Cameras, police, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Beautifully put, George, as usual. We didn't get a realistic example, either.

Ray

5) Emergency regulations may not amend—

(a) this Part of this Act, or

(b) the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).

I did say that the more contentious parts of the act hadn't been used yet. Try and keep up.

You are both very welcome.

When you read an act of law you need to read it as a whole and not as a part, because the one part is not what gives you powers. You need to state when an act of law can be used, and this is where your points of example fall down.

Let me explain - when I said "any chance of a realistic example?" I intended for you to provide a scenario in which you believe that these powers would/could/should be available and used. Is that clearer? Try and usefully contribute.

Ray

Hi folks

The simple fact is in the UK there is no law against taking photographs in public places. There is a potential problem of taking images of for instance the inside of military bases and the likes even from the public road and that is fully understandable. No police constable has the right to force you to delete images from your card. A pc is there to uphold the law not to make it. I also personally do not take images of kids in the street but that is my personal thing. It must be remembered that many shopping Centres for instance are Private Property and can insist on no photography. You legally can take images on public roads of public places and the public at large. It is a freedom thing.

Ian

Are you aware how few areas in the UK are actually public property? As a few examples, any farmland in the UK, any National Trust property, and most of London, including the South Bank, Canary Wharf, most of Mayfair etc etc. are private land. You may have right of way, but that does not entitle you to do anything other than cross it.

Check out AP this week, Poole council tried to stop a photographer shooting on a public beach and quoted local bylaws.

The real police (by that I mean paid and professional) I seldom have more than a polite chat with, but private security guards, park wardens and plastic "community support" officers are another issue I'm afraid.

Hi
I agree Steve there are massive tracts of "land" that is private. The National Trust is a great example. What is the National Trust? I believe it is a body to look after buildings and land that is owned by the Government to be preserved for the good of the people of the country so I repeat what is the National Trust. Myself and roughly 66 million others are the people that it is being held in good order for and as the Government is there at the behest of my and 66 million other people then strictlty speaking we do own it and it is therefore public property. The NT would not survive without the taxpayers. The snag is the NT thought they were being clever when in fact they are being greedy by insisting on the copyright of and images that you take at your expense in your own time on property which by defination you own.
I am afraid to say that this is a trend being exploited by others and indeed mainly Government or Government sponcered bodies.
I will get off my high horse now and go and earn some more tax so that the bankers can fritter it away. Another subject.

Ian

Ian I beg to differ - The National Trust is an independent charity set uo by Victorian philanthropists. It does not recieve funds directly from Governement. Therefore (and unfortunatley) it can lay down any conditions it wants on its property and its tenants.

Dave

I think that point, too, is open to question. A great deal of National Trust property was gifted to it on the basis that the property would be looked after and made available to the public to enjoy. The Trust has a duty to observe the conditions, stated and implied, in those bequests.

Frankly, I think it is on somewhat shakey ground with its prohibition on photography. If I leave the Lazarette estates to the NT, there will be a clause stipulating that photography for non-commercial purposes will be not just permitted but encouraged.

G

To be fair to the NT, I've never had any problem arranging indoor photography by appointment.

Outdoor photography is fine anyway.

Not if you plan to publish the photographs. Rights to ALL photographs of NT property (even if taken from non NT property) supposedly belong to the National Trust Photo Library (which is a commercial company) - even if taken with permission or for one of their competitions.

Recently they forced many stock sites to remove all pictures of NT property from their sites, and strictly speaking even if you put photos on Flikr you are infringing their rules.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=31655667

Whether this would stand up in court I dont know. The fact is that the NT can ban photography ON THEIR PREMISIS if they wish, but handing a monopoly to a commercial company of which many NT board members are also board members strikes me as not entirely consistent.

And just try becoming a member of the NTPL. Its dominated by top UK photographers and almost impossible to join.

One of them even resigned in protest.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=31875141&q=Nationa...

If you plan to publish the photographs then you will have to pay a fee, but for most amateur photographers this won't be an issue.

Taking an image of a NT property from publicly accessible land would be OK, even a private owner can't control what happens off their property.

I agree it's a bit off as in one sense when people donate property to the NT, often to satisfy Death Duties, it amounts IMHO to a kind of state theft, but that's probably another issue altogether.

Hi there
There is an intersesting website with lots of information but is best viewed on Firefox or Safari. On IE I cannot get to the "Bust Card" site but can on Firefox. I wonder why? Is this some sort of information suppresion. I would like to see the views of others.

http://photographernotaterrorist.org


Ian