At first glance, this sounds alarmist. It sounds like the same rules as continental Europe, where it effectively means you can’t focus on a person as the main subject of the picture or video without their permission, but it’s OK if they are just in the background.
where it effectively means you can’t focus on a person as the main subject of the picture or video without their permission, but it’s OK if they are just in the background.
The law allows for that, however the implication of the literature released by the Home Office implies otherwise. They literally said “you can’t photograph others without permission”.
The main issue is that this is an official government publication, and as such people will regard it as factual. It’s less that the law could come down on someone taking photos in public, but more that some self-righteous asshole might start a fight with someone taking photos, thinking the more strict version of the law the Home Office implied is accurate.
And there’s also the slippery slope aspect of this being a potential first step to removing the right to photograph others without permission altogether.
You’re applying the technical terminology from The Highway Code, it’s not clear that this applies here.
The leaflet itself shows no explanation of the terms “should” and “must” like there is in The Highway Code.
That kind of nuanced language really isn’t appropriate in literature meant for people with a poor grasp of the English and English culture.
“Should not” and “can not” are not “legally different” - the terms have no formal legal definition, they’re just used in The Highway Code like that. But The Highway Code is not written by the government, it’s written by a private business called The Stationary Office. They don’t come up with legal definitions, they provide a specific layman’s explanation of the rules of the road, as defined in both legislation and case law.
Ok so the upshot is that asylum seekers don’t take photos of people in public because they mistakenly think it’s illegal. Doesn’t seem like the worst outcome.
The worst outcome is someone reading it (not necessarily an asylum seeker), thinks it’s accurate because it’s from the government, then uses that to justify harassing people with cameras. People legally going about their day, taking photos in public legally, but contradicting the advice in this leaflet, being harassed due to this leaflet.
The long term worst outcome is that this sentiment spreads until a new law is introduced that actually does prohibit taking photos without permission.
At first glance, this sounds alarmist. It sounds like the same rules as continental Europe, where it effectively means you can’t focus on a person as the main subject of the picture or video without their permission, but it’s OK if they are just in the background.
Which will effectively mean the end of street photography.
Silver linings and all that
The law allows for that, however the implication of the literature released by the Home Office implies otherwise. They literally said “you can’t photograph others without permission”.
The main issue is that this is an official government publication, and as such people will regard it as factual. It’s less that the law could come down on someone taking photos in public, but more that some self-righteous asshole might start a fight with someone taking photos, thinking the more strict version of the law the Home Office implied is accurate.
And there’s also the slippery slope aspect of this being a potential first step to removing the right to photograph others without permission altogether.
The literature in the article says “should not”, which is advisory and legally different to “can not”, as you say.
Ok so the upshot is that asylum seekers don’t take photos of people in public because they mistakenly think it’s illegal. Doesn’t seem like the worst outcome.
The worst outcome is someone reading it (not necessarily an asylum seeker), thinks it’s accurate because it’s from the government, then uses that to justify harassing people with cameras. People legally going about their day, taking photos in public legally, but contradicting the advice in this leaflet, being harassed due to this leaflet.
The long term worst outcome is that this sentiment spreads until a new law is introduced that actually does prohibit taking photos without permission.