Photographers are terrorists. Official. - Page 2

Mark · 17-04-2008, 12:54

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm

SCM · 17-04-2008, 13:02

I mailed my MP about the early day motion mentioned in the article above and he has signed it

Will be interesting if i ever get stopped by a security guard up here from some of the main companies, as with my dad working for them at various times i at least know who to go to directly to complain

SCM

petemc · 17-04-2008, 13:47

I was stopped the other day outside the Royal Sun Alliance building in Liverpool by their in house security. They asked who I was working for and promptly backed down when I told them it was the company who owned the building. They said a few months ago 4 Asian types took photos and ran off when questioned. So the building manager doesn't like people taking photos of his building. I pointed out that its too late and that if terrorist want photos there are plenty online. I didn't point out to him that I was on public property and he could get bent. I didn't feel the need to create a scene when I was trying to do my job. If I was just there taking photos I would have though.

Garp · 23-04-2008, 13:53

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

Not sure if thats of any use to folks

edit: It's been pointed out to me thats 2004, so it might be out of date

edit2: Author claims it isn't: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/200...ts_guide#c5392

Garp · 09-06-2008, 14:18

http://current.com/items/88856223_yo...t_picture_this

Tysonator · 11-06-2008, 20:43

I was reading a Camera Magazine today strangely enough before I read this thread. The article mention about where you can and can not film and the different acts of parliament that cover different uses of cameras. From filming in public to taking pictures of celebrities. It was an interesting read. You can film in a public place, you can take pictures of private property if you are located in a public area, as long as the act of photography does not incite distress and liable to cause a public order situation. You can take 1 pic of a celebrity any more they can deny to have any more taken.
The acts covered ranged from Harassment, Terrorist, Filming Act, plus 2 others I can not remember.
The thing to remember on this is do your home work on were you can film and whose authorisation who may need to film. As private property you do need the permission of the owner to film.
The magazine in question had an pic & article of a canon 400D on the cover.

Mark · 04-08-2008, 23:12

Necropost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00cwg2s/
Available until 6PM Monday 11th August.

Fast-forward to 01:27 if you wish.

17-04-2008, 13:47	#13
petemc Moonshine Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Nr Liverpewl Posts: 4,371	I was stopped the other day outside the Royal Sun Alliance building in Liverpool by their in house security. They asked who I was working for and promptly backed down when I told them it was the company who owned the building. They said a few months ago 4 Asian types took photos and ran off when questioned. So the building manager doesn't like people taking photos of his building. I pointed out that its too late and that if terrorist want photos there are plenty online. I didn't point out to him that I was on public property and he could get bent. I didn't feel the need to create a scene when I was trying to do my job. If I was just there taking photos I would have though. __________________ Thats no hamster, its a space station!

23-04-2008, 13:53	#14
Garp Preparing more tumbleweed Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Hawaii Posts: 6,038	http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php Not sure if thats of any use to folks edit: It's been pointed out to me thats 2004, so it might be out of date edit2: Author claims it isn't: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/200...ts_guide#c5392 __________________ Mal: Define "interesting"? Wash: "Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die"? Last edited by Garp; 23-04-2008 at 14:47.

09-06-2008, 14:18	#15
Garp Preparing more tumbleweed Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Hawaii Posts: 6,038	http://current.com/items/88856223_yo...t_picture_this __________________ Mal: Define "interesting"? Wash: "Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die"?

11-06-2008, 20:43	#16
Tysonator Vodka Martini Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: ESSEX Posts: 874	I was reading a Camera Magazine today strangely enough before I read this thread. The article mention about where you can and can not film and the different acts of parliament that cover different uses of cameras. From filming in public to taking pictures of celebrities. It was an interesting read. You can film in a public place, you can take pictures of private property if you are located in a public area, as long as the act of photography does not incite distress and liable to cause a public order situation. You can take 1 pic of a celebrity any more they can deny to have any more taken. The acts covered ranged from Harassment, Terrorist, Filming Act, plus 2 others I can not remember. The thing to remember on this is do your home work on were you can film and whose authorisation who may need to film. As private property you do need the permission of the owner to film. The magazine in question had an pic & article of a canon 400D on the cover. __________________ Will think of some witty to say, well when I think of it

17-04-2008, 12:54	#11
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7351252.stm

17-04-2008, 13:02	#12
SCM As endorsed by Mr Black Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hell/Scotland take your pick Posts: 443	I mailed my MP about the early day motion mentioned in the article above and he has signed it Will be interesting if i ever get stopped by a security guard up here from some of the main companies, as with my dad working for them at various times i at least know who to go to directly to complain SCM

04-08-2008, 23:12	#17
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Necropost. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00cwg2s/ Available until 6PM Monday 11th August. Fast-forward to 01:27 if you wish.