Threats to Photographers' Rights?

Submitted by Thorgrim on Sunday, 26 June 2005 Page Views: 26029

Country: England

**Little Meg** submitted by traveller : Billy sat on the large stone of Little Meg, when we eventually found it, so overgrown now, almost hidden. (Vote or comment on this photo)

Are you clear about what you can and cannot photograph in Britain? You cannot photograph prisons and certain security premises and few of us would argue with that, but English Heritage and the National Trust now apply restrictions on the photographing of many of their sites and seem to think that they have a claim on any of your images that you want to sell. Does copyright still reside with the individual photographer - or does the site "owner" now have legitimate control? Many organisations and publishers will not accept photographs if they show any PEOPLE in the scene! Perhaps that is not a major issue for Portal photographers, but where are we going? Why are the prohibitions growing ever more oppressive?

Recently I was working on commission and photographing listed buildings in a village in Norfolk. I was approached twice by the local Neighbouhod Watch. They had taken my vehicle number and said that I had been reported as behaving suspiciously at various locations in and around the village. All that I had been doing was taking photographs of old buildings! I was then approached by the local headmistress who challenged me and said that she had been told that "a man was taking photographs of the children in the playground"! Of course, I hadn't and had been nowhere near the children. Again, I managed to calm her down and allay her fears - but suppose I had not been able to reassure her? I was using film so couldn't reveal child free digital images. What if she had called the police? Would they have confiscated my films and locked me up for the night?

The following article by Chris Cheeseman in the current Amateur Photography magazine (22/06/05) sounds a warning that we should all note and respond to if we want to retain the basic right to photograph ANYONE in any PUBLIC PLACE.

"There is growing support for Amateur Photography's campaign against measures that threaten photographers' right to take pictures in public.
This follows an announcement by London Mayor Ken Livingstone - backed by the Metropolitan Police - that photographers using digital cameras and camera phones to take pictures of children in London's parks and other public spaces could be paedophiles.
The Mayor said parents should be vigilant and he is considering plans to put up signs across London to warn them of what he see as the potential dangers.
Many MPs revealed their objections to the plans after Austin Mitchell, MP for Great Grimsby, tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM) in the House of Commons to garner the support of fellow politicians following our news story on the controversy (see AP news 11 June).
An EDM is a petition that allows MPs to express and publicise their opinions on given matters and gives fellow politicians the opportunity to support it.
Austin's EDM – tabled in the House of Commons on 6 June - attacks the moves as 'panic' measures against photographers taking entirely innocent pictures of children and young people in public places. He says these are 'unnecessary and unfair', casting a 'slur' on photography and photographers, both amateur and professional.
To read the EDM in full - and for more reaction to this story - see next week's AP, in shops on Tuesday 28 June."
Any views? What do you think? Justifiable protectionism or paranoia?

Contributor Bio for Thorgrim: Contributing since 2003.

<< The Great Stone Circles – How they Work Part 5a

Feature Articles

The Great Stone Circles – How they Work Part 5b >>