Photography on duty
Join Date: May 2000
Location: door or ramp, don't mind.
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a civvy I've obviously not seen this doc, however there are parallells on this side of the fence. Many companies get round it saying if you are on duty at the time, i.e. being paid by them at the time, or on their equipment/property then the intellectual copyright is theirs, as you're in effect working for them at the time the image was taken, so you are 'at work', even if photography isn't your employed vocation. TSM I think you'll find the RAF news images are crown copyright or equivalent, the name check is more of a photographers credit, but I'd be happy to be corrected.
I've been fortunate in that when I've taken images the companies I've worked for (civvy), are usually pleased to have a copy, I've been known to put in a cheeky little invoice too once or twice. Good PR people recognise the value of the 'money shot'.
Rgds JS available for weddings barmitzvahs and this sort of stuff......
I've been fortunate in that when I've taken images the companies I've worked for (civvy), are usually pleased to have a copy, I've been known to put in a cheeky little invoice too once or twice. Good PR people recognise the value of the 'money shot'.
Rgds JS available for weddings barmitzvahs and this sort of stuff......
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been out for a long time, and things may have changed since the bad old days of the Cold War, but it was the case that we were not allowed to take a camera onto MOD property without written permission. Where granted, written permission was subject to the copyright for any photographs taken on military property or during military operations, being assigned to the MOD.
This made publication difficult - newspaper editors knew the rule perfectly well and would submit any photos offered to them to the MOD for permission to publish. Photographs taken without permission were liable to forfeit and photographic equipment brought onto MOD property without written permission was liable to confiscation.
It may be the case that submission of photographs for censorship has been done away with, but I'd be extremely surprised if the rules were changed to permit free and unlimited personal photography of military installations and manoeuvers.
This made publication difficult - newspaper editors knew the rule perfectly well and would submit any photos offered to them to the MOD for permission to publish. Photographs taken without permission were liable to forfeit and photographic equipment brought onto MOD property without written permission was liable to confiscation.
It may be the case that submission of photographs for censorship has been done away with, but I'd be extremely surprised if the rules were changed to permit free and unlimited personal photography of military installations and manoeuvers.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some years ago one of the new Russian carriers came up the channel.The "Daily Telegraph" sent out a photographer on board a Cessna 172 and got a superb shot ,which was duly published on the front page of the "DT" which at the time had a circulation of around 330k copies a day.
I duly phoned "DT" up from my RAF home in Lincolnshire asking if I could have a copy print for reproduction within my own unit , which had a strong Recce Component and hopefully good unclassified prints would be welcome.
Actually "DT" sent me a beautiful big copy neg. I submitted said neg to Ground Photo with a request for 10 copies for distribution to RIC, GLO's etc.
On going to pick up said prints I was surprised to find myself signing a F102.
The imagery having being obtained of Soviet shipping inside certain height and distance minima, in accordance to the rules they were all dutifully stamped "SECRET" top and bottom , back and front etc. etc.
Silly Boy!
I duly phoned "DT" up from my RAF home in Lincolnshire asking if I could have a copy print for reproduction within my own unit , which had a strong Recce Component and hopefully good unclassified prints would be welcome.
Actually "DT" sent me a beautiful big copy neg. I submitted said neg to Ground Photo with a request for 10 copies for distribution to RIC, GLO's etc.
On going to pick up said prints I was surprised to find myself signing a F102.
The imagery having being obtained of Soviet shipping inside certain height and distance minima, in accordance to the rules they were all dutifully stamped "SECRET" top and bottom , back and front etc. etc.
Silly Boy!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,133
Received 28 Likes
on
17 Posts
Perhaps the MoD are getting a little uncomfortable with the amount of helmet cam footage returning from Afghanistan showing, shock horror, troops carrying out 'aggressive action' and the realities of the job.
Of course as already mentioned some of the best photographs/footage taken of military operations since the technology became available has been taken by average Joe's on the ground rather than a raft of escorted and pandered to press types. The MoD would be shooting itself in the foot in PR terms if the flow of 'honest' imagery rather than the pre-prepared sort was stopped.
Whilst I agree that such a change in policy could be easy to implement for pax boarding a/c (as suggested, a long stay at South Cerney perhaps) the large amount of 'comfy boxes' sent out to theatres would provide an admin nightmare if they were all to be searched for such heinous devices as a camera. Also, having experienced the "hand over your mobile" phase of Telic 1 I can honestly say that on the unit I was with at least it was a complete waste of time. No one wanted to hand their £200-300 handset in especially as it also doubled as a camera so it was roundly ignored with the reply of "I didn't bring one" being enough to sate the powers that be.
Of course as already mentioned some of the best photographs/footage taken of military operations since the technology became available has been taken by average Joe's on the ground rather than a raft of escorted and pandered to press types. The MoD would be shooting itself in the foot in PR terms if the flow of 'honest' imagery rather than the pre-prepared sort was stopped.
Whilst I agree that such a change in policy could be easy to implement for pax boarding a/c (as suggested, a long stay at South Cerney perhaps) the large amount of 'comfy boxes' sent out to theatres would provide an admin nightmare if they were all to be searched for such heinous devices as a camera. Also, having experienced the "hand over your mobile" phase of Telic 1 I can honestly say that on the unit I was with at least it was a complete waste of time. No one wanted to hand their £200-300 handset in especially as it also doubled as a camera so it was roundly ignored with the reply of "I didn't bring one" being enough to sate the powers that be.
A sad day, but inevitable (these regulations have always existed) with images taken by a few idiots. I have seen plenty of high quality pictures taken by Jack/Percy/Cyril, which have found there way to the likes of Navy News and some who have even produced flight safety posters and videos in their own time, at no cost to the MOD. I hope that common sense will prevail. Rules are their for those that abuse the system and this DIN will leave no excuse for those that show complete stupidity, filming their mates kicking the **** out of rioters. I just hope that this does not stifle the considerable amateur talent out there and the vast majority who are sensible in their efforts and always get their seniors to approve publication.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Area 51
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The advance of digital camera technology in recent years has meant more people now take cameras with them into theatre. It also means that any images taken can be distributed quickly without waaiting to get home to get the prints from Boots.
This, on the whole, has produced some fantastic images which simply would not have been taken 10 years ago. The downside is that images have been taken which are either innapproriate, breach op sec or do damage to the military objective. I am told that there was an image of dead British troops stacked on a wagon of some sort which then made it to the press. The problem is that once that image gets back to family or friends in the UK it could end up anywhere. There were no images to my knowledge (and thankfully) of the most recent RAF crash site in Afghanistan and no doubt those who complain about the new DI would be equally vocal in their objections had images appeared.
There is a problem here which can potentially affect us all. Whether it's publishing images of casualties or damaging the 'hearts and minds' campaign, something needs to be done but a blanket ban such as this just gives the RAFP carte blanche to nick everyone (if I get arrested they won't be able to take my mug shot though until they satisfy me that they are using service equipment).
The issue of copyright is I believe covered by JSPs and I'll post more details when I get them.
Finally, several images were taken of 'that' KC-135, the ban being more to protect the embarassment of the USAF than anything else. However, if you power up without checking the position of the undercarriage lever....
This, on the whole, has produced some fantastic images which simply would not have been taken 10 years ago. The downside is that images have been taken which are either innapproriate, breach op sec or do damage to the military objective. I am told that there was an image of dead British troops stacked on a wagon of some sort which then made it to the press. The problem is that once that image gets back to family or friends in the UK it could end up anywhere. There were no images to my knowledge (and thankfully) of the most recent RAF crash site in Afghanistan and no doubt those who complain about the new DI would be equally vocal in their objections had images appeared.
There is a problem here which can potentially affect us all. Whether it's publishing images of casualties or damaging the 'hearts and minds' campaign, something needs to be done but a blanket ban such as this just gives the RAFP carte blanche to nick everyone (if I get arrested they won't be able to take my mug shot though until they satisfy me that they are using service equipment).
The issue of copyright is I believe covered by JSPs and I'll post more details when I get them.
Finally, several images were taken of 'that' KC-135, the ban being more to protect the embarassment of the USAF than anything else. However, if you power up without checking the position of the undercarriage lever....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once appeared in far too much detail on a TV program documenting the IRA intelligence activities. An SIB interview followed, and I was aware of the source of the footage. It came from an SSVC cameraman, and I am told that this then gets included in a media pool available (at cost) to any journalist from the many medias that we have these days.
I doubt very much if any military censorship was involved in deciding who had access to this material, and as the 'star' I was very p155ed off about it. High quality photographs taken by mobile phone and immediately transmitted to an editors desk mean that this is a fact of life that everybody will have to accept. It will be impossible to police.
I doubt very much if any military censorship was involved in deciding who had access to this material, and as the 'star' I was very p155ed off about it. High quality photographs taken by mobile phone and immediately transmitted to an editors desk mean that this is a fact of life that everybody will have to accept. It will be impossible to police.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Deep South
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion this is just another sign that the people at the top are losing even more of their grip on reality.
The truth is that we live in a new age of easily accessible photography and other digital media. And the best people to provide that media are the workers at the "coalface". I used to carry a camera with me all the time and have provided many photographs which have been used by the RAF, the police and other agencies for very positive use. Even use within the military fopr briefings etc. I have not charged or expected payment for any of these photographs, believing them to be very beneficial to the service. I stopped carrying my camera when these new directives came out, and have also stopped providing the service with old photographs and video clips - despite being asked many times recently. Why should I when I get treated like this?
I agree that there have been issues with innappropriate pictures being supplied to the press or posted on the internet. But most of the images and media have turned out to be very positive (Amarillo being the one that springs to mind) if only for the morale of the people spending many months of their life doing a thankless and difficult task. Doing the job we do we probably all have access to things we don't want in the public domain - be they photos, videos or even just words about the state of the military in the last few years.
Surely the MOD should be encouraging people to provide them with positive clips, and maybe even paying a small fee to the producer of the clip or picture. Maybe then we can provide the media with more interesting pictures and stories to attempt to put our operations and even everyday life in a much more positive light. This would also maybe have the benefit of reducing the attempts of the press to elicit more underground clips, most of which seem to be unfavourable.
Oh, and maybe it will improve morale a bit!
The truth is that we live in a new age of easily accessible photography and other digital media. And the best people to provide that media are the workers at the "coalface". I used to carry a camera with me all the time and have provided many photographs which have been used by the RAF, the police and other agencies for very positive use. Even use within the military fopr briefings etc. I have not charged or expected payment for any of these photographs, believing them to be very beneficial to the service. I stopped carrying my camera when these new directives came out, and have also stopped providing the service with old photographs and video clips - despite being asked many times recently. Why should I when I get treated like this?
I agree that there have been issues with innappropriate pictures being supplied to the press or posted on the internet. But most of the images and media have turned out to be very positive (Amarillo being the one that springs to mind) if only for the morale of the people spending many months of their life doing a thankless and difficult task. Doing the job we do we probably all have access to things we don't want in the public domain - be they photos, videos or even just words about the state of the military in the last few years.
Surely the MOD should be encouraging people to provide them with positive clips, and maybe even paying a small fee to the producer of the clip or picture. Maybe then we can provide the media with more interesting pictures and stories to attempt to put our operations and even everyday life in a much more positive light. This would also maybe have the benefit of reducing the attempts of the press to elicit more underground clips, most of which seem to be unfavourable.
Oh, and maybe it will improve morale a bit!
Because rather than make use of your Government supplied computer and account to view the websites of the three Services which have DINs clearly detailed, you decide to spend your time surfing, the internet, looking at holiday sites, Pprune, ARSSE, Rumrationand doing on-line shopping.
Yes I know.....I'm a hipa...hippoc..hypicr......one to talk!
Yes I know.....I'm a hipa...hippoc..hypicr......one to talk!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Not having the DIN to hand, who can authorise the use of a camera etc?
I know one get out of jail card it that photographs required for the job must be done on service equipment and using service photogs.
As said before, if you don't happen to have the photog present . . .
The Iwo Jima photo or the Desert Rats advance after Alamein are cases in point.
I know one get out of jail card it that photographs required for the job must be done on service equipment and using service photogs.
As said before, if you don't happen to have the photog present . . .
The Iwo Jima photo or the Desert Rats advance after Alamein are cases in point.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Far from the madding crowd
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of artistry required
After reading the said DIN, which it must be said, is clear in it's content that no unauthorised 'image capture devices are to be used'.
Time to dust off the old pencil and paper approach then I guess;
'Now just hold that pose 'Terry', ah that’s it got it, carry on!'
Morale Police
Time to dust off the old pencil and paper approach then I guess;
'Now just hold that pose 'Terry', ah that’s it got it, carry on!'
Morale Police
So is this saying that no one is allowed to take a camera with them, or that they can't use a camera on duty?
Where will that leave the war tourists in exciting helicopter rides? Every time I flew into the International Zone in the back of a Puma, my own and every other camera was working overtime filming it -are the fun police really that concerned about it?
From a practical perspective surely having photos of tours is a good chance to show the public what life is REALLY like in theatre? People who have seen my own photos have found them a useful insight into life beyond the stereotypes...
Where will that leave the war tourists in exciting helicopter rides? Every time I flew into the International Zone in the back of a Puma, my own and every other camera was working overtime filming it -are the fun police really that concerned about it?
From a practical perspective surely having photos of tours is a good chance to show the public what life is REALLY like in theatre? People who have seen my own photos have found them a useful insight into life beyond the stereotypes...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Section 69 of the Army Act should just about cover it.
Unfortunately.....If a damageing or inappropriate picture or footage has been posted on the internet behind a username, how do you then nail the nosher responsible....
Unfortunately.....If a damageing or inappropriate picture or footage has been posted on the internet behind a username, how do you then nail the nosher responsible....
If a damageing or inappropriate picture or footage has been posted on the internet behind a username, how do you then nail the nosher responsible....
With a lot of hard work, Pprune did it with the infamous 'Guvnor'. The result being that the man behind the user name was convicted and is behind bars for being a paedophile. So with enough effort and assistance from the board owners, plod, IP providers etc etc it can be done.
With a lot of hard work, Pprune did it with the infamous 'Guvnor'. The result being that the man behind the user name was convicted and is behind bars for being a paedophile.
So with enough effort and assistance from the board owners, plod, IP providers etc etc it can be done.
Saxon - is pretty easy to trace people who actually log in to a site these days, unless they do it from an anonymous internet cafe with no CCTV near by!
Is scary enough that all those adverts are targeted at your country of residence, but if you ever try doing a bandwith test on your internet connection, some of the sites these days can pinpoint which town you're in. And thats just a noddy site, ISPs know what IP is assigned to what phone line, and your IP is usually registered when you log into most any kind of server. 2+2 = 65 and bob's your uncle...
As for no photography on duty.... no more course/sqn videos then? Ooooh I can feel the morale... can you!?
Is scary enough that all those adverts are targeted at your country of residence, but if you ever try doing a bandwith test on your internet connection, some of the sites these days can pinpoint which town you're in. And thats just a noddy site, ISPs know what IP is assigned to what phone line, and your IP is usually registered when you log into most any kind of server. 2+2 = 65 and bob's your uncle...
As for no photography on duty.... no more course/sqn videos then? Ooooh I can feel the morale... can you!?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/XC1020.html
Will tell you a great deal about this man, none of it very pleasant. He used to frequent here in the civvy forums in particular and had enough knowledge to be plausible on occaisions.
To say he was a 'walt' would be an understatement, but he had suffiecient ability to do a considerable amount of damage, not least of all to the young girl and her family. In the event he appears in aviation again sometime in the future, be very very careful when dealing with him, in any manner.
Basically Pprune was able to provide a good deal of assistance in the investigation and susequent conviction of this individual. Good riddance is the politest thing that springs to mind....
Any way, back to photography on duty....
Will tell you a great deal about this man, none of it very pleasant. He used to frequent here in the civvy forums in particular and had enough knowledge to be plausible on occaisions.
To say he was a 'walt' would be an understatement, but he had suffiecient ability to do a considerable amount of damage, not least of all to the young girl and her family. In the event he appears in aviation again sometime in the future, be very very careful when dealing with him, in any manner.
Basically Pprune was able to provide a good deal of assistance in the investigation and susequent conviction of this individual. Good riddance is the politest thing that springs to mind....
Any way, back to photography on duty....
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I vaguely remember the 'no camera on ops' rule, followed several years later by a slightly embarrassed RAF historical branch asking for copies of photos for the records from the lads - who of course hadn't taken any because cameras were 'verboten'