Navigation

From Shoot Experience

Shoot Experience, a company promoting street photography and street photography events, assigned six photographers different areas of the City, the business district of London, to photograph. They were instructed to keep to public land and photograph the area as they would on a normal day. The aim was to explore the policing of public and private space by private security firms and their reaction to photographers.

I’ve said before that incidences between photographer and security guards, public-space personnel (museums, galleries, swimming pools) and shop attendants reveal a wide mistrust of photographers. The security guards in the Shoot Experience video repeatedly state that photographers can’t take pictures of privately owned buildings from public spaces. That is worrying. It’s almost as if the buildings have become people, with a right to privacy. How did this happen? Why are security personnel citing the Terrorism Act? These ideas, that photographers are essentially up to no good, become attached to one another, ideas about terrorism, about private property, about copyright and privacy law, about libel, about paedophilia; they end up attracting and propagating each other and forming comprehensive systems of suspicion. It’s enough to say that perhaps no one invented them. They just become accepted as the normal order of things.

It is, of course, nonsense. Photographers have the right to take pictures of any building they like as long as it’s from a public space. The only instance where photographing a building is not allowed, from my own experience, is the MI6 building in Vauxhall. On the other hand, if you’re taking a photo from land that is privately owned, such as a garden or house, the owners can place any restrictions they like on entry, which is why some museums, galleries, National Trust, English Heritage and other institutions have ‘No Photography’ signs displayed. You also need a permit to photograph in parks, particularly royal ones, like Windsor, but the National Trust does not charge for permission to shoot on its landscape and coastline properties.

It isn’t an infringement of copyright to take a picture of a building, or incidentally including a copyright work in a photograph, You can photograph buildings, or a building that is a work of architecture, or sculptures, or works of artistic craftsmanship that are situated on a permanent basis in a public place.

Also interesting in the video is when one building manager makes the distinction between photography for ‘private collection’, and, I assume, photography for commercial gain. Again, this is nonsense. Taking a photograph of artwork (being a copy of the artwork), or a close-up of a company’s logo, on private display is copyright infringement. However, if the logo is an incidental part of the image and if you’re taking the photo from a public place, it doesn’t matter whether it’s for commercial or private use.

A security guard states that the police advise him to approach photographers. I’m chasing this up with the City of London police right now.

One security guard says the photographer can’t film staff entering or leaving a building. This is not true.

One security guard cites the Terrorism Act. He’s referring to the Terrorism Act 2000. While the stop and search powers of Section 44 have been scrapped, section 43 states that police officers (not security personnel) have the power to stop and search a person whom they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist.

This is from the MET website:

“The purpose of the stop and search is to discover whether that person has in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist.

“Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist. This includes any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence.

“Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.”

The power to enforce this revolves around the word ‘reasonable’. As long as you explain your intentions and why you’re photographing, there shouldn’t be any reason to stop and search you. However, the civil liberties organisation Liberty believes that this power is already overly broad and open to challenge on the grounds that it is inconsistent with Article 8 (respect for privacy) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The potential for stand off is large. Photographers don’t like being asked to move on, and security people have been told (by their bosses) to come out and confront photographers. So their job is on the line. The onus here is as much on the photographer as the security person to be polite.

It should be noted that none of the police in the video were bothered by the photographers photographing on a public space.

I always ask three questions if stopped by an official in a public place:

1) Under what law are you stopping me?

2) What do you think I’m going to do? (Specifically, are they simply trying to deter, delay or inconvenience you?)

3) What will you do if I carry on taking pictures?

I state my rights. This is from the Metropolitan Police website:

“Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.”

One security guard in the film asks the videographer to stop filming. If someone asks you to stop recording them, and you’re in a public place, you should obviously use your discretion, particularly if children are involved. However, the request can’t be enforced from a legal basis. Clearly though, if you continue photographing or filming, physical violence may follow …

Posted 7 months ago with 5 notes
Tags: photographers' rights