HM forces and taking piccies

Should posting pics/videos be banned ?

  • Yes, ban soldiers etc from taking pics/videos in war zone and posting on the internet

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7
#1
Given that a lot of Squaddies, Squids and Crabs take photographs/videos which contain a lot of information in the "War Zones", which gets posted on the internet and not all of whats posted shows HM forces in the best light should MoD make it an offence for any member of HM Forces top take and post any photograph/video on the internet unless they have MoD permission or it is censored.

I'm sure it was an offence during WW1 for photos to be taken unofficially.
 
#2
leaving Kosovo a few years back we had to submit our personal laptops to the RMP so they could examine and if necessarily remove anything that may have been considered not suitable to take back.
Never checked my memory stick though.
The trouble with censorship in the modern day is that another person in another country with different laws can put it on the internet for all to see. i would hope that the vast majority of service personel would be able to perform self censorship using common dog.
 
#3
boelynbulldog said:
leaving Kosovo a few years back we had to submit our personal laptops to the RMP so they could examine and if necessarily remove anything that may have been considered not suitable to take back.
Never checked my memory stick though.
The trouble with censorship in the modern day is that another person in another country with different laws can put it on the internet for all to see. i would hope that the vast majority of service personel would be able to perform self censorship using common dog.
Sadly, Too many idiots are posting crap, todays scum is a prime example, Cant be arrsed posting a link. I just hope there is 3 Scots guardsmen getting "educated" this morning in Chelsea Barracks
 
#4
As a keen photographer who took photos on tour which are now for sale in an image library, I looked into issue of whether MOD's permission was needed. Although I'm a civilian (not civil servant) I was deployed with the army, and was concerned that if I got a particularly newsworthy picture MOD might try to stick their oar in.

The answers I found were interesting. As a civilian I can photograph what I like, but if I exploited my primary employment to put me in an advantageous position to take images I may have dramas with my employers (and MOD could apply pressure to them).

The other major issue is copyright. The law is that the creator of an image owns the copyright to it. The exceptions to this, in general terms, are:

- where the copyright is assigned - where this happens the assignee usually pays for the copyright
- where an individual is employed as a photographer, and his kit is supplied by the employer
- where the photographer is a member of HM Armed Forces, when Crown Copyright automatically exists on any image taken

So, the quick answer is that if MOD wanted to, they could enforce Crown Copyright on any image taken on ops. Local commanders could, of course, always instigate a ban on photography if they thought it appropriate - as the CO of UK Med Gp did at Shaibah Fd Hosp on Op Telic 5.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
I'm all for piccies and vids being sent back or published on the net, on the proviso that it does not breach OPSEC, and just as importantly, does not bring the unit or our armed forces into disrepute. As Pte England did for the US for example.
 
#6
i was careful in 91 of what I took, but some of the guys went OTT, and now having kids are only starting to relaise the hurt they could cause.

I think soldiers photos have been for the better overall, showing the ignorant civvies what we have to put up with conditions wise.
 
#7
vandyke said:
boelynbulldog said:
leaving Kosovo a few years back we had to submit our personal laptops to the RMP so they could examine and if necessarily remove anything that may have been considered not suitable to take back.
Never checked my memory stick though.
The trouble with censorship in the modern day is that another person in another country with different laws can put it on the internet for all to see. i would hope that the vast majority of service personel would be able to perform self censorship using common dog.
Sadly, Too many idiots are posting crap, todays scum is a prime example, Cant be arrsed posting a link. I just hope there is 3 Scots guardsmen getting "educated" this morning in Chelsea Barracks

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007190148,00.html :roll: Not their finest hour
 
#8
H_FLASHMAN said:
vandyke said:
boelynbulldog said:
leaving Kosovo a few years back we had to submit our personal laptops to the RMP so they could examine and if necessarily remove anything that may have been considered not suitable to take back.
Never checked my memory stick though.
The trouble with censorship in the modern day is that another person in another country with different laws can put it on the internet for all to see. i would hope that the vast majority of service personel would be able to perform self censorship using common dog.
Sadly, Too many idiots are posting crap, todays scum is a prime example, Cant be arrsed posting a link. I just hope there is 3 Scots guardsmen getting "educated" this morning in Chelsea Barracks

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007190148,00.html :roll: Not their finest hour
Quite.

The state of some of their buttons was appalling. What were they thinking?
 
#9
I really don't see the problem with the Scots Guards letting off a little steam. FFS the Royal Marines in training were filmed for TV a couple of years ago At the end of training piss-up they had a naked bar. And this was broadcast. I just think that it is another case of the Scum trying to denegrate the same Forces they claim to be the paper of. Just two weeks ago they managed to get One Ton Turney to say that they were the Armed Force's paper of choice. TW4TS.

My only question is YTF do they feel the need to video everything? Posterity?
 
#10
spiffy said:
I'm sure it was an offence during WW1 for photos to be taken unofficially.
It was more the case that not a single BRITISH military photographer was allowed into the trenches. most of the images from then came from the Kiwi's. The situation has improved but oficially all imagery should be put over the desk of the unit's media ops/unit press officer and should be cleared before use.

never happens!

ishinryu said:
My only question is YTF do they feel the need to video everything? Posterity?
at the end of the falklands conflict it was suddenly found that there was nearly no official images at all and subsequently it has been undertaken that there are posterity images of all deployments.

but it can become boring when everyone thinks that they are the only one capable of being the true historian.
 
#11
I have several undeveloped films from the first Gulf war.

Just as well I didn't have them developed what with todays politically correct climate.

I mean just because you execute a couple of helpless prisoners they treat you like a f*cking war criminal!
 
#12
The_Cad said:
I have several undeveloped films from the first Gulf war.

Just as well I didn't have them developed what with todays politically correct climate.

I mean just because you execute a couple of helpless prisoners they treat you like a f*cking war criminal!
:twisted: Nice one Cad.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#13
...the worst thing about the wretched Soaraway Scum is that some of the
( non-Service) media people in MB really believe that because it is high circulation and because The Scum has repeated their lie so often and at at such great length, that it really is what Sapper Snooks and Tpr Feckdust pick up to read everyday.

( None of said politically-aware sharp suited media monkeys have ever worked with Scousers it would appear either)

Don ' Straight Arm ' Cabra
 
#14
The_Cad said:
I have several undeveloped films from the first Gulf war.

Just as well I didn't have them developed what with todays politically correct climate.

I mean just because you execute a couple of helpless prisoners they treat you like a f*cking war criminal!
:twisted: Nice one Cad.
 
#15
I thought it quite an entertaining video....... ah to be 21 again :)
 
#16
glasseye said:
spiffy said:
I'm sure it was an offence during WW1 for photos to be taken unofficially.
It was more the case that not a single BRITISH military photographer was allowed into the trenches.

Absolute balderdash. Geoffrey Malins and John MacDowell would be turning in their graves to hear such arrant piffle bruited abroad! Most NZ photographs produced by official photographers were actually the work of Hurley and Wilkins, the two famous Australian cameramen! No single Kiwi has anywhere near the fame or had the access of any of these four!
 
#17
ViroBono said:
As a keen photographer who took photos on tour which are now for sale in an image library, I looked into issue of whether MOD's permission was needed. Although I'm a civilian (not civil servant) I was deployed with the army, and was concerned that if I got a particularly newsworthy picture MOD might try to stick their oar in.

The answers I found were interesting. As a civilian I can photograph what I like, but if I exploited my primary employment to put me in an advantageous position to take images I may have dramas with my employers (and MOD could apply pressure to them).

The other major issue is copyright. The law is that the creator of an image owns the copyright to it. The exceptions to this, in general terms, are:

- where the copyright is assigned - where this happens the assignee usually pays for the copyright
- where an individual is employed as a photographer, and his kit is supplied by the employer
- where the photographer is a member of HM Armed Forces, when Crown Copyright automatically exists on any image taken

So, the quick answer is that if MOD wanted to, they could enforce Crown Copyright on any image taken on ops. Local commanders could, of course, always instigate a ban on photography if they thought it appropriate - as the CO of UK Med Gp did at Shaibah Fd Hosp on Op Telic 5.
Could they not also get to you on question of model releases?
 
#19
Commen sense should be enough to dictate when it's fine to take pics and when it is inappropriate... alas that might be asking too much of an nineteen year old trigger puller full of piss & vinegar.
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
ViroBono said:
As a keen photographer who took photos on tour which are now for sale in an image library, I looked into issue of whether MOD's permission was needed. Although I'm a civilian (not civil servant) I was deployed with the army, and was concerned that if I got a particularly newsworthy picture MOD might try to stick their oar in.

The answers I found were interesting. As a civilian I can photograph what I like, but if I exploited my primary employment to put me in an advantageous position to take images I may have dramas with my employers (and MOD could apply pressure to them).

The other major issue is copyright. The law is that the creator of an image owns the copyright to it. The exceptions to this, in general terms, are:

- where the copyright is assigned - where this happens the assignee usually pays for the copyright
- where an individual is employed as a photographer, and his kit is supplied by the employer
- where the photographer is a member of HM Armed Forces, when Crown Copyright automatically exists on any image taken

So, the quick answer is that if MOD wanted to, they could enforce Crown Copyright on any image taken on ops. Local commanders could, of course, always instigate a ban on photography if they thought it appropriate - as the CO of UK Med Gp did at Shaibah Fd Hosp on Op Telic 5.
This is what I was instructed on Op Telic also, which led me to wonder why the MoD doesn't exercise its copyright privelege to prevent media publication of 'detrimental imagery' that originated from Servicemen. Media Ops had no answer (as with so much else), but I suspect that anything that smacks of the military 'censoring the truth' of what is happening on Ops, would cause a igger PR disaster than it quashes.

Still, their within their rights to charge for usage.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top