|
Useful stuff. Anyone know whether the law of England & Wales differs in any way?
Posted 83 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Bromgrev [deleted] says:
I think it's not so much a case of what you are legally allowed to photograph as much as how far you can exercise those rights in the face of "authority". Still, it would be useful to know what redress you could get under the (British) law after your camera gets misappropriated.
Posted 83 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Indy Gump [deleted] says:
Very clear guide. Thanks for the info!
Posted 83 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
try this for the UK laws www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
Posted 83 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Bromgrev [deleted] says:
Very handy. Always take a few copies along to hand out to over-zealous police.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In Canada it comes down to, basically, you can shoot in public just about anything ... but god help you if you don't have signed permission from your subjects when you go to publish.
Posted 82 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Anyone know the law in France? The "droit à l'image" seems to make it illegal to publish (and perhaps even to display) pictures of passersby (or so I've read). Perhaps similar to what smlgphotos says about Canada. Moreover there seem to be some rules about public buildings as well. A story I read on flickr regarding train stations recently did not suprise me in the least.
Originally posted 81 months ago.
(permalink)
.sashi edited this topic 81 months ago.
|
|
im guessing most countries have similar laws, a very good thing too... we have had quite a large discussion on this topic (in brisbanites) after i was accosted by a shopkeeper on the sidewalk who alluded to me being somewhat *ahem* deviant.
flickr.com/groups/brisbane/discuss/48343/
its amazing how paranoid some people are of people with cameras (on the other hand they wouldnt think twice about cameraphones...)
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
the other day I was told it is not allowed to take pictures in Atocha train station in Madrid. this security guard told me I should undestand, because they were attacked and they have to take care now. I thought it was silly to feel safer because you don't allow to take pictures. what do you think?
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
i think its extremely silly. explosives, not cameras, do damage to train stations.
and before anyone goes on about how those naughty people take photos so they can see where to plant bombs, i'll just say that there are people out there with VERY photographic memories... but you dont see people getting thrown out of the station for staring at the walls.
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The NYPD is usually okay. It's the private security guards that get the bee in their bonnet about photgraphy.
A similar story . . . I was standing on a public street taking a picture of the 7 WTC construction site and got chased off by an officious security guard. When questioned, he said that it was for security purposes.
My memory is faulty, but I don't think that the WTC buildings were knocked down with a camera. Do terrorists need a picture of the construction site to know where they have already attacked?
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
espacially when they can find thousands of pictures of certain buildings in the net
Posted 80 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Praise and curse of the city /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Praise and curse of the city discussion threads