Photography on duty
Photography on duty
Saw this on another chat website:
Following on from the revealing phone/camera and home vids coming out on utube etc this doesn't sound too far fetched.
The issue of taking pictures on your own equipment whilst serving in uniform (UK that is) has been contentious in recent years. In truth, there are various regulations which provide that any photo/image taken whilst serving, or by virtue of service, is Crown Copyright.
In reality however no action has been taken despite some blatant abuse. However things are now to be tightened up by the MoD. The reason is that images are being released which undermine the MoD (e.g. images of dead UK soldiers being published, naturally distressing to family and friends alike). A new DI will be issued shortly to the effect that service personnel can only take photos using service equipment.
In reality however no action has been taken despite some blatant abuse. However things are now to be tightened up by the MoD. The reason is that images are being released which undermine the MoD (e.g. images of dead UK soldiers being published, naturally distressing to family and friends alike). A new DI will be issued shortly to the effect that service personnel can only take photos using service equipment.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another tale of the left hand not knowing what the right hand,...etc etc..... What will happen is this...
The MOD fun police will ban all private cameras / Videos and insist that you use service photographers....
...... Soon the MOD PR people will have no good PR pics of the boys in action, catching Drug runners, saving stricken babies from Fires etc etc...and so the MOD PR people will insist that people start taking pics for PR purposes....and on it goes....and on and on and on...
The MOD fun police will ban all private cameras / Videos and insist that you use service photographers....
...... Soon the MOD PR people will have no good PR pics of the boys in action, catching Drug runners, saving stricken babies from Fires etc etc...and so the MOD PR people will insist that people start taking pics for PR purposes....and on it goes....and on and on and on...
Nanny State=Nanny MoD 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Service personnel who take their cameras to work for whatever reason need to read 2006DIN08-022.Its contents cannot be published outside the services but it does have far reaching implications.
My photo permit and past DPA authorisation is now worthless and articles such as the one about Tain in this months Aircraft Illustrated are no longer feasible for my likes!!
I hope to be corrected on this matter but from the numerous calls I made this afternoon unless you work in the Photo Section or for a MOD photo agency your screwed.
My photo permit and past DPA authorisation is now worthless and articles such as the one about Tain in this months Aircraft Illustrated are no longer feasible for my likes!!
I hope to be corrected on this matter but from the numerous calls I made this afternoon unless you work in the Photo Section or for a MOD photo agency your screwed.
Although it sounds a pain the MOD will just ensure you won't be able to take your phone or your camera with you (They took phones off people 7 days before Telic).
While I don't agree with loss of either bit of kit, just how many "stupid" posed (or otherwise) photo's would have been kept out of the papers? Bearing in mind that some of the published photo's actually made it worse for the guys still out on Ops.
While I don't agree with loss of either bit of kit, just how many "stupid" posed (or otherwise) photo's would have been kept out of the papers? Bearing in mind that some of the published photo's actually made it worse for the guys still out on Ops.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Shrops
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My oppo was cycling up to work that evening when he spied an individual driving slowly past the sorry scene in a private car with a video camera cradled in his arm pointing out the window. He stopped the driver, found out who he was, tore him a new botty hole and told him he'd be in deeper guano if the footage found its way onto the internet in any way. Don't know if he took it any further, but I've never seen it so I asume the individual must have got the message loud and clear.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a conicidence
Coincidentally I just read a booklet at work about a new pricing structure for media and photographs supplied to the public sector...
Just a coincidence I am sure!
Just a coincidence I am sure!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is certainly is a very grey area and I'm not convinced the MOD have the right to do this (but as they are law unto themselves, then maybe they 'believe' they can)
The copyright LAW clearly states that anyone who creates the 'artistic works' or the 'intelectual property' owns the copyright to that property, whether it be a drawing, photo, sketch, whatever.
Now the MOD believes that if the photo is taken in 'their' time, then the copyright belongs to them....hummm, I'm not certain.
Indeed, if you look at many of the 'official' photos shown in the RAF news for example, you will see that it says (c) Cpl Bloggs etc. Many other service publications name the photographer as the copyright holder also.
Clearly, some of the more stupid videos that have surfaced recently has led to the MOD clamping down, and I would agree that this kind of thing needs to stop now. As for the MOD claiming copyright on all photos taken by individulas, irrespective of whether it's in theatre or otherwise, I would certainly question the legality of that.
Kind regarsd to all
TSM
The copyright LAW clearly states that anyone who creates the 'artistic works' or the 'intelectual property' owns the copyright to that property, whether it be a drawing, photo, sketch, whatever.
Now the MOD believes that if the photo is taken in 'their' time, then the copyright belongs to them....hummm, I'm not certain.
Indeed, if you look at many of the 'official' photos shown in the RAF news for example, you will see that it says (c) Cpl Bloggs etc. Many other service publications name the photographer as the copyright holder also.
Clearly, some of the more stupid videos that have surfaced recently has led to the MOD clamping down, and I would agree that this kind of thing needs to stop now. As for the MOD claiming copyright on all photos taken by individulas, irrespective of whether it's in theatre or otherwise, I would certainly question the legality of that.
Kind regarsd to all
TSM
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
2006DIN08-022
Then there is a reference to Classified. What does that mean? I believe Classified disappeared 15 or more years ago "Everyone understands what it means," he said, blissfully ignoring that perhaps 75% of the armed forces have less than 15 years service.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Although it sounds a pain the MOD will just ensure you won't be able to take your phone or your camera with you (They took phones off people 7 days before Telic).
While I don't agree with loss of either bit of kit, just how many "stupid" posed (or otherwise) photo's would have been kept out of the papers? Bearing in mind that some of the published photo's actually made it worse for the guys still out on Ops.
While I don't agree with loss of either bit of kit, just how many "stupid" posed (or otherwise) photo's would have been kept out of the papers? Bearing in mind that some of the published photo's actually made it worse for the guys still out on Ops.
Never going to be able to stop it.
"Coincidentally I just read a booklet at work about a new pricing structure for media and photographs supplied to the public sector..."
Hmmm.
Don't get me started.
Make it more difficult for the pro-Forces outlets to cover the RAF and you'll just ensure a lot more negative stories.
Hmmm.
Don't get me started.
Make it more difficult for the pro-Forces outlets to cover the RAF and you'll just ensure a lot more negative stories.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Aye, they seem to have enough trouble spotting illegal weapons going back to the UK, how the hell are they going to screen an entire flight for cameras etc?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A new DI will be issued shortly to the effect that service personnel can only take photos using service equipment.
Does that mean I can pop down to the phot section tomorrow and demand to sign out a shiny new Nikon D2X?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 250 ft agl
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who has not taken photos whilst on Det/ Ops??? It is history in the making- no-one in the official photographic trade can capture everything that the people in the firing line see day in and day out- no disrespect to them but a split second photo of a firefight or aircraft dropping actual ordenance cannot be captured by the military photographers all the time- "staged" is not good enough! Very disappointing, as surely any good photo is good PR for the miltary. The Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq were always keen for their hardware and personnel (without showing their faces!) to be taken as they always wanted to show what a good job they were doing. Very disappointed in this view from the top.
SMT
SMT