Forums Forums General Forums A - Z Leisure & Hobbies Guidance for Photographers

Print and carry at all times guys and girls

nice one tc.

this should be made a sticky.

For an official notification, that is remarkably clear and concise. One hopes the information has, by now, filtered all the way down the ranks to Mr Plod !

Thanks TC

Didn't realise this was an issue, the cynic in me has noticed it is worded 'in public places', aren't most UE 'outings' on restricted/private land, i.e. not public places, and without permission, as such making this guide useless?

These things are usually worded in such a way as to give themselves loopholes.

Whether on public or private land NOBODY can force you to delete photographs from a camera or camera phone, this can only be done by a court order. If you are on private land you can be requested to stop taking photographs and if you refuse then you can be asked to leave. If you atill refuse then the police can be involved.

Don't understand. Does this mean that someone no longer needs an indemnity for certain photographic purposes?

For example: Taking photographs of your own children in a private play area requires an indemnity, due to the possibility of you taking photographs of other children at the same time (for whatever purposes). Darn sure I wouldn't be happy with someone being snap happy and photographing me or my grandchildren without some given proof of why,...in any location.

In private places you must obey the rules imposed by the owner. In public places there are no restrictions apart from some well signed military establishments and in some places in London round parliament and Trafalgar square you need permission. Other than that if the place is public you can snap away provided you consider it sensible and wise so to do.

Thanks, a bit clearer.

With a view to images of people being used in books on internet or for personal gain, e.g. photographic competitions, do you know if there are any restricting clauses ?
It seems to me, there's a loophole which many will abuse when it comes to certain areas of photography, and if there is no legal protection, then there can not be a case for prosecution.
Have a look at link below.
http://erickimphotography.com/blog/...k-review-the-last-resort-by-martin-parr/

That photograph was taken in early 1980's . The parents were not asked, the photographer jumped out of his car, took the photo and jumped back in before anyone realised.( I saw it happen) The photograph won competitions, appeared on walls all over the country, and he didn't even know who those children were.
He's taken a lot of similar photos over the years, and I thought that this method would be unacceptable and illegal now but obviously not!

To me that is simply a lovely happy picture but sadly I know that to many it could be seen in a very different light indeed.Legally though there appears to be nothing wrong in taking such pictures even these days as it is clearly a public area.

With reference to grannys link, I think his photographs are highly unacceptable, in this day and age. Back in the 80's, if people felt it was ok for their children to play nude, then that was their choice. A lot of the nude shots he was taking must of been known to the parents. Today, he would be frowned upon I think, I certainly would kick off if he was taking pics of my daughter without asking me, but I would not be letting her play on a public beach/resort nude. I wouldn't even let someone I didn't know take pictures of her, I just don't think its right.

Clearly I did not look far enough at Granny's link! I just looked at the cover and did not delve any further. No doubt the photos of naked children could cause offence today but they are from a different generation when youngsters did run around perfectly innocently and the world thought nothing of it.

Very true salmon.

How sad our society has become that we find Martin Pars photographs offensive today because of a couple of photos that in the day were actually acceptable. Believe it or not Martins book DID cause controversy in the day because people said it made New Brighton and the British holiday industry look squalid... How times change.