It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man fined for taking photograph

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
If any Scottish people read this can you please tell us what the law is in regards to taking photo's in public.
I cant see how the fine would stick.If he took it before a judge.
I don't see how its breach of the peace unless they came and told him to stop and perhaps he yelled at them etc.




posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
There maybe different laws for this in Scotland than England. I know theregister.co.uk has covered this a few times in the past with similar stories about photographers getting a rough deal regarding taking photos in a public place. I think there is some issue regarding whether people in the photograph are identifiable in some way, although generally taking pictures of public areas is OK.

I could be wrong, but I think some of the stories involved 'enthusiastic' police officers &c who didn't really know the the extent of the law they thought they were 'upholding'.


A bit OT but I used to be a big fan of the register.co.uk but noticed lately since the redesign, it is majorly less funny, biting and has started to take more mainstream media conformist views - and there doesn't seem to be comments after stories anymore? It basically sucks now. Have you or anyone else noticed a difference?



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 02:52 AM
link   
Taking photos in public places is a bit of a sticky point right now.
I have been accosted by security guards and told I cannot take photos on the business estate where I work - I was out photographing birds on the lakes. The simple point I made to them was that I was on a clearly marked public footpath, with signage stating it was a public footpath and emblazoned with the borough council logo. As they were not able to provide me with a written statement banning photography in the area I went on my way snapping as I went.


Another one that comes up a lot is the photography of public buildings. Many people have been approached by security officers and / or police and told they cannot do so under anti-terrorist measures. What is so ridiculous is that many of these public buildings are old historically interesting structures that WE, the taxpayers, own.
I did read about the two 70 something ladies being accosted for taking photos of the park area with the paddling pool but, as they stated, at the time there were no children in sight. The police and, sadly, a lot of private security officers are trained to view everyone nowadays as a potential threat and use no common sense in their approach to determining what is actually going on. In my case I was clearly photographing the wildlife, not the office buildings which they'd have known anyway as I was being watched by the CCTV cameras. I also made it clear that if I was scoping out the area to plan a robbery I'd be better off doing so on Google Earth!

I believe Austin Mitchell MP, himself a keen photographer, is pursuing this issue through parliament at the moment in order to protect us from the ravages on over zealous law enforcers.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by Britguy]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.




Originally posted by whoswatchinwho they were arrested and charged as apparently its illegal to take picture where theres potentially gonna be children.


There is no such law.

Photos taken on private property are different.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Currently there is no law to prevent someone taking pictures in a public place and the security / park officer was in the wrong to escalate the situation with the two old ladies. The two biggest excuses used all the time are Pedophiles and terrorism and this is applied to everyone, no matter what age or colour.
As I said previously, those we look to for protection are not always the sharpest tools in the box and common sense is an alien concept.

Even the general public have been brainwashed though in viewing with suspicion someone photographing or filming public places or buildings, such is the success of the government / media fear campaigns over the last few years.

People do seem to forget that, in most town or city centres, there are large amounts of cameras watching them all the time that now seem to go unnoticed, yet someone taking a few snaps must be up to no good. I carry a camera with me every day, almost everywhere I go as you never know when a good photo opportunity will present itself. I will continue to do so and, where necessary, request proof of laws that prohibit photography in a public place if challenged.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by primamateria
A bit OT but I used to be a big fan of the register.co.uk but noticed lately since the redesign, it is majorly less funny, biting and has started to take more mainstream media conformist views - and there doesn't seem to be comments after stories anymore? It basically sucks now. Have you or anyone else noticed a difference?


I'm a long time reader theregister myself and I've seen a good few changes over the years. Over the last couple of years there's definitely been a shift in content. Some of it is reasonable, such as the Big Brother-type conspiracy material as it ties into to what many readers do for a living regarding the IT industry. Similarly, articles on the likes of Wiki and Facebook have their place, in my opinion, as, for 'end users', these are as important to computing as Windows latest patch rollouts - if not more.

However, there's definitely more 'populist' fluff pieces than there was previously. My biggest issue is the standard of writing from the 'journalists'. Whilst there's still some well constructed and written articles, it's definitely shoddy at times.

The latest 'revision' and recent general appears to have upset a few people I know in the industry. I think the last time this happened was when there was theregister had an 'opening-up' to the American market. I'm not particularly keen myself, to be honest.

As for the lack of comments/commenting. That's still there, although arguably not as funny/useful as it once was. On the front page, you can even access 'most commented' stories.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I have to say that as a Police Officer, the man was definately not in Breach Of The Peace and should have never been arrested & charged. His Inspector and the Courts will not be impressed.

The woman who was so ill from booze and was sick in the street should have been arrested and charged with being Drunk In A Public Place. It's an £80 fine for her.

If I was the man who took the picture, I would be complaining to the IPCC, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and he will be compensated.

Nuff said ................



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Im a photographer, the guy did not break any laws, fact, none. I would have fought this one. He was in/on a public place, as was she. Absolutly no crime commited. He could have taken as many photographs as he wished.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Breach of the peace is a much wider offence under Scots Law than its English equivalent. It's defined in the following terms ... "When one or more persons conduct themselves in a riotous, or disorderly manner, anywhere, which alarms, annoys or disturbs the lieges (other people)".

The offence can occur anywhere (on private & public property, or in the street) & it's very important for the Procurator Fiscal (the state prosecutor) to prove to the Sheriff (the judge) that someone was annoyed, concerned or disturbed by the offence.

So if someone saw the guy taking photographs, got annoyed with him & kicked off, the Police are perfectly entitled to arrest the photographer for breaching the peace.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Good video about the laws of this issue and good to see some people standing up for their rights.




posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I don't quite know why you lot are getting all het up on the issue. The photographer pleaded guilty.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


I love that video, thanks for posting it.

Did my heart good to see that there is still someplace in this world where people can still stand up for their rights without being arrested and more than likely roughed up which is what would have happened to them here in the US.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Niall197
 


Perhaps because we feel that an injustice was done to him.

Just because he pleaded guilty does not mean that we can not feel that his arrest and fine was unjustified, nor does it mean that we can not discuss our opinions about the situation.

In case you have forgotten you are on a disscusion board.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


He caused upset & annoyance to the girl & her friends. It's that which directly led to the charge, not the photographs in themselves. If the girls hadn't complained he could've snapped away quite happily, quite free from let or hindrance.

To that extent the thread title should be "Man Pleads Guilty & Is Fined For Annoying Others".



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a little advice ..if the police want to fine you refuse to pay and goto court..99% of all these stupid fines will be dropped by the crown prosecution service before it gets to court because it would cost 100 times more in a court case than the money they would get ..



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by chise61
reply to post by blupblup
 


I love that video, thanks for posting it.

Did my heart good to see that there is still someplace in this world where people can still stand up for their rights without being arrested and more than likely roughed up which is what would have happened to them here in the US.

Yeh lol, but you gotta remember that's them on camera, who knows what they are like OFF CAMERA.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

That this House is concerned to encourage the spread and enjoyment of photography as the most genuine and accessible people’s art; deplores the apparent increase in the number of reported incidents in which the police, police community support officers (PCSOs) or wardens attempt to stop street photography and order the deletion of photographs or the confiscation of cards, cameras or film on various specious ground such as claims that some public buildings are strategic or sensitive, that children and adults can only be photographed with their written permission, that photographs of police and PCSOs are illegal, or that photographs may be used by terrorists; points out that photography in public places and streets is not only enjoyable but perfectly legal; regrets all such efforts to stop, discourage or inhibit amateur photographers taking pictures in public places, many of which are in any case festooned with closed circuit television cameras; and urges the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to agree on a photography code for the information of officers on the ground, setting out the public’s right to photograph public places thus allowing photographers to enjoy their hobby without officious interference or unjustified suspicion.


Rights Of The Photographer UK - PDF File.

I have been approached on many occasions for being in the street taking pictures, to the point now where I am actually getting some tops made the say on the back 'I am a photographer, NOT a terrorist' and 'I am a Photographer NOT a Paedophile'

Its getting silly out there now with a camera, everyone assumes you're 'Upto No Good'



[edit on 4-10-2008 by StarTraveller]



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Niall197
 


Yes and the reason they were upset is because he took her picture,while she was ill.

The sherriff said that she was entitled to her privacy and not having her picture taken by a stranger. He also said that he was fining him as a reminder that chilvalry is not dead and when someone is distressed you should leave them alone.


My point is that while he should have shown more decorum (IMO) he was within his rights as he was on a public street. What you do in private is private, and like it or not what you do in public is public. The goverments worldwide are getting carried away with infringing upon peoples rights.

Hey i don't like the fact that a street view of the front of my house, my car, my whole block, as well as some of my nieghbors is on google street view. It upsets me, but they aren't getting fined because the pictures are legal since they were taken from a public street.




top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join