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

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:
[..]

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.

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.

"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

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

>
> ...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

> 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

"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?

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

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.

There is a useful document about the rights of photographers here....


http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php


MB

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].

> Have you got a cite for that comment?
>
> Mike
> --
> M.J.Powell

One of the Appendices to the amendment notes to PACE.

John Locke

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