Seize and search the London tourist
 

My partner and I were celebrating our 50th anniversary with a five week trip to Europe. On the way back to the States, we stopped in London for a four day rest.
It was Sunday, May 22nd. and after visiting the National Gallery, we joined the crown in Trafalger Square, and took about 100 photographs. Photos of adults, children, men, women, gays and straights. A typical Sunday in the Square.
On the way to the bus, we were stopped by four police officers. It seems we were seen photographing children in Trafalger Square, and they wanted to see them. We were detained for 45 minutes while they deleted all the photos, took our passport and drivers license numbers, and searched our shoulder sack. The sack contained a Dorothy Sayers mystery, a Stephen King novel, a bottle of water and a Time Out guide to London.
We were invited to pick up a transcript of all this at the local police station the next day. Thank you very much officers, but the sooner we got out of London the better.
On a public street, we were accused, tried and convicted of pedophilia
I am an artist, and had an appointment to discuss the possibility of an exhibit of my work in the Spring. I did not keep that appointment, and we flew away two days later, never to return. We have been coming to London for 50 years, and photographed for 50 years, but never again.
GV
Honolulu Hawaii

I think they could have been more sensitive with you ..but I think that in England, as well as here in Spain, is absolutely forbidden to take photographs of children without the parents permission. And not knowing the law is not a legal excuse. And the problem is not pedophilia (obviously, because you were at the street)..it's children pornography. So I don't think you are been fair. It's not London's fault.

You are correct, but I was told by the officers that the proceedure is now on their records, so if I were ever to return and even get a speeding ticket, or a jay walking ticket, I am on their records as an elderly man photographing children ....and will never ever get that off the books. That is very destressing. There were dozens of people photographing children on that day.

What is about Fodor's that attracts these kind of posts?

Celebrating a 50th anniversary, been going to London for 50 years, yet this is your very first post here.

Couldn't register and think of anything positive? Venting? Never needed travel advice before? Just want to b*tch? What?

Sure it is destressing :(
I'm really sorry , it's very sad to think that just for a "stupid" moment you are labelled that way.

Well, you have the whole world to see, don't give up travelling and doing photographs ! :)

Obviously there was a complaint - "we were seen . . ." Probably the parents of one or more of the kids sought out the police.

I am not saying you were doing anything wrong - after all I wasn't there. But if a couple of men were taking a lot of photos of small children I can see how the parents might be very nervous.

indytravel: I also thought this might be a troll - but if true, I can definitely see why they might have been stopped.

It can be..but sometimes in this forum we see trolls everywhere and I don't feel it is necessary to begin a conversation attacking ..if it is a troll we will soon discover :)

To indytravel
I have been traveling the world for 50 years, and can think of many positive things, and will post themn in the future.
Computers are new to me, and this is a first post. Sorry to have offended. I really am a most positive person
GV

I am truly sorry for what happened to you. I'm truly sorry for all of us. The world has changed in my 50 years, and I'm sure even more so in your 70-some years.

I don't have the answers, I can only be guided by one of my maxims of life. My money is a spendable as anyone elses; I'll spend it where I'm welcomed and above suspicion, where I'm treated with dignity and respect.

No one has to tell you that the England (and the world) you have known and loved all these years has changed, and not necessarily for the better. I wish it wasn't so. Cherish your memories.

If you have been a photographer for so long it should have come to your attention before now that taking photos of people without their permission is an absolute no-no.

Not only is it incredibly rude - and in this case percevied as a possible crime - which it was - there are also significant legal issues.

Without a model release you cannot use anyone's photo for any commercial purposes (including exhibition in a gallery where the photos are for sale) or you leave youself open to litigation for commercial use without permission. You don;t own other people's lives.

This whole story is either phoney - or you have been living in some very strange world of your own.

traveling the world for 50 years and celebrating a 50th anniversary and you didn't have a clue that taking pictures of young children without permission was a no-no?

Well,I'm sorry you were treated badly, but you are one naive guy! You're lucky they let you out of the country.

The word is "distressing" by the way, not "destressing" - that is something that you need to do.

I live in Hawaii a kind and gentle place, and yes I am naive.
I lived in Manhattan for 35 years, and it's because of posts like yours and others I moved.
Do not respond further to this, because I'm out of here.
I wonder what a "troll' Basta!

St. Cirq and NYtrav-not being a good idea to take photos that happen to have young children in the shot and being a "no-no" as you both put it, (is "no no" a legal term?) or "a possible crime" as Nytrav puts it, is something else altogether. Cite me the criminal statute that says it is "against the law" to take photos out in public on the streets that happen to have a variety of people, including children, in the shots. I don't know of one. Expropriating such photos for commercial use is a different matter, but that's solely a civil action for damages, my friends, not criminal.

As I understand it, there are school policies in GB that require a parents' permission to have photos taken of their children up to a certain age-BUT, as far as being a violation of a criminal statute to not have such permission? on what basis? Where is the bad intent, if just taking photographs in public places? It would be pretty hard to go forward and criminally prosecute based on such a constitutionally vague statute, wouldn't it? (although I'm certainly not discounting that such may be the case over there).

Now, if you take a photo of a minor, or anyone else, and that photo ends up displayed somewhere in a way that is inappropriate, or that is not to their liking, without permission, you MAY have a valid cause of action in CIVIL damages based on the tort of invasion of privacy, either "false light" or commercial misappropriation, but a violation of a criminal statute for taking pictures of people in public areas? Nope.

I accept that in GB (which country never quite seems to have its priorities straight-Sheik Abu Hamza al-Mazri can preach for years first in the Finsbury Park mosque, then gets kicked out and preaches in the London parks about killing the "western infidels"-and not just killing them, mind you, but "bashing and crushing each of their heads"-and the bobbies stand around and smile, as such hate and murder-inciting speech is overlooked-but THAT'S okay in Londontown-just taking innocent pictures of street scenes that may have children in them, why, let's way overreact to THAT, and then convict the tourist/photographer of being a child pornographer on the spot-yeah, THAT makes sense, doesn't it?

Let's see what happens once someone so accused files a civil rights violation against the City, or takes it to the European Court of Human Rights, then we'll see how procedurally "correct" those gestapo tactics of the police really are.

And one more thing, I take it that all this sanctimony and opprobrium being directed to the OP here means none of you have EVER taken photos of young children, old people, and other people in YOUR travel photos without getting permission from each and every one of them? Please-how ridiculous!

I find this quite shocking - to me a total overreaction , but some things puzzle me. I am curious as to what right the police would have to delete photographs without the takers permission - under what rules.

I cannot see that taking pictures of Children outside a public building, along with numeroud photographs of other people could in any way constitute an offence, and certainly not lead to any reporting on an official list.

I presume tried and convicted is being used here as a metaphor. As far as I know, in this country only a court can convict. There appears to have been no arrest, no formal (written) warning.

I would make an offical complaint - It won't help you much, but may help someone else in future.

Spygirl, perhaps you can inform us which country does have its priorities straight. Not, presumably, a certain superpower that took its founding principles from British concepts of personal liberty, religious tolerance and intellectual freedom.

Clearly having one's priorities straight doesn't involve fighting Fascism (with others, like mine) for two years before yours was forced to join in after two years of hand-wringing and denial, after an attack on its own territory.

Maybe your role model is Putin's Russia, or Dubya's pals, the Saudi royal family, who certainly know how to handle dissenters? Please enlighten us.

It does seem strange that this has apaprently festered with the OP for two months. Anyone in this position ought to have been told exactly what was happening and why, and what to do if he had a complaint about it. No doubt this was in the transcript he didn't stay to pick up. Distressing it may have been, but if you fly off in a huff because something unexpected happened and you don't take up any avenues of legal redress available to you, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This is just the way the world is now. It may be news to some people, but in Britain parents are not allowed to take photographs of their *own* children's school play - as the pictures would include other people's children.

I have to say I don't understand why the OP would want 100 photographs of complete strangers, though...

To be fair, Caroline, I think that's more a matter of schools ensuring they're legally protected rather than statute law or regulations. A key point in this, as in the OP's original account, is whether or not people complain.

I'm not sure whether this is 'law' or not but a few months back I was doing some friends a favour, part of which involved taking photos of my (then) local leisure centre (the architecture etc). I took some exterior shots and was just going in the door to do some internal ones when the security guard came over and demanded that I delete the shots taken there and then (in case there were children in any of them), which I did without hesitation (though not without a sense of indignity). And this despite the fact that I had a letter of permission from the building's landlord.

Of course it's quite ridiculous to assume that anyone taking photos must be doing so for some perverted reason, but as I said to the security guy, I understand that you have to employ a blanket law and not debate every incident.

geowa - I'm sorry that you had an unpleasant experience but I'm sure you'll agree that it's nothing to what those poor abused children go through, and anything that can be done to stamp out such wicked and evil behaviour must be attempted. Perhaps we should inform visitors of this 'law' to a greater degree, but ultimately it's a case of 'When in Rome..'

Well,

Assuming that the OP just found this forum (which is why it took a couple of months to post), I do think that "we were accused, tried and convicted of pedophilia" is an overreaction.

At least 30 years ago I was told, in no uncertain terms, that it is very, very rude to photograph anyone without permission.

(Which is why I have a telephoto lens. :) )

((I))

I have many pictures I have taken of total strangers over the years because they were interesting to me, including pictures of children. Last week I took pictures of some old men playing boules in a village in France. I took a picture of two women looking out through their window at all the tourists at the market in another village. I also took pictures of children running half naked through a sprinkler in the central place of a French town on a very hot Bastille Day.

I did spend the previous week in London, and I am now glad I didn't take any pictures of children there, at least I think I didn't. I'll find out later when I get my pictures developed.

In any event, I must be naive. I am fully aware that I can't sell pictures of people without a release, but as far as my pictures ever get is an album I force upon unwilling family and friends. It has never occurred to me that this was in any way illegal. In fact, the one photo course I audited in college impressed upon me the usefulness of getting close to one's subject, even for candid shots, and to get over the discomfort created by doing so. I haven't yet succeeded in this last part because I don't do it often enough.

And I had certainly not been aware that you can not photograph your own children in a school play in Britain. This is all food for thought, certainly.

>>>>
accused files a civil rights violation against the City,
>>>>

trafalgar sq is not in the city.

I think the OP post is exhaggereatted, but it's too bad they had an unpleasant experience.

I agree that it's rude, possibly illegal, and one should ask permission first. To do otherwise shows a certain lack of judgement, to be sure.

To think you have special access to images as an artist isn't realistic.

I love to photograph people also, and use the images later in paintings, but I get permission first, as a primary rule.

I was in a public park in NY with my 4 year niece a few weeks ago, and while she was in the playground area with the other kids, a group of three nice looking people came throught the gate with cameras, and starting taking pictures.

These selfstyled "paparazzi" were approached immediately by a group of the mothers, and walked directly to the exit. In 2005, this is the only wise response.

If geowa lived in Manhattan for 35 years as claimed, he/she is surely not at all naive, especially about this issue.

As far as I know, the US law is that while you can photograph anyone/anything that is public (ie., people in the park, a building from the street), in order to sell the photos, you would need a model release. However, didn't the OP say he was an artist?

I use photos I've taken for body studies in my own art, i.e., I take about 10 photos of different men, then when I need a closeup of, say, a man's hand at a certain angle, I draw it from my own photo. This may be what he was collecting photos of several people for -- anatomy studies. Lots of artists do this. Drawing from a photo of someone and selling that drawing isn't a violation of US law, as long as the original photographed person isn't recognizable. So other than the face (and even items like eyes, lips, and other hard-to-draw-from-imagination can be used) there are all sorts of body part info that the photos can provide the life drawer.

I wonder if someone here could advise on just how to take a photograph of Trafalger Sq without people in it?

Do you think I could ask each one of them permission before they wandered off, or would it be better to hire a team to cover more ground.

Ever wonder exactly who they've hired to watch all those cameras already mounted all around London? All sterling, I'm sure.

Geowa, this sort of thing has been happening in several other countries too. Canada and the US at least. I know someone who went through the same for taking photos at his nephews ball game. I'm afraid it's just part of the ultra-paranoid times we live in. I'm fairly sure the long history of street photography is reaching an end.

lol ira, I just saw your last line. :D

Me too.

Some of the above posts are taking the OP as the full story. And that may be the case. But being fairly cynical, and certainly reading between the lines - I don't think that's what happened.

Sure - just about any photo of Trafalgar Square will be full of people - hard to avoid. But geowa only mentioned taking shots of people, not of the Nat'l gallery or St Martins or anything else but just 100 shots of people -- "Photos of adults, children, men, women, gays and straights"

Sure - that could be totally innocent and possibly was. But two older men (again just reading between the lines) wandering around the square for an hour+ taking photos of children could easily raise suspicion. And he says he is an artist - it could also have been that he was taking unusual perspectives like laying/sitting down and shooting up at people.

And living in NY and HI, he is definitely aware of the way things are nowadays.

If things happened just as he says - then he would have been sure to go to the police station to get the transcript and possibly complain. But instead, he cancelled an appt w/ a gallery or agent about a London showing and left the country.

Absolutely, all could have been exactly as stated - but there really are two sides to most stories and I think some important details were probably left out . . . . .

There are always two sides to a story, but your post implies like the others, that there is some sort of a violation of a criminal statute if the OP is taking pictures of children on public streets-I don't know what criminal violation that would be -as there must be a "mens rea" in any such criminal law, and taking photographs of people on public streets doesn't qualify-period.

And as far as not going down to the police station to pick up the transcript, I hardly think you or anyone else subjected to such a frightening incident at the hands of foreign police in a foreign country would be inclined to go down to the police station and pursue the matter further without a solicitor present, thinking very rightly that by drawing further attention to oneself after such an incident with police might well get you arrested -in a foreign country, THAT would be infinitely worse - so the OP leaving the country without following up on the matter is what most reasonable people in his situation would do.

Assuming no law was broken, can someone explain to my how this reaction (including the ball game one) protects children or fights against child pornography? I'm not trying to provoke a flame war, I just really do not understand how.

Agree with you janis-there seem to be lots of gaps in the OP story.

Greendragon
I'm also a figurative painter and read your response with some interest. I know lots of artists who base their work on photographs and pictures that are easy to find in the media, or use photos as a reference. Certainly I do .

But I still wouldn't try to photgraph children without permission, because in today's world, children are at much more risk that they used to be, and yes, there is more (unfortunately, very well-founded) paranoia about their safety.

Clifton and Ira- lol, good luck with those telephoto lenses of yours! Please don't try to lurk around my niece's playground though!

Like everybody else posting messages here, I have no real idea of the circumstances in this case, but does a normal tourist take a hundred pictures of Trafalgar Square?

Well Louie, you put your finger on it- if there is such a criminal violation in England, then it would be very difficult to figure out what the purpose of such a statute was, and in this country at least, it wouldn't fly because a court would throw out such a charge as an illegal 4th amendment search and seizure.

<On a public street, we were accused, tried and convicted of pedophilia.

Surely that is an exxageration.

I think we are getting a one sided report. i find it hard to believe thet the police would react so strongly to an "innocnet" photo taking.

Where you..
photographing the same child
following children
taking mostly children's pics
talking to them
focussing on what part of the body

There are many unanswered questions..

I'm not sure I can add anything to the thread that hasn't been said already. Here in the US, taking photos of people in public might not get you in to trouble, but photographing buildings might. My friends and I have had our disposible cameras confiscated for photographing buildings in a few cities (NY, Denver, Austin and Miami) and have had to erase digital shots.

Spygirl, when did you become an expert on British Law?

There is genuine, heightened concern over the protection of children since numerous, well publicised, cases of child pornography, grooming and stalking, on the increase since the dawn of the internet. Taking photographs of children may appear innocent, but 'could' be the start of a grooming or stalking campaign.

Ask yourself this - if you saw an older man taking photos of YOUR children in a park - wouldn't you have a word with the nearest policeman? I would.

I can remember seeing a little girl on the island of Pescatore. She was about six or seven and busily fishing with a home-made rod and line. A large tabby cat was sitting bolt upright by her side waiting for her to catch something.
It would have made a lovely photo, but she didn't seem to have any parents around. I went without my picture because I would never photograph a child without permission. I would certainly never photograph an adult unless they were a street performer.

Unless something has changed dramatically this year, it's perfectly legal to photograph people in public places in the UK, and in France, and in many other countries (including the US). This is true irrespective of their age.

In some jurisdictions, you need a model release before you can <i>publish</i> someone's photograph (either generally or only for certain uses), but just taking the photo in public is legal.

The fact that police might object to this does not mean that they are right; the police, like anyone else, sometimes overreact out of hysteria or paranoia. Sometimes they have to be informed of what the law actually says.

If this sort of photography is now illegal in the UK, I'd appreciate it if someone can point me to the relevant legislation.

Quite frankly, I'm disturbed by the reation of the board to this post. The Nazi tactics described by the poster are frightening and the blase reactions of others makes me cringe. Poster &quot;Tallulah&quot; has no problem with the police tactics as described because according to her anything to protect children from even the vaguest possibility of a future crime should be attempted. Really? Anything? I'm an adult in my thirties and while I would never get in peoples' faces to take a photo, it would not occurr to me to get a release from every single person that might appear in my pictures taken at Hyde Park or Picadilly Circus. &quot;Geowa&quot; presents a scenario that is frightening and all who believe in the rule of law and the right to be treated with dignity should be outraged by such in incident. I'll be in London this year (without my stupid camera!) but it is not the London I read about and fell in love with through literature, movies, and history books.

Uh, Kate, I think you're a little confused.

You see, I DIDN'T say I was an expert on British law, (which is not the same as saying I don't know British law at all) however, I DO know American law, and I know that taking such photographs in the US is not at all a criminal offence. In THIS country, such actions as allegedly experienced by the OP would be an illegal search and seizure, and the City would be civilly liable in a section 1983 action.

And if it IS a criminal violation in Britain (which apparently, you're not able to say one way or the other) then I'd sure like to know what the basis for the criminal statute is-because it has to comport with European Human Rights law, and if the alleged actions suffered by the OP are true, such actions clearly WOULD be a violation of YOUR LAW.