|
|
#1
28.08.2005, 00:59
|
|
|
|
|
Photograph the OSA warning notice on MoD property & is also a criminal
offence to reproduce a copy for private property use? If so, please could the correct legislation be cited, rather than some vague Act, dating back to mid-1800s. John Locke |
|
|
|
#2
28.08.2005, 10:04
|
|
|
|
|
As purely opinionated advice, I suspect that it is not an offence in
itself, but if said notice was attached to a working site there would be grounds for detaining you on the suspicion that you were in fact photographing the base or whatever. It might be difficult to persuade the MODplod that you were only interested in the notice. As to private use, if you were to display it for example on your property, you would be clearly displaying false information unless your site is a "prohibited place".! If on the other hand you just want a piccie for your records, I can easily supply a jpeg of a notice which I collected from an abandoned and disused site quite a few years back. Les. john.locke wrote: [..] |
|
#3
28.08.2005, 11:09
|
|
|
|
|
My understanding was that if you are standing on public land when you take
the photo then its okay despite what the signs might say. You could argue that what you are photographing is already in the public domain anyhow. Sorry, don't have a link to the legislation, these are just my thoughts. |
|
#4
28.08.2005, 11:21
|
|
|
|
|
In article <des2gj$b1$1>,
Paul <df> wrote: > My understanding was that if you are standing on public land when you take > the photo then its okay despite what the signs might say. You could argue > that what you are photographing is already in the public domain anyhow. > Sorry, don't have a link to the legislation, these are just my thoughts. ....unless, of course, you are in Greece and photographing aircraft. |
|
#5
28.08.2005, 11:56
|
|
|
|
|
"Paul" <df> wrote in message news:jb11
> My understanding was that if you are standing on public land when you take > the photo then its okay despite what the signs might say. You could argue > that what you are photographing is already in the public domain anyhow. > Sorry, don't have a link to the legislation, these are just my thoughts. > > -- > Paul Charlton > > [..] No, I put that to the test in the mid 1970's and it's not the case. Police pounced on me and removed the film from my camera and took it away. Nick |
|
#6
28.08.2005, 13:41
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 11:09:23 +0100, "Paul" <df> wrote:
>My understanding was that if you are standing on public land when you take >the photo then its okay despite what the signs might say. You could argue >that what you are photographing is already in the public domain anyhow. >Sorry, don't have a link to the legislation, these are just my thoughts. I heard a few years ago from a reliable source words to the effect of," .... if the photograph you take could be of use to a foreign power / terrorists etc, then no matter where you stood to take it, it can be confiscated." Interestingly many years ago I was on an official visit to a front line RAF base and we were allowed to take pictures inside a HAS(including the aircraft) , as long as they did not show anything outside the shelter (the doors were fully open). Something to do with 'interested parties' could locate the position of the HAS from visible external items. Seemed a bit far fetched but we obviously complied. Graham |
|
#7
28.08.2005, 17:43
|
|
|
|
|
>
> ...unless, of course, you are in Greece and photographing aircraft. I am confused, why would I want to stand in grease, taking pictures of aircraft - this is getting rather messy. John Locke |
|
#8
28.08.2005, 17:48
|
|
|
|
|
> No, I put that to the test in the mid 1970's and it's not the case.
> Police > pounced on me and removed the film from my camera and took it away. > > Nick Nick, I note some useful points from this reply. 1. It was still Cold War era. 2. The ABC trial findings had not permeated down the line to wooden tops. 3. It depends how much detail was collected in the areas outside the sign itself? If you merely copied the sign & filled the entire frame, then I think that any court might act in your favour, as the intention was not malicious. 4. Today, you can legally ask Mr Plod for some paperwork in return for anything that they remove from your person. This starts a papertrial, which if found in your favour, at some later stage, does not look good on Mr Plods reputation afterwards. Thanks for the reply. John Locke |
|
#9
28.08.2005, 19:00
|
|
|
|
|
"john.locke" <john.locke> wrote
> Photograph the OSA warning notice on MoD property Well, by definition the notice is part of the prohibited place. Under OSA 1911 s1 it is an offence for any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State to take any photograph which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy. Also, s58(1a & 1b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence to take a photograph containing information likely to be useful to someone preparing an act of terrorism. > & is also a criminal offence to reproduce > a copy for private property use? *If* the photograph is prohibited under OSA 1911 or POTA 2000, then copying it for any purpose would be an offence. > If so, please could the correct legislation be cited, > rather than some vague Act, dating back to > mid-1800s. Which 19th century Act has been quoted to you? |
|
#10
28.08.2005, 20:03
|
|
|
|
|
In message <4311eac8>, john.locke <john.locke>
writes > snip > >4. Today, you can legally ask Mr Plod for some paperwork in return for >anything that they remove from your person. This starts a papertrial, which >if found in your favour, at some later stage, does not look good on Mr Plods >reputation afterwards. Have you got a cite for that comment? Mike |
|
#11
28.08.2005, 21:49
|
|
|
|
|
In article <desu36$kci$1>, Andrew Clark
<aclark> writes > >"john.locke" <john.locke> wrote >>Well, by definition the notice is part of the prohibited >place. > >Under OSA 1911 s1 it is an offence for any person for any >purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State >to take any photograph which is calculated to be or might be >or is intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an >enemy. Also, s58(1a & 1b) of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it >an offence to take a photograph containing information >likely to be useful to someone preparing an act of >terrorism. But... respectfully, I wonder if removing the film from the camera and/or destroying it constitutes a Forfeiture, which, if you are a photo-journalist, is illegal (under the Bill of Rights) prior to a court appearance. In order to confiscate they would have first to develop the film and then convince a court it fell within the meaning of the OSA. I know that film and tapes, etc. have been confiscated on many occasions in the past, however depending on the circumstances, the legality is questionable. The Bill of Rights is not legislation. It is part of our constitution and cannot be repealed or replaced, by the OSA or any other statute. Regards, Simonm. |
|
#12
28.08.2005, 22:11
|
|
|
|
|
There is a useful document about the rights of photographers here....
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr/ MB |
|
#13
28.08.2005, 22:33
|
|
|
|
|
In article <1MNci8AuMiEDFwwg>,
SpamTrapSeeSig <no-one> wrote: [Snip] > The Bill of Rights is not legislation. It is part of our constitution > and cannot be repealed or replaced, by the OSA or any other statute. The UK does not have a written constitution. Any existing legislation can be altered by Parliament. Some bits of the Act of 1688 have been altered - to my knowledge [eg: all jurors have to be freeholders]. |
|
#14
29.08.2005, 00:07
|
|
|
|
|
> Have you got a cite for that comment?
> > Mike > -- > M.J.Powell One of the Appendices to the amendment notes to PACE. John Locke |
|
#15
29.08.2005, 15:54
|
|
|
|
|
In message <4312438d>, john.locke <john.locke>
writes > >> Have you got a cite for that comment? >> >> Mike >> -- >> M.J.Powell > >One of the Appendices to the amendment notes to PACE. Thank you. Mike |
|
|
|
|
| Similar Threads | |
| Has a criminal offence been committed? If a member of AAISP staff logs into my router without my request and without my permission, and changes the set up unrequested, has a criminal offense been committed? |
|
| Speeding offence! criminal or not. There seems to be a disagreement,whether a speeding offence is classed as criminal or not. Having checked the Direct Gov motoring section,I cannot find a definitive answer to... |
|
| Is this a criminal offence? (Continued)? On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:06:25 GMT, "Janitor of Lunacy" <ghost> wrote: > >"Danny" <DanielHume> wrote in message >news:eiuk >> If someone throws a number of objects to cause... |
|
| A criminal offence? The BBC give the Lord Advocate a good kicking... [..] " Lord Clarke was undoubtedly correct this morning in withdrawing the three charges against Angus Sinclair from the... |
|
| So - is a parking offence a criminal offence? So is a parking offence a criminal offence? A follow-up from "is speeding a criminal offence" above. The answer to "have you a criminal record?" is getting exceedingly... |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:41. | Privacy Policy
|
Is it a criminal offence to..............