Strife Thru a Lens
Just been looking a few things on line and reading a blog that someone else put up about public photography. Apparently there is a government move to restrict all public photography unless you have an special photographer’s ID.
Now I’ve looked into this and I can’t believe that a bigger deal isn’t being made. Is it ALL public photography by anybody, or are we talking about some kind of measures to protect public figures against the paparazzi? If the former then we must surely sign this petition to get this bill refused.
The petition is here if you feel strongly:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/#detail
If it’s the latter, then Victoria Beckham’s career is at last well and truly over, and we can take to the streets and rejoice!
Beckham yesterday “Oh is that a camera, I hadn’t noticed. Oh I feel violated” *Strikes a pose*
Doesn’t she look like the Daughter of David Dickinson?
Mmmm still not sure. Don’t we have press freedom? Why should this strata of celebrity and public figures be protected anyway? And I think it’s a good thing that people don’t have any right to copyrighting their own image. ( n.b. If anyone wants to get t-shirts printed with “The Misssymartin Misssives” and a big photo of me, then go ahead…and put me down for twenty).
So, is carrying a camera going to become as unacceptable as waiving a loaded gun around in a shopping centrewhilst foaming at the mouth? Do I have to clear the beach or get everybody on it to sign a waiver if I want to take a photograph of my own family?
We already have a situation in Aberdeen where any council owned amenity will stop you from taking a photograph of your own child. Ok, I can see the reason for banning photographs in a swimming pool, but in the ice rink? In a public park? Last year we took King Louis skating for the first time and like normal parents we wanted a gazillion pics of the Golden Boy flailing around for posterity. Within seconds of me producing a camera, a sixteen year old attendant practically rugby tackled me (artistic licence is a wonderful thing…) and declared that I could not take a photograph of my own son. I was unsuitably chastised and left to feel like a little bit ashamed.
So at first reading of this petition I was outraged at this FURTHER gross infringement of our civil liberties and of course as a teacher of television production and sometime video producer I was concerned at the potentially enormous ramifications. As it is i have to fill in umpteen forms to even take my students out the front door of the college! So I looked into the background of the chap who has lodged the petition, Simon Taylor, who is a photographer. You can have a look at his page too, if you want:
http://www.phooto.co.uk/rights.shtml
This is what he says:
“I have been been inundated with requests for details regarding the petition I have started at the Number 10 e-petition site. I have NOT said that a bill is in preparation, or that legislation is being prepared, but am referring to the ID cards proposed by various bodies which will serve to create an ‘uber class’ of photographer, and restrict the use of cameras by normal citizens. These cards will only further the suspicion and misunderstandings that many photographers already suffer.” Not exactly clear is it? More digging required…
But no, it’s not about celebrities, it’s the latest ineffectual clamp down on peodophiles! It appears that in London Ken Livingston is proposing to erect sign that prohibits photography on certain streets of London to protect children. And apparently there will be moves to spread these “measures” further afield. Thank God for that! That’ll show the bastards! Child pornography will surely be wiped out as a result of this! Well done, Ken! run kids, run free, the streets are safe!
no, this will only effect those people that these measures claim to protect. Families. So everyone is a paedophile if they have a camera? I can’t take photos of my own family? I can’t take photos of a street scene in which the general public with their kids are going about their business? Could I be looking at being physically restrainted by some Serpico wannabe as soon as I whip out the Instamatic?
Who ever thought that a Labour govenment would be this …well….despotic? I remember my friend’s parents having their camera taken off them in 1980s Poland for taking a photos of a train whilst on holiday. This was the story they told to illustrate the restrictions of a communist way of life compared to ours back in the UK. And yet, this is the way were going over here. All because of a handful of people whom the govenment are at a loss as to how to control. People who are actually at home downloading nastiness on their computers, rather than hiding behind bushes with along lens trying to get photos they could easily find in a Kay’s Catalogue.
Austin Mitchell MP has already proposed an early day motion against the start of a rather pernicious trend. Here it is:
“That this House is concerned about the welfare of children and supportive of all efforts to protect their innocence, but nonetheless considers that recent panic measures against photographers taking entirely innocent pictures of children and young people in public places is both unnecessary and unfair; believes such interventions slur both photography and photographers, from professionals to amateurs, in ways which can only inhibit photography, as well as diminishing the joys of this people’s art, and imputing guilt to the natural and desirable efforts of photographers to still time, and record the beauties of the UK; further believes that the Mayor of London should think again about his proposal to erect warning signs in parks, and his preposterous warnings that digital photography used to `photograph children in public places in London’ is some kind of threat, and that this is calculated only to create fear of photographers and generate an unnecessary panic about any photography at all in public places, as if users of digital and camera phones are all potential paedophiles; and commends the campaign launched by Amateur Photographer to warn against such officious and official follies and to protect photographers in general from victimisation and any imputations of guilt, about taking pictures of children in whatever open public place they happen to be.”
Go Austin.
Anyway, I don’t know how any of you feel about this but I’ll leave it up to you. Personally I think I remember reading somewhere that we live in a free society.
