Photography tips - UK laws and your rights
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- Find out what you can and can't take photos of in the UK in this exclusive Practical Photography guide. Watch Tim take to the streets of London to see how people react to photographers, and get the official lowdown from Inspector Malcolm Graham from the Cambridgeshire Constabulary.
--
Practical Photography is the world's biggest and best magazine for photographers who want to improve their camera and editing skills.
Download a FREE digital issue for your iPad or Android device. Simply install the Practical Photography app in the Apple App Store or Google Play Store (links below). Once in the app, select the ‘Vouchers’ option from the top left-hand menu and enter code PP6614.
Apple App Store - app.adjust.com...
Google Play Store - play.google.co...
You can buy single print and/or digital issues and subscriptions at www.greatmagaz...
Follow us:
practicalphoto...
/ practicalphotographyma...
/ practicalphotography
/ practphoto
Ironically, the photographer being told he isn't allowed to record images of people and buildings in a public place is being told this because security spotted him on the CCTV camera that was recording images of the photographer, people and buildings in a public place.
Tut tut adrian, how rude of you to notice this. You should know by now that big companies do their own thing!
@Adrian Patrick: Very good point.
Love it,, you genius!!
Indeed - if the office has recorded you on CCTV and you were in a public place then you could ask for them to declare their intended use of the images as part of the GDPR legislation.
Wouldn't they have to have his written permission to be filmed and have a waiver signed by him to film? There rules
You can never be over protective of your rights. Rights are hard won and easily lost. If people fail to stand up for their rights we will all see those rights eroded and eventually lost altogether. That's the unfortunate truth.
ttblade Yes, great comment by you!
ttblade yes, the right to film shops/banks with security is paramount and very important.
Sketch Book all of our rights are important. And we don't have e a right to film shops and buildings we have a right to record in public which means by necessity we have the right to record buildings that are in public. That said rights are a foggy concept in the UK and frankly we need a Constitution which I would argue should not be unlike the US Constitution
The US constitution and laws are based on the UK constitution (we have one but unlike the American one it's not a single document with amendments) and English common law.
"Rights are hard won and easily lost" nicely put
The irony of the city which has more surveillance cameras than just about anywhere else, but has a problem with street photography. 🤔
And knife crime..
Yes but the street cameras don't put it on RUclips
@@jackwatsonepic626 so what mate. You're in a public place you can be put on internet, news paper or you could find yourself on National or International TV and they don't have to blue your face but they may since it's just like a decency thing also infact CCTV have caught a lot of embarrassing stuff
Ive seen a lot of fail type of videos where someone caught it on CCTV and uploaded it to RUclips because it's funny or just a cool crash witnessed
Simplicity of common sence is lost by the police. They will make any excuse to shove control down you throat.
@@jackwatsonepic626 where do they put the data?
Last year in London taking photos with my old Praktika PLC2 35-mm film camera, they asked me to delete my photos. I showed the camera from all angles, and asked "How"? The look of bewilderment on the young security guards faces was priceless!
Should have asked him why and if broke any laws the tell him to get bent! dont forget to take his picture!
Even if you did break a law, pretty sure a security guard can’t make you delete photos
@@jamiegladwin Correct, it needs a court order.
In which case it would probably be the Police doing the telling/asking/enforcing.
Is it against the law?
No.
Conversation over.
EXACTLY
Exactly mate
@frankos rooni photography in public alone can’t be classed as suspicious because it’s legal it’s actually written in the legislation.
@frankos rooni yes, it is that simple, terror threat is bullshit. You need something else other than taking photos for reasonable suspicion. But keep believing everything your told like the good little droid you are.
@James Burton you must hate CCTV everywhere watching your every move daily ?
It seems many Security guards dont know the law...
It's not about them it's the managers getting them to go out. If they don't listen they can easily be replaced with a simple phone call.
@Tommy Dunne exactly risk your life get knocked on the head for what $8.20 and spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair slavering I don't think so like I'd rather sit at home and watch this on RUclips
Not the most intelligent people. Wanted to be policmen but failed the IQ test. Now just jumped up little Hitlers with a massive chip on the shoulder.
None of them know the law - but they don't have to because they are just private citizens working for private companies in dead-end jobs. They have absolutely no power whatsoever. The Police in these situations don't have any power either.
How much of the law do you think a security person should know.They do at most a 1 week course and 2 days of that are H and S .. They are concerned mostly with the Security of the premises but you just know some manager is gonna send them out to ask you what you're at.
"You can do all sorts of perfectly legal things. We'll just harass you for it. Cuz freedom."
"I won't be long mate, I'm just doing a project on the amount of explosives required to blow in the front of this building and assessing structural weak points".
Richard Du Plessis google street view...
@@eddiegremlin a shortcut.
Hahahahaha
Can't you just go and see blueprints at town hall?
Now that's comedy
That was going so well as a video until two things happened. 1. Taking photos of a military site from a public area is no different than any other site the Official Secrets Act doesn’t change its authority. If it can be seen from public then it’s not secret. 2. The end if someone asks you to delete photos then you probably should....utter bollocks. I decide what I keep and delete not anyone else unless they have a court order.
A cop talking crap as always. There is no prohibition to photographing army bases.
Listen carefully, he said "shall we say, military...". It's clearly a euphemism.
Everyone is worried about terrorism in this day and age says Plod, well they weren’t worried about photography back in the day when the IRA frequently operated. I wonder why he didn’t know that?, too young?, ignorant?, answers on a postcard please. Oh and we had less CCTV public surveillance.
Think you're just being overly contrary here, don't undermine your legitimacy.
He is clearly referring to:
Section 1 of the Secrecy Act.
If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State-
(a)approaches, [F1inspects, passes over] or is in the neighbourhood of, or enters any prohibited place within the meaning of this Act; or
(b)makes any sketch, plan, model(this includes photographs), or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy...they shall be guilty of felony
@frankos rooni you better hope it the police and not armed guard come at you we dont have the same powers of the police and if you dont obay our direct request from us we can shoot you under the rules for a jsp 358 autherisation.so dont fuck with us we are not fannis in uniform with half an idear we propper trainned we learn more in 6 weeks than the police force gets in two years.as for the plastic goose stepping swines you can fuck with them with our blessing as much as you like .they only attack soldiers playing bag pipes in mass numbers on rememberence sunday's
@@Thesrin thats right he dont have to be giulty just in posession of anything that might be used by others people die in our job if we lax on this .
Very well done to the police inspector for taking time to explain matters
soulbrother61
A step further it would be great if there was a recommended section of legalese for us to print out and carry ( to show when challenged ), or a direct Internet Web link to an official gov website or page showing the law as it stands, so that there can be NO DOUBT as to the legal position in any given photographic situation.
@@RawTopShot There is. Check out this PDF that you can print off: s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful2/photographersrights_UK.pdf
...funny how people *assume* police officers are expert at explaining or interpreting the law. There is more than ample evidence this is not the case.
Sean Wilson is this poster out of date?
S44 has been repealed!!
They can’t stop and search you without suspicion just because you’re in a sensitive place, surely.
They need to have suspicion of a crime.
Incorrectly
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Give a man a fishing rod and you feed him for life.
Give a man a machete and he want's to be chief.
Give a man an AK47 and he want's to be president.
Give a man a two-way radio and he want's his arse kicked.
Briliant :)
"want's"? That makes no sense in the English language.
Peter Foster go away peter.
Give a man fire he'll be warm for a night, set him on fire he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
Give a man a camera and apparently he becomes a terrorist
I was approached by a Police Officer when taking pictures. He just wanted to advise I beware the locals mugging me.
Those 'local' Somalis.🤣
"Is it against the law?"
"No but..."
"Then I guess this is settled."
No, that constable is not a lawyer, his knowledge of law is limited to police training most likely which is very basic.
There are no police. These uniformed officers are in fact private security to a service corporation who prefer to be addressed as government. All law practiced in the UK are in fact UNLAWFUL. The Bar practices Admiralty law, only applicable at sea. Common law supersede any law on the land.
@@Marty651711 clown 🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤡
"Everyone is worried about terrorism" - When was the last terrorist attack that involved a camera. Seems most involve a knife and a religion.
Playing devil's advocate for a second if it was an important location such as a bank, or high foot traffic building then photographs could be used to plan some sort of attack. That said taking pictures from one place or several of the FRONT of a building is not really suspicious at least in my opinion just my 2 cents
@@AlphaTurtleAli You can just walk along with a go pro and get epic quality footage of any building, and you'd not even be noticed.
@@NFawc this is true, im not saying I agree with them stopping them as I said I was just playing devils advocate. I agree that if you where going to do what I mentioned you would do it in a way that well isn't brutally obvious
Neil bit racist pal no? 😂
Neil we know who your talking about.
In these Orwellian times, carrying a camera is a subversive act.
Beautiful
Baruch Cohen too much think. The thought police have been informed.
Baruch Cohen
So, just about everyone with a modern smartphone 😁
@@RawTopShot That is an interesting point. I think when they see someone using a cellphone they dismiss it as innocent playing around. But if someone has an actual camera in their hands, they consider it nefarious.
I've been an avid photographer for many years now and I've seen the changes in people when they see someone taking photos; I was out one day last winter carrying my old canon A1 (film camera) I passed two young lads around 13/14yrs old and once they'd got a fair distance from me, they shouted "Fuckin Pedo, Kiddie feeler" just for carrying a camera!? In the 70's and 80's I took lots of photos of kids playing on swings, roundabouts and so forth and the parents even asked if they could have some prints, to which I always obliged, it was never even thought of as being something sinister, but today people are brainwashed and paranoid, which to me at least has taken the magic out of photography. There's an innocense and raw truth in the faces of young kids as they explore the world, after all, we were all kids once.
There is no specific law against taking pics of kids.
Steven Yates bjjnkjk:-|:-\:-\🙂🏚️🏚️🏘️🏘️🏜️🏚️🏚️🏘️🏚️🏘️🏜️🏘️🦌🦌🐮🏘️🏜️🏘️🏘️🥕🥔🍓🥔🥔🍓🥔🍓🏘️🏚️🕌🕍🥕🥔🏘️🏘️🏚️🥔🥔🍓🥔🥔🥕🥕🥔🥔🍓🥕🕍🏘️🥔🏜️🏘️🍓🥔🐅🦌🦌🐅🦌🥔🥔🥔🥔🏘️🍓🥔🥔🏘️🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🥔🍓🍕🍕🌭🦌🥕🍓🏘️🕌🕌🥔🍓🥔🥔🥔🚂🚃🚃🚂🏘️🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🏘️🏘️🏚️🏚️🥔🍓🥔🥔🏜️🏘️🏘️🏘️🏘️🏚️🏘️🥕🥔🍠🍠🍢🍠🍠🍠🍘🍠🍠🍠🍢🍠🍠🍢🍠🍢🍠🍠🍠🍠🍘🍠🍘🍕🍕🍕🍕🌭🍕🌭🍕🏘️🥔🍕🏘️🏜️🍓🥔🥕🍕🌭🌭🌭🍖🌭🍕🏚️🏘️🥔🥔🍕🌭🍘🍠🍠🍠🍠🏜️🏘️🏚️🥔🏚️🏘️🏚️🏜️🏘️🥔🥔🍓🥔🥔🏘️🏚️🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🥔🥕🥕🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🏘️🏘️🥕🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🍓🥔🍓🍓🥔🥔🍓🥔🥔🥔🏘️🥔🦌🥔🍓🥔🍕🍕🌭🍕🍓🥔🥔🥕🏘️🥔🏘️🥔🥔🥕🍓🥔🍓🥔🍓🥔🥕🥔🍓🍕🍖🍕🍓🍕🍖🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍖🌭🍠🍠🍠🍠🍢🍼🏘️🥕🥔🏘️🥔🏜️🥕🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🥔🥕🥔🍓🥔🍕🍖🍕🌭🥔🍓🥔🥕🌭🌭🍕🍕🌭🍕🍖🍕🍓🥔🥕🍓🥔🍓🥔🥔🏘️🏚️🥔🥔🥕🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🏘️🏘️🏘️🥕🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🍓🍕🏘️🏘️🏘️🏚️🏘️🏚️🏘️🍕🍕🍕🌭🍕🥔🥔🍓🥕🥔🍓🏜️🏘️🏘️🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🏘️🏘️🏘️🥔🍓🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🏘️🥔🥔🥔🥔🥔🏚️🥢🥢🏘️🏜️🏘️🏘️🏘️🚂🥔🥔🥔🍓🍓🥔🥔🥔🥔🍓🥔🥕🍕🍕🍕🌭🍕🌭🏜️🏘️🥕🥔🍕🏘️🥔🥕🥕🥔🥕🥔🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🥔🥔🍓🏜️🏚️🏘️🥔🥕🥔🥔🥕🍕🍕🏚️🥔🍓🥔🥕🥕🍕🍖🍕🍠🍠🍠🍢🍯🍯🍯🍰🍯🍯🍼🍼🍯🍯🍯🍯🥔🥔🕌🚂🚐🚖🚖🚖🥔🥔🍓🥔🍓🍓🥔🥔🥕🥔🏘️🏘️🏜️🏚️🥕🥔🥔🍠🍠🥔🥔🍓🍖🍕🍠🍠🍘🍠🍢🍠🏘️🥔🥔🌭🍕🍕🍕🌭🍕🍖🍕🍠🍠🕌🕌🕌🥔🥔🥔🍓🥔🥕🥕🏘️🏘️🥕🥔🥔🍓🥔🍓🍓🥔🥕🥔🥕🥔🥔🥕🥢🏚️🥕🥔🥕🏘️🏘️🥕🥕🥔🏘️🥔🥔🍓🍓🥔🥔🥕🥔🥕🥕🥔🕍🥔🏚️🏘️🥔🥕🥔🥕🍓🥔🍓🥔🥔🥕🥔🍓🥔🍓🥔🏘️🏘️🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔🥕🥔🥔🍓🥔🥔🥕🍓🥔🥕🥔🏜️🏘️🏜️🏘️🏘️🏜️🏘️🏘️🍓🥔🏘️🥕🥔🏜️🏘️🏚️🥔🥔🥕🥔🍓🥕🥔🥔🥔🥕🍓🥔🥔🥔🍕🍖🍕🍕🌭🌭🍕🍕🏘️🍓🥔🍕🍕🌭🍖🥔🥔🥔🥕🥔
@Rich Clark Photography You're right, nobody can say that you cannot photograph them in a public place, though to be polite I probably would abide by their request. With kids, it's okay to get shots, but if they're with a parent or guardian, then it's wise to ask. The point is it's not illegal to use a long lens to get pics.
The other thing to watch out for are by-laws; a friend got chased off a beach for allegedly taking pictures of women in bathing suits; there was a local council by-law preventing photography. If there is no local law, then treat as a public place.
Unfortunately, Steven, such innocence (in children) remains in the Better- vanished past; societal influence, political correctness, & the advent of a multi-media interface (the World Wide Web) have brought such heinous crimes, such as paedophilia to the fore, & whilst that may seem to be a wholly positive aspect to the argument, tarring legitimate photographers with the (same) brush inculcates a dogmatic, & in some cases, unreasonable approach. As to the question of terrorism, I cannot see a terrorist being so overt - in drawing attention to themselves by employing a very obvious (D)SLR - common sense, which is remarkably absent in the majority - fear such 'intrusions'; the irony being, pretty much everyone who possesses a mobile phone, takes candid images all the time (& a more likely route for covert surveillance by a politico-military group). Such scenarios are wasted on the general populace, primarily because they cannot delineate between the two concepts - as always, stupidity, paranoia ( as you have asserted), & pseudo indignation fan the flames of what is (largely) an innocuous pastime. Fundamentally, this boils down to (them) not having control, which has become the mantra for idiosyncratic behaviour in the individuals concerned.... Stay cool ;D
I've experienced the looks of suspicion myself. While photographing my granddaughter's swim meets, the rules were (rarely posted) NO photos taken from behind the starting blocks. Now, admittedly, most good shots are parallel with the starting line & finish line, or behind the finish line. Though, innocently, I learned the hard way. The kids don't usually mind, but parents are VERY suspect these days. It's an unfortunate reality of the times I suppose. Better safe than sorry, right? I suppose the best thing is to introduce yourself to the parents, and make sure they know your intentions.
Adults can be hostile when own their photo is taken, as well. I guess that's why I like clouds & landscapes - they don't complain about their picture being taken. ;-)
i just took a picture of my house. I have now citizen arrested myself. ;-(
While you are arresting yourself, book a table at a quality restaurant, and claim the invoice on your tax.
Now hand yourself in and take a mate to film it.then get another mate to follow on behind and film him filming it all.then put it on u tube.
Tell yourself you deserve everything you get!
#freetony
Ha ha ha...lol
It's ridiculous when there's cameras everywhere everybody is monitored constantly and they're worried about a guy with a camera
Because it is not their cameras.
those carma's soon dont work if it dont agree with a coppers plan.
Most of the time CCTV is used for crime prevention or security purposes but isn't retained or uploaded to platforms like RUclips. Unfortunately there are countless 'auditors' who claim to be involved in journalism whose sole purpose in filming is to provoke confrontation in order to e-beg on youtube.
This guy's footage is informative and his interaction with any security is courteous. If 99% of the "auditors" out there could watch and learn how a professional like this guy conducts himself then they would have less friction with security. But of course if they acted like normal human beings they would have no material to upload as nobody is interested in audit footage - if there is no conflict with security they have no reason to upload.
more than 60 million CCTV cameras in the UK we are the most surveiled country in the entire world!
Absolutely don’t agree with these “auditors” sticking a camera in your face and looking for confrontation to get more views. But the security coming to us when we are taking a few photos of Christmas lights, streets and architecture is so strange. Don’t understand their logic at all.
Corporations believing they have some kind of authority over us 😂😂
It's a growing problem. I take infrared photos of landscapes and street scenes and this kind of thing happens all the time. We need a national day of action. A lot of professionals are on side with this having been subjected to this, so I'm sure we could get some real heavyweight support. This abuse has to be stopped.
So there is no reason for being afraid of street photography.
@james taylor lefties say "you're"
Soon people wil be afraid of Street Ice-Cream vendors who sport a beard.
That is coming soon, to a location near you.
When I was a student, we were briefed to take candid photos in the local outdoor market area. One stall keeper said, "You can't take photos of people without having their permission." I replied that the market was a public place owned by the council and the brief I was following was to take candid photos of people, so asking their permission first would defeat the object of the task. A patrolling police officer stopped and asked what was going on and we explained what the issue was. The police officer explained to the stall keeper that I was within my rights to take candid photos as long as I was in a public place and not on any private land. When I got back to college, I explained to the tutor what had happened and he said that if people don't want to be recognized in public, they should wear a mask!
When was in Tangiers quite a few years ago I took a photo of the hundreds of olives beautifully laid out on one of the indoor market stalls. The vendor didn’t object but he did want money....lol 💴💵💰💶💷💳
🤣🤣🤣 ironically people are wearing masks now 😷
My tutor told our class ;;tell emm too fuck of;; its worked many times great information
Nobody will delete anything. hahaha . Ask anyone who has applied for body cam records and been told it has been lost or accidentally (meaning deliberately ) deleted or they have extend compliance beyond 30 days ( so that it is automatically deleted or recorded in unreadable formats.
Problem solved by China. Welcome to 2020 & 2021 hopefully not beyond.
1 sentence.
"I dont work for you and you have 0 right to tell me i cant photograph anything. I refuse to ask permission to be free."
Intrested in what the inspector said.
That's 2 sentences.
Well this is a refreshing change. A street photographer video where the photographer doesn't take the high ground or get aggressively defensive of his/her rights. In most videos that you see on this subject the photographer or the film maker escalate the whole situation with their belligerent attitude and it's always nice when you find one that isn't. Funny how in this video no police where involved (until your interview with Insp Malcolm Graham) and there were no threats or obscenities. Well done guys, really helpful and informative video.
7:28 - Bloody paedophile paranoia makes me sick. Don't the very people who think this even realise that they're the ones sexualizing children?
Yep, this one is particularly annoying, as there's likely no or extremely few instances of anyone ever having produced a dSLR in public with that intent. I was approached a few years ago by a particularly rough young mother who had a kid by her side, another in a pram, and her somewhat subdued, or possibly embarrassed partner standing in the background as she loudly announced "We'll see *you* on Crimewatch tonight!!!", as I took photos of Swans taking off from a lake, which was in the completely opposite direction from where she or anyone else was standing. The two girls I was with gave her an earful though. That was enjoyable. :)
It's such a shame society has come to this.
Its sexism, men always get dirty looks from woman being near kids
***** Yawn. If in doubt mention Jimmy Savile.
This video isn't set in Hollywood, plus it's about taking photos in public. The story you've linked to is about is about privileged people allegedly raping children and teens in private. What's the connection?
I will never understand this English abhorrence to photos and videos being taken from public ares. You have the densest accumulation of CCTV cameras in the world that cover EVERYTHING. And a guy on the streets taking pics is always an issue. Makes no sense.
@Carpet Hooligan I believe that is in the USA, not UK
Terrorism... yes every terrorist in the world spends 10 minutes at a location and carries a big DSLR with even bigger lens and a massive tripod to map the location. Especially right in front of the CCTV. Thats how they do it, thats how u catch them ! gj ! ROFL !
Yeh, the terrorists are the owners of the building, the mossad and elements of the U.S. Government as in 911 so this video if a whole lot of nothing.
All these ill informed security guards,thinking they own the photons 😂
Why is it that every other security guard in London is from Nigeria?
Because if anyone goes near them or verbally abuses them, the race card will be used to prosecute them. A white security guard doesn't have the same powers
Nigeria is full of corruption , so they are useful to further corruption in the UK .
Nigeria is not the only country with black nationals! This is a stupid question!
@@paulgimlik15969 That would be the "others" then !
I run into people like this all the time. Come see my videos and you'll see for yourself. Public photography isn't a crime
I will always delete a photograph if I am asked except when I have been hired for an event in which case I request the person who hired me to ask. One time in Manchester I was shooting street on my 35mm camera, This lady came up to me and asked me to delete a photograph I had taken of her, I politely explained I could not but however made a note to not use that exposure and to destroy that negative. She decided this was not good enough so I walked away 5 minuets later her husband comes takes my camera and smashed it on the floor. My 50mm lens was completely ruined however ironically camera and film survived... I still have the negative and regularly post it to my FB page with this story... Good times.
Not worth it pal police in the UK are always too busy and don't care...
Same could be said about police in other places to I suppose. Sorry to hear that it happened anyway.
Thanks pal :)
Should have called police under common law loss harm and damage, your camera was taken "loss" it was "damaged" and prevented you completing your work needed to earn finical rewards, using those credits to by food, pay for new clothing, or gas and electricity. When town centre cctv takes video would he break into a council building and demand they stop recording his wife?
good point! What would happen if we all started having a go at the council about not wishing to be recorded / photographed
you should do a photography project on all the CCTV cameras in London! capture them all
A student already did that as part of her course....It was about how we are all survielled by CCTV 24hr a day !
She was accosted by police, questioned and given the 'in this day and age' speech !
Very competent and informative comment from the police inspector.
nice attitude you have , zero escalation , which is key
The irony is most buildings have cctv that records the street outside so they are breaking their own rules.
1 fucking hundred
I think it would have probably been better to have asked these questions of a Lawyer. The Police don't have a particularly good record of providing good legal advice on this matter and in many cases have wrongfully penalise photographers for going about their lawful business. Photographers need impartial, unbiased professional legal advice.
Indeed.
Asking a policeman about legal matters is in invitation for him to lie to you.
It’s frankly a joke. Photographers have a right to take photos on or from public land.
People don’t know the law.
People with crap cameras and phones get to take anything they want, but show up with good equipment or, God forbid, a tripod, and you're instantly in trouble.
The only acknowledgement they’d get from me is laughing in their face.
0:46 LOL. I've been stopped by that same guy on that same spot before. He was just doing his job though to be fair and he was respectful.
if he was just doing his job then he should know the law and do it correctly
He wasn't forcing anything. He just expressed a wish that he wouldn't continue taking photographs of the building he's guarding.
Much like I could ask someone to move out of the way. Forced would be if he touched, moved or grabbed at him or his kit.
Truth is if he really wanted to stop the photos he could just take a big golf umbrella out and stand next to the camera. Equally as legal and his right to do so but like the copper said, Do you really want to take photos of a building whilst having to deal with an argument? I'd wager at that point there are no photos being taken and it's a case of a good ol' fashioned penis slapping/willy wanging of egos.
but its nothing to do with him
@@lmaoroflcopter If no law is broken then the guy should not be getting involved. His company policy only applies to his company and not in the public.
@@stephenfreestone7956 why shouldn't he? His policies are his policies you are not bound by them sure, providing you're on public land but just like you can freely comment on a RUclips video, he can freely ask you to leave or stop taking photos.
There is no should/shouldn't involved here.
He's absolutely allowed to attempt to ruin your shots e.g. carry a variable brightness strobe, large umbrella, etc and you cannot prevent him from doing so. Just as he cannot prevent you from attempting to take those photos.
They do make me laugh these wonnbe security guards I'm fine with them asking but when they start dictating it's like mate move on security man :)
Cop said you can take pictures of pretty much anything. However he says the police can stop you taking pictures if it's for an arrestable offense associated with taking pictures. I'd have liked clarification on that.
@TheJR1948 ITS NOT A CRIME TO TAKE PHOTOS OR MOVIES OF SENSITIVE SECURE BUILDINGS ..PERIOD.
AND WHAT IS OBSCENE PHOTOGRAPHY....HE DID NOT EXPLAIN THIS. THE POLICE CAN ASK YOU ANYTHING BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMPLY UNLESS ITS AGAINST THE LAW .
I am under that if you are on public land or "commons" you can take a photograph of anything that you can see with your eyes. Isn't this true?
Yes
It's nice to see someone just recording reactions not trying to get reactions to produce content, that officer should start a RUclips channel of his photography showing us how people react to him.
Only a brit would thank someone for coming out to hassle them :P
😆 100% right
Being politely asked by security isn't being hassled, watch again - nobody was abused or threatened. A polite question isn't tyranny.
about time these numpty security guards found out about the law
Martin Berry. Not all security staff are "numptys" my friend. If ( as is usually the case) the employees boss asks them to question a photographer, then that request is both lawful and reasonable.
The employee is then duty bound to do so, regardless of his knowledge of the law.
A Brain is required for this function.
@@billt1954 Generally, yes they are. They either failed the Police entrance exam (like they're even choosy) or they're ex Army and think their skillset of getting shot at translates over to civilian security duties.
.
More often than not, these Security Guards are hired because they're thick as pigshit and just do what they're told and very little else.
.
They think they're there to 'secure' the interests of their employers, but mostly, they're only there to reduce their employer's insurance premiums.
@@nodiggity9472 Well speaking as someone who has served in both the military and the security industry (which I suspect you haven’t) I stand by my statement. And frankly mate, if your kind of person who judges someone solely by the job they do then you are living proof of who’s as “thick as pigshit”
@@billt1954 I'm not judging people simply on the jobs they do, I'm judging them on the way they do them. And its not like I'm the only person who's unimpressed by the way private security personnel lie, bluster and bully members of the public into compliance. And that's just the supermarket / shopping centre / building site security.
What's even more concerning is the tendering out what should be public sector jobs for prisons, courts and custody centres, to cowboy outfits like Group 4.
If you worked in security and the military you can't pretend not to have noticed that security does seem to be the favoured civilian position for most non commissioned ex servicemen.
And you must have noticed the lack of training, discipline, and capability that security staff who aren't ex services show?
Right? Pretty much a fucking rabble of bulked up gym rats, who enjoy the air of authority being a civilian in a uniform gives them. Compare that to being a soldier in a security job, trained to be hypervigilant and disciplined, working within a team, each one of whom you could trust with your life.
See where I'm coming from? You can't just stick someone in a uniform, and give them a job which involves a measure of authority over someone else. Or a duty of care towards someone else. Because people aren't always compliant. Or helpful. People are going to tell you to go and fuck yourself. Possibly on a daily basis.
And it takes a certain kind of mindset to not seethe with barely suppressed rage under those conditions. Or even constant dirty looks from shoplifting Grannies all day.
I said that the only talent soldiers come out with, was being bullet magnets, and that was flippant and unfair of me. But I did get the demographic right for Security Work.
And I'm not saying that that is you, or that all security guards are stupid tossers with an overdeveloped sense of self importance.
Just that a lot of them do rather come across like that to the general public.
You KNOW the ones. They're mean. They're swole. And they're hungry. They're ambitious. They're filling in time until they can graduate to a Court Appointed Bailiff job. Because . . . . . what else is there?
There are a lot of bullies attracted to security work.
And they aren't really . . . suited for jobs where they have to deal with any kind of potentially volatile situation, involving members of the public.
I apologise for implying you're just a bullet magnet, that was beneath me. But c'mon, tell the truth, there are many, many numpties employed as security guards.
Some of them are walking rage bombs. Some of them are habitual drunkards, or they like a little bump on a quiet nightshift. Some of them are just unpleasant.
And I'm sure that a great many of them are normal, conscientious, honest, decent and helpful people. But still . . . .
For security I'm guessing they mean terrorists. I'm pretty sure a terrorist has access to Google street view. They could even plan a walking route to and from a location. I've been lucky up to till now and have not met any stupid people saying I cant photograph buildings.
vwbeetleb0b not just terrorists. Crime is more than just terror offences. I'm a penetration tester who does security assessments including social engineering, taking photos on a recce of the building is pretty standard for me.
Google Street view is great, but an camera setup with a polariser is better at getting through a reflective window to photograph the sensitive info on a whiteboard. It is also more relevant information as street view can be years old.
@muskyERA "one other thing"... there is only one comment showing here MuskyERA, and yes... I do it for a living.
I appreciate the way you've talked to these people. Respectful, concise, and efficient, not what you see in any video of this "security vs civilian" type.
I am glad i live in Istanbul.. where tourism goes along with photography and everybody understands that. funny thing is that someone taking photos with a smartphone might not even be bothered while a dslr holder will be.
Tonderayi Kanoz oh is that so? Turkish photographer Çağdaş Erdoğan was reportedly arrested in Istanbul.
I have noticed that here. There can be a hundred people taking pics with smartphones & tablets, but the bloke with a proper camera gets suspicious looks!
@Rich Clark Photography If you look at the rules for Glastonbury music festival "big cameras" are not allowed, and you could be stopped from entering the site if you have a dslr with you."Small cameras" and camera phones are okay. Presumably this is to stop people getting good shots of on-stage bands, etc.
@William Doubleu What makes you assume he wants to move to the UK?
@Rich Clark Photography I was recently criticised by an architect for taking photos of his creation. He may have a point but only because the photos were from inside the building. What you can see from outside is fair game - go for it!
If they keep coming out to ask questions it is harassment! He does not have a right to question, he is distrupting your work, is he going to pay for loss of time?
Just ignore them. That's all they deserve.
.
Lol in London there are cameras (Video cameras) all over the entire town, how does one photographer cause an issue! These "security guards" problem is they all think because they have been issued a badge they are the "LAW" lol give em a rope they want to be a cowboy lol
not all over. someone hit my dog as we were on a zebra crossing. cops said there's no CCTV coverage of that bit of the high street & "a dog's just property"
I'm a Security guard. We are asked to ask people to stop by building managers. We don't think we are the law, in fact we don't care because it's more work dealing with people... However we must do what the building managers instruct.
@@UnseenSpirit Dear Unseen Spirit, I fully understand this on private land. Here the biggest problem arises from security staff forcing people to stop photographing, in public areas. As far as I know Street photography and freedom of expression go together in some countries. Gabriel (Cyprus)
Gogogeegee Aloupos you are absolutely right on public land. However building managers either do not know it or want us to get people to stop knowing that it's us who has to get involved
@@gogogeegee76 again, it's down to building managers telling security what to do, as they think they know the law. These same managers will also fall foul of HR law when it comes to treatment of staff.
“Official secrets act” my arse
That's only effective if you've signed it as part of your access to privileged or sensitive information.
This is an interesting walk. I am happy you were not messed with too much. When shooting scammers in public while I was in Madrid and Rome, they always tried to push my camera out of the way and hide themselves.
Good job in pushing the law in the faces of the folks who know nothing about what they are trying to enforce.
So all of my photographs of RAF Valley fall under section 2 of the official secrets act 1911? And how about all my "Detailed" photographs of the Typhoon, Eurofighter.. Its a bit of a joke really, isn't it..
not liking still does not make it illegal and so can not stop you.
Technically correct.
andy bicks Depends if your on MOD property or not.
"the Official Secrets Act prevents you taking pictures of military establishments"
No it doesn't.
Martin_Sole am guessing it would be covered by National Security
S1 Official Secrets Act 1911.
If what you're taking a photo of is a prohibited space, then you're breaking the law.
Many years ago I worked in Barrow-in-Furness. From the bridge from the town to Barrow Island you could quite easily see submarines beng fitted out. Took lots of photos- no problem.
Whatever happened to having to sign the official secrets act for it to apply to you? Just goes to prove that most cops are not fully conversant in the law they have sworn to uphold. That is why there are so many falsehoods about filming in public. The Police propagate it to their benefit and 10 times out of 10 would tell you its not permitted, if they knew the person filming, knew no better.
@Jim Knight ...no...
The big question should be asked ! IS IT AGAINST THE LAW, NOT WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO . AND IS IT A CRIMINAL LAW !
The question was asked and answered.
Aw man this is such a good insight though. I commonly film around London and I have run into the weirdest situations where we can't be specific places with a camera.
"You understand why"
Um no. Please explain it to me.
Why didn't you inform these security guards of the law?
I agree Mark. He should have been educating the guards, in the correct law.
lol permission to photograph the building talk about bs, not like they ask for permission when they record people with their security footage
What if I'm taking photos of a pair of policemen armed with assault rifles in the UK, I was walking through the city centre earlier and two police officers with assault rifles walked past, I was tempted to pull out my camera and start shooting since they looked badass but then I was worried that they might start shooting back..
Al Paca I
I’d have asked them. Explain they look bad ass and you were wondering if you could take a photo. They might say “no” but they might also say “yes”
Al Paca yes, you can take the photos. They’re not going to shoot you. Best advice is if they come up and ask, tell them what you’re doing out of manners, as if a postman or post lady. Good like.
They'd probably agree tbh. Police in the UK are generally pretty friendly. Armed officers will blade away from you if you get too close but they'll happily let you take a photograph, even smile for one.
Al Paca just had to laugh at that one,
4 years ago... Man.... Blessings 🙌🙌🙌
So the policeman says you can take photographs of "pretty much anything you want" (excluding what's in the official secrets act) then goes to say if you take detailed pictures of something the police will probably want to know what you're doing. So as usual we have laws and freedoms but they will be curtailed anyway.
Security guys worry. Everyone else walks past unconcerned.
The law in Australia is very similar to the UK. I shoot street fashion and I have similar issues on a regular basis. In general I find that knowing the law is a necessary last resort, but someone who is angry enough to approach you in the street, usually will not want to hear that they don't know the law. Best just to placate them and move on. If someone indicates they don't want to be photographed, I simply don't. If they ask to delete their photos I do. Angry faces don't make good fashion. Interestingly, I have most problem with bystanders who take it upon themselves to protect the "rights" of my subjects rather than the subjects themselves.
A great basic insight into the UK laws governing photography in a public place, and dispelling the myths about what as photographers we can and cant do! thanks guys
The issue is also the use of the image -editorial, commercial... and also when to ask for property release and model release forms to be filled...
yea.. it's not about your rights to take pictures ,its what you do with them
as a security guard myself,of a global company, id leave any photographer alone, even if management asked me to have a chat..
That was a good vid. There is a rather fine line between standing up for your rights, and being a stubborn ass, and as we've seen in many another RUclips vids, it's easy to become overly protective of those rights, when the person who's "harassing" you is likely only doing so to keep their boss off their back. Again, as we've seen, there are also those who think they know the law, and think they have every right to prevent you doing what's perfectly legal, but they're usually easy to spot, and it's those that you're best just to retreat from, after having acquired their details. Search RUclips for "golden wonder security" for a good example of the worst kind of "security guards".
I've seen that vid and as a private sector man I was both embarrassed, and disappointed. Also the golden wounded is another example of client unrealistic expectations of privacy and humans using a public footpath. I advise security be polite and take a photo in return. Upload to an archive make a small report date and time and keep for any future reference. Nothing beyond that. Don't grab cameras, don't make claims or threats you can't back up. The security operative in that vid she let our security sector down totally. I hope she has learned something and had more training. However these private companies and there thirst for power and to control their little worlds makes them unreasonable and difficult to negotiate with. My hip is that things will get better and more vids will make security and police change there attitude and behaviour. I would like to see more positive vids like this.😀
You should always be over-protective of your rights. But the most stupid thing about such situations is that the person trying to infringe your rights has no idea that their rights are exactly the same as yours, so as they rubbish yours they're also trying to destroy their own rights. And when they're gone, they're gone for ever.
.
You can never be over protective of your rights. Rights are hard won and easily lost. If people fail to stand up for their rights we will all see those rights eroded and eventually lost altogether. That's the unfortunate truth.
Being 'overly protective' of your rights is the only way not to lose them in this day and age. Unless you like being walked all over, in which case go for it.
Andy it isn't loss of your rights you're defending here. It's only ego.
A security guard requesting you to stop filming and your choice to obey said instruction does not constitute an erosion of any right. He had a right to ask. You have a right to accept or refuse.
Making a choice for the sake of avoiding a pointless confrontation isn't erosion of your rights.
Just as you can refuse and be belligerent and start quoting law at him, he too can stand next to you and your camera with a giant golf umbrella, blocking your shot.
Difference is... He's being paid to stand there, you're the dumb idiot doing it on your free time, getting nothing but photos of the inside of an umbrella.
And just because you make the choice to leave, doesn't mean you can't go back there to get your shots another day, or even just have a discussion with the guy.
"No problem, I appreciate people can have irrational fears over photography, what time do you close? I'll come back then" is not being a sheeple, it's not rolling over on your rights, it isn't giving up your rights. It's being courteous.
Security staff should have training regarding the public taking photos from a public right of way.
Amazing at how many people do not know the law with taking photo’s or filming in a public place.
Excellent video.
Under section 43 you must be suspected of carrying a kettle of fish.
This photographer was taking stills he did explain enough what and why he was taking the pics. He was polite and respectful and treated the same. Had he of been waving a video camera about and was rude and aggressive to those that approached him things would be different. The Police Officer explained very well what can and can't be done and why. I think if people handle themselves in a dignified manner as this chap did there is no problem. Also his last remark was very good, if you take a pic of someone and they ask you to delete it them do so. Respect is a two way thing. This shows what is acceptable, waving a phone about and being rude is not
When I’m shooting with my a7 iii in London using a small prime lens I don’t get stopped as much. But trust me if you plant a tripod or have a long lens like a 70-200 you will be stopped it’s hard to explain but the bigger kits make them more nervous 😅
They probably think its a miniature missile launcher built by Q
What about tourists taking a picture for their friends and family of a fascinating building in London? What are their rights?
The same as ANY other citizen's to do so!
Didn't you watch the video
Are you serious!! Watch the video mate.
An ordinary citizen can do what they like .... security won't think twice about you. But if you look professional, have a long lens or have a tripod then they will come out and have a go. So the advice to any terrorists is just to turnup with a smart phone and do your essential research with that.
'Where we are joined by INSP. Malcolm Graham who also happens to be a Photographic enthusiast .... so Malcolm what would you say is your favourite field in Photography'
'Thankyou Ben, i specialise in Mug Shots ahh yes'
ha ha Malcolm really loves his job.
Always ask someone, supposedly acting on the behalf of a property for picture ID. No ID, no authority
Much more patience than I’d have. I’d have just ignored them.
Doesnt everyone have a phone with a camera included no one worries .. ? BUT if you hold up a DSLR camera you become an instant suspect . What a strange world we have .
Yes, strange indeed. I was in a cemetery and was taking pictures of crosses and statues with my dslr when I was suddenly stopped and threaten to seize my camera. I did stop,but yes, it boggles my mind, every phone now has a camera, so if I was using the phone camera, wouldn't that be the same? Anyway, the security guards are not the brightest minds
Yes,people left right and centre snapping away with their phones and no-one cares but as soon as they see me with my DSLR,whether taking shots or not,all I get is dirty looks and long stares.
"In this day and age"... that's this day and age with much less risk than in the past during the Irish Troubles.
It's funny that at the beginning and at the end You have Canon camera, but in the rest of the video You are shooting with Nikon.
It's not illegal but I want to tell you what to do anyway.
You are wrong, just because they don't like it that's too bad.
Maybe you should make it clear that shopping malls are NOT public and London Underground too is NOT public, these are private grounds where you DO need permission to take photos
good right up until the end. If someone on a power trip demands you delete something, tell them to kick rocks.
What I got from this is basically there are laws that protect the photographer, but they are very tenuous. If a security guard, ignorant of the law, asks you to stop photographing then you just have to comply in order to keep the situation from escalating.
That's exactly what I got from this... Strange, right? Because it's the others that must be aware of their rights to ask you to stop doing something - not ignorantly ask you to stop doing something when you have every right to do so!
Personally I would ask him to take a few shots of me. Sick of bad security guards giving me a bad name just because i have the same job.
Take your phone out and phone the non emergency number and report the guard and the company, the guard normally at that point disappears very quickly
The policeman is talking a great deal of sense but security guards should be made aware of the law
Incase any photographers out there might be interested, my lovely wife is available for discreet photo sessions at very reasonable rates.
All tastes catered for, within reason, no animals or root vegetables.
You got us in the first half...
Really informative, cheers!
I love how the policeman at the end says even if someone is wrong and has no authority, he advises you comply to avoid escalating it. Really? So we can just go around making up powers and laws and your advice is people should comply...unbelievable
The security at 2:27 was a top bloke. He knows the law, and is transparent in his knowledge of the law. Yet makes it clear that the only time he's spoken to you is because he's been asked to. Well done that man.
I'm not sure why Inspector Graham made such ambiguous remarks about photographing children. The law allows you to photograph children (in public places) just the same as if you were photographing adults, cats and dogs, trees or whatever. So long as you're not a paedophile you have nothing to worry about.
Yeah, you may be allowed, but is it cool? I mean, a parent also has the right to ask you to stop. You don't have to comply, but it's courteous to do so and respect their wishes. I feel children are different to adults, buildings, cars and whatever else someone might get their knickers in a knot about being photographed.
Kiddie fiddler or not, just be respectful and hopefully nobody loses their cool.
The risk is that the person loses their rag and attacks you. You need to decide if being right is worth being attacked and perhaps you and your gear getting damaged.
Just because you could, you didn't stop to think if you should.
Yeh if you want a clip round ear, just try it
Great video but I feel I need to add something important here. Photographers love travelling and often they end up in other Countries. In many European countries (where Civil Law is enforced instead of Common Law) it is illegal to photograph a person without his/her prior consent. In addition to that, if the photographer wants to use those images he/she first needs te obtain a 'signed release-form' from the person portrayed in the photograph(s). In Italy, for example, we have the paradox where the copyrights to the photograph still belongs to the photographer but the 'right to the image portrayed in the photograph' belongs exclusively to the person portrayed (and I believe this is pretty much the case in most European countries). One should always make sure to take this into account before walking away with images of people. (PS. I wouldn't mount the camera on the tripod with such long lens if I were you, mount the lens instead and attach the camera).
''everybody's worried about terrorism in the uk!''.....No, we're not all worried. I can honestly say I get through most if not all days without worrying even once about terrorism
Security guards have no authority to ask you any questions!
No one has a right to privacy in public.
No they don't, only in places where it is considered reasonable expect privacy... public toilets etc.
Alas too many secruity guards do not know the law and think that they have more power than they actually have.
You cannot trespass my eyes. If I can see it from a Public place I can film it
Went to a food festival in woking last year and was taking videos. I decided to take out my tiny osmo mobile gimbal to stabilize my footage. Security came up to me and asked what I was doing, I told him i was just filming stuff for personal use. He told me that I'm not allowed to film with my equipment. I told him that other people are filming as well, they're just not using a gimbal. He didn't answer and just told me again that gimbals are not allowed. SMH.
Everybody should watch auditing Britain’s new video photography on public land is not a crime!
"Comply, even though they're wrong?" Ermmmmmm .......