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

[pommie]

I was not taking you to task for anything but posting two links without comment, leaving the reader to guess what you what mean, a risky thing to do at the best of times

Did you read the charges against those police, the most numerous one was disregarding or disobeying a senior officer, hardly a serious criminal offence (usually), but that discussion is for a different forum

And while I quite readily admit there are rotten apples in the force, I will also assume there is the same number of good members in the bikie gangs, and there is a difference between a biker and a bikie , I have several mates that ride Harleys and they do not like being called bikies.

I too do not ride motorbikes, to many crazy car drivers on the road for that

Cheers David

[Ronbo]

Thanks Nick for your thoughtful post on the subject of photographers rights.

All to often when approached by police officers we immediately get the impression that we are doing something wrong from the Point of View of the officer investigating a complaint. As stated before officers are not lawyers and are not versed upon every law of the land. With that said with a good attitude towards the responding officer regardless the situation, you catch more bees with honey than you do with vinegar.

As a side note towards the identification information...here in the US it is law that you produce identification when asked by a law enforcement officer. If you refuse you can be arrested for obstructing an investigation. This has been upheld in every court of the land all the way to the US Supreme Court.

In my dealings with the police in my local community I have yet to run across an officer that is out there to get me. If you are courteous to them they will reciprocate in kind. I don't expect them to quote me chapter and verse the laws when investigating a complaint.

I have many friends within the Law Enforcement field and they all mimic who they are dealing with...if you give respect they mirror that back to you. If you give them a bad attitude you're sure to lose.

I'm not saying that you have to fold like a house of cards when you know your within your legal rights, you just don't have to act the idiot proving it.

Again thanks Nick for posting this thoughtful insight from the other side of the badge.

[hyperactive]

what a great thread! Actually read over 95% of it patiently in case I get flamed for "this has already been stated before, read the thread" etc...

I have never personally been approached by a police officer when taking photos but I have been told many many many times to stop taking photos on private property. When that happens I just comply. I do notice "no photography" signs but I've read up on laws and legislation that apply to many states and countries before visiting. Basically they can't tell you to delete photos nor do they have the right to ask you to even show them the pictures. They do however have the right to ask you to stop taking photos and if needs be remove you from the property with "reasonable force".

I guess to be a photographer you need to be a bit thick. I just take pics until someone tells me to stop. When I know they're right (usually they are) I just stop. However, on public property I would be inclined to defend my rights. If they ever force me to delete a photo thats when I'd opt to be arrested and pursue the matter with higher authority later on.

The police officer on this thread has been very helpful answering most questions and keeping their cool. Its great to get a perspective from "the other side". In regards to him arresting without knowing the actual laws I believe that to be okay as long as the law was in fact broken. Its like saying I know that stealing is illegal but how many of you can quote to me to exact section and clause that applies (without googling it)? Remember that the police (I think) need to write a full report as well (correct me if I'm wrong) and to simply arrest a person based on "I really really think he commited a crime" would be unprofessional and a waste of time to everyone.

I also doubt very much that any of those were photographers that were law abiding citizens. Besides, being a photographer means having good PR - making others comfortable, easy to talk to, helpful, etc. If you've got an attitude problem before they've even started questioning you then you should really start thinking about it. One last thing that I'd do aside from having some of your work on your iPhone (talk about instant marketing) is give them a business card. It somewhat substantiates your claim and its always good to get your name out there no matter how, right?

[NickMonk]

OK,
There are 339 police stations in Victoria. In a 12 month period, 100 (police employees) were "taken into criminal custody or punished for serious disciplinary breaches"

That's one bad egg for every 3 baskets.

Regards
Michael

It has already been said but the figures are not accurate when you actually read the article. There were 32 police involved in criminal matters (there were no conviction statistics either, they are suspected). Disciplinary matters are internal matters. In any big company or gov department there are always going to be people disciplined.

I understannd that there are about 10000 police officers in Victoria. That's 0.0032% of police in Victoria.

[Matix]

It has already been said but the figures are not accurate when you actually read the article. There were 32 police involved in criminal matters (there were no conviction statistics either, they are suspected). Disciplinary matters are internal matters. In any big company or gov department there are always going to be people disciplined.

I understannd that there are about 10000 police officers in Victoria. That's 0.0032% of police in Victoria.

Yes, good point.. and the percentages would probably be close to the number of the photo taking public who have been hassled by the police for taking photos in public. Unfortunately in this media sensationalist world we live in, we only hear the bad or sensational news, not the good or mundane.

I take hundreds of street, candid and in public shots every month of the year, and in Australia at least I have only been approached once by a security person, and that in the Adelaide railway station. He watched me take a couple of shots, then wandered over and asked if I knew that it was not lawful to take photos in this particular building. I explained that I did not, had not seen any signs, and he said well it is a beautiful building and worth capturing, and you should finish your shoot and put the camera away as quick as possible.

That I respect, and I will agree that attitude played a part here on both sides as did common sense.

In the many overseas countries I have visited, I read up and watched carefully for signs, and had no problem at all. In the US it is of course different, you have to watch the security people, police are not usually a problem if you take your shot and move on, even in New York.

What I do not understand though in the US is why, in a couple of cases my friend with a D300 was prohibited for taking shots, asked to put his camera in the bag and move on, while dozens of other tourists with P & S cameras happily flashed away at everything in sight.

I can just imagine how their training went, "Ok guys, watch for the mature age bearded guy with a mature aged woman, with the big DSLR and Lens on a Tripod spending 10 min setting up... he will likely be the terrorist, but ignore the two with the black beard and hair taking quick furtive shots with a small P & S camera, they are ok"... huh?

Thanks for the thread...

Phil

[Kym]

It has already been said but the figures are not accurate when you actually read the article. There were 32 police involved in criminal matters (there were no conviction statistics either, they are suspected). Disciplinary matters are internal matters. In any big company or gov department there are always going to be people disciplined.

I understannd that there are about 10000 police officers in Victoria. That's 0.0032% of police in Victoria.

32 / 10,000 * 100 = 0.32% or 1 in about 300 - but your point is still valid. And as you said suspected not convicted.
Go to to any business of 300 people and at least one will have a conviction.

[Photogra]

A great thread Nick, thank you so much for advising of what could be/couldn't be etc. I have found that sometimes when out and about taking photos in public places, if there is a shot you want and you have kiddies in the FG, it is common sense to approach parents, in my case I give them a business card and ask them would they like me to send the photo to them via email. I have had no problems and the parents more often than not can't wait to see the photo.

[Krzys]

I know that there is a paper on the Photographer's rights that you can carry around in case of trouble but it generally applies to NSW law. Are there any papers that address QLD law specifically?

[NickMonk]

I know that there is a paper on the Photographer's rights that you can carry around in case of trouble but it generally applies to NSW law. Are there any papers that address QLD law specifically?

Not that I am aware of. Would be nice for someone with legal experience to be able to put one together. The NSW one can be found here:
http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php

[Kym]

Not that I am aware of. Would be nice for someone with legal experience to be able to put one together. The NSW one can be found here:
http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php

This one is from the via the Arts Law Centre of Australia...
http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinfor...hersRights.asp

The PDF can be printed double sided and double folded - I keep a few copies in my bag.

[Scotty72]

I arrest people every now and again and not know what charge I have arrested them on - but I do know that I can arrest them, and I think about the applicable legislation on the way back to the station. A bit dangerous you might say but not really - if someone is behaving badly somewhere in public (in particular) there is an applicable charge somewhere.

Geez, and cops wonder why they have so little respect.

I'm going to arrest you then make up something, anything to justify my stupid decision.

Glad cops aren't surgeons; I can hear the train of thought, "I'll remove a kidney, then think of a reason for doing so tomorrow."

Scotty

[ricktas]

Geez, and cops wonder why they have so little respect.

I'm going to arrest you then make up something, anything to justify my stupid decision.

Glad cops aren't surgeons; I can hear the train of thought, "I'll remove a kidney, then think of a reason for doing so tomorrow."

Scotty

Read the entire thread Scotty! What Nick said was that he knows they are breaking the Law, but not the exact law, its wording etc. He didn't say he just randomly arrests people.

Your comparison is not a valid one. A Doctor will have seen you, had x-rays and tests done, and discussed the results with colleagues and then you, all prior to the surgery date. Police often have only a second or two to make a judgement and act.

[Scotty72]

I get it!

Eg. Some person is trying to bash someone.
You grab him, arrest him, cuff him etc.
You don't know the exact chapter and verse for his specific crime, but it is obviously a crime.

So Nicholas N ... are you suggesting an officer look up the exact crime first? or actually do his job and stop the crime from happening immediately!

Hi,

Sorry to sound so frank but, this is a silly analogy. You are giving the example of a clear and present danger that could lead to loss of life or serious injury and, and of course, the public would expect cops to jump in and sort it out.

However, having a camera on the beach is not a serious threat to anyone.

..and yes, when there no danger, I would expect a cop to know what s/he is doing before they wade ignorantly into a situation and infringe upon civil rights. If that means radioing back to VKG (or whatever), yes, they should.

There is also the point that by doing so, they are taking sides by implying you are doing something wrong. Police are supposed to uphold the law, not take sides - especially the side of ignorance.

Scotty

[Scotty72]

Read the entire thread Scotty! What Nick said was that he knows they are breaking the Law, but not the exact law, its wording etc. He didn't say he just randomly arrests people.

Your comparison is not a valid one. A Doctor will have seen you, had x-rays and tests done, and discussed the results with colleagues and then you, all prior to the surgery date. Police often have only a second or two to make a judgement and act.

Exactly,

A doctor will take the time to properly assess the situation. So to should police before they go in.

Why do police only have a second to act? In the case of photographers, they literally have as much time as they want. There is no public threat, no one is going to die.

Why rush to judgement? That is not a cop's job.

Scotty

[ricktas]

Nick did NOT say that he did this with photographers, he stated that in some circumstances, it happens. He was talking about Police work generally, not directly about photographers when he made that statement.

[Scotty72]

Ok, fair enough..

On a photography forum, you can see why I would make that connection.

But,

This is a little raw for me today after my experience last night.

Having received my camera from Paul yesterday, I jumped on a train to Circular Quay. Wandered around, took a few pics, then went back to Circular Quay Station.

I was standing there, on the platform, with camera on tripod. I was not actually taking any pics. I was still trying to figure out the 'danmed' Canon menu system (after my switch from Olympus - man, this is going to take time).

Well, a train pulls up, and three cops step out and notice me.

Without any complaint (I was on the platform for about 45 secs before they turned up - and they were in a rail tunnel for 5 mins prior - so there was no way anyone could have complained, rang 000 then, a message sent from 000 to police radio to three cops in a subway tunnel)....

Without any complaint, they approached me and DEMANDED I stop taking photos.

This attitude, by them, was met, by me, with a whole lot of attitude.

The summary is that they reckoned it was illegal to take photos on public transport (???). I reckoned that the ombudsman would find it illegal for cops to harass members of the public, accussing them of crimes that were clearly ficticious

This whole episode lasted about 15 secs, I then explained I needed to be on that train and that, if they weren't going to arrest me, I was leaving.

I did, they didn't.

I agree with the poster who argued that the public is not required to pass any attitude test to please cops. We are not their pets. In fact, as police officers, they should be the ones examined as their behaviour should be of a much higher standard.

My point,

I am really sad that so many people think we should slink away (and give up rights) whenever some ignorant cop decides he is a tough guy OR when they opt for a quick fix (get rid of the tog) instead of take the time to explain to complainants that their complaints are unwarranted.

SCotty

[Kym]

Ok, fair enough..
<snip>

Well they acted incorrectly and outside the law. Those specific officers were just wrong.
And that does leave a sour taste.

I would write it up in detail and send it to the commissioner and whatever complaints department they have in NSW (ICAC? Police ombudsman?)

If nothing else they need training.

Interestingly we had an item published at work re: dealing with the media and photographers...
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...714#post317714

[Analog6]

Meeting rudeness with rudeness compounds any situation. Politeness is free and fairly easy too! And even if it does not elicit an improved response in return, at least you leave feeling virtuous, not upset.

A simple explanation couched in polite terms would have left all participants in a better frame of mind.

[Scotty72]

Meeting rudeness with rudeness compounds any situation. Politeness is free and fairly easy too! And even if it does not elicit an improved response in return, at least you leave feeling virtuous, not upset.

A simple explanation couched in polite terms would have left all participants in a better frame of mind.

To a point, I agree with you.

However, much like running away from a scene implies you are guilty; if we always back away when confronted (assuming you are within your rights) will also leave photographers looking like we are doing something wrong - and should be challenged.

I am sick of it!!

Scotty

[hoffy]

The thing is, though, that I believe it is actually illegal to take pictures on public transport in certain cities, without prior permission. You have to remember that train stations and the like are not Public spaces, so they can apply terms and conditions such as that.

Just reading your post, while it may feel confronting to you, they asked you to stop, you told them you weren't and you both went on your merry way.

Not sure if I would really call that harassment.

BUT that being said, I wonder if they ever tell anyone to stop taking pictures using mobiles?