New laws that threaten photography and filming

[downfader]

Its slowly being outlawed in the UK it seems. I know that in my home town that if you walk around with an SLR you'll get approached, stopped and searched by the local police... now on Feb 16 a new law comes into affect:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=836646

It seems to me that this will slowly effect all forms of photography and filming. Ironically - will people now come forward with evidence to help the police if a police operation goes wrong? So say you see an officer getting a kicking and have a camera phone on you perhaps that will stay safely in the pocket?

 

[bleakanddivine]

I was walking through the shopping centre in Ealing and in one of the pedestrianised walkways just outside there is a statue of a horse and some small Japanese kids were playing on the pedestal. Daddy-san raised his Nikon to snap the cute pic and a security guard pounced on him declaring photography was not allowed in the shopping centre. Sensible anti-terrorist precaution or risible knee-jerk reaction?

 

[col]

A typical overreaction when a father cant take pictures of his own family.
A real use of antiterrorist rules,or is it someones authority/power trip,and them just trying to be official,and look at what i have the authority to do type.Which there seems to be plenty of nowadays.

 

[downfader]

I do think we've brought this half on ourselves as a nation. Locally a man was attacked by a mob for filming his own grandkids on the common, the police had to intervene.

My own brother was so confused by what he saw during the summer that he went up to the policeman he'd seen questioning and searching a kid with a camera and asked why, especially since no law had been broken.

I used to document the changing face of our city (and it develops fast around here, let me tell you) but this last year I didnt bother. Just not worth the hassle. Ordinary records of social culture, fashions and landscape will be forgotten forever.

I have also read that many professional photographers wont do work for the police now after the abuse they've been subjected to. I think the police have a difficult job to do and we need them, clearly, but this wont help matters at all.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

This is very worrying. I was told off at our local tip (yes, at the tip) for taking a picture of an abandoned teddy bear. I find completely ignoring people who are trying to tell you off works wonders - they get embarrassed and don't know what to do. But I don't think that will work with police officers who have the law on their side.

 

[downfader]

This is very worrying. I was told off at our local tip (yes, at the tip) for taking a picture of an abandoned teddy bear. I find completely ignoring people who are trying to tell you off works wonders - they get embarrassed and don't know what to do. But I don't think that will work with police officers who have the law on their side.

LOL, could you imagine a Jihad on the local tip, LMAO!!!!

When some people use a camera I do wonder if the grief they've had is something to do with jealousy of some sort. Jealousy that someone else is creative, knows techie stuff, or could make a bit of money from the pic (and often without your say needed).

 

[thomas]

You can't argue that "parents taking photos of children" couldn't be done by terrorists...if that was the only way to take a photo of a terrorist site that's how they'd do it.

However...that's more devil's advocate...stupid law!! Just means i'd need a smaller camera

 

[downfader]

You can't argue that "parents taking photos of children" couldn't be done by terrorists...if that was the only way to take a photo of a terrorist site that's how they'd do it.

However...that's more devil's advocate...stupid law!! Just means i'd need a smaller camera

Well no, they dont even need to do that thesedays, or even 5 years ago...

My years of messing with cameras have taught me that covert photography was invented almost as soon as Fox Talbot had got involved, lol. All you'd need is a bloke walking past a building, from the eye you'd never see the camera.

All that ends up happening is that ordinary people get the pressure instead of the authorities actually dealing with the real problem (for example dealing with those who teach,preach and train; dealing with the social exclusion that alienates and sends people into the former's arms)

Its a bit like the bit in the Simpsons where Lisa talks about specious reasoning and says that a rock she has protects you from tigers.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Laws to prevent mucky bastards in light brown flash macs from taking pics of kiddies, and to stop terrorists from 'recceying' a target unfortunately trawl a massive net which catches law-abiding joe public too.

 

[LeeW]

If a real terrorist wants a picture then he will get it, they will just use a hidden pinhole camera. I think stopping people from taking pictures just because they maybe a terrorist . "
This youtube vid is a good example of how stupid copyright law can get.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czgR76_M4fA

 

[HLaB]

Arrest yourself

 

[velocidad]

got a message from youtube saying they had removed my one and only video because someone had claimed copyright over the background song. just hope i don't end up having to pay royalties for all the times it was viewed. though i'm sure i read somewhere that youtube has agreed to pay royalties for music used in the videos it shows.
cheers,
velocidad.

 

[Will1985]

Slowly beginning to seem as though Orwell got it right.

Let's not forget pzycoman's story last year in London...

 

[classic33]

Question put elsewhere on here relating to digital cameras. Given the storage method, as a series of numbers, not an image. Are you actually taking a photograph.

If your fingerprints are scanned onto a computer sytsem, then you haven't been fingerprinted. Both give the same end result, but you are only classed as having your fingerprints taken if it results in a hard copy. The other is a storage of a series of numbers.

 

[downfader]

Question put elsewhere on here relating to digital cameras. Given the storage method, as a series of numbers, not an image. Are you actually taking a photograph.

If your fingerprints are scanned onto a computer sytsem, then you haven't been fingerprinted. Both give the same end result, but you are only classed as having your fingerprints taken if it results in a hard copy. The other is a storage of a series of numbers.

True but for the sake of simplicity we tend to generalise dont we. How many people say they vaccuum the room? Most "hoover" it.