A question on photography rights

Location : EGDL

Is there any chance of making a ‘sticky’ somewhere regarding the laws on photography relating to our hobby?

I was parked up on a public road near to but not obstructing a crash gate by the sewage works outside Middle Wallop yesterday when I was questioned by an Army Policeman, also outside, who told me that I could not photograph within two miles of the establishment.

After taking my Car reg, name and telling me I would be arrested if I came back, he then gave me a couple of locations to photograph from, all of which were easily within his two mile restriction.

I presume he was just talking cobblers to get rid of me. I didn’t bother to argue with him as there wasn’t much flying left, but it would have been nice to just produce a piece of paper stating my legal position.

sorry to raise a hoary old topic

Rob

Subject: Re: A question on photography rights 2009-04-25, 05:50

Good topic Rob. My understanding is, just as with using scanners, strictly speaking it's illegal. However, it's down to the discretion and common sense of the Base personnel and local police. I've usually found they're reasonable, provided you're OK with them, although sometimes you get an awkward individual. I can understand your annoyance, especially regarding the 2 mile "rule." Perhaps Iskra can clarify?

Location : EGOS Spotter Watch Member : NO NEED

If he was a military policeman and you are a civvie then he cannot arrest you.

Subject: Re: A question on photography rights 2009-04-25, 07:28

Robocot wrote:: Is there any chance of making a ‘sticky’ somewhere regarding the laws on photography relating to our hobby?

I was parked up on a public road near to but not obstructing a crash gate by the sewage works outside Middle Wallop yesterday when I was questioned by an Army Policeman, also outside, who told me that I could not photograph within two miles of the establishment.

After taking my Car reg, name and telling me I would be arrested if I came back, he then gave me a couple of locations to photograph from, all of which were easily within his two mile restriction.

I presume he was just talking cobblers to get rid of me. I didn’t bother to argue with him as there wasn’t much flying left, but it would have been nice to just produce a piece of paper stating my legal position.

sorry to raise a hoary old topic

Rob

He sounds like one of the SPTA Wardens on a power ego trip.
Two mile exclusion zone of photos? He has no authority to do anything to you taking photos outside the base. Members on here and other forums are there almost daily taking photos from the car park and never get hounded like that so he is on a silly nilly ego trip of "Im a copper i know better".

With these new anti-terror laws that have arisen they all think they can do what they like, each copper knows different, each one will tell you different and each one will react differently.
MDP will tell you one thing, Civil police will tell you another, it's an endless circle.

Ask him next time if cameras are forbidden in the museum :x

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

It's a difficult issue to which there is no definitive answer. Certainly, most military establishments have a wider area of jurisdiction which extends beyond the airfield's physical boundaries, and this can often be used to assume that if/when photography is specifically forbidden, it means precisely that. However, it is also perfectly legal to stand on the public highway of course and providing that you do not have a car which is parked illegally, you're entitled to stand there and to take photographs.

The notion that you are not free to take photographs is one which is being used quite frequently in various cities, on the basis that such activity is a terrorist risk. Of course it's nonsense and every time such incidents have been pursued, the photographer has had his rights confirmed, but of course the problem is that you've probably wasted a lot of time and energy arguing the point by then.

Thankfully, it's very rare these days that random personnel stop at perimeter fences (on either side) and tell people to stop taking photographs. Those that do are obviously talking rubbish and you always have the option to tell them so. The choice is yours. The problem is that you run the risk of creating an incident which might well attract the attention of the local Police, and they might well drag you off for questioning on some suitably-plausible excuse if only to inconvenience you in exchange for having inconvenienced them! So it's really a question of whether you want to tell the military personnel to grow-up and clear-off, or whether it's easier to just say "okay, whatever", and cross the road, drive away a little or something until they're gone. Odds are they'll not bother coming back as they'll have something equally childish to do elsewhere.

If it happens again, my advice would be to ask for the person's name and rank, and take it up with the base - get a written apology, and that will ensure that the person responsible will be instructed to do something more constructive with his time.

Location : EGDL

Thank you all for what I thought was correct,

I realise there are certain grey areas to our hobby, I am still curious as to this two mile exclusion zone Law that he was banging on about, perhaps this is part of the anti-terrorist laws, or his version :?:

Being from Wilts this is one of my regular haunts and though you can merrily shoot away from the museum car-park (one of his suggestions by the way) which then contains hangars, the control tower and the pilots eyeballs :face: if chosen, going round the back which has the terrain shielding the base from view and shots you get a silly man to talk to.

I think Sheffs' "okay, whatever" approach with this type of person sums it up best with yesterdays meeting, because even if wrong he would never admit it.

I wasn't really annoyed about it, maybe saddened by his bad PR. I did have a little smirk though when he wrote my name down on his hand, then had to to cross it through 'cause he misspelt it

shame I don't have a longer surname :bounce:

I would like to end in saying that the MOD Police who I have met, until now, are very polite and even in the case of a sensitive establishment up the road, helpful with aircraft movements, unlike this throwback to the 1970s.

Rob

Location : Lincs

SCARECROW wrote:: If he was a military policeman and you are a civvie then he cannot arrest you.

Military Police can arrest civilians if they see them committing an arrestable offence under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 S24A.

Remember that some Service Police, depending on the County, are sworn in as constables to assist the local police.

TJ

Admin Location : Birmingham B17

Good afternoon

I would like to add what is the latest official line from the government.

The British Government has branded anyone with a camera a possible terrorist with a new law introduced this week.

The law – marked with a protest by hundreds of photographers outside Scotland Yard – means that anyone taking a photograph that contains a member of the police, military or certain government personnel will essentially be considered a terrorist.

Under section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, the new law states that: "eliciting, publishing or communicating information on members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers which is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" will carry a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.

While professional photographers fear police will use the law to prevent lawful pictures of protests being taken, there are further potential implications for any person with a camera – from tourists and sightseers to children doing school assignments to general camera enthusiasts. The law could mean that anyone taking a photo at a landmark tourist attraction, a public event or service can have their images deleted or camera confiscated on the suspicion of terrorism

Ok.What does this mean for us as Photographers.In my view it is very simple.We are all born with common sense.And as such we should apply that common sense.Please do not argue with the authorities,as you will only make the situation worse for not only you but for others who visit after you.Simply and politely ask for the reason.And if you are not happy then by all means ask for the address of the public relations office and leave it at that.At age Fourty Five and having served in the Forces i have seen both sides of the fence.

My closing statement.Just be polite and think of the wider issue if you argue.

Subject: Re: A question on photography rights 2009-04-25, 09:05

As I understand it from LMP, taking pics inside a base is a big no-no, but outside is really not a problem as it falls outside of the jurisdiction of the base authorities. As Jim says, common sense should prevail in that if you are not interfering in any way with fences, property, etc and are not presenting a threat to personnel, equipment etc, then there should not be a problem.

The aviation enthusiasts community can be an effective aid to the police as the Spotter Watch scheme has clearly identified.

No one had a problem at Cottesmore the other day lol! lol!

Location : EGDL

Common sense works fine only if both sides have any
Rob

Admin Location : Birmingham B17

Then maturity comes into play surely.Like i have said there is a structure here.That is why we have a democracy.Everyone is answerable for thier actions.

Location : EGDL

Fine,
since you are more up on the current legal side than myself, where does the 2 mile rule fit? this was part of my original query.
Rob

Admin Location : Birmingham B17

The answer to your question is that our armed forces can create an exclusion zone,as has been the case at RAF Lakenheath and RAF Fairford in the past.And this is due to the threat level going up.In any case our armed services would work with the civil police in relation to civilians.

Threat Con Delta:
A friend who lives very near the base emailed on 12 September to say that USAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall had raised their security to level D (Threat Con Delta) which according to the news is one level below a 'war footing'. During the afternoon a 3 mile exclusion zone was created and some of the roads near the bases were closed. Our friend said 'it is eerily quiet here today with no flights and hardly any road traffic' because of the tighter security

The above is an extract from a report in relation to the subject.

Thanks
Jim

Subject: Re: A question on photography rights 2009-04-25, 10:02

my advice would be to write a nice polite letter to the base boss.

asking a few questions for clarification of the situation as you would hate to fall foul of this law on your next visit

mention the place, date and time of the incident as it should of been logged.

you should get a nice reply and keep it with you next time you visit so if challenged incorrectly you can show them your letter.

just remember, you are doing nothing wrong, you have not broken any laws and we still just about live in a democracy, albeit a bankrupt one.

as others have said its better to politely walk away then kick up a fuss later from the comfort of your keyboard.

Geoff

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

Please do not argue with the authorities

Have to disagree strongly with that plea Barksdale. If anyone gets into this kind of situation and they have the time, patience and inclination to argue, then I would urge them to do so. We have rights which need to be defended and contrary to your comments, arguing doesn't make matters worse, it makes them better. If we get into the business of rolling-over and doing anything that some random member of the armed forces or police happens to demand, we're heading down a very slippery slope.

If anyone finds themselves in a similar fix and doesn't want a confrontation, my advice would be to simply move for a while, and come back later, but make very sure that you note the details of the person's name and rank, and make sure that you make a proper complaint to the base, demanding an explanation and an apology. We owe it to ourselves as photographers not to allow this kind of nonsense to occur, especially when there's a growing temptation to use bogus terrorist laws to prohibit people from doing many things which are still perfectly legal - and should remain so.

Admin Location : Birmingham B17

As i have clearly stated common sense is the key here.

THIS TOPIC WILL NOW BE CLOSED

I think the original answer has been fully covered.Thankyou.

Jim Maher

Subject: Re: A question on photography rights 2009-04-27, 03:57

After some internal discussion, this thread is now re-open for sensible chat (discussing not arguing) regarding the problem photographers and enthusiasts in general are having at some locations. No arguing or sniping or your post will be removed.

Location : Ramsey, Huntingdon Spotter Watch Member : no

i know that they can ask you to delete your pictures but can they confiscate your equipment?

Location : Cleveland Spotter Watch Member : No

A few weeks ago myself and a couple of my group from CAS had a similar issue at Middle Wallop.
We had been out and about round the base most of the day and also in the museum area.
Our last port of call at the base was along the road that Runs East/West at the North end of Middle Wallop. Approx a mile along this road is a parking spot big enough for two to three cars. We had been there for about 10 mins when we the local Mil police arrived. He never asked us to stop photographing or moved us on but just wanted to know what we were up to. Before he left he gave us the number to the Guard room, saying that if we were around at any time in the future to call them to let them know that we were about and that they would also pass us over to the tower who in turn would let us know the days movements. All very amicable.
For those interested the Guard room number is 01264-784272.

Colin.

Admin Location : East Midlands Spotter Watch Member : Yes

I did A-Level law when I was at College and Case Law is very useful when it comes to matters like these.

When on the public highway of photographing a Bus, Train or a Civvy or the recent demonstrations in London, our rights are protected by DPP v Jones (1999).

DPP -v- Jones (1999): The Court recognised that the public may enjoy a public highway for any reasonable purpose, provided it does not amount to public or private nuisance or obstruct the highway "by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and re-pass: within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway."

However when we are, say on the Mound at Coningsby or in Johns Field at Mildenhall. We are on on Private Land.

Even though we have paid to enter the land at Mildenhall, we are not protected by DPP v Jones.

Basically at Coningbsy we can be arrested for Tresspass as we have not had direct permission from the Land Owner. And at Johns Field we can ludicrously be arrested for Breach of the Peace.

As we come under the precedents of R V Howell (1981) and DPP v Percy (1995)

R v Howell [1981] 3 All ER 383, Watkins LJ said "... we cannot accept that there can be breach of the peace unless here has been an act done or threatened to be done which actually harms a person or in his presence his property or is likely to cause such harm or which puts someone in fear of such harm being done." while in DPP v Percy [1995] 3 All ER 124, the court clarified that conduct could be breach of the peace if there was a real risk that it would elicit violence from a third party.

However thanks to Section 44 of the Anti Terrorism Act and at a push the Official Secrets Act of 1911 !!!!!!
We the photographer can have our details taken and be entered on to the Police Computer.

For those who are Press acreditated, ie work for a registered media company. ( Sorry freelance and Magazine publishers are not registered as media companies. ) These guys have special Media passes, and also have to agree and sign their countries and other national countries Press Guidelines, which clarifies what their rights are.

April 1st 2009, [how convienient] a parliamentary question was raised under Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 which was inserted by Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department stated that there are no legal restrictions on Photography in a public place.

The recent G20 protest could be good news for us photographers, because with the wide use of the internet and mobile phones that are able to receive video, it is really difficult for the Police and other forces to try and stretch anti-terrorism legislation in the powers of you being arrested on site.

However this doesn't still stop the police from raiding your property and arresting you at your property as a suspect terrorist who is publically distributing information to terrorists.

Linda McPherson is a Lecturer of Law at Heriot Watt University, and has drawn up a guide for photographers in the UK.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

There is also a USA guide as well.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

On the public highway no one can ask for your camera or ask for you to delete your images.
Yes on a public highway you can photograph gate guards and personel at a gate.

But your vehicle details will be recorded and passed over to the police.

Admin Location : East Midlands Spotter Watch Member : Yes

I might actually look into furthering my education of Law.

All these people have been quized under the Terrorism Act.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/police-delete-tourist-photos

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/uk_police_order_amateur_photographer_to_delete_pictures_at_tourist_hotspot_news_180714.html

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/community_support_police_stop_and_quiz_veteran_press_photographer_under_terrorism_act_2000_news_153278.html

Can Google be done under the Terrorism Act for their Street View ???????

Location : Ramsey, Huntingdon Spotter Watch Member : no

street hawk this is some interesting reading but will have to read more later so
i can understand it more fully as im only skim reading at the moment.

but when raiding can they take away our camera's even if there is no pictures on there. i know that they would posssible take away
memory cards to scan for previous photos.

Admin Location : East Midlands Spotter Watch Member : Yes

Everything will be taken, you must have seen all these front line police programmes, cops with cameras is a prime example.

Items such as computers, external harddrives, mobile phones, cameras and cards will be taken.

In terms of when you will get these back is hard to say, as there are loads of IT forensic jobs being advertised at the moment for the private sector in terms of the Banks and insurance and then the public sectors such as Police, Security Forces and even the MOD.

Seen two jobs both private and public with a £32k difference in salary !!! Both require the experience of 1 peice of software.

So go to the bank get a bank loan and do a Ethical Hacking course and also a Forensic Ethical Hacking course (Have to have the certificate of the Ethical one first).

Admin Location : East Midlands Spotter Watch Member : Yes

Jeremy Dear wrote a letter to Home Office Minister Jaqui Smith, relating to the rights of Photography in the UK.

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=796182

Here is a statement by Home Office Jaqui Smith in response to the letter.

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=801977

Location : Ramsey, Huntingdon Spotter Watch Member : no

yeah ive seen these programmes but why take the Whole lot as all information is stored on harddrives and the memory cards. what are they going to find with a whole unit?

what can they find on the internaly workings of a camera/pc motherboard!!! nothing i believe as all traceable info is stored on HDD's.

memory of a computer known as RAM ((random access memory) for those that dont know) just reads and dumps nothing tracable.

and for motherboards its jsut algorithm's to make everything work.