Photographing people in the UK

[michaelging]

<p>Not the best time to be a photographer, in any country. </p>

<p>http://www.copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public?page=1</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Wow...just...wow. Chilling and outrageous. </p>

[alec_myers]

<p>Well, it would be, if it were true. I presume the thread title refers to what the page linked to discusses about the new code that's up for discussion from the Information Commissioner's Office. The actual code - all 27 pages of it - doesn't mention the word photograph at all, not even once. I really don't understand how the author can even remotely justify this statement:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The<a title="ICO draft code for online personal information" href="http://ico-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/cop/pio?pointId=1061680#document-1061680" target="_blank"> Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) proposed new code for personal information online</a> has "commonsense" new rules that in effect will prohibit photography in public places where anyone who's in the photograph might be unhappy about being photographed. A photo, taken in public, is now deemed private data, y'see.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A photo is now deemed private data? It is no more deemed private data, if this code is adopted, than it is already, (y'see).</p>

[vcakic]

<p>Sure, not the best times for photographers... I don't know what is going on in the UK, but it's not good. In the last year, UK govt has been coming down hard on any kind of street photography and if it catches on and spreads onto Europe, I believe it will permanently damage our freedom.<br>

To tell you the truth, if I was going to UK right now, I would not bring my camera with me! That means also that I wouldn't enjoy myself as much - how many tourists will feel the same?!<br>

On the orphan photo topic: it's a legalised stealing. A publisher who used "orphan work" can always say that they tried to find the author ... can you prove they didn't?</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>Astoundingly, it's the EU that is now defending the British public's rights against Gordo's Stalinist regime. It was the EU who said that the stop and search of photographers under the anti terror laws was inappropriate.<br>

Fortunately, Gordo is going to be losing his job in May.</p>

[sd_woods]

<p>Don't worry, maybe Dave and his gang of sensible snobs will do a better job</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Time for the Photographer's Rights party to run a few candidates for office maybe? They might get more votes than the usual Monster Raving Loony party candidates do.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party</p>

[keith selmes]

<blockquote>

<p>UK govt has been coming down hard on any kind of street photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No really. A few Police officers have misused anti terrorism laws, or simply made mistakes due to a lack of training. There have been some problems with private security guards in areas which people believe to be public property when it isn't - some shopping streets for example. Some photographers have had problems because they simply have behaved stupidly.<br>

On the whole there have been a number of well publicised incidents, but most people are not having any trouble, and to say the government is coming down hard is something of an overstatement.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and if it catches on and spreads onto Europe,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My understanding is that things are more difficult in France because of the privacy laws, and in Germany because you have to be formally qualified before you can practice as a professional phootgrapher. I don't know about any other countries, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are trade offs like that in most places.</p>

[keith selmes]

<blockquote>

<p>Astoundingly, it's the EU that is now defending the British public's rights</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually I don't think its unusal if the EU is trying to give the British more rights than their own governemnt wants them to have. What might be unusual is if the British government can't find an opt out clause and get away with it.</p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p><strong><em>People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>- V </em></strong><br>

<em><strong>V for Vendetta 2005</strong></em></p>

<p>To think England was the anchor that stop Europe sliding into madness in the 1940's.<br>

What happened to those ideals?</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>UK govt has been coming down hard on any kind of street photography</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>No really. A few Police officers have misused anti terrorism laws, or simply made mistakes due to a lack of training.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. There are no laws in the UK which prohibit photography in public, just a few cases of over-zealous or ill advised police officer abusing the existing laws.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>The date for next General Election is probably May 6th 2010 - about 2.5 months away. If you look at the progress of the bill through the House of Lords/ Lords Committees/Commons/ Commons committees etc it looks unlikely to gain Royal Assent before the election. The question then is who wins and will they carry it on? If the conservatives win it is likely any labour legislation will get the chop and they will start again</p>

<p>Here is the parliamentary schedule for the bill :</p>

<p><a href="http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html">http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html</a></p>

[colin carron]

<p>

<p>The public consent bit looks to be aimed at papparazzi though these things do tend to spread. It is not aimed at amateur photographers and indeed I can't see it working for tourist locations where a thousand cameras and phones are simultaneously taking shots of each other. More for preventing harassment of celebrities in public places which I think may bring us more into line with the situation in France at the moment.</p>

</p>

<p>If you look at the orphan works bit it seems to be taking a de facto approach to images on the net - that they are public domain. This seems to me to be legislating to regularise what happens all the time. If you do not want your images on the net to be public domain then only post low resolution and / or watermark them.</p>

<p>So after careful reading it doesn't look to me like the sky is going to fall after all though the application of the Terrorism Acts by a few over-zealous UK policeman has given a foretaste of how it might be applied if we are not careful.</p>

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>The public consent bit.... </p>

<p>Find me anything in the ICO Code that refers to public consent, please?</p>

</blockquote>

[bluphoto]

<p>"This is all overhyped rubbish that will never actually restrict us in pratice, and certainly won't affect my freedom of taking images in my local city (Aberdeen, North East Scotland)."<br>

This is what I thought, until last Thursday night when I was amazed to discover that photographers are targeted by the authorities EVEN WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR CAMERA WITH THEM!<br>

As an active member of a local photographic club I was leaving one of our weekly meetings when I received a phone call from another member, who had left about twenty minutes earlier. He sounded a little upset and asked if I could wait for him outside the club.<br>

What transpired next astounded me completely.<br>

In summary, a Police van pulled up and out got my friend from the back. The police officer asked me if my colleague was a member of the club, and then suggested that we can't be too careful with all the suspicious, potentially terrorist activity around the country. My colleague is of Indian descent, and was apparently miding his own business walking home after the club meeting when he'd been stopped and questioned. He had mentioned that he was on his way home from the camera club and they wanted him to prove it!<br>

The police officed then proceeded to ask ME if any of our club members had been out takign photographs that evening. I explained that we have around 70 members and only thirty or so were at the meeting so it was quite conceivable. I was asked if our members regularly took pictures in the city, as someone had (allegedly) reported seeing a person taking photographs... By this time I'm getting more and more confused!<br>

The police had put two and two together and come up with about twenty-three, in assuming that my colleague was the "perp" (though he didn't actually have his camera with him!?! Just admitted that he was coming from a camera club meeting).<br>

They offered to give him a lift home, though I suggested to them that he may be more comfortable coming with me.<br>

So I'm now joining the ranks of the enlightened. What is the world coming to?</p>

<p>Guy</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>Bizarre post. I think I'd be more concerned about removing copyright (what the article is actually about) in he UK than the unrealsitc chance of stopping photos being taken the street.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The end game is now in sight. <a title="Digital Economy Bill" href="http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/digitaleconomy.html" target="_blank" title="Digital Economy Bill" >The Digital Economy Bill</a> is now expected to become law within the next 6 weeks. It introduces orphan works usage rights, which - unless amended, which HMG says it will not - will allow the commercial use of any photograph whose author cannot be identified through a suitably negligent search. That is potentially about 90% of the photos on the internet.<br>

Copyright in photos is essentially going to cease to exist, since there is no ineradicable way of associating ownership details short of plastering your name right across the image.</p>

</blockquote>

[walter_strong5]

<p>Ralph Berret wrot: "To think England was the anchor that stop Europe sliding into madness in the 1940's.<br />What happened to those ideals?"</p>

<p>Actually, it was England and its proclivity for secret arrangements that lead to the tragedies that we now call WWI and WWII. </p>

[colin carron]

<p>Hey Walter, really? and all this time I had thought it was all to do with Kaiser Wilhelm and that other bloke Adolf something. Thanks for putting me straight on that.</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>Adam and Eve, apple was bit, along came some people, and that led to WWI.</p>