By Carlos Miller
Several incidents of photographers getting harassed, accused of terrorism and threatened with arrest in the United Kingdom over the last few months have put more pressure on politicians to define the laws regarding photography.
The incidents include:
- A wedding photographer who was stripped of her camera and detained for 45 minutes under the Terrorism Act on December 15.
- Two photojournalists who were obstructed from documenting a protest in front of the Greek embassy in London, including one who was physically removed from the area and another who had an officer attempt to snatch his camera on December 3 (check out above video).
- A photographer who was fined for photographing a drunk woman on a sidewalk in October.
Unlike the United States, where several court cases have already determined that photography is a First Amendment right (not that American cops are aware of this), laws in the UK regarding photography are vague. And the current crop of politicians is not doing much to clarify the law.
Although the law states that photographers do have the right to take pictures in public, there are some exceptions. And these are just as muddled as an East London Cockney accent.
Vernon Coaker, the Minister for Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing wrote to Jeremy Dear, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists. His letter, dated 3 December 2008 confirms that photography can be “limited” in public places in “special circumstances”:
“This may be on the grounds of national security or there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or inflame an already tense situation or raise security considerations.
So it’s basically up to the officers, not the law books, to determine when and where photography is allowed, as well as whom can be photographed.
Earlier this month, the National Policing Improvement Agency published new guidelines regarding photography.
And while they do seem to respect the rights of photographers, they also give the officer the authority to arrest the photographer or seize his memory card, if he is suspected of being part of a “hostile terrorist reconnaissance”.
So in other words, if you look Middle-Eastern or have an Irish accent, your chances of getting arrested for photography increase significantly.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Related posts:
- Phoenix police memo encourages harassment of photographers
- UK continues royal crackdown against photographers
- Washington DC security guards clueless about photographers’ rights
- New York City photographers plan protest Sunday against ongoing harassment
- UK photographers plan protest against new anti-photo laws
Support Photography is Not a Crime by buying your electronics through this ad.
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
Well as a matter of fact, when you said “on the grounds of national security, or lead to public order situations”, the first amendment can be cut short in America too. Look up Supreme Court cases Schenck vs. United States, and Brandenburg vs. Ohio.
hope you had a good yesterday, sir!
Hi Carlos,
great site, will bookmark it.
The harassment of photographers shown in the above video reminds me of the atrocious behavior of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Dept. during the run-up to RNC 08 in St. Paul.
Anyway, keep up the good work!
Scott,
Interesting cases and there are no absolutes. But as much as I complain about photography rights abuses in the U.S., I can see they are much worse in the U.K.
Genewitch,
Thank you, sir. I had a relaxing day. Because my family is Colombian, we celebrate and exchange gifts on Christmas Eve rather than Christmas Day.
Christmas Day is to nurse hangovers.
Bub,
Thanks for stopping by. I wrote a whole series of articles during the RNC. Check them out here.
http://carlosmiller.com/?s=rnc
we were assured by the (new labour) government that anti-terrorist laws would protect & not diminish our freedom to carrying on living a “normal life”. We were lied to, as the examples of photographers being hassled & arrested, illustrate.
sorry misspelled email address
I didn’t say it was absolute, there is always room for interpretation, but the U.K. doesn’t have the Constitution anyway. And to think I wanted to move there because it was pretty.
What I like about people in the UK is that they’re not accepting these acts lying down. They are making a stand against these actions.
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/07/07/a-salute-to-our-photograher-cousins-across-the-pond/
Maybe you can do something like this over there with your new camera. What kind did you get?
The UK government clarified the situation this week by responding to an e-petition on the subject. It’s still too vague for my liking though, and just goes to show what a mess this country (the UK) is in…
Although I understand the implications of executive officers (i.e. the police) censoring media coverage of events, one has to remember that “police are people too”.
Imagine someone walked into your office and started putting their camera right up in your face. Now, is it really that unreasonable if you push the camera’s view out of the way, maybe even push the photographer out the way too? Obviously this analogy doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny given the public setting and role of the people involved, but the policemen didn’t stop anyone taking photos, they just objected to the photographers not doing what they were told.