The general public and photography

click photo to enlarge

I've never been challenged or queried very much when taking photographs in public places. It has happened, but it has never led to the sort of significant incident that makes headlines. The police, private security guards and others are regularly reported exceeding their authority and interfering with the rights that photographers have to pursue their hobby and profession, and we must all strongly uphold our freedom to photograph in public places in the face of this kind of officiousness. But, what we must not forget is that most people, especially members of the public, are usually very helpful as far as photography goes. For example, people often wait until I've taken my shot before walking in front of me. Others are very generous, telling me about locations where I can get a good photograph. Of course, some people do make a detour to stay out of my shot, not to help me, but because they don't want to be captured on my image, and there's no problem with that. I usually find this happens in smaller places - towns, villages, the countryside - where photography is not an everyday occurrence. In cities and spots frequented by tourists, places where camera-wielding people are common, the locals tend to ignore you much more readily.

The other day I experienced a further example of the goodwill that is often afforded to photographers. I was sizing up a shot down Barn Hill in Stamford, Lincolnshire, when a man stepped out of a building to my left and was about to set off down into the town centre. "Am I going to be in your way?", he said, pausing for a moment. I told him he wouldn't be and he carried on, saying over his shoulder, "I suppose you can always Photoshop me out." I replied, "No, you'll be good foreground interest for me", at which he smiled and strode off, hands behind his back carrying his briefcase.

I've posted two shots of this particular Stamford street before (see here and here), a place with a fine selection of interesting buildings. On our recent visit we managed to dodge the rain and the sun made fleeting appearances. For this photograph, however, it had gone, but the sky had sufficient interest, the light was bright, and I managed to get a shot that I like; one that is all the better for the co-operative figure in the yellow jacket in the foreground.

photograph and text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Canon
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 35mm
 F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/320 sec
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation:  -0.67 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Guilty until proven innocent

click photo to enlarge
It seems that Britain's photographers are guilty until proven innocent. How else can we explain the police continuing to interfere with people using their cameras on the streets of our country?

Over the past year the press has regularly carried articles about amateur and professional photographers, tourists and casual snappers being confronted by private security guards, police constables and police community support officers. In many cases the representatives of the law took action without the support of any legislation. In other incidents, particularly in London, the "catch all" Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 has been used. A Minister has stood up in the Houses of Parliament and said that this was never the intention of that legislation and has told police not to use the act against photographers. The Metropolitan Police has published advice to its officers along the same lines. And yet it continues.

Recently a man on his way to work in Brighton was stopped and asked for his name and address when he was taking photographs of the newly erected Christmas lights. In November a BBC photographer, Jeff Overs, was stopped and questioned when photographing the Millennium Footbridge and St Paul's Cathedral in London. That one sent a shiver down my spine because a couple of weeks earlier I'd photographed exactly that subject! Partly as a consequence of these events, and in the light of a recent memorandum sent to all 43 of the UK's police forces reminding them that no threat or offence is implied when someone takes a photograph in the street, a Guardian newspaper photographer decided he'd see if the persecution of photographers had stopped. He went to photograph "The Gherkin", the distinctive office building in Central London that is photographed daily by thousands of tourists. Within a couple of minutes a security guard had alerted the police and he was apprehended. You can read about his experience in his article, From snapshot to Special Branch: how my camera made me a terror suspect.

One of the pitfalls of street photography today is that some areas that we might think to be public places are actually privately owned. This applies to all shopping centres (malls) - as you might expect - but also to, for example, land around the base of "The Gherkin" and the whole of Canary Wharf. On private land the owner or his representative can sanction or forbid photography and can add detailed rules about the uses to which such images can be put. I was aware of this when I took today's photograph, but was also conscious that - to my knowledge - no one has been forbidden from photographing in Canary Wharf. And a good thing too. However, and this is the main point that the police refuse to grasp, there is no legislation forbidding the taking of photographs in public places. It shouldn't be necessary for a photographer to bring a civil action against the police for this persecution to stop - it would be a waste of public money - but it seems that nothing else is going to ensure that the law as it is written is properly upheld!

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Lumix LX3
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 5.1mm (24mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f4
Shutter Speed: 1/500
ISO: 80
Exposure Compensation: -1.0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Terrorism and architectural photography

click photo to enlarge
I photograph quite a bit of archit- ecture, though less than I used to do. My move from a coast near a cluster of urban centres to a more rural setting means fewer buildings, and a narrower range of building types at which to point my camera.

Of all the types of photography that you can engage in architectural photography should be one of the least stressful. Photographing wildlife requires planning, stealth, and then frustration when your subject "legs it". Motorsports and aviation photography must be pretty fraught too - all that noise and a subject that is frequently moving very fast. People, of course, present problems too many to enumerate, which is why I don't often point my camera their way. But architectural photography? The subject stands perfectly still for you, you can travel a long way to your chosen building knowing that it's invariably going to be there when you arrrive, and it doesn't complain or sulk if it has to be shot during inclement weather. Yes, buildings have a lot going for them as subjects for the camera.

Or so I thought until I read of the Austrian tourists who were made to stop photographing Vauxhall bus station in London, and compelled to erase their memory cards, by officious police over-stepping the bounds of their authority. But what made me wonder even more was reading this tale about an architectural photographer plying his trade in London a couple of weeks ago, and his brush with police hyped up on anti-terrorism legislation and training (or the lack of it). It made me recall the photography that I've done over the years in the capital city, and that which I'll be undertaking there again quite soon. Will I eventually come up against an authority figure who takes exception to me snapping shots of architecture? I've only been queried once about why I was doing photography of this sort - it was outside Queen's Terrace, Fleetwood - and my interrogator was an elderly inhabitant of one of the flats in the building. She was satisfied by my response that I wanted an image of this architecturally significant building, and she was interested to discover that in the UK anyone has the right to photograph virtually anything from a public place.

Today's photograph presented no such problems. To photograph inside Peterborough Cathedral requires the payment of a small fee (a mere £2.00), and it can then be done with the blessing (!) of its owners. On my recent visit I wanted to capture something of the mystery of the building so I took several shots of the darker sanctuary - a contrast to the other images that I've posted of this building (here, here and here).

NOTE: Any UK photographer concerned about restrictions being placed on photography in our country should sign this petition.

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 11mm (22mm/44mm equiv.)
F No: f2.8
Shutter Speed: 1/50 seconds
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: -1.0 EV
Image Stabilisation: On

Photography and terrorism

click photo to enlarge
On February 16th the freedom of photographers in the UK will be further curtailed when the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 becomes law. This legislation allows for the arrest, imprisonment (for up to 10 years) or fine of anyone who elicits or attempts to elicit information about a member of the armed forces, an intelligence officer or a constable, which is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or publishes or communicates such information. Now you might think that protection of this sort is desirable for those in the front line of the so-called "war on terror". And so would I if I felt that would be how the legislation would be used. The problem is that the drafting is sufficiently loose for it to be used by the police to prevent photography of any officer in any circumstances.

In recent years a number of amateur photographers have been illegally harrassed by the police, PCSOs, security guards and others when photographing within the bounds of the existing law - photographing buildings, scenes in the street, at railway stations etc - and have been questioned, compelled to stop, made to erase images, and forced to move on. Journalists have been arrested, had cameras snatched, and their view deliberately blocked when photographing demonstrations as they are legally entitled to do so, and as society would wish them to do in the interests of free speech. The legislation that will soon come into force will give the police and others the power to prevent people taking photographs in which they feature, even incidentally. Given the well-documented disregard for the present law exhibited by some who are charged with upholding it, can we have any faith that this extension to police powers will be used as those who framed the legislation intended? Even though the Act allows that anyone charged can use the defence of "reasonable excuse", it seems highly unlikely that this will prevent it being used to strengthen the position of those in authority with an unreasonable fear of photography. And anyway, should photographers be put in the position of having to prove their innocence for simply pursuing a hobby or, in the case of journalists, exercising what should be a basic freedom of the press in any mature democracy?

I can see that some will want to give the benefit of the doubt to the legislators and law enforcement officers, and will trust that the new law will be used as intended. Others will think that my views are unneccesarily alarmist. However, I see this as a further erosion of essential freedoms that many private individuals, politicians, civil servants, academics, and others are beginning to question more strongly. Today I've written to the Home Secretary deploring the scope and likely use of this legislation. I've also asked her to give me two things: firstly, a written assurance that this legislation will not be used to limit my freedom as an amateur photographer to photograph anything within a public place, and a paragraph that I can carry to present to anyone who tries to stop me pursuing my hobby, saying that this Act cannot be used for that purpose. Even before I wrote I had little faith that I'll receive those assurances, and, if past experience in contacting the Home Office is any guide, I'll have to ask more than once to get a specific response rather than mollifying waffle. However, I do it in the knowledge that doing nothing doesn't change anything, and doing something might. I urge you to to do something too.

Here are some links about this issue:

Counter Terrorism Act 2008 (Para 76 is the relevant section)
Jail for photographing police? British Journal of Photography article, 28 January 2009
Photographers react to British PM's message Amateur Photographer 13 January 2009
Home Secretary green lights restrictions on photography British Journal of Photography article, 1 July 2008

So, given that this blog is about my "photographs and reflections" is there any link between today's image and what's written above? Not really, except that the growing curtailment of freedom in the UK may well lead to photographers taking more images of this sort that don't "infringe someone's liberty", don't offend someone's delicate sensibilities, can't be misconstrued in any way, and have no potential to be used for terrorist purposes!

photograph & text (c) T. Boughen

Camera: Olympus E510
Mode: Aperture Priority
Focal Length: 150mm (300mm/35mm equiv.)
F No: f7.1
Shutter Speed: 1/160
ISO: 100
Exposure Compensation: -0.3 EV
Image Stabilisation: On