Filming rights in the UK
 

Not sure where to put this but I have written a blog about what I know. Please read it!!

Philip Bloom Blog Archive Filming in Public Places

Hi Philip
Interesting blog piece... and oh! how different from working in Paris..where basically you can't shoot many public monuments even from public areas and any one can sue you for taking their picture without permission...
Many Psuedo stars make more money from suing celeb mags than from their debatable talent...

cheers
Gareth

Nice story Phil
What is a community support officer?
I never had trouble filming in Montreal, only time I met the police was in Francophone Summit in Quebec city last fall. Lots of president,delegates,and police from all over Canada.
I had a lot of security check,(interview with guys in raincoat and high ranking officers),ID control,questions on myself, my cameras and laptop and the purpose of my work.
They did not understand that an amateur could do a film for fun.

They were very polite, but surprised that my Sony A1u could see in the dark the police helicopters (nightshot mode). After the 6th check and watching my youtube channel they gave me ”carte blanche” and even encourage me to continue my nice work!
I was only(firmly) asked not to zoom in on the policeman(their faces or name tag).

Next time I will try the British accent.

Community support officers are civilians who support the police by taking on some of the more mundane work. They get a portion of the training that full police officers get. The idea is to release the more highly trained police officers for the more challenging tasks, and also to provide an apparent increase in resources at a more moderate cost.

They're a political issue. A lot of people object to giving police powers to partly trained civilians (and Phil's post shows why), especially because, in Britain, many rights and responsibilities are '' rather than being formally documented. Other people say that releasing the police to do their 'proper' job is a good idea.

There' a major issue over here about photography in public places generally. Some police (and CSOs) are taking a very heavy handed line, using various issues (terrorism, paedophiles) as reasons. One pro photographer was challenged for shooting the annual Christmas lights switch in his home town.

Guidance has been revised to stop some of the excesses, but as Phil shows, it's not always enough.

And on this subject:

BBC NEWS | dot.life | A blog about technology from BBC News | My YouTube shame - part two

very nice blog! I filmed in India this winter and had an interesting experience: while I was shooting guerilla style on the streets in Bangalore with my cinesaddle another team from Belgian TV set up sticks and props and what not with a big Sony and I watched as 2 police officers immediately came to see permissions, which were produced and shown. After reading the permission for some minutes they walked over to me, looked at my HVX 201, propped on the cinesaddle and said " nice idea" and walked off....

Nice blog Phil!

I've often wondered where the gray areas were, and now I have some sort of idea. I did not know that you could film a private place from a public road - hey now I know.

thank you Nick
for explaining what is a cummunity support officer.
The equivalent in Montreal are Police Cadet, 18 years old student of police college who have a summer job of playing police and do security jobs.

thank you Nick
for explaining what is a cummunity support officer.
The equivalent in Montreal are Police Cadet, 18 years old student of police college who have a summer job of playing police and do security jobs.

Thanks for that info Phil I am sure there are a lot of people who can benefit from this sort of information especially if they print off the info and carry it around in their camera bag.

Best regards Alan

Phil, there is another thread where you posted a link to a guide someone had written about photography in public (i believe the guide is a couple years old). It was a great little piece, and you mentioned that you would fold it up and carry it in your pocket. I've searched everywhere and I can't find the thread. Many thanks.

JS

not the blog with the thing to print out and cut out at the top of this thread?

no this piece was a bit longer, maybe a full page. I think it may have been about photographer's rights?

My apologies Phil! It was actually a thread where people where speaking OF you, not actually a thread that you started. I found the link: Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page.

Thankyou for your time though! Love your work.

JS

Nice blog piece, and more or less directly applicable with respect to the law in the U.S., as well.

My two favorite bits:

"Because I am sure if you were a terrorist doing a recce you would take your ex3 and 35mm adaptor or RED and take some nice shots of the places with shallow depth of field and film in overcrank."

"I don’t know what the law is in other countries, certainly if someone has a gun and asks me to stop filming I generally do."

Can't argue with that! ;)

If you did, you might get to see the gun a whole lot closer...

"Is that a REAL pearl handle?"

I though this story made it worth bumping the thread. I know the story concerns stills photography, but it clearly applies to videographers too.

Guardian (UK) story:

The war on street photography | Henry Porter | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Photographer's blog (story in his own words):

monaxle : blog

This is something I have said before on other occasions in other forums:

"Terrorists I can handle. What really scares me is an attack of the stupids."

Andrew

This is quite shocking.

It makes me wonder where we are heading in the UK.

I know this is an old thread, but I thought it was worth posting these recent developments.

This issue finally got some mainstream attention when a BBC photographer was challenged for taking pictures of St Paul's Cathedral in London. The BBC, the Independent newspaper and the Daily Telegraph newspaper took up the cudgels, with this results:

Police U-turn on photographers and anti-terror laws - Home News, UK - The Independent

There's a comment here from the head of the Association of Chief Police Offices in the UK:

Andy Trotter: The threat is real, but police must show common sense - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent

For anyone interest, here are yesterdays stories from the Independent:

Warning: Do not take this picture - Home News, UK - The Independent

and the Telegraph

Police 'misusing anti-terrorism powers to stop tourists taking photos' - Telegraph

Hope this is useful to anyone who comes up against the problem

Thanks Nick. More "ammunition" (to print off and put in the camera bag and potentially pull out) for the next time I get challenged...

Student arrested and jailed for filming
 

Unfortunately, it seems the guidance from the UK top brass isn't being put into practice
Italian student tells of arrest while filming for fun | UK news | The Guardian

Seems to me she may have been a bit "mouthy" told contradicting stories and generally came across as a bit suspicious. I'm not defending police brutality but there's often two sides to any story.

Maybe I've had too many years of dealing with cheeky youngsters, but after watching her film of the event, I have to say I would have arrested her too. Here we have a fine example of how NOT to deal with authority.

The only bit she forgot to say was "You people should be out catching criminals and not harassing innocent citizens." I don't think it was worth an £80 fine though - that seems a bit much.

The fine is an abuse, unless we think fining kids for cheek is acceptable.

I just don't get the view that says that, if I'm stopped and challenged for *no sensible reason*, it's up to me to kowtow to the police and their auxiliaries. The legislation is supposedly there to protect people like me (and this cheeky kid) from terrorists , not as a pretext for unwarranted stop and search, with punishment if you don't grovel.

When I was a kid we wouldn't have dreamed of being cheeky to any adult, let alone a policeman. Our ears would be ringing for a week. It makes me cringe when I hear the verbal abuse that the police have to take from very young kids. Good manners and respect seem to be fast disappearing from our planet. How far away are we from total anarchy?

I can't speak for UK law but in all of the various jurisdictions where I have lived in North America, you are required to provide identification on demand to any law enforcment officer who requests it. It is not "kowtowing" to be cooperative and not furtive or confrontational. The men and women who daily put their lives on the line to protect the community from chaos are not the enemy.

In Britain, the police are required to have reasonable grounds for what they call "challenge and account". In other words, they have to be able to show that, in the circumstances, a reasonable person might have grounds to believe that a crime was being committed or that there was an imminent likelihood thereof. As stated by the head of our Association of Chief Police Officers in the letter I linked to earlier, taking pictures does not constitute reasonable grounds.

Some of the police (and their auxiliaries) are using the powers of Section 44 of the anti-terrorism legislation as a pretext for ignoring the requirement above. That's why this issue is arising in the first place. Numerous documented examples include

- 2 cases of photographers being arrested for photographing Christmas lights in their home towns,
- one of a BBC photographer being cautioned by armed police for photographing a sunset of the River Thames,
- a wedding photographer arrested and her pictures confiscated for photographing a wedding (I kid you not)

and many others.

This is a serious issue in Britain and needs urgent attention. The head of ACPO, speaking for the most senior figures in the Police Force, has stated quite clearly that this behaviour on the part of the police is not acceptable, nor intended, nor appropriate use of police time and resources.

Balanced against that, a bit of lip from a kid doesn't signify - not to me, anyway. I mean, if the police can't take a bit of backchat in their stride, how are they going to deal with a real threat?

Yes, the police have a tough time; yes, it's a tough job. But that's not licence to play free and easy with the law.

I would be willing to bet if her response to their question would have been "I'm an art student at XXX school photographing these buildings for an architecture project" and had produced student ID that corroborated her statement that she was a student, nothing further would have happened. The cop's enquiry wasn't out of line, her response was.

And she had been cycling down a one-way street the wrong way! What's a typical fine in New York for jaywalking? It would probably a mandatory death penalty for such a cycling offence. :)

You might be right, but the case of the wedding photographer and the BBC photographer seem to suggest differently.

Fairly recently I was taking a quick family photograph (relatives about to fly abroad) at a UK airport and was asked respectfully by a plain clothes security officer (who showed me his ID) to stop. I did so immediately and offered to show him the photo or delete it but he said neither would be necessary but I should be aware of the sensitivity of the situation and advised that it would be better to ask for permission if using cameras in an airport in future.

A different situation here obviously as I was clearly in the wrong, but the point I am trying to make is that I responded appropriately and the situation was not escalated. Two mature adults communicating in a sensible manner kept it all low key. I still have the photo (and my Canon digital SLR for that matter).

Hang on a moment! You were not in the wrong in taking photos of your family at an airport. The guy in the wrong was the security officer as however respectfully he may have asked you he had no right to ask you to stop.

That is exactly the point being made in previous posts in this thread. In Britain taking pictures has long been banned in three areas of airports: the security check, passport control and customs & there are notices reminding people of that ban. There is however no ban anywhere else either in the terminal building or outside & until there is over-zealous security officers (who are not even policemen) have no right to prevent you taking innocent family photos.

From the newspaper article it would seem that the police dealing with the BBC photographer were community support officers, rather than "real" police officers. Having dealt with police and army in real terrorist situations usually they usually just want ID, of course you always get the job worths - often the self appointed.

On the streets of London if the officer gets more that just friendly curious and gets really over bearing you could always request their number, which promises a lot of paperwork for them. Although, I suspect the attitude test usually will sort things on most occasions, however, London seems to a bit of a mine field re what is public and which is private land.

You can get a press pass that will cover you for basic video shooting through the NUJ or BECTU, the latter has an extremely good third party insurance scheme which, with membership fees, actually works out cheaper than buying insurance on your own.

While the recent clarification on taking photos is welcome, it should be remembered that airports are not public spaces, they are private. So just like when you go to the theatre and they say no photos, an airport is just as entitled to put whatever restrictions they like on what we, the public, can or cannot do in their building. I've got a press card, and although it's certainly useful to get access to some 'private' areas, it's by no means a certainty!

Yes, private property is with the permission of the owners. Airports can introduce problems, although if anyone wanted to take recce photos they could do so easily with a concealed camera anyway. We've done this with an Aaton film camera (not in an airport I should add), so a modern digital camera should be easy for anyone with bad plans afoot.

If they don't want you to take photos in the airport they should put up signs saying so. They do in the areas where photography is specifically banned ergo there is no ban elsewhere whatever some security jobsworth may think.

I agree that airports, railway stations etc should allow personal "going away" type photographs, but if they do have a problem they should put up signs as in the security areas. By only having these signs in those areas the reasonable assumption is that family snaps are OK in the public areas.

The issue here is taking pics and video in public places, which is a popular and harmless leisure activity and has been for getting for a century. For most of that time, the only restrictions were around private property and obstruction and we all did very nicely thank you.

Now we're expected to be happy justifying ourselves in participating in this activity. I'm not a pro, so I can't get an NUJ ticket. I'm just a guy who goes around taking pics and shooting vid for fun - mine and my friends'. If I'm breaking the law, or looking to a reasonable person as if I'm going to, I have no objection to being challenged.

But I object vehemently, and will continue to do so, to the idea that I can be challenged for the simple act of photography. It's not illegal. It's not anti-social. It's not a threat. Even the police say that.

Remember those plane-spotters inGreece a few years back? Oh how we raged at the arbitrary and unacceptable nature of a country that arrested innocent holidaymakers for indulging their hobby.

We can't change people's rights just because we don't think our breaking of their rule is fair?

Imagine turning up at a wedding with a proper video camera and shooting the same source material as the proper video person, or the same with stills. Going to watch WCW (or whatever it's now called) and taking pics. My son went to the recent wrestling in Sheffield and took my camera, he was challenged plenty of times and ended up taking covert pictures when nobody was watching him - yet 50,000 snappy snapper were fine. If you have obviously expensive professional style kit, then even if an amateur, it's very understandable why people want to check you out. If you are in an airport, they have official photographers, and maybe the deal is that they get protection of their work?

There's a difference between pubic and private. Airports, concert halls, wrestling arenas, cinemas, theatres are private, and the owners/managers can make their own rules as they choose. But those rules *do not* have the force of law, and breaking them is not a criminal offence.

My concern is with *public* areas, like the public highway, where proprietary rules don't apply, and where photographers/videographers *are being told by the police and their auxiliaries that taking pics/shooting video *is* a criminal offence*