Stopped by police for taking photos...

[tk338]

Just got stopped by a very nice police man, over here in the UK, stopped me took down my details, and asked to see what I'd been taking pictures, and said it was fine carrying on... But... He said when you're going out to take some, can you just give us a ring, ok... I guess I can do that, but... Does he actually mean every time? I mean I wasn't taking pictures of houses, just roads and stuff, do they really want a call every night just to say Im out for my half hour to take pictures?

Ok fair enough, I could take no notice, but being the law abiding citizen I am, Id like to comply, and if I meet the same bloke again, I shouldn't imagine he'll be so happy...

Any advice greatly appreciated :)

EDIT: I am trying to build up a small flickr audience, so Im really giving it my all, and doing lots of taking photos around my area...

[K1W1]

This has been canvassed lots of times on plenty of camera forums.
The reality is that the Policeman who questioned you in the UK had no right to do so and had no legal right to request to see your photos. As it was a polite encounter I'd let it go but don't bother ringing them before you go out taking photos in future.

[tk338]

Ah thanks, I was more asking about that phone call... And just to reiterate thats all they can ever do is take my name? Lol, don't want to loose my camera, new found passion!

[jcon]

As K1W1 said, dont worry about, actually.. forget about it! You dont need permission to take photographs in public and the officer would not have been able to do anything had you refused to show him the pictures you had taken. And really, he had no right taking your name either.

The only time you really need a permit is if you are video recording for a film.

[tk338]

Ah! thanks very much, sets my mind at rest :) Thank for all your help...

If it applies on these forums, thread can be locked etc :)

[TheObiJuan]

If this were to happen to me in the US, I'd tell the officer to buzz off. If he continued to bother me, I'd get his badge number and call his station.
On my military base I'm clear to shoot whatever and whenever I want. I have a Camera Badge. :)

[SpecialK]

I recently had a security guard from Sony harass me for taking a picture of their precious building.

Here is.
46819

Ditto for USBank, but not on this day as the whole street was closed.
46820

Up their butts.

[K1W1]

Lol, don't want to loose my camera, new found passion!

If they even touch your camera in a public place get your parents to sue the pants off them. They have no right without a warrant to look at the contents of the camera data files. There are plenty of UK precedents most recently the Greek gentleman who was arrested and held in custody (illegally) for taking photos in the London Underground.

[Csae]

I do remember hearing about not being allowed to take photographs of the actual policemen in the UK though.

They had some sort of rally against that, i don't know if it was effective or not, but last i heard you weren't allowed legally to take pictures of any cops.

That being said, if a cop politely asked me to see my pictures i wouldn't refuse, sure im not legally obliged to, but you dont want pissed off cops in your area.

[Rhys]

The problem with the UK police is they make up legislation as they go. They are also into making out they're doing things when they're not. To put it bluntly (I could give plenty examples from my life in the UK) they're not above sending 15 policemen to investigate a minor traffic accident while sending none to a stabbing. Why - because it's quicker and easier to write-up an accident report and a lot harder to investigate a stabbing. Their clear-up stats are vastly improved by solving simple problems rather than hard ones. They want good stats because it means more money.

As far as policemen go, I and a friend were erecting our tripods to take photos near a building and the police drove by to see what we were doing. These days with the prevention of terrorism act and the police and criminal evidence act they can whisk people off the street and incarcerate them for up to 90 days without a shred of evidence, basically at their own whim.

[Mark_48]

Cameras aren't the only optical things that cops question. I was out in a field at night by myself a few years ago with the device below sort of "aimed" at a major local city. Local law enforcement drove by and as this wasn't too long after 911, they got a little excited. After being sternly told to step away from the device and they had an opportunity to look at it close up, they quietly apologized and went on their way. Scared the crap out me for a few moments.

[John_Reed]

These days, there is so much fear around that residents may suspect anyone who's shooting photos in the neighborhood of having some criminal intent. So the police may be catching it from complaining residents, who would prefer not to compromise their "privacy?" Maybe if he takes your name and someone later complains, he can say, "Oh, that was just Joe Smith, he's out there shooting photos for his hobby. Not to worry!"

[Rhys]

I agree with all that you say John but I would say terror instead of fear. The terrorists have made us afraid of our own shadows.

[Csae]

I would rather the police answer. "We have his information and know exactly who he is and what hes doing." Instead of giving anyone who complains any information.

I believe, aslong as im not doing anything wrong, my right to remain "anonymous?" is more important than your ease of mind. Its not my fault people are afraid of x or y, im shooting photos something still legal and which should remain so.

I wouldn't blame it on terrorists, they have always existed, Americas have had terrorists before.

Pedophiles are also used as blame for photographic inforcement, because i read more about them then i do about terrorists to be honest.

In my opinion the truth has always been the same, a growing power will want growing control. Technology is great and can allow for great freedoms, in return others will want to control them. Sometimes this control isn't needed or even justified. Theres more and more cameras on the streets for security, and yet there has also been an increase in photographic control, hypocrisy.

If i can't take a photo of you, you shouldn't be able to take a photo of me. Unless i've done something horribly wrong, leave "prevention" for drugs and pregnancy, or keep up the after-school programs for kids. Thats about the only "prevention" i fully support, having camps and activitys offered to kids. Im even against the recent smoking and seat-belt stuff, even if i dont smoke and always wear my seatbelt. Maybe im twisted, but hearing and reading everywhere that its horribly bad for you and those around you and having more and more bans on it, just made it me want to do it more. They banned smoking in bars here... Bars. How is anyone gonna hook up now ? we'll have to drink twice as much to compensate for the clearer view D:

Back on the issue of control, Just take a look at china's internet if you don't believe me :P

I say all this, but im extremely happy of where im living because i can still go around taking pictures without being bothered much and can talk my way out of most situations with ease. Sure there are certain places even i know i can't shoot, even though i should be able to, but the general areas are fine. Now, if i could take pictures in the subways, i'd be fully satisfied, but they are sorta semi-privately owned or something around here.

[K1W1]

Maybe if he takes your name and someone later complains, he can say, "Oh, that was just Joe Smith, he's out there shooting photos for his hobby. Not to worry!"

And in the UK if ANYTHING goes wrong in the neighbourhood you are likely to have 12 burly Police with a battering ram coming through your door at 4am BECAUSE they have your name.

The fact of the matter is that photography in the street in the UK is legal and there is no lawful reason for the Police to take a photographers name just like there is no lawful reason for the Police to take the names of everybody in the street and demand to see the contents of their bags.

The UK is not a Police state yet.

[Rhys]

And in the UK if ANYTHING goes wrong in the neighbourhood you are likely to have 12 burly Police with a battering ram coming through your door at 4am BECAUSE they have your name.

The fact of the matter is that photography in the street in the UK is legal and there is no lawful reason for the Police to take a photographers name just like there is no lawful reason for the Police to take the names of everybody in the street and demand to see the contents of their bags.

The UK is not a Police state yet.

The police can stop and search anybody on their own whim. If you refuse then you get hauled off to the police station where your DNA is recorded like a common criminal and then if you're not guilty of anything they can charge you with wasting police time. Look up the Police and Criminal Evidence act, the Terrorism act and other such heinous legislation.

[Honest Gaza]

And in the UK if ANYTHING goes wrong in the neighbourhood you are likely to have 12 burly Police with a battering ram coming through your door at 4am BECAUSE they have your name.

The fact of the matter is that photography in the street in the UK is legal and there is no lawful reason for the Police to take a photographers name just like there is no lawful reason for the Police to take the names of everybody in the street and demand to see the contents of their bags.

The UK is not a Police state yet.

K1W1, while I agree with your sentiments, unfortunately, being "in the right" won't necessarily ensure you are left alone....even in Australia.

A while back on this forum we were debating a similar issue and it was suggested that we carry around a written document that could be downloaded from the Internet explaining a photographer's "legal rights".

I was discussing this with a copper mate and he had a very simple view / interpretation. If he gets complaints from someone and approaches you to see what you are doing, it's going to come down to attitude. If you start sprouting off about your legal rights and make it difficult for him, he will sieze your camera (without looking at the photos) and "let the judge" decide. Chances are you will get your camera back, he will move on with life...and you will have missed out on the photos you were going to take, and probably suffered great embarrassment and angst for the day.

Personally, that would piss me off.....so if I could avoid any confrontation, I would. Wished it wasn't the way, but again, being legally in the right and defending that position, isn't always the best approach to take :(

Sometimes its better (easier), to take the path of least resistance and find somewhere else to pursue my hobby.

[Rhys]

If you really want to take photos of things that are frowned upon then there are many ways easier than with an object that screams camera. A biscuit-tin pinhole camera is pretty good for that and if they open the tin to see what's in it - bang goes their evidence.

Besides... these are pretty darned good if you need covert video...

http://www.spycameras.com/item,dvrp-4g,20-mp-32-mp-enhanced-spy-camcorder-pen.html
http://www.jackmok.com/body-worn-camera/spy-camera-watch-surveillance-with-style-advanced-version-640-x-480.html

[John_Reed]

You can call it "terror" or "fear," and you can say that terrorists have imposed a new "reality" on our society, but there's a whole politics of fear from which many in power have benefited ever since the 9/11 attacks and before. But the net result is that people are more afraid than ever of strangers.

You can blame the Police if you want, and they may well deserve some of it, but they also need to respond to those who complain to them about activities that are bothersome to their citizenry. So perhaps it's not completely fair to heap ALL of the blame on the Gendarmes?