few of the children to be listed as "not to be photographed". This is perfectly within the rights of the school and parents to specify because it is not in a public place. Of course, I do my best to avoid these children but mistakes can be made so I always submit the pictures to the school for approval before use in any publication. My personal view is that many of the parents making this request are borderline paranoid, but there are a few very real cases involving domestic violence or abuse (or worse) where it is essential that a child isn't recognised; therefore it is a perfectly justifiable procedure. But a couple of years ago I was commissioned to photograph an event connected to Remembrance Day next to a village war memorial (i.e. in a public place). The village school turned out and a teacher started to tell me that I couldn't take photos of certain children. I politely replied that I was in a public space, photographing a public event at the request of the organisers and that it would be impossible for me to do my job if certain individuals had to be avoided. We eventually reached an amiable compromise where the relevant children were given a different position to stand in so that I could avoid them. This nicely illustrates the value of remaining calm and polite. Regarding "reasonable expectation of privacy" I have a perhaps quirky way of defining this - if I were to use a drone or very long lens to get photos of a couple having sex in amongst some trees in their well screened back garden I would be in breach of this, but if they were to carry out the same activity in their very open front garden next to a road - I wouldn't!
I'm in a similar situation as I take photographs for a youth organisation. I don't know everyone's name so can't actually know everyone who doesn't have that permission and rely on others to give me this information. I do find though that the parents sometimes don't realise what the photographs will be used for though, and don't realise what they will be missing out on be denying the permission. A quick chat is sometimes helpful.
My wife works in child protection and parents aren’t being “borderline paranoid” about someone photographing their children. You’d be amazed how many people who are on the sex offenders registrar in any given area.
@@cerealkiller4248 The same parents often put photos they've taken of their children on social media sites for their friends but forgetting that most times they can be viewed by anyone. Also, even if blocked from public access, they have no control who their friends might pass any photos on to.
I worked as a press photographer and at schools I visit, I carry some brightly coloured bracelets I give them to the teacher to put on the kids that I can not photograph. After a while they started doing it themselves. Speaking to the head, she explained that some parents were helicopter mums who opted out from photos, which was fine, then the head told me that some children were fostered and removed from abusive homes and two of the children were from a womens refuge. It all made sense then.
Thanks for this video. Unfortunately people who actually need to watch this probably won't e.g. the less informed end of the security guarding world and people who "know their rights" ... but actually don't
My Father in law's friend is a keen bus spotter. On the last day of the route-master running in London he was out taking photos. All of a sudden a van pulls up and armed police pounce on him. Long story short the MI5 building was in many many the shots. The agents had to scroll through a million bus photos before letting him go. The funny thing is the officers had 1000's of almost identical bus pictures to wade through. Moral of the story is don't have a high powered lens near that building.
Good to hear you pronounce 'harassment' correctly 😊. A friend of mine, who sadly died a while ago, helped bring about the 'Protection from Harassment Act 1997'. Edit: The friend I was referring to was solicitor advocate for the Plaintiff (yes, Plaintiff....pre Woolf reforms 1999 😊) in the case of Burris and Azadani (1995). Prior to this case it was not possible to get an injunction between parties where there hadn't been a relationship. In 1996 an attempt was made to introduce an anti stalking bill under the 10 minute rule but was unsuccessful. Just thought your followers might like some background regarding anti harassment legislation 😊
There was a case of a photographer videoing the public doing their Christmas shopping, being told to stop by the police, they claimed he was harassing people. Not seeing how that could be the case and the police did not explain how he was harassing anyone, he later started videoing again and was arrested. He was locked up for a few hours then released without charge, a case of abuse of power perhaps?
I would suggest that it is always a good idea to have your phone or camera set up to automatically upload anything you are photographing or video recording to an internet server (or other location that you control). Incredibly easy to set up with a phone, and not that much harder with any modern professional camera.
most American cop-baiters & frauditors now upload live feeds direct to the cloud so they can afford to pretend to be compliant with police and delete from their cameras because their current footage is already safely stored elsewhere........they're one step ahead in their deviousness.
frauditors have already sussed this out....they go live through the cloud when they have instigated an issue then get their friends to bombard various police and county/town hall with hundreds of phonecalls and emails about their 'injustice' ...fraudies always have plenty of backup copies plus they often hunt in packs so there are many differently edited versions of the same thing floating around.
I just found this video tonight, and it's been very helpful. About a month ago, I went to the Science Museum in London, principally to see the full-size replica of LauncherOne, the Virgin Orbit rocket that (hopefully!) will launch later this year from Cornwall. Totally by chance, I found that I was standing next to Dara O'Briain, the host of Mock the Week TV show and stand-up comic. One of the photos I took of the rocket happens to show Dara and two children who were with him. The children's faces are not identifiable but Dara is. I wanted the photo for an article I'm writing for the Everyday Astronaut website, so I reached out to Dara's PR agency to see if there was any objection to using the photo. I got no reply, so I wrote a second time saying that if they didn't reply, I would take that as tacit approval that there was no objection to using this photo. But this video reassures me that I have very little to worry about. Thanks!
As a 35 year plus professional photographer I must commend you on this video. There is an awful lot of ignorance both from non photographers and enthusiast photographers about the law in the UK. Having a good working knowledge of the law is very important as a photographer. Sadly a few photographers take this knowledge and use it to bait non photographers, particularly security guards, in to arguments. Usually in order to boost their own CZcams subs and likes. Interestingly these “fauxtographers” usually have very little creative work on view and often fit in to a very similar demographic.
I used to go out at lunch in the city of London and I used to get stopped all the time even at places at St Paul's cathedral and they used the terrorist act. I was always in a suit and sometimes it was taking a picture of an empty street. Same in London Docklands it is really annoying when all you are doing is taking pictures of a moment in time as cities and villages change over history.
@@mbak7801 I have filmed in London Docklands ( Canary wharf ) yes security came and spoke to me, but I told them I was a hobbyist, and not a professional ( which is true) and was filming just for fun. They never asked for ID, or such like ( I only give that to the police anyway) and they left me alone. But yes I was on private property and they can tell you to stop filming because of that.
@@wanderer1955 My Daughter lived in Island Gardens, near Canary wharf.. In all the 10 years I visited there and we shopped/dined at Canary Wharf I was never stopped from taking pictures. And I was using my work cameras which were Canon 1D's of various marks, not small stuff.
Not entirely true. If, and it's a big if, you take an image that the courts decide is 'of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism....' you could be convicted of a section 58 Terrorism Act offence. However, there is a 'reasonable excuse' statutory defence available for this, and also some Supreme Court case law on what exactly may be construed as something which is likely to be useful to a terrorist. It has to 'by it's very nature, be designed to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act or terrorism'. This was to avoid all sorts of everyday information/images falling under the rather vague description of 'likely to be useful'. It's a rare set of circumstances, but not impossible.
@@jasonmw1471 I'd be impressed if you could take a picture of the Eiffel Tower from the UK.....😁 But, I believe you are correct (sort off). My understanding is that it is specifically at night, when it has the 'light show' on, as it is this that is copywritten as a separate artistic work. (The Tower's copywritten status expired long ago). Tourists taking video of it are not getting arrested en masse by 'le cops'😁, but if you were to publish the images for commercial gain, you could find issues. I know nothing about French law, so don't know exactly the full story, but apparently for professionals, permission must be obtained and a fee paid. In the UK, although buildings can have copyright status, there is an exemption from infringement under section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which covers photography.
@@Stuart_George thanks for the info so does that mean they could just chuck a few lights on police stations and copyright the image they could feel safe going to work then knowing no cameramen will be awaiting them 😂
@@jasonmw1471 the only “copyright” involved would be for the photograph, and that would owned by the photographer, not the police. I am not sure, but I imagine the architectural plans are also copyrighted, but taking a photo of the building is not the same as building it anew.
In London, many people just pull out their phones and film or take pictures of people in places such as cafes without their subjects permission. The lack of legal protections for the subjects is regrettable. It's a paradise for weirdos.
I do a lot of street photography. Sometimes I would include children if it makes a really good picture though I try to avoid taking photos of young people in general because of the climate in which we live.
well done on this video, great subject. my tuppence on this for what its worth is that the police training college should bear (at least) some responsibility for educating their trainee's as to the order of reasonable grounds and suspicion. officers can often be seen in public photography videos stating 'suspicion' as 'reasonable grounds' for a search whereas my understanding is that reasonable grounds (or code specific criteria) should lead to suspicion and not the other way around. usually, when questioned the officers are not able to explain the grounds on which they claim suspicion.
great topic this, as a bus enthusiast i often take photos of buses & have had a couple run in's with jobsworth security guards about taking pics in public
i worked at the docks. People used to go there and spot the straddle carriers. (small AT-AT like veichles that lower and lift a cargo container) each has its own number. People would go the the bridge and take photos and be really into it "ooooh theres 41, thats the third time this week he's been loading up there." @@notmenotme614
i have always been puzzled that there are Police officers who will try to prevent photographers from going about their lawful business but, if there should be a crime committed or a a terrorism attack, the next day there will be a senior Police officer on TV asking if anyone has a photo or dashcam footage to assist them in their enquiries.
When attending knife shows, I always ask the vendor if it's alright to film their stand/display, if they are up for it I'll do a question based interview as well, anything to promote their work. From working in education for 11 years I try and avoid filming young people as much as possible, and then edit/cut away as well from background b-roll etc.
Excellent info, thanks. As a point of clarification, if you are a member of the UK Military, any pictures or film you take on Operations is automatically Crown Copyright, although in practice this is seldom enforced.
Very interesting. I think perhaps the video would have benefitted from a treatment of "public place". For example, a shopping centre is technically privately-owned land, but it's publicly accessible, and indeed we are *invited* onto it.
Yes, the video did lack that. A public house is a public place, but if I wandered into one and started taking photos of the decor and people I didn’t know, I imagine the landlord would have the right to tell me to stop. As well as shopping centres, you do now have lots of thoroughfares, often outdoors, which you can walk through but which, too, are privately owned.
@@richardclarkson3016 Extension of definition of “public place” in Public Order Act 1936. For the definition of “public place” in section 9(1) of the M1 Public Order Act 1936 there shall be substituted- “Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise ”. "...to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access..." addresses that Ultimately, as with most things, adopting a common sense approach will steer you clear of almost all problems. These 'auditors' go looking for trouble, yet seem remarkably surprised when it finds them...personally I have no time for them...they are not serving the public good in the way they'd like you all to believe... BTW I have worked as a professional photographer previously, though photography is now more for pleasure than as a source of income. I choose not to creep around photographing potentially sensitive areas, and therefore have never had any unpleasant interactions with member of the public or the Police.
@@Penguin_of_Death Thanks for that. Yes, I find the actions of the so-called ‘auditors’ ridiculous and they don’t do photographers in general any favours. Most are just looking to provoke conflict to give them footage to upload to CZcams. I’ve often wondered how they would react if someone stood outside their house taking photos (from the public street, of course) of them going in and out and going about their daily business.
I was once walking to my hotel near London Docklands after a late shift. As I had my camera with me, I set it up on the bridge parapet for a long exposure of the Canary Wharf buildings. I was approached by two private security guards from the Docklands Railway and asked why I was taking photographs and to provide ID. I did in fact comply with both requests showing them my Railway ID. But I also made them aware that I was doing this without prejudice to the fact that as it was a public place, I was actually free to take photographs unhindered and without complying with either of their requests. Hopefully they learned something but often it's easier to just take up a friendly, passive stance rather than be deliberately argumentative or confrontational as I've seen on many CZcams videos. The photo, how did it turn out? A bit rubbish to be honest 😂
The Canary Wharf area is actually privately owned. A few years ago my brother had the same problem with Canary Wharf security personnel. It was they who told him about it. Maybe they lied,but I don't think so.
@@reginaldjupp1957 You're probably right. That said they clearly overstepped their authority as I was walking on the main public road (the A112) and took the photograph from there.
You are mixing up "public place" with public land Just because a space is open to and used by the public does *NOT* make it publicly owned. If you are on a public highway, public pavement, that is, it's owned and maintained by the State - local or national government - then you can consider it public land and there is no restriction on taking photographs, except if the area has been designated a prohibited area under The Terrorism Act , then and only then can the authorities stop you from taking photographs. If it is privately owned land, you need permission from the landowner to take photographs. If you don't have that permission then the land owner and their representatives in the form of security guards can stop you.
@@PhilipBallGarry Yes, if the point you were standing on was a public highway owned and maintained by the State and not considered a private road, then yes you can take photographs and the security guards should not have attempted to stop you. And it doesn't matter if the subject of your photograph was privately owned. You were standing on public land from where the photograph was taken.
Where I live we have a new shopping centre which is mostly privately owned. Security guards stopped me from taking photos. It transpires that some of the pedestrian open air walkways through the shopping centre are in fact public land. Some of them have been there for decades before the new shopping centre was created. So I wrote to the Council asking them to confirm which parts of the shopping centre were privately owned and which were publicly owned and they completely ignored me. All I know for certain that the territory inside the shops is private. It's disgusting when a council refuses to cooperate in this way, when it comes to such a legal question. It's all a load of nonsense: they stopped me because I had a 35mm camera with tripod but meanwhile there's people taking pictures with their mobile phones, which can produce quite a decent quite image these days.
my fav one of there own pace PACE (Code A)2.9 “Reasonable grounds for suspicion cannot be provided retrospectively by questioning during a person’s detention or by refusal to answer questions put”, Hepburn v Thames Valley Police 2002 “Nobody is required in this country to satisfy a police officer that he or she is not committing an offence”, It is a bedrock of our liberties that a citizens freedom of person and movement is inviolable except where the law unequivocally gives the state power to restrict it” Kenlin v Gardiner 1967 “No Police constable has any right to detain a person forcibly for an enquiry” R(Gillan) v Commissioner of police for the metropolis 2006 “It is an old and cherished tradition of our country that everyone should be free to go about their business in the streets of the land, Confident that they will not be stopped and searched by the police unless reasonably suspected of having committed a criminal offence”
@john knusson Actually, more rules apply to drones. Drones over 400g in weight have to be registered and commercial drones need additional licences which are not needed for normal cameras. There are also height limits and restrictions on where they can be flown, which also does not affect normal cameras.
@@Thurgosh_OG That's not true, at least in the UK. Any drone with a camera needs registered (with a fee) regardless of the weight. Drones with a take off weight of below 249g can fly pretty much anywhere that isn't above crowds, but above 250g they cannot fly within 50m of people or buildings without permission and the pilot needs to be registered. You cannot fly above 120m (in non-restricted airspace). Any picture you take is under the same rules as a normal camera.
@@davidmarshall6998 Yeah you're right, I just checked. I need to pay 9 pounds a year to fly the little 80g Tello drone controlled over wifi from a phone app, just because it has a camera? It can't fly any higher than 10m and it's range is limited by wifi so it's only about 100ft or so. It's so small and light it should be considered a toy imo, or they should allow you to register for the Flyer ID which is free, rather than the Operator ID which is 9 quid per annum. 🙄 They changed the law again so fast after Nov 2019 to Dec 2020. If you have to register anyway may as well get a bigger, longer battery life and more stable drone if you're getting into the hobby.
I guess that as a hobby photographer I might not be objective in this matter, but for me the mere idea that someone with camera might be a terrorist ( based on the fact that he/she uses the camera for what it was intended to ) is absolutely absurd! ANYONE could be a terrorist. In my opinion, the presence of a camera is NOT an indication of ANYTHING, except that the person with a camera might be a photographer.
Yeah. I mean of the presence of a camera is enough reasonable suspicion. They better get some more cuffs ready because evey phone these days has a camera on it
In my completely uneducated and perhaps slightly cynical view, I'd say that a terrorist who is photographing something for the purpose of terrorism would probably use very discrete camera equipment so as to not draw attention to the fact they're photographing it?
When we all stop taking photos and video in public and the next time the police ask for any video from a incident... They can't have it both ways. Police record us all the time. CCTV, Body Camera, Dashcams. Bloddy terrorists!
I once saw a helicopter land on public space near my home and being inquisitive I grabbed my camera and went to investigate. It turned out that a child was being flown to hospital. I took a couple of non-intrusive shots and was then approached by someone connected with the child who demanded that I delete the pix. To prevent a row, I did. However, deleted pix can easily be recovered from a card!
A lot of the police in the USA seem to have selective memory about the law and our Constitution when it comes to people waving cameras around in a public setting...Sometimes they have to be reminded by a judge and jury....and it gets expensive for the bustling metropolis they work for...
In Holland there are 2 official press passes. A general one which gives access to events etc. and a police press pass. Rules for the police press pass are agreed on by the organisation representing the press and the Ministry of Justice. Basically the carrier of the police press pass can work within a cordoned off area (providing they don't mess up the scene of the incidident) or work from a specified area. Dealing with the press and holders of the police press pass is part of the basing police training.
@@4catsnow they like us to think it gets expensive...but they do make the money and a simple bit of maths on the back of a cigarette packet shows the figures don't add up...i owe my soul to the company store as the song 🎵 goes.God save the Queen.
I think 99.9% of all the photos I have taken have been in a public place. It's difficult to take a picture of a beautiful sunset, any wildlife photography or holiday snaps without being in a public place.
Hi there, really pleased you made this video because there is so much misconception. I am a working journalist. There are many people on CZcams who claim to be journalists, and there is no legal protect the term of what a journalist days, however it is broadly the case that it is wise to ask to someone works for. If they work for a mainstream publication, they will be happy to tell you and they will identify with a UK press card, if they have one. They’re not obliged to carry one, but most bonafide news gatherers will have them. The media is editorial policies are totally freestanding from police and all other bodies for obvious reasons of independence and impartiality, but if there is an exceptionally good reason, most generous will listen to it. If someone says they are a journalist and then they won’t identify themselves, at least by publication, they probably aren’t really
As a rule I avoid taking candid pictures of children unless I know them or their parents. I just don't want to take the risk of being accused of inappropriate behaviour but it does cut down on some awesome, fun pictures because kids have no filter and just fill the frame with joy.
Thanks for this video. I have been getting stopped, questioned and even harassed by people while out on photo walks more and more lately. I'm shooting in public areas and I am respectful but they cast their suspicions my way so much so that I have scaled down to the smallest sized camera and when I feel attention and look around to see the glaring, I casually stop and slowly move on. That seems to be the state of our world now and sadly so as why not instead just ask how the shooting is going and open up a dialog? If they had any kind of active, basic instincts, they would recognize very quickly that my motives are harmless and that I am of no threat. It is a creative outlet and a work in progress in improving my photography skills and nothing more.
@@chroniclesofbap6170I disagree. I use a good quality professional compact camera. Discretion allows me to take good quality street photographs. I would have no issue with anyone wishing to see the photos if they asked.
I find it very concerning that the idea of the public being able to record and hold officers to account for their actions is viewed, even in part, as an excuse for them to be able to take those recordings and delete them. Irrespective of its location the police should be considered public servants, and as such should not be able to curtail our ability to hold them to account. It seems that police in the UK are becoming increasingly corrupt and it is disturbing to me.
The other issue is funding. Everything the police has, stations/patrol cars/uniform. It’s all funded by the tax payer. Not the government. Government doesn’t make money, it collects it from people..... The same with schools, it’s not the teachers building. It’s not the policeman’s station. There care takers of it.
Why do auditors visit fire stations, power stations, supermarkets, distribution centres and places like Travis Perkins if it is about exposing corruption?
@@Audit-The-Auditors It’s not all about corruption. It’s also about challenging pre conceived ideas from authority figures. Many mangers of private companies and fire chiefs make claims of law, based upon Bly on there feelings on a situation. These audits display that certain people will cling to belief even after it’s been challenged and proven to be wrong. This is examples when the manger gets on where and has had his authority challenged, and they don’t like it, they call the police, in a last ditch attempt to regain lost power/position. This is more deflating when the auditor doesn’t care and challenges the manager to call them. The police arrive and then are compelled to educate the manager about his mis guided beliefs. Managers of private companies can be corrupt just like cops, it just takes a different form.
@@cromwellsghost3434 I see, so it's all about deliberately upsetting normal working people to point they feel compelled to summon police assistance. How has the simple pastime of photography been turned in to a stick to incite such confrontational behaviour?
Hello, thanks for your videos. What I've seen on YT are people filming Police stations, then the police using section 43 to detain and search them, regardless. I also see officers using section 50 as a means to force the journalist to identify themselves under the suspicion of anti social behaviour. Due to these points, I don't think a person has any way to stop themselves being searched and/or identified. This is why I stay as far away from the Police as possible.
@Blob B I would agree that there are some doing that, and it's plain to see, but I wouldn't agree that all are doing that. I've seen quite a large spectrum from just walking down the street and getting harrased to getting right in a cops face and making it look like the person is reaching for a weapon (those are the ones I don't agree with as I think they're just crazy).
I recently took some photos of police investigating a firearms incident. As I was walking away, I was challenged by a police officer and told I had to delete the images (which I did) or risk my camera being confiscated. I explained I was in a public place but was told that I could not photograph a "crime scene" I believe that this police officer was mistaken as I subsequently checked the law, and unless they have reason to think you have captured evidence (remember this was after the crime and police forensics were on site) or one of the other exceptions you quote here, then there is no law to prevent me taking the photos. I was furious that I did not have sufficient knowledge at the time so as to educate the police officer of his mistake. This video has been helpful to clarify a few "exceptions"
I find it odd that people object to being photographed using a dedicated camera when almost everyone, man, woman and child carries a camera in the form of a mobile phone and there is one on almost every street corner monitoring their every move.
spot on; if you have a Camera get accused of being a professional; even when you point out the camera cost less than the top end phones being used all day 24/7 by 90% of the population. Use a compact or SLR camera for Street photography and you will get abuse and challenged; on the other hand use a phone with a top end camera and never been stopped or challenged. LOL
People seem to forget about all the vehicle dashcams that are catching them on film as well. They don't seem to have any issue with cameras on cars - but they do if it's a person on foot holding a camera or phone. If you have your camera positioned like a body cam rather than holding it our in your hand - that would draw a lot less attention and you are likely to get less hassle from people who don't understand your legal rights.
As Jason says; so many cars filming and recording. Some new cars have cameras built in front and rear. When i mentioned this to a person telling me i could not use a camera in Town to photograph buildings as i might capture a member of the public without there consent, the person went into a rage. It would be laughable, if not on the end of the bile.
No, not really. s.33 Criminal Justice Act 1972 merely inserted an amended definition of public space into the Public Order Act 1936, it is not a standalone provision. The 1936 Act restricted the wearing of military uniforms in public so as to tackle the rise in fascism. It does not provide a general definition of public places that are applicable in all circumstances, though it might be persuasive.
@@jamesbran5729 , Well I think it does, I mean look at what it says. The definition of a public place 'includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether payment or otherwise". This is defining what a public place is and its the only Act I have found to define that. Now we can argue what a public place is and what a public place is, but where really splitting hairs. Like I replied to another person. I have tested this when the security people at Covent Garden tried to stop me from taking picture of my friend in the area. Once I told them of the act, they moaned a little but couldnt argue against it. The head came over and just confirmed that I can take picture there of my friend etc. s.33 Criminal Justice Act 1972 is the closest bit of legislation that defines what public place is. Unless you or anyone else knows of any other act. Please do let me know if you know of any other acts, it would be most grateful.....
@@MrCazz it is not really just a question of what it says, the context is key especially as s.33 of the 1972 Act merely amends another piece of legislation. Moreover, it does not stop private land owners from prohibiting photography even if the area came within that definition.
@@jamesbran5729 Oh I totally agree that it doesnt stop private land owners from prohibiting photography. But they also need to understand that you can have a "public path or area, within that area. And this is where the problem lies. You have an area that is public that the law says you can take photos of anything you like from that public stand point, but it is surrounded by a Private area. Maybe its not so much about what it says, but what it implies. You have a case to argue the boundaries of a public place and the legislation may ammend another piece, but that doesnt change the fact that it can and does get used in these cases. I've used it and successfully applied it. Not saying that im anyone special. Just want to be happy to take photos in the free land that we are graced to walk upon..... If Private land owners dont want people to take photos on their land, then put up the appropriate measures and devices to stop that and not just some silly little sign. Photography is not a crime but the way some land owners act, they this it is. PINACI Movement........(if you have heard of them) Enjoying all the responses from everyone here. :)
Interesting that you should raise this topic, allow me a few moments to relate my experience from a couple of weeks ago, here in the UK: I'm photographing derelict farm buildings, on extremely rural, open farm land, from the road. Only a few minutes and staff turn up from the farm to tell me to stop what I am doing because the Farmer doesn't want his property photographed. When I tell them about no right to privacy in a public space phones are taken out and soon the Farmer appears with the same demands; I repeat what I have told the staff. The Farmer instructs one of his staff to call the Police and, as they are about to do so, one of them points to an approaching Police car. The Police Officer joins us and the situation is relayed to him by both sides; here follows the ensuing conversation between me and the Copper: Him: "You need to pack up your equipment and leave before I arrest you for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the Peace." Me: "How am I likely to cause breach of the peace; he's the one who is being antagonistic about the situation?" Him: "It's you being here and doing what you're doing that is antagonising him, so it is your behaviour that is likely to cause a breach of the peace." Me: "Well I don't see why I should have to stop what I am doing, lawfully, just because he doesn't like it." He looks around and points to my car that is parked right beside us, keys still in the ignition. "Is that your vehicle?" "Yes; why?" "Let me tell you what is going to happen in 30 seconds time if you're not packing up to leave. If you don't start to leave you will be getting into my car and I will be taking you to _____ Police Station, - (note: this is about 13 miles away), - where you will be charged with behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. Your equipment will be placed in your vehicle and your vehicle will remain here, as it is, with the keys in the ignition, like I never asked if it was your vehicle. After being charged and released it will be for you to make your own way back here. What do suppose the chances are of your vehicle remaining untouched during that time?" Of course I had no choice but to comply; what else are you going to do? The Farmer is standing there looking like a dog with two dicks and an avenue of trees and as I pull away and look to the rear view mirror he and the Copper shake hands. Having the law on your side, in modern Britain, is no more effective than trying to seek justice in a State in the African sub-continent!
I would say the photo isn't worth the trouble at that particularly moment in time, but I would definitely take the police officer's details and submit a complaint as soon as I got home. It is all well and good arguing, getting arrested and then released without charge, but is it really worth it in the end?
"A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist..." So if you ask the officer, as is seen in many of these audit videos, "Do you think I am a terrorist" and they say no I am not calling you a terrorist, "but do you think I'm a terrorist" - "No I don't think you're a terrorist but I'm carrying out an investigation..." - Well wouldn't that mean they already negated 43(1) as they have told you they do not think you are a terrorist, because if they don't think you are one, how can they reasonably suspect you of being one? - so carrying out a search on that basis would then be unlawful? (long security history and NUJ member when I lived in the uk)
In the U.S., photographer harassment is a big issue. It did not exist 30 years ago. The advent of cell phone cameras has now made it so anyone carrying real gear is suspicious. First experienced this in NY post 9/11. The hysteria died down for a while but resumed after cell phone cameras became advanced. People shooting/filming with cell phones are never harassed, but walk around with a a few grand in dSLR/mirrorless, and you'll be a cop magnet. The always use the argument "we got a suspicious person" complaint. Personally been stopped by cops 14 times in the last two years.
Excellent info as always. A question if I may?... I’m a Professional Photographer and I keep getting stopped by security whilst taking pictures on the street. London and the City of Cardiff are recent locations of encounter. The security claim it is private land. It might well be privately owned but the public still have a right of way there. Where do I stand on these grounds please? In brief, shooting street photography in London (close to the Gherkin) and Cardiff City Centre. On the street and not in buildings etc. Thanks in advance, Gary I’ve shared your video btw 👍🏻
Tell them that 92% of the UK is privately owned, including the pavement as it is controlled by the council. Then ask them if photography is banned in 92% of the country. And then if so, how the hell does tourism work. Just because land is private does not mean photography is a banned activity. Street photography is not a common activity, but neither is hopping on one leg, so if photography is controlled why isn't hopping. Basically it comes down to arguing with security and showing that their training is deficient and that just using a bit of logical thought and common sense will show the stupidity of their argument. Yes, they might not back down in front of you, but you might have made them think. And depending on the situation, it might mean taking it up with their managers. As for the specific example of the Gherkin, the law to use there is s41 of the Copyright Design & Patents Act that BBB mentioned. It specifically states that taking a picture of a building does not breach copyright so security can't stop you under that excuse.
I was gonna post a similar question....more related to publicly accessible areas which may be corporately owned but are open to the general public - eg retail parks & supermarkets, commercial/industrial estates, shopping malls etc....where, as I understand the law, if the public are allowed to walk there they are also allowed to photograph there. Usually these places often have low grade security guys unwilling to listen to reason or offer any kind of flexibility.
If you are using a camera, this is to expected from these clowns. If you're using a cell phone, they couldn't give a to$$! I was with a group of people using cell phones to film some architectural features on an old building (pub) I was the only one challenged with my D810 + 200mm lens. The hi viz clown eventually wondered when he didn't get any joy from the police
Section 33 of the criminal justice act 1972 states that “Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise ”. So unless specificaly prohibited photography is allowed anywhere.
@@CHIL2903 The illogicality about a real camera compared to a smartphone camera is that some smartphones have better lens and sensors than real cameras.
I think you’ve missed the point about public photography activism. The police do not have to justify why they record in public, government entities such as councils don’t either, nor do corporations and businesses who record public land outside their premises, so why on earth should ordinary people have to justify and explain themselves. As far as I’m aware the police, government entities and the private sector don’t have any additional rights to record. The reason the police have auditors outside their stations is that they’ve been harassing photographers for years and have created their own problem.
The reason so many police auditors get "harassed" is that they think they know the law...but don't. They do not recognise or accept that police stations, their land and car parks are treated as private property. They are owned by the relevant police authority, not by "the public". They don't think the police have powers to enforce trespass on their own premises. You can hear the screams of "assault!" when they get removed. They don't know Where their "right to film" begins and ends. They think that because its not a crime to film on private property, that they automatically have a "right" to do it. And the ones that quote that CJA 1972 sect 33 nonsense, and talk about "educating people" are just plain clueless.
@@leathleyg5995 I think you're confusing the private and public aspect in regards to where the photography is taking place. If the auditor is stood in a public location the fact that a building, car park or land that appears in a photograph they are taking is private property doesn't come into it, the actual act of taking the image is still legal. Now of course, if the auditor is stood within the land boundary of the private property that's a different case but that isn't being disputed. What the person is going to do with the image, where the primary subject of that image is private property, is also a different thing which may have some bearing on events but the actual act of taking the image itself isn't illegal.
@@kurtbanks8152 Apologies if I wasn't clear. I was referring to the many auditors who think they have a right to wander around private property filming. Not the few who remain on a public right of way, and film 'onto' private property.
@Leathley G I’ve followed this movement for about a decade and have watched thousands of videos, the overwhelming majority of auditors stay on public land. What you and the creator of this video also fail to address is land that is publicly accessible which is distinct from public and private property. Police stations like other buildings bought and paid for by tax payers are publicly accessible, with the obvious exception of areas signposted as restricted access. As far as I’m aware it’s a grey area regarding trespass from publicly accessible land which, coming full circle, is why most auditors stay on public land.
If you are photographing a specific subject or topic, such as architecture or doors or beaches (my father photographed all the missions in California for example and I shoot public spaces at night, but the long exposure blurs all the people) it will help you if you bring some samples of your work to show anyone at the location. A little courtesy goes a long way.
S43 caused no end of problems for Togs in London, we were always being stopped whilst using our big expensive cameras (on a tripod). Common sense would suggest that a terrorist would use a phone to reccy a potential target, not a £5K DSLR, but what do we know...
When you're responsible for security, don't fear intervening just because they look wealthy or important . Bad people can afford a camera with a long lens
Thank you for the info, it helped to make things a bit clear, as I thought it really is a mind field, that is why I prefer not to film or take photos of anyone in public its a lot easier, I even wait until they are out of shot.
As an ex-press photographer extremely useful and interesting and I wish I had seen this 10 years ago. I was well aware of the public place distinction over private and always found working in conjunction with Police and emergency services paid dividends and not many pictures were worth an argument as a local press person.
I was challenged when using Google Glass device to take photographs of vehicles at a vintage vehicle rally. I pointed out to the challenger that all around us people were taking photographs and video on mobile phones, cameras and some with actual video cameras, but he objected to me doing the same because of the equipment I was using. I also asked if he was to make his objections known to the aforementioned other people for the same reason, that being he did not want photographs taken. He declined to answer.
It also states in the code of practice 4.13. Photography/Film 4.13.1. There has been widespread concern amongst photographers and journalists about the use of stop and search powers in relation to photography. It is important that police officers are aware, in exercising their counter-terrorism powers, that: a) members of the public and media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places; b) it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs/ film of a *public* *building* ; and c) the police have no power to stop the filming or photographing of incidents or *police* personnel. Obviously common sense applies but in how many audits do you see a PC saying you are not allowed to film the police or station? Also, in how many auditing videos do you see an auditor explain what they are doing but still get searched due to the police's ego, being ill-informed or plain incompetence? If you are going to get searched anyway why both explaining? Especially, since it is your right not to answer questions and, should you choose not to, that alone should not give rise to reasonable suspicion (Correct me if I am wrong).
A couple of years ago I took some foreign visitors to Windsor and we were down by the river. The lady was taking touristy photos when a couple / few nursery staff came with their young charges to feed the swans. One of staff members was quite officious, telling my guest that she couldn't take photos of the children (she wasn't anyway!) and asking to see the photos she'd taken. My guest did show her the photos and that they weren't of the children. Meanwhile, I was thinking, "You don't have a right to ask that; it's a public place etc etc" but I didn't say anything. I still wish I had, because the staff member, whilst understandably looking out for the children, was wrong in what she was saying.
It’s so interesting how different the laws are between Germany and the UK. I used to love street photography whilst still living in London and have captured some of my best images there. Thus us not possible for me in Germany as the law is (broadly) as follows: A) you have a right of privacy and thus a right not to be photographed anywhere without your consent. B) if you see someone photographing you you can demand to see the images and to have them deleted. Furthermore you can sue them for publishing any image (be it commercial or not) of you even from behind if you can be identified and are the main focus of the image. (A recent case involved an image of a lady pulling a suitcase in a street. The image had artistic merit - artistic merit can be construed as a reason that somebody can be photographed but it has to be of significant artistic merit which is a minefield n it’s own - was published in an art Exhibition and the lady’s stance and style was recognized by friends despite the image being taken from behind and was thus construed to be a breach of privacy and use of her likeness without permission and resulted in a hefty fine. C) you are allowed to take images of „people of historic value“ (another minefield) e.g. a politician acting in there role as a politician is in effect giving tacit consent of his image being taken in them acting in this role. However you can’t take images of the politician as the privat person as they once again have a certain right to privacy and the right to their image. This also applies to celebs. A famous case involced a well known German singer/actor attacking a photographer at an airport. Thus in turn was photographed and the images sold to a German tabloid. The courts banned them from using these images as the celeb was underway as a privat person and thus had the right to their images. D) you can however include people in an image where they are not the Centre of attention. E.g. images of a house or street with general crowds in the image. However people can demand that you make them unrecognizable if they see the image ;check out google street maps in Germany... many people and even houses (even houses can have a right to privacy) are blurred and google is obliged to ensure you are blurre if u see yourself and demand this. This is only a general overview of German law and a true minefield for all photographers especially for street, event and even wedding photography (although wedding photography doesn’t require written permission from anyone being photographed as it is considered that tacit consent has been given in this circumstance)
@@derekheeps1244 hi there Derek. You can do general photography of buildings/environments with people being in them but not of a specific person. Sure you can’t show ur images directly on a film camera, however I’d guess that you’re one of the very few who still use film. If you were to use ur images of people in a commercial manner you will open yourself up to getting sued for the use of the likeness without consent.
This is some interesting information, I didn't realise rules were so different in Germany. To be fair, when I was in Germany the photos I was taking were either of tourist attractions (eg Fernsehtrum, Bundestag, etc in Berlin) or of the family I was there with, and were solely for my own memories, so I highly doubt I will have fallen foul of German law. But still, it's interesting to know.
A relative of mine used to work in queen annes gate. They said that if anyone was taking photos/filming around the front or back, then they were instructed to leave by other means or wait until they left. If there was commercial filming then a bus would “appear” to block out the front and back door, no action was taken against the company owning the vehicle/s whilst the filming was happening.
Ut's strange how areas that have a 'no photography' notice if there is an incident in the area the police appeal for anybody who has taken any photos there?
An excellent explanation, I have seen security guards ask people to stop taking pictures in the local shopping mall, people do not grasp that the fact you can just walk in does not automatically mean it's a 'public place'. Oddly, when I take photos of things in museums, collections or at events, I invariably want no one in the frame except the car, locomotive, plane or whatever!
@jchinuk: I often take photos in museums although I usually ask a staff member if its ok to do so. I've never been refused although some may ask me not to use flash or a tripod.
It might be useful to define public places. There are differences in status between a public highways, public utility land, public buildings e.g. libraries, corporate shopping centres, shops and residential homes, common land, woodland and farmland with public footpaths/bridleways/byways.
Agree, my understanding of a public place is a place to which the public have access whether on payment or otherwise. So one example that often comes into conflict is a shopping area privately owned but freely open to the public (retail customers)
One point which I believe should have been mentioned, is that of taking photographs of areas designated as Prohibited Places under the Official Secrets Act. As an ex-Ministry of Defence police officer and knowing of the vast array of properties that come under this umbrella, it is definitely a subject area to be avoided.
Do councils have " a right " to have cctv cameras above and facing my front door? I live in the foyer of a multi story flat. I dont have problem with cameras i have a problem with unscrupulous people in control of them
Councils can't actually install CCTV equipment without a genuine need for it, if you're concerned then there will be a publicly availible document explaining how the data will be stored and used.
At the outside of the door is the ' public' side. they are not allowed look in your windows: we used to have adjustable shrouds fitted on ptz cameras. I'm not a lawyer, but worked in CCTV
@@steamboatwillie8517 how do you mean thay are "not allowed to look in your windows"? They still have that abillity if they want to. when i open my front door a camera can see in my house. Is that right?
I would argue that the hallway do your communal building is a public place, and that they would have a right to install CCTV, personally I would prefer them to do so, as this may actually help in the event my property was broken into.
@@almostanengineer i remember a time when one camera was enough. and in case you didnt see it you got a warning of its presence. Then we had multiple cameras from all angles Then they stopped giving " warnings". Now we have hidden street cameras because they realise it doesnt stop crime. Fuck me it doesnt even help to solve it in many cases.
Thank you very much for this video, I did wonder whether you would make it or not. May I have permission to use your intro to this video on my channel so I can help direct my subscribers to your video please ?
Be careful, I asked permission to mirror this, and I linked his channel, said what a great thing he was doing, and what did he do... asked you tube to issue my tiny little channel with a copyright strike.. disgusting
I used to work as a photographer in London and the Police would always try and shake us down under “the terrorism act”. We learnt fast and quickly shut them down every time. The other basic rule we new from the days of the PCC (Press Complaints Commission) was that “a private place is a public or private place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy” That was the easiest was to know if we were keeping it on the right side of the law.
Interestingly during a vintage vehicle rally, out doors, I was taking short videos and photographs of the people and exhibits with both conventional cameras any the source of the conflict that occurred. A set of Google Glasses. I was challenged by an individual who objected to being, or rather the potential of being photographed or videoed by said device. I pointed out many of the people around us were photographing, and videoing with cameras, both still and video, with mobile phones and he had no problem with that, it only seemed he had a problem with my method, the Google Glasses, and I thought his stance was wrong and unreasonable.
No. Effectively a public space is the council opened open spaces. You enter owned places at the "licence" of the owner. They can limit you actions including photography. But the only action they can take is to trespass you from the property. Photography is prohibited in many publicly accessible places eg museums. And illegal under local bylaws in many others eg libraries, airports. In addition to harassment, indecency etc you could also stray into asbo laws or your behaviour could lead to detention for psychiatric assessment (Mental Health Act s136)
@@alisonb4898 yes public space is a little different to public access. Of course if a land owner wants to restrict you from a part of their land they have to put up a barrier or gate etc. So that if/when you do break through the gate or go over it, they have you for trespass. But just remember trespass is a civil matter and not a criminal matter. The Police have no powers to remove you. Look at all them activist that were in the tunnels trying to stop the tunnelling from happening. You have to get a court order to remove them. So if you have public access to an area, then your public rights apply. I only know this because I encountered this at Covent Garden when they said I couldnt take picture of my friend because it was Private land. They tried to stop me but good old s33 Criminal Justice Act 1972 came into play. I mean in the end the Security manager knew I was allowed to shoot there and it was just a case of him having to tell the other security staff to know. All happy in the end. I mean come on people. Covent Garden is one of the great placed to visit, see and enjoy. Its a great backdrop for photographic images. Most of us just want to take photos for memories, for liking the area or just for the love of it and we are given that right to take images if we are in a public place. What seems to have arisen from this is how or what the images are being used for and thats where people seem to get all up about it. We're the most watched country in the world. Your images are being taken everyday, when you walk to the shops or on the streets. And yet when a photographer starts taking images of you in a public place, you think that they need your permission. When did you give your permission to the GOV or the Council to allow them to take your images.......(ok im going off the point a little).... Imma leave it there lol
@@neilcampbell2222 The fact that one could be detained for psychiatric assessment for merely taking photographs shows what an abuse system psychiatry is.
While photography may not be banned in areas such as a public park, the use of tripods or other stands could be forbidden in local byelaws. However commercial photographers can usually apply for a licence to use the area. In this case it is advisable to alert the authorities that you will be operating there at a approximate time. Better to have cooperation from the authorities than harassment.
@@JoePublicUk He is stating facts. Are you a barrister who is in a position to show specifically where in law he may be incorrect? Or are you just some self-entitled snowflake fuukwit who can't handle facts?
I have heard instances of misguided police officers asking photographers to delete images - to which the response is if you ARE doing something illegal, then that would be destroying evidence.
The police need to watch this, over the years I’ve had police officers break these laws more times than I can count despite me informing them accordingly. Also this law is being broken by Priti Patel serving none legal injunctions against photographers filming illegal immigrants coming into Dover in public places and yet not against journalists from the BBC and ITV. Superb channel and information keep this channel going 👍👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻❤️😀
In all dealings with the police always remember that they are NOT your friend and anything they can get you to say WILL be used against if they possibly can.
I muchly enjoy your videos, always informative and of course based in Law Notwithstanding, the freedom to film anyone and anything, from a Public Place cannot be unlawful in any circumstances, other than when the photograph / video is taken from a public place and viewing a specifically designated area concerning the Official Secrets Act. Thus everyone has the Right to take Videos / Photographs of active and armed Military Aircraft, arriving or leaving their base of operations. I refer specifically to RAF Lakenheath, a US Base, where specific parking is provided for enthusiasts. Nobody at that base would seek to deter anyone filming Private Vehicles entering or leaving that base, so nor should anyone parking their private vehicle on Police Grounds expect any degree of privacy, over and above that of a motorist in any other place viewable from a Public Highway. I understand that owners of vehicles may not like it, for a variety of reasons, but is not Unlawful
There are a few airbases that have viewing stands for enthusiasts to take pictures of aircraft, this is basically the MOD giving you a right to film/photograph from that spot only, any other position around the base and you would fall foul of the law. Now I see where you are coming from with you can film anything, but it isn't quite right, the way to look at it is "am I breaking any laws?", "am I infringing other peoples rights?" And look at it that way.
The way coppers do that is by pulling the terrorism act from their ar... and questioning the photographer, reviewing the picture and even arresting photographer.
This is far too cautious. Photographers should stand up for their right to take pictures in a public place and not back down. They should not ask for permission when it is not required. They should not delete pictures, or even show them to interested parties. Fortunately, I still use film, so pictures cannot be shown or deleted!
While much is legal, too many just do this to see if they can force a viral moment by purposely antagonizing someone. It brings in views, new followers, and cash. And it's gross. It's creepy to see a stranger filming you; public place or not.
It seems that people have been watching too much American content. There is no "right to free speech" in the UK. I am not a lawyer, but I have no reason to think that the lawyer in the video misspoke.
Thank you for this video the law has changed since the late sixties when I studied cine, video and photography as part of an Dip AD Art School. It was at the start of “the troubles” so rules on filming photography were stricter
and even a cheap camcorder can now have a x60 zoom...people just don't realise the spying possibilities this allows AND there's no way one can tell that zoom isn't being used to to spy on a private place from a public place ...it's not what your eye can see as the image is enhanced by the camera AND software at home ..............no memory sticks on a 60's film camera was there? , 18, 24 or 36 frames per film you had to take several pics of the same and hope they came back from Boots with a picture on - very often half your pics didn't turn out at all but you still had to pay for them.....there was certainly no recorded discourse with your 'victim'......now even the village idiots can create financial gain by taking thousands of hours of video all day long of anything and everything anywhere at anytime (apparently) cos it costs absolutely NOTHING....;.........as an aside have you EVER seen a frauditor take a STILL IMAGE PICTURE yet they always say they are "just taking some pictures for a story" ???
@@slapdashdumper Yep I remember the days you had to cross your fingers hoping the film was OK, the camera was ok anyway, the prints you wanted most were nearly reduced in qty. Found out it dependid on where you got your film from and what make, the price did make the difference too.
It is very difficult. It would ,or could lead to the banning of photographing in public in case someone is captured on the photo who does not want to be photographed. Dash cams would a problem as would street surveillance . These things ,including police would be exempt from prohibitions which would cause much ill feeling.There would be no history of street life.
The newspapers cry 'FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!!' and 'PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!' and 'No cpmmet? That sounds like an admission of guilt' or 'we'll make something up'
12:16 very interesting that the law considers photos, I.e. facts, taken by the public at incidents such as car accidents could interfere with an investigation or the course of justice. Hasn’t history shown us the opposite? The police and legal system are known for getting thing “wrong”, photos and video help catch them out and protect us from them lol
The 'obstruction' is not from taking photos, it is from getting in the way/disturbing evidence etc. Also, Police now routinely make appeals for photo/video/dashcam evidence from people who may have been in the area.
@@Renegade1127 lol the same police force (UK) that helped cover up decades of pedophiles in government and blamed their complete lack of action on the official secrets act? or the one responsible for the deaths of a hundred or so Liverpool fans, lying about it for twenty years over and over, found liable for the deaths and guilty of purgery that walked away without prosecution and with their pensions in tact? Or the one that has “lost” countless pieces of video evidence resulting in guilty parties walking free, despite eye witness testimonies, because the defence could argue that the video evidence would have proven innocence etc.?
If a fact about an incident that is not known to the general public but is known to the perpetrator and the police was photographed and published then it could not be used to convict the perpetrator if they admitted they knew it ...
@BlackBeltBarrister could you please make a full video for us videographers and photographers, special those having dealings in the wedding industry on everything we need to know in 2022 legally, such as rights and contracts?
Exclusive Courses:
www.blackbeltbarrister.com/
Watch Next:
Ring Camera Court Case: Must You Remove Yours? | BlackBeltBarrister
czcams.com/video/1RVpQJJ_BHQ/video.html
TV Licensing Part 2: Agent Visit | BlackBeltBarrister
czcams.com/video/i_bqIbVT6a0/video.html
Why Is There a Gap in The Roundabout Sign? | Things you didn’t know about signs | BlackBeltBarrister
czcams.com/video/rGfoDGc_jVI/video.html
Parking Charge Notice Explained | BlackBeltBarrister
czcams.com/video/Zy3MY_j7JYw/video.html
Is the Highway Code Law? | Can Cyclists Run Red Lights? | BlackBeltBarrister
czcams.com/video/tO69N9G_9Iw/video.html
NHS Selling Access to YOUR Data - HOW TO OPT OUT | BlackBeltBarrister
czcams.com/video/q04W1xV5TNM/video.html
UK Knife Law and Everyday Carry Pocket Knives that are Legal | BlackBeltBarrister
czcams.com/video/5bVknOv19_w/video.html
Can You Take Photographs In Public? Can You Film In Public? Terrorism Searches | BlackBeltBarrister
czcams.com/video/ZZ5d7TVNYUs/video.html
Àààaq
Hi 👋ok
I have just started following you on the strength of following Voice of Reason.
Your really interesting and helpful 🙂👍
Thanks for your professional advice 👍
A photographer does not have to follow dpa/gdpr the onus is on the company or who you are taking a photograph of to make reasonable modifications to hide their data or private info.
@@monkstandinglast it depends on the purpose for taking the photographs and what they are subsequently used for
@@BlackBeltBarrister There is nothing in between pure and simply a photographer weather working for bbc or tabloids or just a hobby does not have to follow dpa/gdpr how does someone recognise what is private data if they don't work there or know, this only becomes an issue for them when for example as we see on youtube videos being re-uploaded with blurs because the company says "hang on a minute that's some of our private info there can you remove it"
As a retired police officer I still remember one of the first lessons taught during initial training - Courtesy is an essential quality and one which will smooth many a path....
The best that most coppers can manage now, with a view to being polite, is to start with 'Mate...' What happened to 'Sir/madam'? American cops use it - and it's never seen as servility; quite the opposite in fact - giving respect in that way demonstrates that you expect it in return.
I think the key word is retired. Recruiting and training standards are clearly far lower now than they were in the past.
Unfortunately, courtesy doesn't seem to be taught at training school anymore, "hello mate" doesn't really make a decent courtesy standard. The police are a public service, paid for by the public. Therefore, I personally think that training in courtesy should be at the top of the list, Using Sir/Madam, please/thankyou.
And certainly not to be feared as they seem to take great delight in. The wearing of blacked out Union Flags, prohibited as this is defamation of our national flag, it is red, white and blue, if they wish to fly it then fly it loud and proud. In reality, the police do not need it to complete their job. I think they are just trying to copy the military, and as an ex service man, they aren't doing themselves proud. I'd take any serving or ex service member far above the not so good British Bobby. Sorry rant over.
"Hey fella", seems to be another salutation preferred by many a copper.
@@gordonday8771 Your Wrong! Courtesy is taught at home, at all in most cases! Every child learns 80-85% Of everything they are Ever going to learn in life by the time they are 6 years old! So it is taught (or not) by the parents/parent with care! My sister runs a preschool nursery attached to a school. It takes rising 4's. 60 per in take, 30 mornings & 30 afternoons. About 1/3 of them have to be refused! They are not clean or dry, in the day!!! Others cannot speak properly, just make noises! More stand in front the TV & cry when does not get turned on! Some cannot sit for 10-150 minutes to have story read to them. worst of all some have no teeth just stubs or stumps! It is horrendous? I blame the Government! Well everbody else does for everything else!
Generally there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.
True, but in the digital era there's also no perception of respect for others especially when the end result gets people posted all over the internet. It's about time something was done about.
There are three types of privacy. Absolute, reasonable, and none. Absolute is in your own home or in public conveniences. Reasonable is in a public situation but where you might be having a private conversation on a park bench, or using an ATM. None is where the public are milling around aimlessly.
@@poodle559 People can put in privacy complaints to YT if they really want to.
Nor is there a right to privacy if you can be seen from a public place.
@@poodle559 Yes it's time the police started following guidance and stoppped using section 43 against people who they know are not terrorists, Police are out of control and should be brought to book.
The NPCC recently issued a memo to all forces stating that photography alone should not be the basis for a search under section 43.
Um… the police always lie by saying you filming security entrances and cameras to test their weakness.. Meanwhile, these same entrances and cameras can be seen on Google Map! 🙄
"Not" would be the negator of the operative word. But it wont stop them making up some other fairytale excuse.
Not relevant as piggies cannot or will not read!
Unfortunately the NPCC and previously ACPO used the phrase "public place" without defining it.
@@leathleyg5995 Section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, gives you a the definition of a "public place". Most of the auditors and im sure some photographers know this act....
As a full time photographer for the last 48 years, I can say this is very good information and advice. If considering an update it would be worth mentioning that it will be illegal to photograph breastfeeding in public without permission. This is included in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill going through Parliament, January 22.
True and add that hé s speaking only about Brits, and that other country s might and Will have different laws around copyright and portrait rights.😄 As example, in The Netherlands we have different laws by Which copyright and portrait rights are different.
They actually bothered to include this specifically? Good god, what minds they have. If you are doing something or indeed anything, in a PUBLIC place, surely you might expect to be photographed?
Correction: everybody has the right to ask you for a copy of the picture of film. They don’t have a right to receive it. Those two things are fundamentally different.
I wondered about the language here too. Surely everyone also has the right to ask you to delete your pictures as well. It's just that you can say no. The right to ask a question isn't the same as the expectation that someone must do what you ask. I am not a lawyer and I suspect the language makes sense if you are.
I don't think this is true. There is no right codified in law for a stranger to approach you and to ask for a copy of the picture. Though it isn't illegal.
@@shmoola this is under English law, you don’t need a right “codified in law” to do something like ask somebody a question.
This is under the legal maxim of "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed".
You would need to have had that right removed (e.g. restraining order) to not be able to ask the question.
My original post was because the barrister got this wrong in the video and presumably meant to say that nobody has the right to receive the picture or film (unless covered by the GDPR, DPA etc.). Everybody can still ask and the photographer can ignore them if they wish.
It’s scary to hear the suggestion that something has to be allowed by law to do it, presumably you are not English to have such an opinion. That’s not how English law works.
@@paulharrison2325 Scots Law also
That would be a hope or expectancy, not a right!
Thank goodness for photographers, especially the public using mobile phone cameras to capture what would otherwise happen without evidence. Thank goodness for people videoing the police and wrongdoers everywhere. To an extent, thank goodness for the surveillance society which takes out pictures on every street and road everywhere. Certainly with some safeguards and in a civil society.
As for the people who take exception to being photographed in public, they need to grow up, because like it or not they are being continually photographed covertly whenever they venture out in public in the urban setting. The visible human photographer should be the least of their irrational phobias.
"Thank goodness for people videoing the police and" going home and editing out all their own cop baiting bits to make viewers think it's all the cop's fault..................they do it ALL THE TIME with traffic stop yt vids in america to make the cops look racist.....have seen hundreds of them posted like this , that is until the cops started to post their own befor/during/after vids which proved a completely different chain of events
I don’t like to say this, not a thing you said I agree, why is that, do you know
Blog excellent, it disseminates the facts in an understandable manner.
As a street photographer since the 70s had many years experience; in the last 10 or so years, the hostility towards photographers has increased significantly. Ironic given the number of 'official' but private security cameras filming 24/7
Strangely never been challenged if on public land using a high end mobile phone ---- use a more expensive looking designated camera such as a DLSR people get very agitated and openly challenge you often in a very aggressive way. Cant make it out, not bothered by having there image recorded but dislike me using a SLR.
The nonsensical situation was highlighted once when a police officer was instructing those with SLRs to stop taking photos, at the very same time ignoring many filming and taking stills with phones; when this was highlighted to the Officer in question, response was that could not stop phone use as everyone has such, but cameras are 'professional' and 'not allowed'.
I’ve had people complain I was invading their privacy when they happened to walk through the background of a photo of a public sculpture or an event (e.g. a demo).
Don't you just love it when Police make up laws that don't exist, almost the same as judges who make up crap just because they don't like the person in court.
When a crime takes place the police ask if any person has any photos! Taking photos in public is good for crime prevention
Criminal Acts (crimes) leave a victim and should contain a witness. No crimes are ever committed but 'auditors' like intercoursing with Constables, which is never recommended.
It's best to simply exercise that common law right to remain silent and never verbally intercourse with them. Like sex, verbal intercourse requires mutual consent.There is no benefit to ever intercourse with them..
@@jehuty2001 First part is BS but yeah, never talk.
I'm a pro photographer and I am often asked to record events taking place in schools. It is quite common for a (very) few of the children to be listed as "not to be photographed". This is perfectly within the rights of the school and parents to specify because it is not in a public place. Of course, I do my best to avoid these children but mistakes can be made so I always submit the pictures to the school for approval before use in any publication. My personal view is that many of the parents making this request are borderline paranoid, but there are a few very real cases involving domestic violence or abuse (or worse) where it is essential that a child isn't recognised; therefore it is a perfectly justifiable procedure.
But a couple of years ago I was commissioned to photograph an event connected to Remembrance Day next to a village war memorial (i.e. in a public place). The village school turned out and a teacher started to tell me that I couldn't take photos of certain children. I politely replied that I was in a public space, photographing a public event at the request of the organisers and that it would be impossible for me to do my job if certain individuals had to be avoided. We eventually reached an amiable compromise where the relevant children were given a different position to stand in so that I could avoid them. This nicely illustrates the value of remaining calm and polite.
Regarding "reasonable expectation of privacy" I have a perhaps quirky way of defining this - if I were to use a drone or very long lens to get photos of a couple having sex in amongst some trees in their well screened back garden I would be in breach of this, but if they were to carry out the same activity in their very open front garden next to a road - I wouldn't!
I'm in a similar situation as I take photographs for a youth organisation. I don't know everyone's name so can't actually know everyone who doesn't have that permission and rely on others to give me this information. I do find though that the parents sometimes don't realise what the photographs will be used for though, and don't realise what they will be missing out on be denying the permission. A quick chat is sometimes helpful.
My wife works in child protection and parents aren’t being “borderline paranoid” about someone photographing their children. You’d be amazed how many people who are on the sex offenders registrar in any given area.
@@cerealkiller4248 The same parents often put photos they've taken of their children on social media sites for their friends but forgetting that most times they can be viewed by anyone. Also, even if blocked from public access, they have no control who their friends might pass any photos on to.
I worked as a press photographer and at schools I visit, I carry some brightly coloured bracelets I give them to the teacher to put on the kids that I can not photograph. After a while they started doing it themselves. Speaking to the head, she explained that some parents were helicopter mums who opted out from photos, which was fine, then the head told me that some children were fostered and removed from abusive homes and two of the children were from a womens refuge. It all made sense then.
@@Rockhopper1 I doubt she used the term helicopter parents...
Thanks for this video. Unfortunately people who actually need to watch this probably won't e.g. the less informed end of the security guarding world and people who "know their rights" ... but actually don't
My Father in law's friend is a keen bus spotter. On the last day of the route-master running in London he was out taking photos. All of a sudden a van pulls up and armed police pounce on him. Long story short the MI5 building was in many many the shots. The agents had to scroll through a million bus photos before letting him go. The funny thing is the officers had 1000's of almost identical bus pictures to wade through. Moral of the story is don't have a high powered lens near that building.
Maybe they should have thought about leaving a top secret building on the street for everyone to see.
@@highdownmartin and its not MI5 if talking about the bus terminus at Vauxhall
When you’re waiting for a bus photo……….
It's always wise to be polite while recording in public, however a person's feelings have nothing to do with it.
Are you trying to say, however that person’s feelings is, they cannot say anything
@@SmilingBeachYoga-bj3qz Yes,basically
Good to hear you pronounce 'harassment' correctly 😊. A friend of mine, who sadly died a while ago, helped bring about the 'Protection from Harassment Act 1997'.
Edit: The friend I was referring to was solicitor advocate for the Plaintiff (yes, Plaintiff....pre Woolf reforms 1999 😊) in the case of Burris and Azadani (1995). Prior to this case it was not possible to get an injunction between parties where there hadn't been a relationship. In 1996 an attempt was made to introduce an anti stalking bill under the 10 minute rule but was unsuccessful. Just thought your followers might like some background regarding anti harassment legislation 😊
There was a case of a photographer videoing the public doing their Christmas shopping, being told to stop by the police, they claimed he was harassing people.
Not seeing how that could be the case and the police did not explain how he was harassing anyone, he later started videoing again and was arrested.
He was locked up for a few hours then released without charge, a case of abuse of power perhaps?
I would suggest that it is always a good idea to have your phone or camera set up to automatically upload anything you are photographing or video recording to an internet server (or other location that you control). Incredibly easy to set up with a phone, and not that much harder with any modern professional camera.
most American cop-baiters & frauditors now upload live feeds direct to the cloud so they can afford to pretend to be compliant with police and delete from their cameras because their current footage is already safely stored elsewhere........they're one step ahead in their deviousness.
frauditors have already sussed this out....they go live through the cloud when they have instigated an issue then get their friends to bombard various police and county/town hall with hundreds of phonecalls and emails about their 'injustice' ...fraudies always have plenty of backup copies plus they often hunt in packs so there are many differently edited versions of the same thing floating around.
I just found this video tonight, and it's been very helpful. About a month ago, I went to the Science Museum in London, principally to see the full-size replica of LauncherOne, the Virgin Orbit rocket that (hopefully!) will launch later this year from Cornwall. Totally by chance, I found that I was standing next to Dara O'Briain, the host of Mock the Week TV show and stand-up comic. One of the photos I took of the rocket happens to show Dara and two children who were with him. The children's faces are not identifiable but Dara is. I wanted the photo for an article I'm writing for the Everyday Astronaut website, so I reached out to Dara's PR agency to see if there was any objection to using the photo. I got no reply, so I wrote a second time saying that if they didn't reply, I would take that as tacit approval that there was no objection to using this photo. But this video reassures me that I have very little to worry about. Thanks!
As a 35 year plus professional photographer I must commend you on this video. There is an awful lot of ignorance both from non photographers and enthusiast photographers about the law in the UK.
Having a good working knowledge of the law is very important as a photographer. Sadly a few photographers take this knowledge and use it to bait non photographers, particularly security guards, in to arguments. Usually in order to boost their own CZcams subs and likes. Interestingly these “fauxtographers” usually have very little creative work on view and often fit in to a very similar demographic.
I have watched just a couple of such videos , and both times had to ask myself ‘why’ .
That's the rule we have in the states. If you're out in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy - no matter who you are!!
I used to go out at lunch in the city of London and I used to get stopped all the time even at places at St Paul's cathedral and they used the terrorist act. I was always in a suit and sometimes it was taking a picture of an empty street. Same in London Docklands it is really annoying when all you are doing is taking pictures of a moment in time as cities and villages change over history.
I have filmed in London for over 20 yrs. Never been stopped by police.
Docklands as in Canary Wharf is not a public place. They can stop you there no probs.
@@mbak7801 I have filmed in London Docklands ( Canary wharf ) yes security came and spoke to me, but I told them I was a hobbyist, and not a professional ( which is true) and was filming just for fun. They never asked for ID, or such like ( I only give that to the police anyway) and they left me alone. But yes I was on private property and they can tell you to stop filming because of that.
@@wanderer1955 My Daughter lived in Island Gardens, near Canary wharf.. In all the 10 years I visited there and we shopped/dined at Canary Wharf I was never stopped from taking pictures. And I was using my work cameras which were Canon 1D's of various marks, not small stuff.
@@Pitcairn2 I also wasn't stopped.
Another excellent, informative video! I think this channel should come under a public service!
you can record ANYTHING from a public place. anything means anything ..period. and I recommend recording all interactions with police.
Not entirely true. If, and it's a big if, you take an image that the courts decide is 'of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism....' you could be convicted of a section 58 Terrorism Act offence.
However, there is a 'reasonable excuse' statutory defence available for this, and also some Supreme Court case law on what exactly may be construed as something which is likely to be useful to a terrorist.
It has to 'by it's very nature, be designed to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act or terrorism'.
This was to avoid all sorts of everyday information/images falling under the rather vague description of 'likely to be useful'.
It's a rare set of circumstances, but not impossible.
What about the eiffel tower? I've heard that's illegal to photograph because of copyright? Or is that another rule they can't enforce.
@@jasonmw1471 I'd be impressed if you could take a picture of the Eiffel Tower from the UK.....😁
But, I believe you are correct (sort off).
My understanding is that it is specifically at night, when it has the 'light show' on, as it is this that is copywritten as a separate artistic work. (The Tower's copywritten status expired long ago).
Tourists taking video of it are not getting arrested en masse by 'le cops'😁, but if you were to publish the images for commercial gain, you could find issues.
I know nothing about French law, so don't know exactly the full story, but apparently for professionals, permission must be obtained and a fee paid.
In the UK, although buildings can have copyright status, there is an exemption from infringement under section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which covers photography.
@@Stuart_George thanks for the info so does that mean they could just chuck a few lights on police stations and copyright the image they could feel safe going to work then knowing no cameramen will be awaiting them 😂
@@jasonmw1471 the only “copyright” involved would be for the photograph, and that would owned by the photographer, not the police. I am not sure, but I imagine the architectural plans are also copyrighted, but taking a photo of the building is not the same as building it anew.
In London, many people just pull out their phones and film or take pictures of people in places such as cafes without their subjects permission.
The lack of legal protections for the subjects is regrettable.
It's a paradise for weirdos.
I do a lot of street photography. Sometimes I would include children if it makes a really good picture though I try to avoid taking photos of young people in general because of the climate in which we live.
well done on this video, great subject. my tuppence on this for what its worth is that the police training college should bear (at least) some responsibility for educating their trainee's as to the order of reasonable grounds and suspicion. officers can often be seen in public photography videos stating 'suspicion' as 'reasonable grounds' for a search whereas my understanding is that reasonable grounds (or code specific criteria) should lead to suspicion and not the other way around. usually, when questioned the officers are not able to explain the grounds on which they claim suspicion.
"usually"? Rubbish. An Absolutely unprovable statement, a few examples seen on CZcams "audits" doesn't count towards "usually".
great topic this, as a bus enthusiast i often take photos of buses & have had a couple run in's with jobsworth security guards about taking pics in public
👍 buses need love as well 👍🍸🙏😂
The problem with buses is that you need a wide angle lens as three turn up at the same time.
@@fredbloggs545 Just photograph the pretty one.😉
That has to be the most craziest hobby I’ve ever heard. Lol 😂
i worked at the docks. People used to go there and spot the straddle carriers. (small AT-AT like veichles that lower and lift a cargo container) each has its own number. People would go the the bridge and take photos and be really into it "ooooh theres 41, thats the third time this week he's been loading up there." @@notmenotme614
i have always been puzzled that there are Police officers who will try to prevent photographers from going about their lawful business but, if there should be a crime committed or a a terrorism attack, the next day there will be a senior Police officer on TV asking if anyone has a photo or dashcam footage to assist them in their enquiries.
Exactly!
When attending knife shows, I always ask the vendor if it's alright to film their stand/display, if they are up for it I'll do a question based interview as well, anything to promote their work. From working in education for 11 years I try and avoid filming young people as much as possible, and then edit/cut away as well from background b-roll etc.
Excellent info, thanks.
As a point of clarification, if you are a member of the UK Military, any pictures or film you take on Operations is automatically Crown Copyright, although in practice this is seldom enforced.
This is to stop you publishing/making them public. There could be some security issues.
Well you are after all 'an employee' and thus fall under their rules/guidelines - - obvious security issues aside.
:)
On operations, you are "at work" 24/7. They own everything you do.
Very interesting. I think perhaps the video would have benefitted from a treatment of "public place". For example, a shopping centre is technically privately-owned land, but it's publicly accessible, and indeed we are *invited* onto it.
Yes, I was wondering what constitutes a public space, especially as more areas that were or appear to be publicly owned are now privately owned..
Yes, the video did lack that. A public house is a public place, but if I wandered into one and started taking photos of the decor and people I didn’t know, I imagine the landlord would have the right to tell me to stop. As well as shopping centres, you do now have lots of thoroughfares, often outdoors, which you can walk through but which, too, are privately owned.
@@richardclarkson3016
Extension of definition of “public place” in Public Order Act 1936.
For the definition of “public place” in section 9(1) of the M1 Public Order Act 1936 there shall be substituted-
“Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise ”.
"...to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access..." addresses that
Ultimately, as with most things, adopting a common sense approach will steer you clear of almost all problems. These 'auditors' go looking for trouble, yet seem remarkably surprised when it finds them...personally I have no time for them...they are not serving the public good in the way they'd like you all to believe...
BTW I have worked as a professional photographer previously, though photography is now more for pleasure than as a source of income. I choose not to creep around photographing potentially sensitive areas, and therefore have never had any unpleasant interactions with member of the public or the Police.
@@Penguin_of_Death Thanks for that. Yes, I find the actions of the so-called ‘auditors’ ridiculous and they don’t do photographers in general any favours. Most are just looking to provoke conflict to give them footage to upload to CZcams. I’ve often wondered how they would react if someone stood outside their house taking photos (from the public street, of course) of them going in and out and going about their daily business.
You can also be uninvited and asked to leave because your trespassing at that point
The NSA is recording everything you do inside your home.
The best way to combat that is to hassle people filming in public. Brilliant !!
I was once walking to my hotel near London Docklands after a late shift. As I had my camera with me, I set it up on the bridge parapet for a long exposure of the Canary Wharf buildings. I was approached by two private security guards from the Docklands Railway and asked why I was taking photographs and to provide ID. I did in fact comply with both requests showing them my Railway ID. But I also made them aware that I was doing this without prejudice to the fact that as it was a public place, I was actually free to take photographs unhindered and without complying with either of their requests. Hopefully they learned something but often it's easier to just take up a friendly, passive stance rather than be deliberately argumentative or confrontational as I've seen on many CZcams videos. The photo, how did it turn out? A bit rubbish to be honest 😂
The Canary Wharf area is actually privately owned. A few years ago my brother had the same problem with Canary Wharf security personnel. It was they who told him about it. Maybe they lied,but I don't think so.
@@reginaldjupp1957 You're probably right. That said they clearly overstepped their authority as I was walking on the main public road (the A112) and took the photograph from there.
You are mixing up "public place" with public land
Just because a space is open to and used by the public does *NOT* make it publicly owned.
If you are on a public highway, public pavement, that is, it's owned and maintained by the State - local or national government - then you can consider it public land and there is no restriction on taking photographs, except if the area has been designated a prohibited area under The Terrorism Act , then and only then can the authorities stop you from taking photographs.
If it is privately owned land, you need permission from the landowner to take photographs. If you don't have that permission then the land owner and their representatives in the form of security guards can stop you.
@@PhilipBallGarry Yes, if the point you were standing on was a public highway owned and maintained by the State and not considered a private road, then yes you can take photographs and the security guards should not have attempted to stop you.
And it doesn't matter if the subject of your photograph was privately owned. You were standing on public land from where the photograph was taken.
Where I live we have a new shopping centre which is mostly privately owned. Security guards stopped me from taking photos.
It transpires that some of the pedestrian open air walkways through the shopping centre are in fact public land. Some of them have been there for decades before the new shopping centre was created. So I wrote to the Council asking them to confirm which parts of the shopping centre were privately owned and which were publicly owned and they completely ignored me.
All I know for certain that the territory inside the shops is private.
It's disgusting when a council refuses to cooperate in this way, when it comes to such a legal question.
It's all a load of nonsense: they stopped me because I had a 35mm camera with tripod but meanwhile there's people taking pictures with their mobile phones, which can produce quite a decent quite image these days.
my fav one of there own pace
PACE (Code A)2.9
“Reasonable grounds for suspicion cannot be provided retrospectively by questioning during a person’s detention or by refusal to answer questions put”,
Hepburn v Thames Valley Police 2002
“Nobody is required in this country to satisfy a police officer that he or she is not committing an offence”,
It is a bedrock of our liberties that a citizens freedom of person and movement is inviolable except where the law unequivocally gives the state power to restrict it”
Kenlin v Gardiner 1967
“No Police constable has any right to detain a person forcibly for an enquiry”
R(Gillan) v Commissioner of police for the metropolis 2006
“It is an old and cherished tradition of our country that everyone should be free to go about their business in the streets of the land, Confident that they will not be stopped and searched by the police unless reasonably suspected of having committed a criminal offence”
Capturing still and moving images by drone or similar UAV is an area that would be interesting to have some clarification on.
@john knusson Actually, more rules apply to drones. Drones over 400g in weight have to be registered and commercial drones need additional licences which are not needed for normal cameras. There are also height limits and restrictions on where they can be flown, which also does not affect normal cameras.
@@Thurgosh_OG Not unless you have a 400ft tripod.
@@Thurgosh_OG That's not true, at least in the UK. Any drone with a camera needs registered (with a fee) regardless of the weight. Drones with a take off weight of below 249g can fly pretty much anywhere that isn't above crowds, but above 250g they cannot fly within 50m of people or buildings without permission and the pilot needs to be registered. You cannot fly above 120m (in non-restricted airspace). Any picture you take is under the same rules as a normal camera.
@@davidmarshall6998 Yeah you're right, I just checked. I need to pay 9 pounds a year to fly the little 80g Tello drone controlled over wifi from a phone app, just because it has a camera? It can't fly any higher than 10m and it's range is limited by wifi so it's only about 100ft or so. It's so small and light it should be considered a toy imo, or they should allow you to register for the Flyer ID which is free, rather than the Operator ID which is 9 quid per annum. 🙄
They changed the law again so fast after Nov 2019 to Dec 2020. If you have to register anyway may as well get a bigger, longer battery life and more stable drone if you're getting into the hobby.
I guess that as a hobby photographer I might not be objective in this matter, but for me the mere idea that someone with camera might be a terrorist ( based on the fact that he/she uses the camera for what it was intended to ) is absolutely absurd! ANYONE could be a terrorist. In my opinion, the presence of a camera is NOT an indication of ANYTHING, except that the person with a camera might be a photographer.
Exactly so people will end up not taking photos or video all because the law is not that great.
Yeah. I mean of the presence of a camera is enough reasonable suspicion. They better get some more cuffs ready because evey phone these days has a camera on it
Plus you need to factor in most cops are on a power trip these days!
In my completely uneducated and perhaps slightly cynical view, I'd say that a terrorist who is photographing something for the purpose of terrorism would probably use very discrete camera equipment so as to not draw attention to the fact they're photographing it?
When we all stop taking photos and video in public and the next time the police ask for any video from a incident...
They can't have it both ways.
Police record us all the time. CCTV, Body Camera, Dashcams. Bloddy terrorists!
Fantastic advise, especially regarding permissions. Common sense should always be used but great to have the legal position if required. Cheers.
Just remember to check laws in the country to go or are at, they differ in Evert country and in the USA IT van differ from state tot state!
I once saw a helicopter land on public space near my home and being inquisitive I grabbed my camera and went to investigate. It turned out that a child was being flown to hospital. I took a couple of non-intrusive shots and was then approached by someone connected with the child who demanded that I delete the pix. To prevent a row, I did. However, deleted pix can easily be recovered from a card!
It'd be nice if someone could sit the average police officer down and have them watch this by means of education.
A lot of the police in the USA seem to have selective memory about the law and our Constitution when it comes to people waving cameras around in a public setting...Sometimes they have to be reminded by a judge and jury....and it gets expensive for the bustling metropolis they work for...
@Kris Nicholson No kidding... all of them seem to have the attention span of a gnat... and the intellect of a baked potato.
My head hurts....
In Holland there are 2 official press passes. A general one which gives access to events etc. and a police press pass. Rules for the police press pass are agreed on by the organisation representing the press and the Ministry of Justice.
Basically the carrier of the police press pass can work within a cordoned off area (providing they don't mess up the scene of the incidident) or work from a specified area.
Dealing with the press and holders of the police press pass is part of the basing police training.
@@4catsnow they like us to think it gets expensive...but they do make the money and a simple bit of maths on the back of a cigarette packet shows the figures don't add up...i owe my soul to the company store as the song 🎵 goes.God save the Queen.
Interesting video. The police would do well to learn these facts.
Why? Nothing happens to them when they violate your rights!!
I think 99.9% of all the photos I have taken have been in a public place. It's difficult to take a picture of a beautiful sunset, any wildlife photography or holiday snaps without being in a public place.
I really don’t think that is what is being referred to though!
Hi there, really pleased you made this video because there is so much misconception. I am a working journalist. There are many people on CZcams who claim to be journalists, and there is no legal protect the term of what a journalist days, however it is broadly the case that it is wise to ask to someone works for. If they work for a mainstream publication, they will be happy to tell you and they will identify with a UK press card, if they have one. They’re not obliged to carry one, but most bonafide news gatherers will have them. The media is editorial policies are totally freestanding from police and all other bodies for obvious reasons of independence and impartiality, but if there is an exceptionally good reason, most generous will listen to it. If someone says they are a journalist and then they won’t identify themselves, at least by publication, they probably aren’t really
As a rule I avoid taking candid pictures of children unless I know them or their parents. I just don't want to take the risk of being accused of inappropriate behaviour but it does cut down on some awesome, fun pictures because kids have no filter and just fill the frame with joy.
It’s a sad society we live in where every photographer is viewed as a potential pervert. Particularly male photographers.
@@phildoodler2199 I agree! It's very frustrating and I don't have the personality type not to worry.
@@stuartcarden1371 you’re not alone, we’ve been brainwashed by our current cultural society to think that way.
Yeah better to be on the careful side. Plenty of other things to take pics of
Thanks for this video. I have been getting stopped, questioned and even harassed by people while out on photo walks more and more lately. I'm shooting in public areas and I am respectful but they cast their suspicions my way so much so that I have scaled down to the smallest sized camera and when I feel attention and look around to see the glaring, I casually stop and slowly move on. That seems to be the state of our world now and sadly so as why not instead just ask how the shooting is going and open up a dialog? If they had any kind of active, basic instincts, they would recognize very quickly that my motives are harmless and that I am of no threat. It is a creative outlet and a work in progress in improving my photography skills and nothing more.
The smaller your camera, the shadier it may look :)
Have learned a few more techniques and diversions along with picking my scenes and compositions more methodically.
@@chroniclesofbap6170I disagree. I use a good quality professional compact camera. Discretion allows me to take good quality street photographs. I would have no issue with anyone wishing to see the photos if they asked.
I find it very concerning that the idea of the public being able to record and hold officers to account for their actions is viewed, even in part, as an excuse for them to be able to take those recordings and delete them. Irrespective of its location the police should be considered public servants, and as such should not be able to curtail our ability to hold them to account. It seems that police in the UK are becoming increasingly corrupt and it is disturbing to me.
The other issue is funding. Everything the police has, stations/patrol cars/uniform.
It’s all funded by the tax payer.
Not the government.
Government doesn’t make money, it collects it from people.....
The same with schools, it’s not the teachers building. It’s not the policeman’s station. There care takers of it.
The police have no authority to delete footage or stills. Only a judge and a court order can do so.
Why do auditors visit fire stations, power stations, supermarkets, distribution centres and places like Travis Perkins if it is about exposing corruption?
@@Audit-The-Auditors
It’s not all about corruption. It’s also about challenging pre conceived ideas from authority figures.
Many mangers of private companies and fire chiefs make claims of law, based upon Bly on there feelings on a situation.
These audits display that certain people will cling to belief even after it’s been challenged and proven to be wrong.
This is examples when the manger gets on where and has had his authority challenged, and they don’t like it, they call the police, in a last ditch attempt to regain lost power/position.
This is more deflating when the auditor doesn’t care and challenges the manager to call them.
The police arrive and then are compelled to educate the manager about his mis guided beliefs.
Managers of private companies can be corrupt just like cops, it just takes a different form.
@@cromwellsghost3434 I see, so it's all about deliberately upsetting normal working people to point they feel compelled to summon police assistance.
How has the simple pastime of photography been turned in to a stick to incite such confrontational behaviour?
Never seen a Google Street view car being stopped and and the driver questioned and searched 🤔
Hello, thanks for your videos. What I've seen on YT are people filming Police stations, then the police using section 43 to detain and search them, regardless. I also see officers using section 50 as a means to force the journalist to identify themselves under the suspicion of anti social behaviour. Due to these points, I don't think a person has any way to stop themselves being searched and/or identified. This is why I stay as far away from the Police as possible.
@Blob B I would agree that there are some doing that, and it's plain to see, but I wouldn't agree that all are doing that. I've seen quite a large spectrum from just walking down the street and getting harrased to getting right in a cops face and making it look like the person is reaching for a weapon (those are the ones I don't agree with as I think they're just crazy).
I recently took some photos of police investigating a firearms incident. As I was walking away, I was challenged by a police officer and told I had to delete the images (which I did) or risk my camera being confiscated. I explained I was in a public place but was told that I could not photograph a "crime scene" I believe that this police officer was mistaken as I subsequently checked the law, and unless they have reason to think you have captured evidence (remember this was after the crime and police forensics were on site) or one of the other exceptions you quote here, then there is no law to prevent me taking the photos. I was furious that I did not have sufficient knowledge at the time so as to educate the police officer of his mistake. This video has been helpful to clarify a few "exceptions"
I find it odd that people object to being photographed using a dedicated camera when almost everyone, man, woman and child carries a camera in the form of a mobile phone and there is one on almost every street corner monitoring their every move.
spot on; if you have a Camera get accused of being a professional; even when you point out the camera cost less than the top end phones being used all day 24/7 by 90% of the population. Use a compact or SLR camera for Street photography and you will get abuse and challenged; on the other hand use a phone with a top end camera and never been stopped or challenged. LOL
People seem to forget about all the vehicle dashcams that are catching them on film as well. They don't seem to have any issue with cameras on cars - but they do if it's a person on foot holding a camera or phone. If you have your camera positioned like a body cam rather than holding it our in your hand - that would draw a lot less attention and you are likely to get less hassle from people who don't understand your legal rights.
As Jason says; so many cars filming and recording. Some new cars have cameras built in front and rear. When i mentioned this to a person telling me i could not use a camera in Town to photograph buildings as i might capture a member of the public without there consent, the person went into a rage. It would be laughable, if not on the end of the bile.
Might I suggest you explore the concepts of Anonymity, and the Selfish Herd, with regards to feeling safe?
As far as I know, what constitutes a public place is defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1972 Section 33
Yes Wasp, it most certainly does
No, not really. s.33 Criminal Justice Act 1972 merely inserted an amended definition of public space into the Public Order Act 1936, it is not a standalone provision. The 1936 Act restricted the wearing of military uniforms in public so as to tackle the rise in fascism. It does not provide a general definition of public places that are applicable in all circumstances, though it might be persuasive.
@@jamesbran5729 , Well I think it does, I mean look at what it says. The definition of a public place 'includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether payment or otherwise". This is defining what a public place is and its the only Act I have found to define that. Now we can argue what a public place is and what a public place is, but where really splitting hairs.
Like I replied to another person. I have tested this when the security people at Covent Garden tried to stop me from taking picture of my friend in the area. Once I told them of the act, they moaned a little but couldnt argue against it. The head came over and just confirmed that I can take picture there of my friend etc.
s.33 Criminal Justice Act 1972 is the closest bit of legislation that defines what public place is. Unless you or anyone else knows of any other act. Please do let me know if you know of any other acts, it would be most grateful.....
@@MrCazz it is not really just a question of what it says, the context is key especially as s.33 of the 1972 Act merely amends another piece of legislation. Moreover, it does not stop private land owners from prohibiting photography even if the area came within that definition.
@@jamesbran5729 Oh I totally agree that it doesnt stop private land owners from prohibiting photography. But they also need to understand that you can have a "public path or area, within that area. And this is where the problem lies. You have an area that is public that the law says you can take photos of anything you like from that public stand point, but it is surrounded by a Private area. Maybe its not so much about what it says, but what it implies. You have a case to argue the boundaries of a public place and the legislation may ammend another piece, but that doesnt change the fact that it can and does get used in these cases. I've used it and successfully applied it. Not saying that im anyone special. Just want to be happy to take photos in the free land that we are graced to walk upon.....
If Private land owners dont want people to take photos on their land, then put up the appropriate measures and devices to stop that and not just some silly little sign.
Photography is not a crime but the way some land owners act, they this it is. PINACI Movement........(if you have heard of them)
Enjoying all the responses from everyone here. :)
Interesting that you should raise this topic, allow me a few moments to relate my experience from a couple of weeks ago, here in the UK:
I'm photographing derelict farm buildings, on extremely rural, open farm land, from the road.
Only a few minutes and staff turn up from the farm to tell me to stop what I am doing because the Farmer doesn't want his property photographed.
When I tell them about no right to privacy in a public space phones are taken out and soon the Farmer appears with the same demands; I repeat what I have told the staff.
The Farmer instructs one of his staff to call the Police and, as they are about to do so, one of them points to an approaching Police car.
The Police Officer joins us and the situation is relayed to him by both sides; here follows the ensuing conversation between me and the Copper:
Him: "You need to pack up your equipment and leave before I arrest you for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the Peace."
Me: "How am I likely to cause breach of the peace; he's the one who is being antagonistic about the situation?"
Him: "It's you being here and doing what you're doing that is antagonising him, so it is your behaviour that is likely to cause a breach of the peace."
Me: "Well I don't see why I should have to stop what I am doing, lawfully, just because he doesn't like it."
He looks around and points to my car that is parked right beside us, keys still in the ignition.
"Is that your vehicle?"
"Yes; why?"
"Let me tell you what is going to happen in 30 seconds time if you're not packing up to leave.
If you don't start to leave you will be getting into my car and I will be taking you to _____ Police Station, - (note: this is about 13 miles away), - where you will be charged with behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.
Your equipment will be placed in your vehicle and your vehicle will remain here, as it is, with the keys in the ignition, like I never asked if it was your vehicle. After being charged and released it will be for you to make your own way back here.
What do suppose the chances are of your vehicle remaining untouched during that time?"
Of course I had no choice but to comply; what else are you going to do?
The Farmer is standing there looking like a dog with two dicks and an avenue of trees and as I pull away and look to the rear view mirror he and the Copper shake hands.
Having the law on your side, in modern Britain, is no more effective than trying to seek justice in a State in the African sub-continent!
I would say the photo isn't worth the trouble at that particularly moment in time, but I would definitely take the police officer's details and submit a complaint as soon as I got home. It is all well and good arguing, getting arrested and then released without charge, but is it really worth it in the end?
Where abouts in England were you? And where are you from? You might have just got unlucky and encountered 2 Brexit wankers
"A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist..." So if you ask the officer, as is seen in many of these audit videos, "Do you think I am a terrorist" and they say no I am not calling you a terrorist, "but do you think I'm a terrorist" - "No I don't think you're a terrorist but I'm carrying out an investigation..." - Well wouldn't that mean they already negated 43(1) as they have told you they do not think you are a terrorist, because if they don't think you are one, how can they reasonably suspect you of being one? - so carrying out a search on that basis would then be unlawful?
(long security history and NUJ member when I lived in the uk)
In the U.S., photographer harassment is a big issue. It did not exist 30 years ago. The advent of cell phone cameras has now made it so anyone carrying real gear is suspicious. First experienced this in NY post 9/11. The hysteria died down for a while but resumed after cell phone cameras became advanced. People shooting/filming with cell phones are never harassed, but walk around with a a few grand in dSLR/mirrorless, and you'll be a cop magnet. The always use the argument "we got a suspicious person" complaint. Personally been stopped by cops 14 times in the last two years.
Excellent info as always. A question if I may?... I’m a Professional Photographer and I keep getting stopped by security whilst taking pictures on the street. London and the City of Cardiff are recent locations of encounter.
The security claim it is private land. It might well be privately owned but the public still have a right of way there. Where do I stand on these grounds please?
In brief, shooting street photography in London (close to the Gherkin) and Cardiff City Centre. On the street and not in buildings etc. Thanks in advance, Gary
I’ve shared your video btw 👍🏻
Tell them that 92% of the UK is privately owned, including the pavement as it is controlled by the council. Then ask them if photography is banned in 92% of the country. And then if so, how the hell does tourism work. Just because land is private does not mean photography is a banned activity. Street photography is not a common activity, but neither is hopping on one leg, so if photography is controlled why isn't hopping. Basically it comes down to arguing with security and showing that their training is deficient and that just using a bit of logical thought and common sense will show the stupidity of their argument. Yes, they might not back down in front of you, but you might have made them think. And depending on the situation, it might mean taking it up with their managers.
As for the specific example of the Gherkin, the law to use there is s41 of the Copyright Design & Patents Act that BBB mentioned. It specifically states that taking a picture of a building does not breach copyright so security can't stop you under that excuse.
I was gonna post a similar question....more related to publicly accessible areas which may be corporately owned but are open to the general public - eg retail parks & supermarkets, commercial/industrial estates, shopping malls etc....where, as I understand the law, if the public are allowed to walk there they are also allowed to photograph there.
Usually these places often have low grade security guys unwilling to listen to reason or offer any kind of flexibility.
If you are using a camera, this is to expected from these clowns. If you're using a cell phone, they couldn't give a to$$!
I was with a group of people using cell phones to film some architectural features on an old building (pub) I was the only one challenged with my D810 + 200mm lens. The hi viz clown eventually wondered when he didn't get any joy from the police
Section 33 of the criminal justice act 1972 states that “Public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise ”. So unless specificaly prohibited photography is allowed anywhere.
@@CHIL2903 The illogicality about a real camera compared to a smartphone camera is that some smartphones have better lens and sensors than real cameras.
Thank you, that cleared up some of the areas I was concerned with... great video...
I think you’ve missed the point about public photography activism. The police do not have to justify why they record in public, government entities such as councils don’t either, nor do corporations and businesses who record public land outside their premises, so why on earth should ordinary people have to justify and explain themselves. As far as I’m aware the police, government entities and the private sector don’t have any additional rights to record. The reason the police have auditors outside their stations is that they’ve been harassing photographers for years and have created their own problem.
They don’t. The police don’t like it and are trying to stop it by intimidation.
The reason so many police auditors get "harassed" is that they think they know the law...but don't.
They do not recognise or accept that police stations, their land and car parks are treated as private property. They are owned by the relevant police authority, not by "the public". They don't think the police have powers to enforce trespass on their own premises. You can hear the screams of "assault!" when they get removed. They don't know Where their "right to film" begins and ends. They think that because its not a crime to film on private property, that they automatically have a "right" to do it.
And the ones that quote that CJA 1972 sect 33 nonsense, and talk about "educating people" are just plain clueless.
@@leathleyg5995 I think you're confusing the private and public aspect in regards to where the photography is taking place. If the auditor is stood in a public location the fact that a building, car park or land that appears in a photograph they are taking is private property doesn't come into it, the actual act of taking the image is still legal. Now of course, if the auditor is stood within the land boundary of the private property that's a different case but that isn't being disputed.
What the person is going to do with the image, where the primary subject of that image is private property, is also a different thing which may have some bearing on events but the actual act of taking the image itself isn't illegal.
@@kurtbanks8152 Apologies if I wasn't clear. I was referring to the many auditors who think they have a right to wander around private property filming. Not the few who remain on a public right of way, and film 'onto' private property.
@Leathley G I’ve followed this movement for about a decade and have watched thousands of videos, the overwhelming majority of auditors stay on public land. What you and the creator of this video also fail to address is land that is publicly accessible which is distinct from public and private property. Police stations like other buildings bought and paid for by tax payers are publicly accessible, with the obvious exception of areas signposted as restricted access. As far as I’m aware it’s a grey area regarding trespass from publicly accessible land which, coming full circle, is why most auditors stay on public land.
If you are photographing a specific subject or topic, such as architecture or doors or beaches (my father photographed all the missions in California for example and I shoot public spaces at night, but the long exposure blurs all the people) it will help you if you bring some samples of your work to show anyone at the location. A little courtesy goes a long way.
S43 caused no end of problems for Togs in London, we were always being stopped whilst using our big expensive cameras (on a tripod). Common sense would suggest that a terrorist would use a phone to reccy a potential target, not a £5K DSLR, but what do we know...
When you're responsible for security, don't fear intervening just because they look wealthy or important . Bad people can afford a camera with a long lens
Or they could pretend to be a 'tog', knowing they will almost certainly get away with it...
@@juliandavies1974 The evidence is against this, the only people caught doing a 'reccy' were using camera phones.
Thank you for the info, it helped to make things a bit clear, as I thought it really is a mind field, that is why I prefer not to film or take photos of anyone in public its a lot easier, I even wait until they are out of shot.
As an ex-press photographer extremely useful and interesting and I wish I had seen this 10 years ago. I was well aware of the public place distinction over private and always found working in conjunction with Police and emergency services paid dividends and not many pictures were worth an argument as a local press person.
I was challenged when using Google Glass device to take photographs of vehicles at a vintage vehicle rally. I pointed out to the challenger that all around us people were taking photographs and video on mobile phones, cameras and some with actual video cameras, but he objected to me doing the same because of the equipment I was using. I also asked if he was to make his objections known to the aforementioned other people for the same reason, that being he did not want photographs taken. He declined to answer.
It also states in the code of practice
4.13. Photography/Film
4.13.1.
There has been widespread concern amongst photographers and journalists about the
use of stop and search powers in relation to photography. It is important that police
officers are aware, in exercising their counter-terrorism powers, that:
a) members of the public and media do not need a permit to film or photograph in
public places;
b) it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs/
film of a *public* *building* ;
and
c) the police have no power to stop the filming or photographing of incidents or *police* personnel.
Obviously common sense applies but in how many audits do you see a PC saying you are not allowed to film the police or station?
Also, in how many auditing videos do you see an auditor explain what they are doing but still get searched due to the police's ego, being ill-informed or plain incompetence? If you are going to get searched anyway why both explaining? Especially, since it is your right not to answer questions and, should you choose not to, that alone should not give rise to reasonable suspicion (Correct me if I am wrong).
A couple of years ago I took some foreign visitors to Windsor and we were down by the river. The lady was taking touristy photos when a couple / few nursery staff came with their young charges to feed the swans. One of staff members was quite officious, telling my guest that she couldn't take photos of the children (she wasn't anyway!) and asking to see the photos she'd taken. My guest did show her the photos and that they weren't of the children. Meanwhile, I was thinking, "You don't have a right to ask that; it's a public place etc etc" but I didn't say anything. I still wish I had, because the staff member, whilst understandably looking out for the children, was wrong in what she was saying.
How did Daido Moriyama, Henri Cartier-Bresson or any of the great photographers get on recording history, what did they do?
As far as I'm aware, both are legal in public. If the public wants privacy, the responsibility lies with the persons wanting the privacy to create it
It’s so interesting how different the laws are between Germany and the UK. I used to love street photography whilst still living in London and have captured some of my best images there. Thus us not possible for me in Germany as the law is (broadly) as follows:
A) you have a right of privacy and thus a right not to be photographed anywhere without your consent.
B) if you see someone photographing you you can demand to see the images and to have them deleted. Furthermore you can sue them for publishing any image (be it commercial or not) of you even from behind if you can be identified and are the main focus of the image. (A recent case involved an image of a lady pulling a suitcase in a street. The image had artistic merit - artistic merit can be construed as a reason that somebody can be photographed but it has to be of significant artistic merit which is a minefield n it’s own - was published in an art Exhibition and the lady’s stance and style was recognized by friends despite the image being taken from behind and was thus construed to be a breach of privacy and use of her likeness without permission and resulted in a hefty fine.
C) you are allowed to take images of „people of historic value“ (another minefield) e.g. a politician acting in there role as a politician is in effect giving tacit consent of his image being taken in them acting in this role. However you can’t take images of the politician as the privat person as they once again have a certain right to privacy and the right to their image. This also applies to celebs. A famous case involced a well known German singer/actor attacking a photographer at an airport. Thus in turn was photographed and the images sold to a German tabloid. The courts banned them from using these images as the celeb was underway as a privat person and thus had the right to their images.
D) you can however include people in an image where they are not the Centre of attention. E.g. images of a house or street with general crowds in the image. However people can demand that you make them unrecognizable if they see the image ;check out google street maps in Germany... many people and even houses (even houses can have a right to privacy) are blurred and google is obliged to ensure you are blurre if u see yourself and demand this.
This is only a general overview of German law and a true minefield for all photographers especially for street, event and even wedding photography (although wedding photography doesn’t require written permission from anyone being photographed as it is considered that tacit consent has been given in this circumstance)
If shooting on film no one can demand to see images there and then .
I’ve taken many photos on numerous visits to Germany and never been challenged
@@derekheeps1244 hi there Derek. You can do general photography of buildings/environments with people being in them but not of a specific person. Sure you can’t show ur images directly on a film camera, however I’d guess that you’re one of the very few who still use film. If you were to use ur images of people in a commercial manner you will open yourself up to getting sued for the use of the likeness without consent.
Google Streetview in Germany is mostly very blurry images because of this
This is some interesting information, I didn't realise rules were so different in Germany. To be fair, when I was in Germany the photos I was taking were either of tourist attractions (eg Fernsehtrum, Bundestag, etc in Berlin) or of the family I was there with, and were solely for my own memories, so I highly doubt I will have fallen foul of German law. But still, it's interesting to know.
Sounds like dictatorship to me 🤣
A relative of mine used to work in queen annes gate. They said that if anyone was taking photos/filming around the front or back, then they were instructed to leave by other means or wait until they left. If there was commercial filming then a bus would “appear” to block out the front and back door, no action was taken against the company owning the vehicle/s whilst the filming was happening.
Ut's strange how areas that have a 'no photography' notice if there is an incident in the area the police appeal for anybody who has taken any photos there?
oh dear , examples please.
An excellent explanation, I have seen security guards ask people to stop taking pictures in the local shopping mall, people do not grasp that the fact you can just walk in does not automatically mean it's a 'public place'. Oddly, when I take photos of things in museums, collections or at events, I invariably want no one in the frame except the car, locomotive, plane or whatever!
Publicly owned property/Privately owned property... It's really simple.
@jchinuk: I often take photos in museums although I usually ask a staff member if its ok to do so. I've never been refused although some may ask me not to use flash or a tripod.
It might be useful to define public places. There are differences in status between a public highways, public utility land, public buildings e.g. libraries, corporate shopping centres, shops and residential homes, common land, woodland and farmland with public footpaths/bridleways/byways.
Agree, my understanding of a public place is a place to which the public have access whether on payment or otherwise. So one example that often comes into conflict is a shopping area privately owned but freely open to the public (retail customers)
Public place..sidewalk/street/park etc.
@@jamesmartin532 Publicly owned property/Privately owned property... It's really simple.
One other tip of you are using a long lens always be aware of what is just out of view of that lens. Other people won't know how narrow you view is.
One point which I believe should have been mentioned, is that of taking photographs of areas designated as Prohibited Places under the Official Secrets Act. As an ex-Ministry of Defence police officer and knowing of the vast array of properties that come under this umbrella, it is definitely a subject area to be avoided.
thanks for explaining these points, i,m not a film or video person but very much enjoyed the way you outlined all the do,s and dont,s Thumbs up
Do councils have " a right " to have cctv cameras above and facing my front door? I live in the foyer of a multi story flat. I dont have problem with cameras i have a problem with unscrupulous people in control of them
Councils can't actually install CCTV equipment without a genuine need for it, if you're concerned then there will be a publicly availible document explaining how the data will be stored and used.
At the outside of the door is the ' public' side. they are not allowed look in your windows: we used to have adjustable shrouds fitted on ptz cameras.
I'm not a lawyer, but worked in CCTV
@@steamboatwillie8517 how do you mean thay are "not allowed to look in your windows"? They still have that abillity if they want to. when i open my front door a camera can see in my house. Is that right?
I would argue that the hallway do your communal building is a public place, and that they would have a right to install CCTV, personally I would prefer them to do so, as this may actually help in the event my property was broken into.
@@almostanengineer i remember a time when one camera was enough. and in case you didnt see it you got a warning of its presence. Then we had multiple cameras from all angles Then they stopped giving " warnings". Now we have hidden street cameras because they realise it doesnt stop crime. Fuck me it doesnt even help to solve it in many cases.
Nice explanation. I can think of a few youtubers that should watch this a few times and have a good think about what they are doing.
Thank you very much for this video, I did wonder whether you would make it or not. May I have permission to use your intro to this video on my channel so I can help direct my subscribers to your video please ?
Brilliant. This update had to be done.
Im here before your channel :-)
Be careful, I asked permission to mirror this, and I linked his channel, said what a great thing he was doing, and what did he do... asked you tube to issue my tiny little channel with a copyright strike.. disgusting
Glad I stopped by and watched your video. Looking forward to many more. Subscribed !
Excellent info as usual. Common sense all the way. Respect BBB.
🙏
@@BlackBeltBarrister czcams.com/video/bCHEO477u44/video.html
I used to work as a photographer in London and the Police would always try and shake us down under “the terrorism act”. We learnt fast and quickly shut them down every time.
The other basic rule we new from the days of the PCC (Press Complaints Commission) was that “a private place is a public or private place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy”
That was the easiest was to know if we were keeping it on the right side of the law.
Interestingly during a vintage vehicle rally, out doors, I was taking short videos and photographs of the people and exhibits with both conventional cameras any the source of the conflict that occurred. A set of Google Glasses. I was challenged by an individual who objected to being, or rather the potential of being photographed or videoed by said device. I pointed out many of the people around us were photographing, and videoing with cameras, both still and video, with mobile phones and he had no problem with that, it only seemed he had a problem with my method, the Google Glasses, and I thought his stance was wrong and unreasonable.
People are weird and paranoid. He'll happily walk around town and be filmed by CCTV. It's just...strange.
Is a public place the same as public access? Because a shopping centre stops you from taking photos inside but it’s public access.
Section 33 of the Criminal Justice act 1972 defines what a public place is and what public access is too Alison B :)
No. Effectively a public space is the council opened open spaces. You enter owned places at the "licence" of the owner. They can limit you actions including photography. But the only action they can take is to trespass you from the property.
Photography is prohibited in many publicly accessible places eg museums. And illegal under local bylaws in many others eg libraries, airports.
In addition to harassment, indecency etc you could also stray into asbo laws or your behaviour could lead to detention for psychiatric assessment (Mental Health Act s136)
@@neilcampbell2222 Thankyou, that’s helped 👍
@@alisonb4898 yes public space is a little different to public access. Of course if a land owner wants to restrict you from a part of their land they have to put up a barrier or gate etc. So that if/when you do break through the gate or go over it, they have you for trespass. But just remember trespass is a civil matter and not a criminal matter. The Police have no powers to remove you. Look at all them activist that were in the tunnels trying to stop the tunnelling from happening. You have to get a court order to remove them.
So if you have public access to an area, then your public rights apply. I only know this because I encountered this at Covent Garden when they said I couldnt take picture of my friend because it was Private land. They tried to stop me but good old s33 Criminal Justice Act 1972 came into play. I mean in the end the Security manager knew I was allowed to shoot there and it was just a case of him having to tell the other security staff to know. All happy in the end. I mean come on people. Covent Garden is one of the great placed to visit, see and enjoy. Its a great backdrop for photographic images. Most of us just want to take photos for memories, for liking the area or just for the love of it and we are given that right to take images if we are in a public place. What seems to have arisen from this is how or what the images are being used for and thats where people seem to get all up about it. We're the most watched country in the world. Your images are being taken everyday, when you walk to the shops or on the streets. And yet when a photographer starts taking images of you in a public place, you think that they need your permission. When did you give your permission to the GOV or the Council to allow them to take your images.......(ok im going off the point a little)....
Imma leave it there lol
@@neilcampbell2222 The fact that one could be detained for psychiatric assessment for merely taking photographs shows what an abuse system psychiatry is.
While photography may not be banned in areas such as a public park, the use of tripods or other stands could be forbidden in local byelaws. However commercial photographers can usually apply for a licence to use the area. In this case it is advisable to alert the authorities that you will be operating there at a approximate time. Better to have cooperation from the authorities than harassment.
Finally the CZcams trolls will be put in their box 🤣🤣🤣
Really enjoying this channel
@@JoePublicUk it’s basically common sense but the police lack this.
@@JoePublicUk He is stating facts. Are you a barrister who is in a position to show specifically where in law he may be incorrect? Or are you just some self-entitled snowflake fuukwit who can't handle facts?
@@JoePublicUk yeah, what does he know, he's only an expert. Joe public knows better.
Hes a lawyer (liar)
I have heard instances of misguided police officers asking photographers to delete images - to which the response is if you ARE doing something illegal, then that would be destroying evidence.
EVERY police officer should be required to watch this video.
The majority of searches of "auditors" under s 43 are clearly illegal.
The police need to watch this, over the years I’ve had police officers break these laws more times than I can count despite me informing them accordingly. Also this law is being broken by Priti Patel serving none legal injunctions against photographers filming illegal immigrants coming into Dover in public places and yet not against journalists from the BBC and ITV. Superb channel and information keep this channel going 👍👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻❤️😀
I world be really interested to know the situation if a friend was recording me being searched or similar by the police
If it's in a public place, you can record police activity, as long as it doesn't obstruct/impede the process.
@@reggieperrin8415 but it can be used by you, or your friend, as evidence in a court case.
In all dealings with the police always remember that they are NOT your friend and anything they can get you to say WILL be used against if they possibly can.
Totally agree mate
You don't have to show the cops press credentials.
Marti Blagborough had his 'credentials' removed, so has none to show.
Sweet.
If you have a press card (as I do) and are working officially I usually show it. They leave me alone then.
I muchly enjoy your videos, always informative and of course based in Law
Notwithstanding, the freedom to film anyone and anything, from a Public Place cannot be unlawful in any circumstances, other than when the photograph / video is taken from a public place and viewing a specifically designated area concerning the Official Secrets Act. Thus everyone has the Right to take Videos / Photographs of active and armed Military Aircraft, arriving or leaving their base of operations. I refer specifically to RAF Lakenheath, a US Base, where specific parking is provided for enthusiasts.
Nobody at that base would seek to deter anyone filming Private Vehicles entering or leaving that base, so nor should anyone parking their private vehicle on Police Grounds expect any degree of privacy, over and above that of a motorist in any other place viewable from a Public Highway. I understand that owners of vehicles may not like it, for a variety of reasons, but is not Unlawful
There are a few airbases that have viewing stands for enthusiasts to take pictures of aircraft, this is basically the MOD giving you a right to film/photograph from that spot only, any other position around the base and you would fall foul of the law.
Now I see where you are coming from with you can film anything, but it isn't quite right, the way to look at it is "am I breaking any laws?", "am I infringing other peoples rights?" And look at it that way.
@@tonyb1223 Well said 👍
PINAC! x
The way coppers do that is by pulling the terrorism act from their ar... and questioning the photographer, reviewing the picture and even arresting photographer.
This is far too cautious. Photographers should stand up for their right to take pictures in a public place and not back down. They should not ask for permission when it is not required. They should not delete pictures, or even show them to interested parties. Fortunately, I still use film, so pictures cannot be shown or deleted!
Digital photos can be restored
Opening the back of an analogue camera will not delete the content?
@@Audit-The-Auditors the device in question is an electronic device
@@Audit-The-Auditors No: that is called criminal damage.
@@binarysignals9593 Did you miss this?:
Allen Williams
Fortunately, I still use film, so pictures cannot be shown or deleted.
While much is legal, too many just do this to see if they can force a viral moment by purposely antagonizing someone. It brings in views, new followers, and cash. And it's gross.
It's creepy to see a stranger filming you; public place or not.
2:05 Surely people have the right to ask you to delete the photos, using their free speech, but you don't have to do what they ask?
yeah exactly, slight misuse of language here. Not very reassuring for the rest of the stated facts.
Yes, they can ask for that, and they can ask for a copy, you are just not under any obligation to agree.
It seems that people have been watching too much American content. There is no "right to free speech" in the UK. I am not a lawyer, but I have no reason to think that the lawyer in the video misspoke.
What about neighbours security cameras filming their garden but your garden as well?
Thank you for this video the law has changed since the late sixties when I studied cine, video and photography as part of an Dip AD Art School. It was at the start of “the troubles” so rules on filming photography were stricter
and even a cheap camcorder can now have a x60 zoom...people just don't realise the spying possibilities this allows AND there's no way one can tell that zoom isn't being used to to spy on a private place from a public place ...it's not what your eye can see as the image is enhanced by the camera AND software at home ..............no memory sticks on a 60's film camera was there? , 18, 24 or 36 frames per film you had to take several pics of the same and hope they came back from Boots with a picture on - very often half your pics didn't turn out at all but you still had to pay for them.....there was certainly no recorded discourse with your 'victim'......now even the village idiots can create financial gain by taking thousands of hours of video all day long of anything and everything anywhere at anytime (apparently) cos it costs absolutely NOTHING....;.........as an aside have you EVER seen a frauditor take a STILL IMAGE PICTURE yet they always say they are "just taking some pictures for a story" ???
@@slapdashdumper Yep I remember the days you had to cross your fingers hoping the film was OK, the camera was ok anyway, the prints you wanted most were nearly reduced in qty. Found out it dependid on where you got your film from and what make, the price did make the difference too.
It is very difficult. It would ,or could lead to the banning of photographing in public in case someone is captured on the photo who does not want to be photographed. Dash cams would a problem as would street surveillance . These things ,including police would be exempt from prohibitions which would cause much ill feeling.There would be no history of street life.
The newspapers cry 'FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!!' and 'PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW!!' and 'No cpmmet? That sounds like an admission of guilt' or 'we'll make something up'
12:16 very interesting that the law considers photos, I.e. facts, taken by the public at incidents such as car accidents could interfere with an investigation or the course of justice. Hasn’t history shown us the opposite? The police and legal system are known for getting thing “wrong”, photos and video help catch them out and protect us from them lol
The 'obstruction' is not from taking photos, it is from getting in the way/disturbing evidence etc. Also, Police now routinely make appeals for photo/video/dashcam evidence from people who may have been in the area.
@@Renegade1127 lol the same police force (UK) that helped cover up decades of pedophiles in government and blamed their complete lack of action on the official secrets act? or the one responsible for the deaths of a hundred or so Liverpool fans, lying about it for twenty years over and over, found liable for the deaths and guilty of purgery that walked away without prosecution and with their pensions in tact? Or the one that has “lost” countless pieces of video evidence resulting in guilty parties walking free, despite eye witness testimonies, because the defence could argue that the video evidence would have proven innocence etc.?
If a fact about an incident that is not known to the general public but is known to the perpetrator and the police was photographed and published then it could not be used to convict the perpetrator if they admitted they knew it ...
@@davidioanhedges What? Can you explain, because what you wrote doesn't make sense for me.
Exactly what I think
@BlackBeltBarrister could you please make a full video for us videographers and photographers, special those having dealings in the wedding industry on everything we need to know in 2022 legally, such as rights and contracts?