Slashdot Mirror

I photograph the police whenever I see them as a matter of principle, due to this (and because they happily film/photograph the general public).

It's also legal: http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
It's also campaigned by pressure groups, e.g. http://photographernotaterrorist.org/
There's a healthy media oversight of the issue, e.g. http://www.bjp-online.com/tag/street-rights

The Guardian article you linked was part of the media coverage that led to the clarifications such as that Met police statement, so it was very helpful at the time, but is no longer completely accurate.

As a keen photographer myself - to me these disused areas of the city are areas of public interest - particularly the old closed down underground stations. Rather than slapping down ASBOs on people - London Transport should wake up to the potential of their sites - and turn them into museums or at least offer guided tours of these sites - open them up to the curious public to view the sites in a safe manner

They actually did this a couple of months ago in the same station the 'explorers' were arrested in:

http://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2011/11/01/your-chance-to-visit-an-abandoned-tube-station/

- and let photographers take the pictures they want to take. Just stop treating photographers as potential terrorist - because that is the last thing we are!

This, it seems, is a step too far for them!:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/DSLRs_banned_from_Aldwych_tube_station_news_310663.html

AP and the BJP made a fuss, which has at least got TfL thinking:

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2136431/london-underground-apologises-dslr-ban-blunder

'The Museum is also exploring the possibility of holding a photography day at the end of the year at the station. "This would be for a much smaller group of people who could use digital SLRs and other equipment. The smaller group will be much easier to manage and allow visitors to get the photographs they want whilst being able to safely get up and down the spiral staircase."'

small victories....
->or that we needed to "protect" the police from video cameras.......
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1644048/jail-photographing-police

Sigh,
These days I'm beginning to wish Al Queda was real, and that they would actually come along and nuke these arseholes for me.

Same thing in the UK..make up the law as they go along...............Young photojournalist detained for army cadet pics http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1719526/photojournalist-detained-army-cadet-pics On Saturday 26 June, photojournalist Jules Mattsson, who is a minor and was documenting the Armed Forces Day parade in Romford, was questioned and detained by a police officer after taking a photo of young cadets. According to Mattsson, who spoke to BJP this morning, after taking the photo he was told by a police officer that he would need parental permission for his image. The photographer answered that, legally, he didn't. While he tried to leave the scene to continue shooting, a second officer allegedly grabbed his arm to question him further. According an audio recording of the incident, the police officer argued, at first, that it was illegal to take photographs of children, before adding that it was illegal to take images of army members, and, finally, of police officers. When asked under what legislation powers he was being stopped, the police officer said that Mattsson presented a threat under anti-terrorism laws. The photographer was pushed down on stairs and detained until the end of the parade and after the intervention of three other photographers..... .......While photographers have been clamoring for years that they are being targetted by over-zealous police officers, the issue only received national interest in December last year when a journalist for The Independent was himself stopped for taking a picture of the House of Parliament. The incident caused a media blitz, with newspapers such as The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and Daily Mail, as well as the BBC publishing articles on the issue of public photography. Under pressure, the Association of Chief Police Officers sent a memo to all police forces around the country informing them that they 'should not be stopping an searching people for taking photos.' The memo continued: 'There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place.' However, despite reassurances that anti-terrorism powers were not targetting photographers, police officers, since then, have continued to quote the legislation to stop photographer from working in public places. In fact, only a few days following the memo's release, award-winning architectural photographer Grant Smith was detained after taking photos near the Bank of America - Merrill Lynch building.

It's relatively common in the UK. This story is the most recent one I remember - young photo journalist prevented from taking photos of army cadets in public by a policeman who says something like "I don't need a law to be able to stop you". I've seen plenty of other similar stories.

The budget for the snooping programme was allocated years ago, about £1bn ($1.6bn US) was made public - it was a nice small sounding figure, nothing heard of the scheme again for years. NOW there is an election looming where everything from lying about immigration to the politicians expenses claims have been leaked, they are claiming that the scheme is dead in the water, when the truth is anything but.

If the spies deny it, it is safe to assume they are lying to placate people
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8032367.stm

The UK's electronic intelligence agency has taken the unusual step of issuing a statement to deny it will track all UK internet and online phone use.

Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) said it was developing tracking technology but "only acts when it is necessary" and "does not spy at will".

Known as Deep Packet Inspection equipment, these probes will "steal" the data, analyse and decode the information and then route it direct to a government-run database.

Or http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882622.ece

Every call you make, every e-mail you send, every website you visit - I'll be watching you. That is the hope of Sir David Pepper who, as the director of GCHQ, the government's secret eavesdropping agency in Cheltenham, is plotting the biggest surveillance system ever created in Britain.

The scope of the project - classified top secret - is said by officials to be so vast that it will dwarf the estimated £5 billion ministers have set aside for the identity cards programme. It is intended to fight terrorism and crime. Civil liberties groups, however, say it poses an unprecedented intrusion into ordinary citizens' lives.

Aimed at placing a "live tap" on every electronic communication in Britain, it will dwarf other "big brother" surveillance projects such as the number plate recognition system and the spread of CCTV.

I will say that the politicians here like to say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". Strangely they don't subscribe to this maxim when you are looking into their criminal expenses claims, or government documents that are deeply embarrassing to the current government that were claimed to not exist - but exist, they just didn't want to release them. The UK police don't like the rise of photo and video cameras showing their abuses of the law, so the current corrupt UK government passes a law where is it's crime to photo / record a police officer. http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=839141

But US courts have already concluded that photographic reproductions of a public domain painting do not count - so tough, it's legal, and not up for debate.

From TFA: http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=865802

[Wikimedia Commons] regard all images of out of copyright material as public domain, and dispute there is any copyright in a copy of an original work,' [Simon Cliffe, NPG executive director] says. 'This is contrary to UK law. ... The 1988 CDPA recognises this.'

So according to this guy, US and UK law are in disagreement over this, making this case all the more interesting.

First off, I can't even copy some quotes from the article at http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=865802, because they've done that stupid hijacking of my browser (I know, I'm using IE - I'm at work), and they claim "copyright" over it (despite the fact that their article quotes over people...) Nevermind, View Source to the rescue.

Simon Cliffe of BAPLA says "We understand that other people who have had similar experiences with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons have been told that they regard all images of out of copyright material as public domain"

Imagine that - thinking that out of copyright material is public domain!

"and dispute there is any copyright in a copy of an original work"

Not true at all - the point is that making a copy of public domain material doesn't constitute original work. They are perhaps confusing effort with originality.

"If owners of out of copyright material are not going to have the derivative works they have created protected, which will result in anyone being able to use them for free"

Just think, people might be able to use out of copyright material for free! When it's fully allowed by US law!

"but to assert the protection the law provides for their commercial interest"

US law provides them with no such protection. So they'll have to think up another way to profit from other people's work from centuries ago (not that there's any evidence that Wikipedia showing these images will harm their ability to profit - I don't think anyone goes "I'm not going to bother going to a gallery, when I could just sit at home on Wikipedia").

But this time for a tube photo not for airforce bases.

No, they just send someone over to arrest you for taking photographs of a police officer.

No spin is necessary as you are clearly a terrorist.

You're at the crux of the matter. The surveillance is very one sided, if these people want to make a surveillance society it needs to be both ways.

Yet sousveillance just took another hit as they're proposing to make a crime of photographing the police

One privacy rule for us, one for them.