Photography in public places

[Dave Humphries]

What Colin and nocturne have written is exactly what I had in mind when I said;

I guess the thing is to open dialogue with consideration of their POV.

but they're better at expressing it.

I would like to clarify my comment;

All the paranioa does seem counter-productive in my view.

This only meant that the authorities and politicians would do better to consider photographers as allies in the war against terorism, rather than alienate some* of us. Not that the threat was unreal or they shouldn't be vigilant and do their duty; ask questions, even conduct polite searches, etc.

* Of course, the popular press and internet rumour mill are often only interested in the horror stories, so they get the most publicity. Fortunately here (at C in C), a more balanced picture is emerging.

It wouldn't surprise me if, at 2 a.m. with no one else around and only each other to talk to, the chance to have a chat with anyone else might be jumped at, out of sheer boredom, if nothing else.

My Dad was a police constable (a long time ago), so I have seen both sides and I certainly appreciate the hard and often thankless job they have to do - especially these days.

I like Colin's idea of possibly forging a relationship, although it may only work in selected areas like your home town and there is a possibility of it being mis-interpreted - I'm sure they've heard 'I know your chief inspector personally' many times from cornered criminals.
That sounds rather negative, sorry. Maybe they do keep records of people that they consider are harmless if found photographing at night, etc.

[shreds]

Colin,

Bear in mind that there will be shifts running with different officers on duty at different times.

I suppose the best way is to go and be the shooter for all the Police Benevolent Fund Balls so they know you, but we cant all do that! Equally, I might be in different parts of the country during the week, and you cannot cover them all.

One of my close relatives works on the civilian staff at the Police, so I could mention him, but knowing his sense of humour he would totally disown me! (No, it would help), but of course in Britain there are different Police forces: the 'normal' Police which are generally arranged by county, then there are the transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Police, Police allocated to royal and government protection duties and the Military. (There might be more, I am no expert).

However it is usually jobs-worth private security guards with no legal rights of arrest that seem to cause a lot of the trouble, believing they have the right to throw their weight around.

Don't get me wrong, I dont seem to have problems, but there seems to be never a week goes by without some photographer suffering somewhere unnecessarily. A lot is being done behind the scenes particularly by the press and professional bodies, but it is getting a universal message across, that is the difficulty.

Cheers

Ian

[Colin Southern]

Hi Ian,

Sounds like a tough one - I guess all one can do is be polite and co-operate. On the other hand - since no laws are being broken - I imagine that ultimately the police can't do anything to escalate matters or they risk getting egg on their face.

Might be an interesting experience to keep a journal of experiences of interactions with police - if it gets beyond a joke it could assist in presenting your case if anything does ever get "taken to the next level" (whatever that might be).

Are your police approachable enough for you to ask "this kind of thing has been happening to me quite a bit recently - other than not shooting at all, is there anything I can do to make life easier for both of us"?

Cheers,

Colin - pbase.com/cjsouthern

[shreds]

In Britain you can be stopped and searched at the officers discretion. This will lead to a search of notes and baggage, pockets etc etc and whilst they can confiscate any material they think appropriate, this has to be returned to you at a later date if it is found to be innocent. They cannot force deletion of images although this has been known.

You are given a record of the search; an S44 notice, and the time taken for the search can be lengthy. Naturally those who have been subject to this, where innocent, are unhappy and quite a few incidents have been captured on Flickr and You Tube.

Luckily I have never been through this, but know a number of innocent photographers who have and it can be irritating and embarrassing not to mention the length of time it takes.

Refusal can lead to an arrest, and naturally tempers have been known to fray. Even British MPs have been subject to over zealous application of this law, so much so, that Parliamentary questions have been asked and consultations with senior police by Pro & amateur Photo / journalists bodies have been sought and the situation is watched very carefully.

For most photographers it is taken as a hazard of street photography and journalism, whilst most do not have the time to fight this corner themselves. But at least there is acknowlegement that something needs to be done.

I just carry a copy of the guidelines plus other relevant up to date material about this for reference and to produce, as not all officers are necessarily well acquainted with the detail. This approach is adopted by many who photograph in public, but at the end of the day, patience and politeness go a long way.

A couple of examples are linked below.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...5.html?aff=rss

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...=bjp_dailynews

[Colin Southern]

Interesting stuff - thanks for that. It's a different "world" to the one I live in down here I have to say.

I wonder what the trigger is that differentiates the need for a "quick chat" -v-"the full monty"? - you you think that some police are just "hell bent" on giving you a hard time anyway, or do you think it's used more as a controlling tool for those (photographers) who present themselves as being overly-assertive, arrogant, stroppy, sarcastic etc?

As I've never been in that situation I'm curious to know how I'd likely be treated if I took the "Good evening gentlemen ... you'll have my full co-operation ... happy to help in anyway I can type approach" (coming from a middle aged "gentleman" with conservate haircut and a mild personality)?

Cheers,

Colin - pbase.com/cjsouthern

[The Blue Boy]

I think it's time to clarify myself. I'm ex military myself. I'm also ex-security and ex civilian security.

The reason I'm polite to police is that they are always polite to me. I've never been approached by a security guard for two reasons 1; I know the rules, which are a;private land or b; no commercial photography is allowed on said 1. And 2; I'm an 'orrible 6.2 ex squaddie who still works out at the ripe old age of 39.

But seriously, as I've said before, if you are ok with them, they will be ok with you. It's like everything in life, treat them as you would wish to treated. See previous post about the "pro" and you'll see what I mean.

@nocturne. Get your hair cut, you 'orrible little man!

[Davey]

I know a lot of people recommend taking a few prints to show if you are stopped which I guess can be quite helpful.

I think politeness can help in most the situations and I wouldn't be rude from one off colour comment since if you work in a job where most of your encounters are with people who are unreasonable or unpleasant then I wouldn't imagine many police officers to be all cheery and greet you warmly and politely ask you were you're going and turn out your bag etc. I do notice most who seem a bit blunt often warm up when they realise I am not the way I appear, well I am a 6'4" weirdo taking pics of a night but I'm not an unreasonable scary nutter (I hope )

Like I say there are always some who will be unreasonable no matter what but they tend to be young and new and I guess learn in time. There are always more reasonable experienced coppers than the odd experienced nutter ones s the majority of my dealings are alright.

I sometimes think the grounds for stop and search is unreasonable but I don't have anything to hide. However I did get felt up by a wpc a while ago! There was a male copper with her too but she insisted on searching me and he seemed amused and said I'd enjoy this. She did go through my trouser pockets in rather close proximity but she seemed less interested in their contents since they were empty but I guess she had to make sure by reaching round the front (admittedly too thoroughly and for a longer duration than was credible to be accidental or job related). Hmmm is driving round looking for people to feel up part of the job now hehehe.

[shreds]

I knew there must be a positive spin on this S44 problem somewhere, Nocture you have clearly found it.

[CNelson]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread but I'll throw in my two cents from California, USA. I'm retired law enforcement and an amateur photographer so my response will be colored by these experiences. I will likely stir up some controversy but here goes.

I've been out of law enforcement for some 8 years but unless the law has changed, there is nothing illegal about photographing anything you want from a public place - or from a private place as long as you are legally in that place. By public place I mean a place open to the public and where the public is entitled to go. It may be that some jurisdictions have enacted local ordinances that prohibit photography in certain locations. I've seen signs in museum's that prohibit photography but I don't know if it's backed by legal ordinance.

Police actions are frequently recorded by cell phone cameras these days and there is nothing illegal about that so long as the photographer doesn't interfere with the police action.

Now, having said that, we live in a day and age when terrorism is a reality. If I were a police officer and observed someone taking photographs of buildings that could potentially be a target of terrorism (can almost be anything now) I would watch to see if there was anything suspicious about what they were doing. I should expect photographers and tourists to be taking pictures but to ignore all photographers and assume everybody with a camera is innocent would not serve the public. Do they look like tourists or are they taking measurements and focusing on security measures? Are they working with someone? If so, how are they interacting? A number of observations might make me suspicious or help me decide there's nothing suspicious.

If I am suspcicious after watching them a while I may approach and start a friendly conversation to try to find out what they are doing. "That's a nice camera, are you a professional, where are you from, etc." They may be friendly and cooperative and the conversation could alleviate my suspicions. They may be unfriendly and uncooperative or just leave quicly. I'm hard pressed to think of a legal justification to physically detain them or confiscate their camera at this point. I may follow and try to find out where they are staying, who they are with and what they are driving. If I had a camera I would certainly take a picture of them. If I am still suspicious and while observing them I saw them violate the law (jaywalking, tresspassing, etc.) I would likely enforce the law and this would require them to identify themselves. Note, my objective here is not to harass a photographer for my entertainment but to enforce laws and protect the public. Conduct that wasn't suspicious 20 years ago can be suspicious in today's environment. It is certainly a challenge to protect "freedom of photography" and public safety at the same time.

My advice to a photographer in public is to cooperate with law enforcement officers. If you have nothing to hide you can help them help you. If their requests seem entirely unreasonable, you can verbally protest and take it up with their supervisors later. There are circumstances where an officer can demand that you identify yourself and even pat you down for weapons. Those circumstances are dependant on third party reports, his/her observations and your actions and the totality of circumstances. Often the circumstances the officer acts on are beyond your control. For instance, suppose a passing citizen hears you and a fellow photographer say "taking pictures of that building is a real blast." That person decides you are terrorists and calls the police describing you and telling the police he heard you talking about blowing up city hall. The police are obligated to act on this information and if you get into a physical altercation with an officer who is investigating this report you are likely to end up on the short end of the stick....in a couple different ways. Indeed, there are times when an officer can be entirely unreasonable....my advice is to verbally protest but to cooperate then ask for a supervisor or call for one immediately afterwards. Try to identify witnesses at the time of the incident.

Let me illustrate. I have legally detained and pat searched entirely innocent people during my law enforcement career. A classic example is when a description and direction of flight of an armed robber is broadcast on the police raido.l I observe a close match in the vicinity and detain and pat search for weapons. A witness is brought by and says "That's not the guy" and I release the innocent person. I have also arrested armed robbers under similar circumstances. The law requires the officer to be "reasonable" and to act on "probable cause," it does not require him to be 100% right all the time. The "lawyer full employment act" is still working on a case-by-case basis to determine when or if an officer was "reasonable" and acting on sufficient "probable cause." A perfect definition of "reasonable" and "probable cause" will never be determined because the fact situations are infinite and I can't imagine all those lawyers out of work.

Now, with my photographer hat back on, there's lots of interesting things to shoot (perhaps I should say photograph) in public places. Buildings and people are always interesting. If I see a police action or a security guard action (as described in part of this thread) I can photograph it so long as I don't interfere or violate other laws (tresspassing, etc) in the process. Publishing those photographs without releases or permission may be a civil law problem but there are ways or circumstances that allow as newspapers do it all the time. Presumably there are allowances for circumstances where there is a "public right to know." In any event the problem is not in taking the picture but in publicisiing it.

OK, there's my 2 cents. (Is anybody still speaking with me?)

Chuck

[Colin Southern]

Thanks Chuck - I suspected you'd have some good input on the matter - and I was right

Cheers,

Colin - pbase.com/cjsouthern

[Davey]

I think most of that seems reasonable. I'm not so sure about the follow them to find where they're staying etc but if it's discrete and you're not in their face then I guess it's ok. However the UK isn't great since you can get stopped, patted down, all pockets/bags etc emptied, 20 questions etc for no reason since it's at their discretion.

They choose grounds for suspicion and there is nothing you can do, in fact co-op is best route otherwise you get put in car/van and taken to station since you must be hiding something and it's drawn out and not worth it. I only personally know 1 friend this happened to and him and his mate were taken to station and strip searched. He didn't know but the reason his mate didn't want to be stopped and was unco-operative is he had a 5inch hunting knife and 4g of heroin on him, thankfully they realised he had no knowledge of it and let him go quickly.

A lot is officially by the book but in practise not that way here. One friends who was copper for several years got in trouble for openeing his mouth about picking up prostitutes (not for custom!) in an illegal manner. They were instructed in official proceedure when he said you know we don't actually do that, what we do is technically illegal are you saying if I refuse to do it the wrong way it's ok or that you will back me up doing the illegal way if it comes out? There were told what they were not supposed to do but in practise they all knew that was the way they did it. He got a lot of flak over it because he wouldn't back down since they had to do it an illegal way (to make the on paper figures look good, the girls didn't mind as it was quick formality and got dropped off again after and police look out for them anyway) if they were photographed etc or it came out the police don't defend you and you personally take the fall for it despite it being the "official" unofficial way it's done. So by the book doesn't alwas work.

Most are decent enough like I say and I cannot complain when I'm hanging around or walking round of a night especially near my home since the red light area starts outside my house so a what are you doing here at 1am is a reasonable question. However sometimes (again usually the younger ones, and it's not too bad these days) I get the what are you doing, I answer politely. Then I get treated like a liar and it's 10 minutes of so where do you live again paul (or some random name) to which I reply I've already stated my name is dave 3 times. Are you being funny, wanna get in the van etc etc. It's like a trap to get you to get arsey with them. Like I say I keep as polite as I can and even if get a bit irritated I know boundaries and they cannot detain/caution or arrest me for nothing or getting a bit smart (in a nice way hehehe). Then you get the same catch you out questions for your address and mine never goes down well as it sounds like a p*** take when they ask. Most normal coppers are alright though and I like them.

It's just the odd youngster, always male too, wpc's usually ok except in my previous post which was preferable to aggressive idiotic bullying and was more amusing than anything.

[Bill44]

I'm ordering a T Shirt which states front and rear in bold letters. "I AM A PHOTOGRAPHER, I'M NOT A PAEDOPHILE OR A TERRORIST."

[Colin Southern]

I was thinking of getting something myself, but more along the lines of a high-viz vest with "Media" or "Event Photographer" on the back. If nothing else then I can threaten to wear it in public with my daughter if she won't behave!

Cheers,

Colin - pbase.com/cjsouthern

[Davey]

I have got a boiler suit that is a rather nasty shade of US prison inmate orange. I was considering stenciling inmate number on the back, I reckon no-one would stop me if I was wearing that.

Obviously if you are on private property then written confirmation is helpful. I only went onto [semi] private land once to photograph, it was by lock gates behind a chain fence (with sign saying public not allowed past guard chains). It's an entrance to the docks with a swing up bridge and one of the bridge operators was there getting ready to raise the bridge for container ship. I was on way back from photographing the waterfront so asked if I could get on other side of fence to get photos and he was cool about it and said sure and gave me permission.

Next night I decided to get several shots around that dock to test out panotools (new to it and only put in not long ago so was first test) and police came along but the minute I said I asked the bridge guy yesterday and he gave me permission to take photos here they left me alone quite quickly and wished me a good night, the wpc said about taking panos on her 35mm film cam and asked about digital stitching and seemed interested rather than checking out my story but the guy looked a bit like wtf are they talking about so she kind of noticed and they left hehehehe. I guess if they think someone with more authority than them relating to the area you are has allowed you to take photos then that's enough to satisy them.

I think if I was to go onto land that is accessible to public but governed by some authority (like a park) then maybe asking them would be good in future, especially if there at strange times.