Photographers rights

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sun 08 Jan, 2012 4:45 pm

To be honest, both sides need to exercise a degree of common sense.There are several clips online of photographers having run ins with plod and I have to say that in some of them a degree of rational behaviour (on both sides) could have avoided a whole heap of nastiness. There is at least one that I've seen where it appears that the photographer is doing everything he can to provoke a response.The sad thing is that lots of coppers are used to dealing with what is frankly scum of the earth most of the time, all of whom know "their rights" and use them as an excuse or a shield. If said copper is faced with a ranting martyr demanding to know what law is being used and shouting / screaming at them then they are going to fall back to their default position of dominating the situation - which means that things can escalate pretty rapidly.I'm not excusing what has happened and certainly people in authority need to be better educated into what is / isn't allowed, but sometimes people just don't help themselves.

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Thu 09 Feb, 2012 8:38 pm

West Yorkshire's finest in action, ridding the streets of "terrorists" with cameras:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sX2afvThhQOh dear, oh dear. Engage brain before opening mouth?

jdbythesea · Post by **jdbythesea** » Thu 09 Feb, 2012 9:07 pm

raveydavey wrote: West Yorkshire's finest in action, ridding the streets of "terrorists" with cameras:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sX2afvThhQOh dear, oh dear. Engage brain before opening mouth? Davey, on the evidence of this footage and other clips I've seen, it occurs to me that many photographers know the law much better than the police do.Whilst I find that worrying, at the same time I don't find it surprising. However, in view of the arrogance and intimidation shown here it is as well that photographers - both professional and amateur - know their rights as well as their responsibilities. At least the male officer, despite his other shortcomings, remained fairly courteous (by police standards that is).JD -

Post by **chameleon** » Fri 10 Feb, 2012 11:49 am

raveydavey wrote: West Yorkshire's finest in action, ridding the streets of "terrorists" with cameras:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sX2afvThhQOh dear, oh dear. Engage brain before opening mouth? This is the YEP article on the matter. The last paragraph is definitive, just a shame that such ignorance from a few (I don't tar all with the same brush) of those we rely on for support brought it about.Published on Thursday 9 February 2012 08:52 A video of a Leeds PCSO falsely accusing an animal rights activist of being connected to terrorism has become an overnight hit on YouTube.The film, recorded by campaigner Ali Firth outside Bramley pet supermarket Dogs 4 Us, has been viewed 5,000 times.The star of the show is a police community support officer, who tells a bemused Ms Firth he can confiscate her camera under the Terrorism Act 2000.When asked to elaborate he said the 49-year-old was with a group that is “connected to known terrorists”.He refused to explain anymore due to “data protection”.Prior to this a policewoman had told Ms Firth to stop filming, but she had refused on the grounds she was on public property and not breaking the law.Once a month protesters gather outside the pet store. They argue puppies should be picked up from animal rescue shelters, not breeders.Ms Firth, who travelled from Lincolnshire, told the YEP she was “upset” by the PCSO’s accusation on Sunday, January 29.She said: “I was filming the Dogs 4 Us building.“I didn’t want to film the officers but they walked in front of me and then started telling me to stop recording.“I have never heard anything like this in the 30 years as an animal activist.“Never have I been called a terrorist. It’s ridiculous.”An official complaint has been logged with West Yorkshire Police’s Inspector Mark Wheeler, who Ms Firth said had since rung her to apologise.A West Yorkshire Police spokesman said a letter of apology was being issued.He added: “We have looked into the circumstances of this incident and have spoken to the officers involved. It is important to note no camera or footage was confiscated.“West Yorkshire Police has an excellent track record of facilitating peaceful protest, balancing the rights of protestors with those of private individuals and businesses.”Members of the public do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places. Police have no power to stop them – unless there is a terrorist threat.

Jogon · Post by **Jogon** » Fri 10 Feb, 2012 12:23 pm

Lady with camera not helping 'local interest' picture takers, she was on a par with the police women for 'chippy-ness'. Young Police lad was just trying to help.

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Fri 10 Feb, 2012 1:32 pm

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It all boils down to the human traits of pride and ego. No amount of Police training can legislate for that. Quite simply some people will argue to get their own way, and will continue to argue even if they know they are in the wrong. They get to a point where they have to save face at all costs, and they will even make themselves look such a fool and push themselves into the tightest corner doing so.Growing increasingly frustrated at the desperate situation they are in, they will start to loose their temper, become irritated by grabbing cameras, pushing people and threatening them with arrest on any charge they think they can make sound plausible.

Post by **chameleon** » Fri 10 Feb, 2012 2:41 pm

Jogon wrote: Lady with camera not helping 'local interest' picture takers, she was on a par with the police women for 'chippy-ness'. Young Police lad was just trying to help. Not entering into a debate on the matter but the 'young lad's' superiors response indicates a demonstrable training need for him in this area and seems to confirm he was far from being helpful. Opinions on this may differ but most here will concur.end.

dyema43 · Post by **dyema43** » Mon 20 Feb, 2012 6:03 am

I feel for those people who get mad when their pictures are taken on some spots and they really hold some right to their privacy but being in a public place means that you should uphold yourself and put your best behavior out because you have all sorts of people looking at you.I don't like those few though that implements rules that no photography are allowed even if they are considered to be a public place.

Jogon · Post by **Jogon** » Mon 20 Feb, 2012 11:04 pm

Did some shots of the Hollies last week then down to Headingley. Lens cap on, camera switched off, on neck strap. Couldn't leave it on the bike.Popped into Wilkinsons at Arndale to look for some stuff. Watched like a hawk as I browsed. The agitated manager chap could contain himself no more and asked what I was doing etc, and that " photographs were prohibited unless by prior appointment and authorisation etc".I reassured him.