For Sale: I'm a Terrorist not a Photographer

Bleurgh. I don't even want to watch this--it's so completely predictable what happens (and the article seems to give the relevant bits).

Bleurgh. I don't even want to watch this--it's so completely predictable what happens (and the article seems to give the relevant bits).

It echos my previous point that you can insist on your rights all you like - in this case the bloke pointed out that he was under no obligation to give his personal details . . . so the police changed a section 44 into anti social behaviour issue - which forces him - under threat of arrest - to give his personal details.

Like I say, the right to withhold your personal details exists only in the minds of the legislators, activists and newspaper columnists. People can insist that you have certain rights when dealing with a PCSO, police officer, council official, enforcement officer and so on, but effectively you have none, you either give your details, delete photographs, leave the area - or do whatever it is they want - otherwise you leave yourself open to arrest.

The thing I don't fully understand is once these people have been arrested, handcuffed and taken to the cells - then forced to submit to a body search, swabbed for the DNA database and handed over all their personal details - why do the police need to keep them locked up for 8 hours or so ?

Yes, totally--unless you really have a lawyer with you who knows his or her stuff, you can't make headway by insisting on 'rights'--the Ways and Means Act is generally stronger.

No idea why people are held for so long. Perhaps they just want to 'punish' them or thye run more advanced computer checks which take a while?

What I don't understand is why they pounced on these people like that in the first place. The only motivation seems to be that the initial request for details was ignored, and they then came up with a way of forcing them to hand over details. I didn't even know about that anti-social behaviour charge. How can you possibly make that stick if all the photographer is doing is taking pictures? (Not that I think you have to make it stick to get away with it.)

the government have some seriously misguided ideas about photography/public access/image rights/copyright

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public

if the latest proposals make it through the lords then the cool brittania persona of tory blair and his cronies was just a shallow front to a money grabbing regime that followed. madleson is a twisted sour faced liar and a real cloak and dagger merchant.
change law regarding images 'found' on the web.
make a collections agency for royalties that nobody will know how to claim and keep the cash.
ignore international/european law and have no idea how the proposed legislation will work.
have lords with vested interests like lord puttnam who is a majority shareholder in a media company set to profit from the legislation, the likelihood of him admitting this vested interest in the house of unelected representatives is very very slim.

why do the police need to keep them locked up for 8 hours or so ?

bureaucracy.

the government have some seriously misguided ideas about photography/public access/image rights/copyright

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public

It seems that in this day and age you are getting fucked over left right and centre without even knowing it. Does none consensual photography include speed cameras and the Police taking photos of the public when policing demonstrations?

This country is becoming worse then the Soviet satellite states in the 70's

i think the orphan works bill will not register with the general public but they stand too lose just as much as professionals.
it's a very poorly thought out bit of legislation with spurious claims to be in everyone's interest.
it only benefits people like rupert murdoch and the government.

This country bit by bit is losing its civil liberties and most people don't even know that it is happening. I suppose the only thing you can do is to play their game to your advantage. I am tempted to get stopped and to refuse to give my details and to see what happens I have plenty of time to waste ;o))

This makes me really angry! Will be writing to my MP tonight and chasing it up.

I'm studying at St Martin's at the moment as well so I'll encourage the rest of my photography class to do the same.

the government have some seriously misguided ideas about photography/public access/image rights/copyright

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public

This makes me really angry! Will be writing to my MP tonight and chasing it up.

I'm studying at St Martin's at the moment as well so I'll encourage the rest of my photography class to do the same.

Top Work. and get them to tell their friends. anyone who works creatively will be effected by this legislation.

there is plenty of discussion about this on industry websites, some of it open and some of it closed.
this little snippet is off a closed list but i'm sure they wont mind me quoting it.
basically the draft bill is illegal under European law
*
"From work done by ******* in the US and my own reading, HMG break 3 articles of Berne & 1 Article of TRIPS with the Bill. This is pretty clear cut and without much wriggle room. A further Article of TRIPS means that they should send themselves to gaol for piracy on a commercial scale. Also S85 of CDPA (Right to privacy of certain photographs) is going to be broken by licensing of some OW, but they left themselves a nice loophole by allowing acts done by statutory authority to be exempt.*"

Are there many worse people on the planet than Rupert Murdoch?

Are there many worse people on the planet than Rupert Murdoch?

Mugabe?

Dennis Potter named his cancer after him. (Murdoch)

Not many, by any reckoning.

Are there many worse people on the planet than Rupert Murdoch?

Robert Maxwell and look what happened to him. We live in hope.

There is no detail in the anti-social behaviour act that would cover the act of taking photos "in the manner in which he was doing it"
ASBA covers street drinking, drug dealing, aggresive, rowdy and noisy behaviour. fly tipping etc etc
Nothing about taking pictures.
Oliver hit it on the head:

The only motivation seems to be that the initial request for details was ignored, and they then came up with a way of forcing them to hand over details

It's an abuse of powers, the only way out is to be nice to them.

You are right Tynan, it's futile holding them up to your rights as an innocent man, but if you tow the line, the most they can do is inconvinence you, which by asking them to give over their details is as close to hoisting them on their own petards as we can get.

I'd personally like to kill them on the face to the power of 10 but that can wait till the uprising....

Oxford st.. probably, i think i had a date

the government have some seriously misguided ideas about photography/public access/image rights/copyright

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public

if the latest proposals make it through the lords then the cool brittania persona of tory blair and his cronies was just a shallow front to a money grabbing regime that followed. madleson is a twisted sour faced liar and a real cloak and dagger merchant.
change law regarding images 'found' on the web.
make a collections agency for royalties that nobody will know how to claim and keep the cash.
ignore international/european law and have no idea how the proposed legislation will work.
have lords with vested interests like lord puttnam who is a majority shareholder in a media company set to profit from the legislation, the likelihood of him admitting this vested interest in the house of unelected representatives is very very slim.

Good grief !

The second part (The ICO code) is astonishing, if (when ?) made law this will be an extraordinary tool for the state to shut down street photography, citizen journalism and curtail press freedoms. We already have the PCSOs, police officers, council officials, enforcement officers (and so on) shoving cameras out of peoples hands and citing Section 4A of the Public Order Act (HAD) - which is spurious at best, but this could well give the power to whoever wants (it's drafting and definitions look to be typically ill-defined) to stop anyone taking a picture.

I suspect there will be further large scale clamp downs like this rushed through with little parliamentary oversight in the run up the London Olympics, I am sure we will see more and more of these wide ranging powers coming into force and I can't imagine they will be revoked after the Olympics.

the uprising....

I hope my invite is in the post.

This is such a bleak thread. And thanks for sharing the proposed act on copyright which frankly beggars belief.

From my own experience, I find it's kind of up and down in terms of the amount of attention I receive - I've spent an entire day filming the security cameras around Scotland Yard and the Old Bailey and wasn't approached once. Yet on another day, just carrying (in bags) a tripod and camera and I was stopped when walking through back Soho and asked for details (which I declined). Thankfully he backed down and didn't pursue it. Apart from that clicking sound when I make a phonecall..

Good grief !

no shit!
but you will not find a mention of this on the bbc (the digital bill) only something posted last year and then it's mainly about music copying (something obviously relevant to yourself) and no mention about imagery. of course why would they mention that when they want people to submit content for free or borrow imagery from wherever they like?
plus music used by businesses/bbc/radio is already administered by the PRS

The Digital Economy Bill is likely to pale into insignificance next to the ACTA.

well that depends if you are the creator of work(s) be they literature/images/music/film or commercial IP or a thief.

Thief? You mean copyright infringer. Not that the creator is likely to be the beneficiary, but the publisher.

Not that we actually have much to go on, given the secrecy of the ACTA.

'ifringer' call it what you like.
the creator will benefit if they don't sign their work away for free but license it instead.

Thanks for the link, MrSmyth--just read through all of that and was just stunned by the stupidity that goes into making these utterly unnecessary and in fact unjust and counter-productive 'laws'--more like 'lawghs' (bitter ones). Disgusting. Can anyone be done or is Mandelson just too powerful? I presume an incoming Conservative government would just carry on with it regardless?

You are right Tynan, it's futile holding them up to your rights as an innocent man, but if you tow the line, the most they can do is inconvinence you, which by asking them to give over their details is as close to hoisting them on their own petards as we can get.

I think that is as much as you can do, a cheerful servility is what will make them (some - not all) feel they are being afforded the respect their recently granted authority demands.

So when some 4' 9" poorly trained PCSO in a fluorescent jacket, several sizes too big for him, barks at you to stop filming or shoves your camera out of your hand - it is, like you say, probably best to toe-the-line.

But this does not necessarily mean you still might not be arrested and taken to a cell for 8 hours, even being polite and handing over your details when demanded is no guarantee that you won't be slung in the back of a van if the officer does not like you - or what he perceives you to be - or to be up to.

I'd personally like to kill them on the face to the power of 10 but that can wait till the uprising....

That was a perfectly safe thing to say 2 years ago, right now that could land you in court.

I will be a witness for the state.

Thanks for the link, MrSmyth--just read through all of that and was just stunned by the stupidity that goes into making these utterly unnecessary and in fact unjust and counter-productive 'laws'--more like 'lawghs' (bitter ones). Disgusting. Can anyone be done or is Mandelson just too powerful? I presume an incoming Conservative government would just carry on with it regardless?

lobbying. lots of letters to MP's and i guess if it goes through some kind of demonstration and perhaps a high profile claim against an 'infringer' such as the BBC or a government agency or a company owned by an MP or peer.
it's not a newsworthy topic though and the general public isn't really interested.

if anything this has motivated me to actually vote in the next election.

if anything this has motivated me to actually vote in the next election.

For who ?

All these issues - of an overbearing and authoritarian state - are non-partisan as far as I can see, I am sure the Conservatives will not repel any of the decade long slew of authoritarian and repressive legislation, Labour will continue with the same demolition of British Liberty and the Liberal Democrats will not be elected.