What is the protocol for taking photos of outdoor aircraft

A lot of places say that, “only for personal use”. It depends on your definition of personal use. Would it mean not posting on here ?
Many also say no commercial videos without permission, which I suppose is fair enough. Now many places also state, “No drones”.

hi morning,
As a after thought having slept on it, what about all those photos we can look at from the first war up to date, the private ones, those crew photos in front of the Lancasters and B.17’s, and yes the Spitfires and the like, most of them have been saved in family albums, only now are we seeing them… and what a gift they are, but did they ask permission. Which leads me to a couple of years ago I visited the MBCC at Cosford, when going in I asked if it was ok to photograph and the lady at the door said yes but only for personal use.

regards,
jack…

hi Sky Dancer,
yes I had a fine trouble free day, in fact I’ve never been stopped from taking photos at either airports or strips, and only been refused my request to photo once and that was on a private strip, so I hope it continues. I know there’s a problem with engine thefts, but the thieves are up to date on aircraft types and engines fitted, so I can’t see them going round taking photo’s to place a target aircraft.

Also thanks for the upto date information on police powers.

regards,
jack…

Hi again Jack,

Sorry for the late reply to your late reply! Hope things went okay at Hurn.

Re. your queries:-

1. If a Constable is using search powers under Sect.43(1) TACT, then YES – they must have a reasonable suspicion.
If a Constable is using search powers under Sect. 43(2) TACT, then NO – no requirement to have reasonable suspicion, as person will already have been arrested.
If a Constable is using stop/search powers under Sect.47A TACT, then NO – they do not require a reasonable suspicion – although Codes of Practice recommend only using Sect.47A powers if the threshold of “reasonable suspicion” cannot be met.

2. Yes, a Constable can examine digital images on camera or mobile phone.

3. No, a Constable cannot delete any images or require you to delete them.

Sect. 47A TACT is legislation to cover a “last resort”, e.g. Police have received information that “Location A” is going to be subject to a terrorist attack. If Sect.47 is authorised, this empowers Police to search anybody, and everybody, within a defined geographical area, in a specific timeframe, to prevent this attack without the need for Police to have a reasonable suspicion against every single individual.

It would be rare for Sect. 47A to have any effect on us aviation enthusiasts, unless the intended target was an airport.

The phrase “reasonable suspicion” is the one that will cause most angst and challenge, just being in a certain area does not make you a terrorist, it should/could be based on information received, your behaviour/demeanor etc.

Great topic!

Skimming over it, it looks like airports/museums need to have clearly posted signage on when and where photos can be taken.

Need to bring it up with our museum.

hi, Sky Dancer,
sorry for my late reply, I’ve been to Hurn taking photos of the stored airliners, for my own personnel use, from how I read this the policeman must have reasonable suspicion that you are engaged in acts of terrorism to stop you and search you. He may remove your camera but he cannot examine the photos or destroy them at that time…

regards,
jack…

Yes, of course most spotters are ‘normal’. ‘Not normal’ is just different. They just present in an unorthodox manner.

Like any hobby there are some idiots who think they have the right to see/do anything they want. The vast majority of us spotters are normal, polite people from all walks of life. Yes some of us are even married, were not all lonely saddos with no life lol!

A spotter may appear to be rude because he/she lacks the social skills that the rest of us take for granted. In some instances this may be due to diagnosed or undiagnosed Asperger Syndrome. This post is not written to provide an excuse for curt or rude behaviour, but to raise awarrnesss of the condition. Other indicators can be an intense, obsessional interest in a hobby and a preference to be on ones own.

I think people have summed it up nicely – ask first! Again if out on public view, its public domain, if inside it isnt! Just imagine someone taking photos of you in your garden! I have unfortunately experienced ‘entitled spotter syndrome’ first hand….our museum was actually getting ready to open last year when someone marched in (despite the closed sign) and asked, well demanded actually, to see a Museum airframe presently in store off site as he ‘needed’ it for his notebook. I explained very politely that actually it wasnt possible and apologised but he wouldnt take no for an answer….in the end I had to spell it out for him.

Angry gentlemen of adequate proportions seem to be the main cuplrits who both seem to be entitled to do what they want and become furious if they arent permitted to. Good old fashioned manners and most people are accomodating – many owners or pilots like nothing better than talking about their charges!

With my Jeep I’m the same, happy to let anyone sit in it – if they ASK first – feral children jumping all over it whilst their parents watch on like dumb mouth-breathers can infuriate. Manners cost nothing!

TT

Bunsen………..

Understand what you are saying. Of course there are many different points of view on the whole topic of images
and their publication on the internet: they need not involve aviation. However we are where we are. In my view
taking the images is not really the problem, think back to pre internet days (yes, they did exist !!). If an image
was taken; how far could it travel, at most into a newspaper or magazine? In may cases soon be forgotten about
when said newspaper became next weeks chips wrapping.

Today of course that is not true. Any image can be around the world in seconds and in some senses it will remain
permanent ie. it can be searched for over the years. I guess in the end it comes down to trust. If you allow someone
to take images for a particular purpose, do you trust them not to circulate those images if that is inappropriate
(not a word I care for too much)?

Overall the world will be a sadder place if we cannot take photos and share them, be it of an aeroplanes or people we
share our lives with.

Another point to ponder. With the advent of so much technology it will be difficult but not impossible to prevent an image
being taken if someone is determined enough. In am thinking in terms of miniaturisation of cameras and also drones to
carry them.

Re post 35

“I guess it’s all too easy to ask what harm is really being done when it’s not your property or privacy. Imagine coming home one day to find photos of the contents of your garage or house plastered over the web. It’s all acceptable and harmless as long as it’s someone else’s privacy, right? “

I had an email from someone asking if they could come and take photos of one of my cockpits “for personal use”. Said person arrived with a friend, while discussing the cockpit in question the friend, without my knowledge, went round taking photos of everything else in my garden and garage. SOme of it is out of siight of the road but is very “colectable”. I had no idea until my phone went red hot with calls from friends telling my that all the photos were on facebook. One of the friends had the entire post taken down on privacy grounds. It turned out that other people had the same problem with this couple. One person’s girlfriend heard a noise and went downstairs to see two people peering through the house windws, she was scared stiff. He had a Buccaneer nose in the front garden and would have given permission for them to take photos from his land but they didn’t even ask him. So now I don’t let anyone take photos becasue I have no guarantee that they won’t be misused

Originally posted by Meddle
So, if I went up to Strathallan tomorrow and started peering in through hangar windows…

You would come away totally depressed, Meddle. Don’t do it if you’re hoping for a hangar full of lovely old aeroplanes. Besides I’ve already got the photos of the agricultural implements if you want them 😀

Do unto others what you’d have them do unto you. Ask nicely.

Jack,

Re posts 18 &25, with all due respect – if you are going to pick a fight with the boys in blue, make sure your “legal training” is up to date!!:)

Sect. 44 was repealed in 2012 & Sect. 43 was amended at the same time, both by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Sect.43 Terrorism Act:-

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261309[/ATTACH]

Sect. 44 Terrorism Act replaced by Sections 60 & 61 of the Protection of Freedoms Act:-

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261310[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]261311[/ATTACH]

Happy hunting!!

hi,
my note is from 2yrs or so, taken from a photography site about taking photos in the UK, the laws does not prevent photography from a public place. However, airports in the UK are private, either in full and/or on land which is considered private property. Consequently, most ban photography, particularly in secure or security areas. When not in a secure area, and when done for personal, not commercial use, it’s generally accepted. Pre-Customs Arrivals areas generally have security restrictions on electronic devices and photography.
To be clear, while you do not need a permit to shoot in public places, public is a loose term: all land in the UK is owned, even if it’s accessible at all times. Transport facilities (train, tube, plane) are private and have rules about taking photos.
Where some get the notion that photography is barred is under the 2000 Terrorism Act, which added prohibitions on taking photographs in secure areas and of airport staff.
And the over-zealous individual had no authority to do so. Only the police can challenge you, as has been made very clear by the Met.
You can be stopped by security and asked not to take photos, and you can be removed from the property by them, but they cannot physically prevent you from taking pictures, nor can they take your equipment, look at your photos, delete (or force you to delete) any images. question about rights.

Also this from the Mets police sit…

“Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped.”

“An enormous amount of concern has been generated about these matters. You will find below what I hope is clear and unequivocal guidance on what you can and cannot do in respect of these sections. This complements and reinforces previous guidance that has been issued. You are reminded that in any instance where you do have reasonable suspicion then you should use your powers under Section 43 TACT 2000 and account for it in the normal way.”

“These are important yet intrusive powers. They form a vital part of our overall tactics in deterring and detecting terrorist attacks. We must use these powers wisely. Public confidence in our ability to do so rightly depends upon your common sense. We risk losing public support when they are used in circumstances that most reasonable people would consider inappropriate.”

The guidance:

Section 43 Terrorism Act 2000

Section 43 is a stop and search power which can be used if a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a person may be a terrorist. Any police officer can:
– Stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist to discover whether they have in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist.
– View digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by the person searched to discover whether the images constitute evidence they are involved in terrorism.
– Seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist, including any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence.

The power, in itself, does not permit a vehicle to be stopped and searched.

Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000

Section 44 is a stop and search power which can be used by virtue of a person being in a designated area.

Where an authority is in place, police officers in uniform, or PCSOs IF ACCOMPANIED by a police officer can:
– Stop and search any person; reasonable grounds to suspect an individual is a terrorist are not required. (PCSOs cannot search the person themselves, only their property.)
– View digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are connected with terrorism.
– Seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

General points

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images, destroy film or to prevent photography in a public place under either power. Equally, officers are also reminded that under these powers they must not access text messages, voicemails or emails.

Where it is clear that the person being searched under Sections 43 or 44 is a journalist, officers should exercise caution before viewing images as images acquired or created for the purposes of journalism may constitute journalistic material and should not be viewed without a Court Order.

If an officer’s rationale for effecting a stop is that the person is taking photographs as a means of hostile reconnaissance, then it should be borne in mind that this should be under the Section 43 power. Officers should not default to the Section 44 power in such instances simply because the person is within one of the designated areas.

For more information visit http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm.

Reading this may be on interest
https://www.techradar.com/how-to/photography-video-capture/cameras/photographers-rights-the-ultimate-guide-1320949

Sorry Jack,

“When at a large airport no access so its thru the fence, but I carry a note of Section 43/44 Terrorism Act 2000, which states ” There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place”.

I can find no reference to what you state, in sections 43/44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (post 18) and sections 44 to 47 have been repealed. Can you clarify?

Welcome to the world of spotting. North Weald is a bit of a unique case as you have to drive airside to get anywhere. As a general rule I would say stick to the cafe by Kennets hangar, and the similar area by the squadron. I would not go wandering out of these areas. There are some friendly places in the south like Elstree, Booker, Rochester, Popham , but never go into hangar uninvited. Places like White Waltham and Denham are ok if you ask on the right day to the right person. Pretty much everywhere else in the south keep to public areas. If you are at a public airfield take all the photos you want, maybe a bit different at a strip, which to me is PPR only.
US can be so different. Remember Chino in the 90’s having done Planes of Fame, we asked the guy at Yanks Museum what he thought about us going air side and it was help yourself. Spent a very happy afternoon talking to various warbird owners and restorers.

Jack Windsors post is an interesting comparison , I guess at Edinburgh ( landside) you are in apublic place ( according to the earlier video = no restrictions), Legends could actually be argued as being on private property ? such as some of Horse events , Motor racing Circuits – these are not public places so should be more restrictive than peering through the security fence at at a large airfield , however imagine the uproar if your Legends ticket said ” no photography ” ?