Photographer's rights gets a higher profile

Did anyone see this? BBC News photographer Jeff Overs on the Andrew Marr show.

Huw

They didn't pick up on the comment made by the police: "Well, we've stopped lots of people this morning and nobody else complained".

That would seem to confirm our concerns.

He was using a N***n. The police acted correctly.

If he had anything that identified as a BBC employee then the police must have known the potential for something like this occurring (making airtime).
Perhaps they want to raise the profile of photographers under suspicion??

Huw

*sighs* is this still going on

This really saddens me, I have looked at other societies with oppressive governments and often wondered how they got to that state. Are we becoming one of those societies gradually and slowly having our freedom chipped away in order to protect us from ourselves ?

"If he had anything that identified as a BBC employee then the police must have known the potential for something like this occurring (making airtime)."

Is there an assumption here that the BBC photographer didn't get exactly what he wanted.

I've been talked to once in 45 years. I was in an alley at 3 a.m. taking photos of shadows and streetlights. A police officer asked me what I was doing in the alley and took down my name, address, and date-of-birth. Then he went on patrolling and I went on taking photos. It was as traumatic for me as it apparently is for others.

No, not at all, more a case of did the Police get what they wanted...

Pretty much every person has a camera on them now (built into their phone). Some of the newer models are capable of decent resolutions - I've seen 5mp which isn't far off the original *ist D.

With a camera of sorts in the hands of pretty much every adult, how on earth do the authorities think that hassling people with more obvious cameras is going to do anything? "Terrorists" are more likely to take snapshots with a camera phone (looking like every other tourist and not attracting attention) rather than standing out with a DSLR and a big lens!

As already proposed with mobile phones, you may need a passport or ID to buy a camera and permission to use it.

Welcome to the New World Order.

Well the security guard in the mall here in Spain stopped me taking photos of some plants last week, he was carrying a gun but I did make a protest that it was only plants, anyway he said no and as my Spanish is not that good I said OK and put the camera away, funny thing is he was watching me taking photos outside but as soon as I went into the mall and saw me that's when he stopped me, I have taken a few photos in the mall before and this is the first time I have been stopped, there are no signs up anywhere to say you can't, so it must be catching on here in Spain now

Jack.

One from the past.
[IMG]http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq253/jackitec/x70.jpg[/IMG]

All Malls in the Gulf have a no photography inside policy.

Most also have a no smoking policy. Only the photography rule is enforced.....

Regards

Not a very good interview IMHO, but the point was made, even if the tone of the piece seems like they are doing it for the benefit of 10 year olds....

Outside the mall would be public property, so he has no right to tell you to stop taking photos. Inside, it's private property of the mall owner and a condition of entry is that you follow their rules.

I always like museums with a "no flash photography" sign rather than a blanket "no photography". I never use flash anyway!

I went to an art exhibition in Malaga and just about everyone in there had a camera including me and no restrictions, I was very surprised,