For U.K. members: State of Public Picture-Taking in U.K.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163844,00.html

I can't post on this topic anymore without losing my cool. Suffice to say, people who deny this is happening have their heads....in the sand. How'd you like to spend six months in prison and lose custody of your children for having a photo taken of you kissing your newborn baby's belly button? And then have the charges dropped, no apology, no nothing.

Tell me how you'd like it, and then tell me that it's not happening. Right.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Dear Cameramanic,

No, you're not right -- it is perfectly legal to photograph people in France in public places. There are controls on what you can do with the pictures, and there have been some silly cases of people suing when their pics are published, but generally, it ain't a problem.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Ok Roger, Thanks for that info, I have just returned from Grenoble, My brother lives there,
I was a bit apprehensive about taking shots of people in public places while I was in Fance.

I was misinformed by several articles i have read in this country , where the theme was ,
the homeland of HCB,Bans photographing people without Their prior permission,
or something on those lines.

Best Regards
Dennis
 
cameramanic said:
Am I right in thinking it is even worse in France, where it is an offence to take someones
photo without permission ?
This is a misconception. Sure, some people might feel offended to have their picture taking without permission, but this practice is by no means considered to be an offence.
 
Last edited:
Edinburgh Drops Child Photography Ban - Others Remain

AP News Story - Photographs of Children Banned in Trafalgar Park

More AP News Relating to Photo Ban

New Laws on Camera Phones in Italy, other countries

UK Bullring Photo Ban

NY Times - NYC Transportation Photo Ban

France Ban on Railroad Photography

Public Photography Not (yet) Illegal in Australia

France
As for France, things are of course far worse. With the passage of the "Presumption of Innocence and Rights of Victims" legislation in 2001, the publication of any photograph of a person without their express consent is totally prohibited. This applies to all photography and is irrespective of editorial or artistic or personal or advertising use. There is anecdotal evidence that things in practice are even worse, with some members of the public & police even attempting to prohibit people from merely taking photographs, which in fact the PIRV law does not ban - only publication! See Tom Stoddart's article "Out Of Love" in Black & White Photography Magazine (UK), Issue 3 Aug/Sep 2001 at pp.24-28.

Needless to say, were Kertész or HCB working in France today, then not only would they be harassed on a daily basis, but their photographs would be censored and effectively banned from publication in that country. Sheesh!

Thankfully none of this applies to us in Australia. Is it only a matter of time? I hope not.

http://fly.hiwaay.net/~jmcmulle/310privacy.htm

A new law in France bans photos that a court decides are embarrassing or harmful to the subjects of the picture. The "Presumption of Innocence and Rights of Victims" law prohibits pictures that damage of the subject's dignity. The group that promoted the film contends that "The right to information must not provoke a second 'victimization.'" Conniff, K. "France Says 'Non!' to Certain Photos" Brill's Content. 9/2000. http://www.brillscontent.com/online/photolaw.html (no longer available)

Anyway, none of it matters. It never happens to me, so it never happens at all. Nothing is banned, people who complain are just troublemakers. And some kinds of photography should be banned anyway, for the good of everyone. I don't know, I don't want to know, and I'm going to pretend I didn't read this. And if you point out my delusions, I'm going to get mad at you.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
THanks, Bill, for those links, many of which demonstrate while there's much paranoia about photography, little of it is illegal - and in fact, taking photos of children is legal in the UK, despite ken Livingstone's control-freakery. However, the US case you cited was horrific; I wonder what legal advice the couple concerned had access to?

And while the French law is more complex than the Australian quote above makes out (there is still more flexibility thanks to what's generally termed 'fair use'), there are cases in Germany and elsewhere that illustrate photographer's freedoms ARE being gradually eroded. Yet in most cases this isn't due to draconian governments - it's litigious individuals and their ambulance-chasing lawyers.
 
I've read all the responses so far. For people who photograph this is obviously a hot-button issue. For high-strung parents of kids this is a hot-button issue on the other side. For politicians, toughs, the police and bored mini-lab people this is a great excuse for excess. What I guess I'm wondering is whether this has actually entered the consciousness of the great non-photographing, non-toddler-parent, non-officious silent majority? Has this particular paranoia spread to all those people who usually don't give a wit about things?
 
julianphotoart said:
..... Has this particular paranoia spread to all those people who usually don't give a wit about things?
I'll let you know later this year or early next year as I want to put an exhibition together challenging the unofficial ban. If one of the galleries let me do it then the answer will be "NO", but if they don't then life is truly very sad 🙁
 
Paul T. said:
THanks, Bill, for those links, many of which demonstrate while there's much paranoia about photography, little of it is illegal.

Agreed. And much if it will remain 'legal' in terms of law - but the law and the courts remain silent when a Mayor or a thug with a badge (no, not all cops are thugs, most are heroes) decides to pronounce something 'illegal' or to just stop people doing it - by threat of arrest, etc. Then we collectively shrug and walk away. That it isn't 'illegal' is small comfort for another right blown away.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
How about a sourceforge project to solve all these problems? Where are thou, software engineers?

Seriously, one should not try to legally prevent the documentation of society. When history repeats, scholars start looking for patterns, and the more documentation there is, the better their understanding of what might have probably happened. Pictures in public places will most likely be very important, because they are assumed to be authentic.

If the law forces us to stop taking pictures in public spaces, then we have to take the pictures without people noticing. Another camera for the job, just like Walker Evans? How would the technique change? How would you hide your spy-RF ???

By the way, are there loopholes in the laws in the UK or in the other places setting up bans? If you have a press pass, for example, can you be prosecuted?
 
If you have a press pass / NUJ Id or even a freelancer with a big camera rig & shooting for a local newspaper the parents throw their little darlings in front of the lens. Anything to get one up on their neighbours 😀
 
Well posed pictures of little kids of parents wanting them to be in the paper are historic documents too.

I meant more along the lines of ... you are photographing in public, the police come to enforce the law, you show your press pass and are free to go. Does it work that way anywhere?
 
In theory the freedom of the press etc etc ... But in practice historically the press are removed for either causing an obstruction or action likely to cause a breach of the peace (ie someone might take a swing at them). It's been cat and mouse for a good few years and used to be fun when I was younger and fitter 😀
 
Back
Top Bottom