Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Olympus dSLR (
-   -   The UK government wants to restrict Street photography (

HarjTT Feb 21, 2007 1:58 PM

Looks like the UK governments really lost the plot and now wants to restrict photography in public places and theres a petition online to protest against this proposed new law.

If your in the UK sign the petition stop this new law from ever being passed.



:? :O

Rriley Feb 21, 2007 2:16 PM

wow Harj
what whacko is doing this
and what will it do to tourism
arrested for photographing the household cavalry ... lol
they cant hope to enforce it can they ?
maybe russia is better now :)
das !

i signed as an expat, which i am


Greg Chappell Feb 21, 2007 2:33 PM

Tourism would sure suffer.....I can't IMAGINE such a law there or anywhere else. Just think if they did that in Paris?! I'd be sick, going there this Fall. I got back to the officejust a few minutes ago. Took my lunch-time hour to do some shooting here in downtown Dallas with my E330, 50-200+1.4 teleconverter. It's 72 degrees here today....I need to be off.

HarjTT Feb 21, 2007 3:09 PM

Hi Guys

I wouldn't be suprised if they did pass something like this, and Riley, you'd know they do like passing really crap laws, like ID cards that have your fingerprints, a retina scan and all the info that they have on you. Something like this photography ban was mentioned in the media about 18-24months ago but I just thought it was a joke. I can also see them saying its ok to shoot at Trafalgar Sq, Parlaiment squ, etc but no where else unless you have a permit - some parts of Liverpool St are already like that.



:? :O

wass Feb 22, 2007 3:55 AM

the 1 in a million that uses their camera for malicious reasons ruins it for the rest.

As for tourism; if I knew that I can't take pictures at a place that I plan to visit I would still go. Who knows, if I can't remember what I had seen then I may have to go back to do it again. (leave it tosomeone to put a twist on things) Would you really boycott a place because you can't take it home with you.

I, for one, would be against the ban, but I understand it. Someone you don't know is taking a picture of your little one, how would feel (once you asked him to show you his pictures) if he refuses and walks away. Creep.

I think you know what I'm getting at.

HarjTT Feb 22, 2007 8:35 AM

Hi wass

We all know why they would want to place such a restriction, but if such laws were passed say 30-40 years ago we would not have had images like these:



:? :O

Mikefellh Feb 22, 2007 10:07 AM

Typical government stupidity...if someone wants to take a malicious photograph they'd use a cellphone camera, or a watch camera, they wouldn't do it openly.

The other day I had to opprotunity to handle some spy cameras of the past, and you'd never know a picture was taken.

This is just like the talk of outright banning of incandescent bulbs without thinking they are being used from photofloods, to traffic lights, to even car headlights. Even if it was replacing incandescents with CFLs (compact fluorescents), they're ignoring the amount of excess garbage CFLs produce, not to mention the drop of mercury that's in EVERY fluorescent bulb!

Rriley Feb 22, 2007 10:15 AM

i cant stand flouro tubes and bulbs
they look like crap for colour and seem to flicker to me

Mikefellh Feb 22, 2007 10:35 AM

Rriley wrote

i cant stand flouro tubes and bulbs
they look like crap for colour
Lightbulbs have different colour tempertures.

The Ott Light is one of the highest rated lights on the market for those who require true colour, full spectrum light like photographers looking at output, quilters, crafters, etc. and it uses a FLUORESCENT bulb!!! Check it out:

Rriley Feb 22, 2007 10:57 AM

yes i know that Mike
what annoys me most is the pulsing i see with them
not everyone sees this usually some pre-disposed medical condition makes them at least annoying, possibly dangerous. ie epilepsy

my own problem is i had a head injury from being run down at a road block
while luckily for me, 99% of my issues melted away, i do suffer the malady of flouros

i guess Ill spend the next 3 yrs stocking up on tungsten fillament globes :)


wass Feb 22, 2007 3:00 PM

you are right HarjTT. I think over 60% of the best photos are candid street photos

tommysdad Feb 22, 2007 4:17 PM

I gotta sign that, most of my work that I do is for Regeneration of U.K. cities, I`m in sunny Manchester on Tuesday , yippy dippy:G

Thanks for bringing that to my attention HarjTT


artbyphil Nov 22, 2007 7:36 PM

I rrealise this is an old thread but just in case people are curious of the outcome this is the reply the govenment sent about the pitition:

Thank you for signing the petition on the Downing Street website calling for the Prime Minister to stop proposed restrictions on photography in public places.

This petition has already attracted over 60,000 signatures from people who obviously share your concern. Not surprisingly, the idea that the Government might be poised to restrict your ability to take photos has caused some puzzlement and even alarm.

We have therefore decided to respond to this petition before its closing date of August, in order to reassure people.

The Government appreciates that millions of people in this country enjoy photography. So we have checked carefully to see if any Government department was considering any proposal that might possibly lead to the sort of restrictions suggested by this petition. We have been assured this is not the case.

There may be cases where individual schools or other bodies believe it is necessary to have some restrictions on photography, for instance to protect children, but that would be a matter for local decisions.

In fact, Simon Taylor, who started the petition, has since made clear that he was not really referring to Government action or legislation. His main concern appears to be that photographic societies and other organisations may introduce voluntary ID cards for members to help them explain why they are taking photographs. Again, any such scheme would not involve the Government.

We hope this re-assures you and clears up the confusion.

Mikefellh Nov 22, 2007 7:51 PM

Since this was posted and updated, I've since learned that one part of Canada (Quebec) now restricts street photography:

"Like Street Photography? Forget Quebec
When you photograph a stranger in the street, do you think about the possible legal ramifications of publishing the shot? Hopefully you do to some extent - if you plan on licensing the image for commercial uses, you will likely need a model release."

The entire article is at:

OCD Nov 23, 2007 3:15 AM


Just think if they did that in Paris?!

I thought they had done it in Paris? I don't think Robert Doisneau could work in the same way today (despite many of his famous pictures being set up).

The big problem in the UK is a new generation of 'scared' people coming into positions of 'responsibility' , and who have never seen the world in a normal perspective. I don't mean to invokethe old cliché of 'it was better in my day', but when it comes to things like child abduction, crime, terrorism etc, it is neither much worse, nor much better than is used to be, it is just different.

Media attention to crimes against children has led to a generation of kids that haven't played out on the street with friends, and the perceptionamongst those kids is that they are the next victim, when in fact they are highly unlikely to be any sort of victim. A period of tranquillity between thelast lot of terrorists (in the UK)and the new wave of terrorists lulled people into a false sense of security, and the people growing up in that period, already nervous of other things through media hysteria,see the new attacks as part of the same problem. And the knee jerk reaction is to ban things because it easilyremoves something they would otherwise need to think about intelligently and deal with on a realistic level.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up HarjTT.

tkurkowski Nov 23, 2007 9:53 AM

Mikefellh wrote:

if you plan on licensing the image for commercial uses, you will likely need a model release."
That hasbeen true for decades, at least in the US. If you try to sell an image to any savvy customer (e.g. advertising agencies) they will definitely demand a model release, if only to avoid lawsuits.


tkurkowski Nov 23, 2007 9:57 AM

HarjTT wrote:

Looks like the UK governments really lost the plot and now wants to restrict photography in public places
Hi, Harj

This kind of thing is also starting to happen in the US, but without any laws actually being written. Recent issues of PopPhoto have had discussions where police have prevented photographersfrom taking photos of public places, with no law preventing such photography. Paranoia is running rampant.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:04 PM.