How to deal with Police when out photographing (& Photographers Rights)

[Longshots]

Yep Norman

Sadly happens all of the time these days. Its unusual if I'm not stopped, or questioned when I'm out simply trying to do my job, and doing it within the law.

The only thing Westfield can do is to stop you if you were on their land. I've shot for North Lakes/Stockland for many years, and Westfield security, even when well informed of any shoots near them or including them, have always been more attracted to what I've been doing instead of ensuring the safety of their clients and centre shoppers. Just for the record, even if you had been including people, it wouldnt have had any difference on what you were doing. Westfield couldnt stop you, and neither could the individuals. However, if someone specifically asks you not to photograph them, I have always respected their wishes.

[Scotty72]

In my experiences showing respect when the Police start asking questions and being quick to offer to show them your pictures puts them to ease quicker then if you have a bad attitude.

No! This is not good advice. Whilst it is imperative you remain calm and polite, you do not have to agree to show them your pics. If you do, this may be considered you submitting to a search. What if you have photos (from another day) that they may wish to use against you. This doesn't have to be because you were doing anything wrong.

What if a cop comes because he thinks you are photographing close to a school. You submit to a search and show the cop your pics but, you've forgotten you took pics of the local kids' footy team yesterday. Cop puts 2 + 2 and comes up with 15. You've done nothing wrong yet, you've put yourself under a cloud of suspicion. (you must be a kiddie fiddler)

Be polite but, only submit to a search if it's absolutely necessary.

Scotty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobt]

This thread seems to have been going forever, but I am still wondering whether there is a clear article anywhere which details exactly what our rights are (in Victoria) insofar as photographing people and places. Lots of opinions, all of which are interesting - but is there something that one can use as a definitive outline of what we can photograph when? I'd really like to be able to know what I am allowed to do as a point of law rather than simply other people's beliefs.

[kiwi]

This is the closest online resource I have found or know of

http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php

(Disclaimer - it may not be right in all circumstances and is his personal interpretation of the legal lay of the land. However I think it at least covers most of the common questions quite well. But Im not a lawyer.)

and

http://www.artsfreedomaustralia.com/blog/

and finally

www.copyright.org.au

[ricktas]

the page Darren posts above is often copied and printed and kept with photographers as a way of 'enlightening' the il-informed.

[bobt]

This is the closest online resource I have found or know of

Thanks for that. It seems that with the ongoing problems we photographers face, there needs to be some sort of informed documentation that we should carry around as another accessory along with lenses, lens hoods etc.

I find that being a photographer and being male (and probably being older) all place me in a vulnerable position. It's part of the global paranoia that seems to be invading our lives these days, with assumptions being made about motives that simply don't exist. It's got to the point that I take my wife with me as a sort of "chaperone" which effectively tells the world that I am with a woman and therefore I am not a child molester or pervert.

There is so much I do not photograph these days simply because of the stigma that is becoming the "norm" in a suspicious and judgmental society.

[rellik666]

Also found this which seems to be pretty comprehensive if a little dissappointing!

http://www.artslaw.com.au/LegalInfor...hersRights.asp

Roo

[bobt]

the page Darren posts above is often copied and printed and kept with photographers as a way of 'enlightening' the il-informed.

Is there a place anywhere on AusPhoto where these links are collected for the benefit of all? It seems such a central issue that it would be useful if the most informative urls were kept for future reference. I'm jotting them down, but furture readers may miss them in such a humongous thread.

[ricktas]

Is there a place anywhere on AusPhoto where these links are collected for the benefit of all? It seems such a central issue that it would be useful if the most informative urls were kept for future reference. I'm jotting them down, but furture readers may miss them in such a humongous thread.

No and even if we did, people would still post new threads anyway. Just look at all the threads for new camera models, or how often we get 'which camera should I buy".

[Kym]

@bobt use the site search function or use the site Google search via AP Extras on the menu!

[bobt]

No and even if we did, people would still post new threads anyway. Just look at all the threads for new camera models, or how often we get 'which camera should I buy".

I was thinking more of a non-postable area. I have a section on my club website where I post all sorts of links to stuff like this. (I'll add the ones I got here today) but members can't add stuff. It's more a resource than an interactive thing.
It's quite useful really, because I tend to forget all these little bits of info, and by writing them down on the website it helps both me and my members to find useful resources.

@bobt use the site search function or use the site Google search via AP Extras on the menu!

Ta !

[kiwi]

Also found this which seems to be pretty comprehensive if a little dissappointing!

http://www.artslaw.com.au/LegalInfor...hersRights.asp

Roo

ahh, forgot about that one, that link is also very good.

[Longshots]

I think its worth pointing out, the wording of the subject line in this topic.

While my personal experience is that I'm virtually always asked "what am I doing", when I have a big tripod, and a camera pointing towards a big building, the instant desire to deliver a cynical response, I've found that life is much easier, to grit my teeth, smile, and patiently explain that I'm taking photographs, and if asked further, I'll explain why, and who for.

The point about the topic subject, is that I will certainly be courteous, and polite, my response to a policeman, is going to be far more professional and forthcoming than I would to an unidentified person, who may be claiming a position of authority.

So I'd highly reccomend that you respond to a policeman in a courteous respectful manner. I've never felt intimidated by the police. And I've shot in so many places around the word, and in so many places across Australia. I would never dream of pulling out a list, detailing my rights in front of a policeman. I see it that they're there for a purpose, and may be responding to a complaint from someone, and in that, its their decision, good or bad if they move you on. And if they do, suck it up and move on. Take the matter up a later time if you feel you were not treated courteously and within your rights.

But a security guard is a different thing. Yes, I would still offer them respect, and a courteous response. But having a list may be a useful thing to have. My personal understanding is that what they're not allowed to do, is to touch you (and you're not allowed to touch them), and they're not allowed to touch your camera/tripod. They may however be in the position of asking you to cease, and remove yourself from the area that they're patrolling. Then again, they may be well out of their rights.

Most of the time, if I encounter a problem in this area, its generally from someone, who comes up to me, and doesnt inform me of who they are. They're instantly rude to me. They generally demand some type of identification from me, and yet offer none from them self. I still try and respond, with that same gritted smile, courteously. However, once I've explained who I am, what I'm doing, and will explain that I've made prior arrangements, that any senior and relevant staff would have and should have been informed of my presence" I'll then ask them to explain to me who they are, and why a more polite introduction would procure more information from myself. If they continue to be impolite, I will explain why they may have no right to tell me what I can do. But, if the situation escalates, I will remove myself from the situation, I will pass on any additional charges to a client for additional time because of a rude or aggressive security person. And I'll eventually make a note of who they are, and mentally record the encounter, and make dam sure that their boss knows what happened.

The most important thing, which I stress all of the time, is that the original question was about interacting with a police directive. And to me the logical step is to do what they instruct you to do. I've always taken the approach that they're simply doing their job, so no need for any negative reactions from myself to them. And to date, as I said, once a policeman has asked me to explain what I'm doing - once I've identified myself, I've always been left to get on with what I've been doing.

[kiwi]

Good post that William. I havent been approached by police but often by parents and officials whan shooting kids sport and a smile and genuine explanation goes a long, long way

[Longshots]

I'd also add that despite shooting in Palestein, Brooklyn and the Bronx in New York, Istanbul, Belfast in Northern Ireland, the slums of so many other UK cities, like Liverpool, Glasgow, Newcastle etc; I have only ever been physically attacked by a single person, a subject, who despite agreeing to a marketing managers request for all staff to be photographed, this office worker, without any real warning attacked me during a shoot - suddenly changing his mind about being photographed. And that was in good old Brisbane - albeit about ten years ago.

It's a sign of the times, that despite being able to handle myself, as a consequence of that I took up training in a variety of self defence techniques. Now you should never ever need or want a situation like that, but these days, I will always do a mental risk analysis of when I'm shooting which will ensure my safety in the event of worse case scenarios. Disturbing but true reality of the result of government inspired hysteria of treating anyone with a camera should be regarded by the public as a potential terrorist threat. Perhaps off topic though.

[Tatts]

mis-post. sorry

[Tatts]

If it does happen it's not going to be someone with a big telephoto, it'll be someone with a camera phone.

He said inappropriate usage of cameras was becoming increasingly difficult to monitor with the rise in mobile phone cameras and he asked the public to be vigilant.

lifesavers-on-pervert-watch-this-summer

[Tatts]

Not sure what i did but i accidently posted this in another thread instead of a new one. hope it's fixed now

[Kym]

I was readin the same item... how insane is this

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vic...-1225961260446

LIFESAVERS will be on pervert-watch during summer as concerns grow over people taking lewd photos of children and beachgoers.

Surf Life Saving Victoria general manger Guy Britt said lifesavers would have no hesitation in asking people to move off the beach and would call police if they noticed shady activity, the Geelong Advertiser reports.

He said inappropriate usage of cameras was becoming increasingly difficult to monitor with the rise in mobile phone cameras and he asked the public to be vigilant.

"We will be out in force this summer and lifesavers' number one job is to keep people safe in the water and when they are out of the water," Mr Britt said.

"It's pretty obvious if there is a seedy old guy with a big lens and when you ask what they are doing they leave pretty early."

Mr Britt said Surf Life Saving Victoria had to introduce a new policy five years ago where parents had to sign consent forms to take photos of their children competing in junior events such as the nippers program.

[Tatts]

Sorry kym, i tried to start a new thread and accidently put it in here. i've tried to fix it and started a new thread, didn't want to hijack this thread, but i guess it kind of fits.