Photography

**Amethyst** · 17th October 2019, 07:38:AM

I can imagine - we don't tend to do that here xx

Firstly, as I'm curious, what information is it you are requesting, on what grounds ( FOI?) and on what basis is your request being refused. Presumably you have attempted to obtain the information in writing first and been refused hence why you are attending in person ? And have you been through the complaints process and the ICO ?

I think des8 and ostell will have a better idea on the law on filming / photography in public buildings. There's also the issue ( presumably) of filming individuals in the building ? ( guessing you're not filming the architecture of the building whilst you make your requests although also presumably people being filmed are public servants ? )

re council meetings ( probably irrelevant in this case https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...at-my-council/ )

**Anonymous87** · 17th October 2019, 08:10:AM

Originally posted by Amethyst View Post

I can imagine - we don't tend to do that here xx

Firstly, as I'm curious, what information is it you are requesting, on what grounds ( FOI?) and on what basis is your request being refused. Presumably you have attempted to obtain the information in writing first and been refused hence why you are attending in person ? And have you been through the complaints process and the ICO ?

I think des8 and ostell will have a better idea on the law on filming / photography in public buildings. There's also the issue ( presumably) of filming individuals in the building ? ( guessing you're not filming the architecture of the building whilst you make your requests although also presumably people being filmed are public servants ? )

re council meetings ( probably irrelevant in this case https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...at-my-council/ )

Thank you for your reply.

The information is/was mixed.
First I had an issue with trying to obtain information regarding my legal son, who I'm fighting for access with.
Social services lied numerous times about trying to contact me, but I had no missed calls, voicemail or letters.

I was entitled to know when he was born for example, but wasn't told for 6 weeks. The lies about trying to contact me despite no missed calls voicemail or letters persisted with not just me, but even my solicitor.

When all methods above failed and complaints were ignored (I later discovered that despite contacting and complaining, because I didn't formally request that this be handled as a complaint, it was instead merely and I quote "noted in our personal records but not thought of as a complaint"
Neither was I offered a route to complain.
Between me and you, that means it was brushed under the carpet.

After failing to get correspondence, I visited the civic centre, with the intention of formally requesting the information I am legally entitled to, with video proof if I was denied.
As was expected, the social workers were in a meeting. (14 out of 15 phone calls they're in a meeting)
So I chose to wait until it was finished, while continuing to film to obtain evidence of the obstruction, especially assuming that I would be kept waiting excessively that this was likely to repeat after several more visits.

The public servant at the reception noticed I was filming and told me I had not obtained her permission, I advised her that she has no expectation of privacy in a public place and that I was filming for my own legal safeguarding.
At which point Iater discovered she made an allegation of aggressive behaviour.
(which I strongly suspect was the police advice to her to get the matter to fall under public order)
Because I've encountered this exact scenario multiple times before.

She contacted the police, so I temporarily left to obtain the above documents and upon returning presented them, following which I had a brief interview (which I videoed)
The police contacted me later that day, because I had made an enquiry during the incident.

The advise, from a seargent, was that despite this building being a public utility, it was rented from a private entity and as such was outside of public photography laws.
They even informed me that they were aware that while waiting for a response, I returned anyway for my interview with the public servants.
No action was taken (as I expected)
I am very familiar with a public order offence, and you cannot be arrested for an alleged offence which took place in the past, only one that's occurring presently.
In short if you leave before police arrive, you won't get arrested.

Since the above ordeal I then visited a second and third time (despite a ban from the civic centre not a court injunction) to make a foi request of the cctv, to challenge the false police report of aggression, which is a criminal offence. I was standing 10 feet away from the public servants while filming and there was no aggressive body language.

Regards

**des8** · 17th October 2019, 09:48:AM

Unquestionably there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place.

The question arises "are council offices public places?"
The public have access and so they are public places?
A private owner of a public place can prohibit filming in that place
So who is the owner of the council property.
It is rather disingenuous in this instance to say the freeholder is a private person, (as there are many ways in which a property can be owned by different people at the same time eg freeholder, leaseholder, beneficial owner) and therefor filming is banned.

It is interesting that THe Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 state that in ENGLAND (not the rest of UK) that members of the public may film, take photographs, or make audio recordings of council meetings;
So the law says you can film the council, but the council want to ban filming in council offices.
Hmmm.

Have to stop now as funeral to attend (not mine) but will be back later to see if any other comments

**Amethyst** · 17th October 2019, 09:50:AM

Glad it's not your own funeral Des xx Hope it goes as well as can be expected

xx

**R0b** · 17th October 2019, 13:36:PM

I disagree entirely with the statement that a public servant working in a 'public place' gives up their right to privacy. Everyone has a fundamental right to privacy but those rights can/may be curbed by law. Not going to rant off so as we will probably veer off from the question so I'll leave it there on that point.

I agree with Des that there are no laws which requires an individual to require a licence or permit of sorts to film or photograph in a public place but I don't think you can simply apply the same principle to a building that is open for public access. For starters (though I am no constitutional expert) I would have thought that a 'public space' is governed by legislation e.g. roads, footpaths, parks etc. whereas a public building will be owned by a someone whether it is the council, business, individual etc.

The owner/occupier of that building would then have the right to grant access whether conditionally or unconditionally. Even if the council did own the building I would not agree that they put in place rules to prevent members of the public from filming. There could be a number of reasons, such as security, confidentiality for example, if filming identifies information on a computer screen, or some other genuine reason.

Looking at it another way, a police station is a public place, accessible by members of the public but I do know they prevent you from filming inside there though I am not sure if there is a particular law in place for that. Another example is Network Rail and the train stations, those are what one might say are public places yet they have guidelines on their website as to photography and filming. What if a local authority owned and maintained a publicly museum and put up signs that no photography/filming was allowed, does that still give the members of public the right to ignore those signs because it is a 'public place' and so they have the right to film/photograph?

Unless there is legislation that governs a public building (local authority owned or not), then to me the owner/occupier of that building has the right to grant access on whatever conditions they may choose.

On a side note, there was a European case in 2014 (Rynes v Urad) which concerned the use of CCTV from a homeowner covering both his property and a public space for the purpose of protection and relying on the exemption that it was for personal or household activity based on the old Data Protection Act 1998.

The court did not accept this position and said:

"The image of a person recorded by a camera constitutes personal data... surveillance in the form of a video recording of persons... constitutes... the automatic processing of personal data.

As is clear from... Directive 95/46 is intended to ensure a high level of protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, in particular their right to privacy, with respect to the processing of personal data... the exception provided for in the second indent of Article 3(2) of that directive must be narrowly construed.

Consequently... the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people is stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitors a public space, does not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity"

**Anonymous87** · 17th October 2019, 16:21:PM

Originally posted by des8 View Post

Unquestionably there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place.

The question arises "are council offices public places?"
The public have access and so they are public places?
A private owner of a public place can prohibit filming in that place
So who is the owner of the council property.
It is rather disingenuous in this instance to say the freeholder is a private person, (as there are many ways in which a property can be owned by different people at the same time eg freeholder, leaseholder, beneficial owner) and therefor filming is banned.

It is interesting that THe Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 state that in ENGLAND (not the rest of UK) that members of the public may film, take photographs, or make audio recordings of council meetings;
So the law says you can film the council, but the council want to ban filming in council offices.
Hmmm.

Have to stop now as funeral to attend (not mine) but will be back later to see if any other comments

I'm rather more confused than I was originally.
In particular, the court case mentioned. It was not legal to film a public space, even though ACPO public photography states that it's not only legal to film in public, but the police have no power to delete or confiscate.
Either it's legal or not? I suspect the court case involves persistent recording? Although I don't see how that can be determined, by letter of law?

Interesting about the English only law permitting the recording of council meetings, I assume there's no Welsh counterpart?

Regardless. Filming when you can't, If that's the case. Is it a criminal matter or civil? I know trespass is a civil matter, except aggravated trespass.

BTW. Disagree on any public servant being entitled to privacy.
If you're working in your capacity as a government agent, transparency is and should be paramount in a free democratic society. The antithesis is fascism.

I'm curious how if in a public open space you can film anyone without their consent, but because that person is inside a building paid for by my taxes, being paid to do a service for me, now they have rights?

I don't understand the concept of someone leaving their home, being filmed by hundreds of cctv cameras, but expecting privacy from one camera in particular (my personal camera)
The logic (or lack thereof) escapes me.
This is exactly the same as people who wilfully waive their right to privacy in the creation of a Facebook account, but scream privacy when any part of that profile is copied by one individual.
How is it that in grebes society are comfortable with major institutions, monitoring, recording and distributing their personal information (tos) but when an individual private person does, it's an outrage?
Be assured your information is more likely to be misused by the former.

**des8** · 17th October 2019, 19:48:PM

The Welsh Government encourages local authorities to permit filming, but there is no right to do so (Recommended Code of Practice on Local Authority Publicity for Wales, 2013, para 53-55

Filming where not allowed is a civil matter (except for some particular places like railways , defence sites etc).

If there are no signs forbidding photography in the building (publicly or privately owned), IMO one is entitled to film.if it is a public place
If a person is in a public place there is no law which expressly forbids photographing them (but be wary of anti-harassment laws)

Photography

Photography

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Announcement

Court Claim ?