On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:24:06 +0100, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam"
<samandjanet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>If I wanted to take journalistic photos of an event in the UK, what would
I
>need to consider from a legal point of view?
>
>Okay, some background on the event...
>Plans are afoot to dig a whopping great quarry in the heart of the
village
>where I live.
>The villagers are completely opposed to it.
>The parish council say they're opposed, but they don't seem to be doing
>anything very much apart from having closed doors meetings where the
public
>aren't invited.
>I have established a website to give the villagers a single unified voice
>and bring our plight to the attention of the world.
>Part of running this site will involve publi****ng regular re****ts of
>meetings and things like that.
>
>Now, the parish council have finally called a public meeting in the
village
>hall this coming Saturday, and invited the village to attend.
>I plan to go along with my camera and an MP3 recorder to get photos and
>interview people for the site, and also to get photos and a re****t of the
>meeting.
>
>I'm anticipating objections to my photographing the parish councillors
and
>the event in general.
>Do they have any right to damand that I stop photographing the event?
>
>If they do make this demand, what possible comebacks can I use?
>
>Could I get away with telling them that the site is pulling nearly 2000
hits
>a day, and that if they're opposed to the site, then in the spirit of
free
>journalism, I'm left with no option but to publish that as a story on the
>front page, and in doing so point out that by taking a stance against a
>website that objects to the quarry, they are in effect taking a stance
>against the feelings and opinions of the entire village?
>
>The village hall, as I understand it, is a public place...
>Does a parish council have the right or power to impose a photography ban
>there?
In the US, public officials are fair game. While they can't get away
with banning photographs being taken and published of the officials,
they *can* get away with banning cameras in the building on the basis
that the cameras present a danger to the people in the building. They
say you could whack someone in the head with a camera body or that the
camera could conceal a bomb.
It's too bad the officials can't use the same amount of imagination in
setting sensible budgets and local laws that they employ in setting
rules to prohibit what they don't want done.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
|
