Photography is not illegal?

Date: 21 April 2009 11:12:00 BST
Subject: Opinion: Owning a camera doesn't make you a criminal
Source: TechRadar: All news feeds

When George Bush pronounced the war on terrorism as the "war on tourism", we thought it was because he was an idiot.
Maybe not, because it seems that tourism and terrorism are the same thing - or at least, they are to some police officers. How else can we explain the harassment of tourists who took photographs of a bus station?
Sadly, Klaus Matzka's experience was by no means unusual. Photographers of all kinds, from amateur snappers to pros, are finding that cameras attract all kinds of heavy-handed attention.
Snap a police officer at a peaceful demo and you could find yourself nicked under Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008; snap anything else and you could find yourself accused of terrorism and ordered to delete your photos.
Part of the problem is overzealous people in uniform, whether they're security guards or serving police officers. The Metropolitan Police's crazed anti-terrorism adverts (PDF), which brand photographers as potential bombers don't exactly help. But there's also a problem with the law.
The idea that Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act makes photographing the police illegal is pure fantasy. It doesn't mention photos at all. Rather, it says that it's illegal to gather or publish information about the police or armed forces that is "likely to be useful" to a mad bomber, foreign spy or Osama Bin Laden.
Misinterpretation of the Act
With pretty much everything in the world linked to terrorism these days - Icelandic banks' assets were frozen under anti-terrorism legislation, while anti-terrorism surveillance powers have also been used to crack down on such threats to life and liberty as dog crap and fly-tippers - then it's easy to see how that phrase can be misinterpreted, either by accident or by design.
Here's an example. Would footage of a policeman assaulting an innocent civilian who later died of internal bleeding be useful to a terrorist? How about footage of a policeman in body armour whacking a woman, his ID badges covered up so nobody can report him?
Of course they would. Circulation of such footage undermines people's respect for the police, makes us wonder if some of them are just thugs with badges, and makes the work of the good cops - who are, of course, the majority - much harder. They're brilliant recruitment tools for militants, too.
That doesn't make the photographs or video clips illegal, though. If you're hanging around military bases with a zoom lens, then of course you're going to get nicked - but irrespective of what uniformed goons might tell you, it's legal to take photos of pretty much anything else provided you're not breaking any other laws in the process.
Deleting photos
Forcing you to delete your snaps, on the other hand, is not legal - because if you're committing a crime, then your photos are evidence. Think about that for a second. If someone orders you to delete your shots, they're saying: "I have caught you committing a crime and I am ordering you to delete all the evidence."
Security guards don't have the powers to search you, and they can't legally delete your photos. The police can't delete your photos, either, unless they get a court order.
If you're hanging around RAF airfields with a zoom lens or you're on privately owned property then there are laws stopping you from taking pictures - but in most circumstances there's no reason why you can't photograph whatever you want.
Don't believe us? Ask the government. Here's Shahid Malik, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, on 1 April 2009: "Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place."
As Malik told Parliament: "Our counter-terrorism laws are not designed or intended to stop people taking photographs. That is simply not their aim. People have the right to take photographs in public places for legitimate reasons and we will do everything we can to uphold that right." Mr Malik says that police forces around the land are being issued new guidance telling them just that. Here's hoping they actually read it.

"Interior" project

I grabbed 15 minutes from my lunch break yesterday to take a look at the space I want to use for the 'Interiors' project for fishpharts. There is a wonderful spave in the building I work in, it's the Ellen Terry building which used to be the old Odeon cinema on Jordans Well in the city centre of Coventry.


I took a DSLR and a speed lite to grab a few images. I will post a couple later as I haven't got the DVD to hand at the moment. The space is currently being used ny some MA students for a performace, hopefully I can get in the space to do my full shoot.


The dome is a huge space and is quite eery. It hasn't been reovated yet and is full of dust and cobwebs. My test shots gave me food for thought, and with a crative nudge from Kate I now know what direction to go in.

Here's a few exterior images of the building.

Judith beheading Holofernes

Self Portrait Project

This is my self portrait from the project set in February at Fisbone photo arts group.

Fishbone photo arts group

The past couple of weeks Gaz (http://www.flatfrogimaging.com/) and I have been working on the latest project for the fish bone photo arts group (http://fishbone-photoarts.blogspot.com/).

This group meets at the Fishbone gallery, Longford in Coventry. All are welcome. (www.fishbone-gallery.co.uk)

This months project was to recreate a painting using photographic techniques. As with most good ideas my idea came to me when we went to the pub after the last meeting. I wanted to recreate a Caravaggio painting that I saw on a visit to the Vatican City a few years ago. After a bit of research I realised that that painting I was thinking of was the entombment of Christ by Caravaggio. This raised a the issue of actually being able to recreate the painting due to the large number of people to cast. See below:

After a look through 'Caravaggio by Catherine Puglisi' another image caught my eye. 'Judith beheading Holofernes' was interesting proposal, the lighting and set design appealed to me as well as the three subjects. I immediately asked Gaz on board as a collaboration project as his photographic skill were going to be an integral part of the shoot.

Gaz and I immediately thought of the ideal Judith, Joanne Billingham, who is an actress that Gaz has worked with previously that had an uncanny resemblance to Judith. We researched props and arranged the photo shoot. Gaz was cast as Holofernes (with a bit of convincing) and with less than a week to go we got Jon to play the part of 'the Hag'. We shot on Tuesday in a studio at Coventry University where I work. I wanted to try to recreate the lighting and postures as accurately as possible, which I think we pulled of quite well.

A big thanks goes to these guys for helping out, without every ones input we couldn't of pulled this off!

Gaz and I will unveil the photo this Tuesday at the next meeting of the Fishbone photo arts group. See you there!

Kev