Dear Ken & List,
My, my what a hot topic of debate 'strong resistance from the building
owners', may I contribute a few observations as an impartial outsider,
though an interested RM professional & tax payer?
* "lets not tell the owner what we are doing! Why not find a public spot and
scan the horizon we can always use our civic responsibility to highlight the
issues and cover our tracks by using FOI as an excuse for publication - lets
not use time and effort (let alone money) to persuade them to do the decent
thing and do the place up or keep it in its original condition"
* "Standing on a public place merrily photographing the environment and, oh
look' a dilapidated building or building at risk has come into view, guess
the whole world would be interested in seeing that, lets publish it on the
internet, that will name and shame the owners into doing something about it,
after all they are neglecting their responsibilities, and are we not just
doing our civic duty!!!"
* "is it evidence for prosecution? Or a cash strapped local body using a
'hammer to crack a nut'? Unless you are intending to prosecute why publish
any evidence? What is the real agenda here?"
* "If you are going to prosecute, why haven't you done an up-front
inspection and told the owners to get their finger out or else or don't you
have the legal power to do so! If this is evidence "if any unauthorised
alterations are made "do you suspect 'foul play is afoot', if so, why are
you not in there doing something about it, instead of taking photographs or
as well as taking photographs?"
* "I guess if I was the owner and you were taking photographs of my
property, in such a clandestine way, without my permission or court
approval, and you had no evidence of 'foul play' or intended 'foul play' I
too would be somewhat irate, and if you threatened to publish such
photographs or release them spuriously under FOI or similar, I would be
beating a track to the courts, screaming 'foul' and redress through
litigation"
* Can one assume that by occupying the building one has immediately put it
at risk, from unauthorised alterations , if so, should it be unoccupied and
securely guarded and protected (at who's expense?), if it is unoccupied, not
much for the burglars to take!!
I am no expert in this area, as perhaps you can see, as a layman I am
concerned that where there is a legitimate right under law to take such
photographs then they should only be released upon specific request, or
court order, or as a result of a court appearance where they have been
placed in the public domain. Don't uses sharp practice in interpretation of
the law or it will come back and bite you and weaken the purpose for which
it was written. FOI was not written to correct the short comings of existing
legislation or as a tool to beat others with where no other tool exists.
If there is a legitimate reason for such actions then the owner has a right
to be party to the process from the onset, and to be part of the solution,
otherwise, slap a writ on them and go to court.
Think again, you too may become an owner of such a property, and be subject
to such a practice as this. In fact if you live in your own property long
enough you may find out by default.
One last comment, don't quote copyright on the photographs, the owners may
quote 'invasion of privacy' after all its their property that is being
photographed in such dubious ways, your ownership claim makes you liable.
Once again, when considering the law, 'don't abuse it, but use it
legitimately.
Regards
Joseph
Joseph Wisener BA Hon's
EDRM System Manager
Civil Aviation Authority
01293 573962
-----Original Message-----
From: Digital Archive [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 01 July 2004 16:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: Photos of Listed Buildings and FOI
Dear Ken and list,
The issue of, 'strong resistance from the building owners' may in fact be
one of drawing attention to the building itself; it's state and location. By
making this widely available on the web, an owner may feel that this singles
them out for attention by prospective criminals. Could this encourage a
'would be burglar' to undertake further research?
In which case, does the owner have good grounds to object?
Fleur Soper | Communications Officer
Digital Preservation | National Archives
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Roberts [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 30 June 2004 14:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Photos of Listed Buildings and FOI
I think there should be no problem if the LA wish to include the photos
provided
they own the copyright in the photo or have the permission of the copyright
owner. As the photographer was standing in a public place he could
photograph
anything in sight without needing to obtain the permission of the property
owner. A would be burglar doing research on a prospect could legally stand
on
the same public spot with a telephoto lens and photograph every visible
window
catch and door lock if they wanted.
Ken Roberts
Cardiff University
>>> Dik Allison <[log in to unmask]> 30 June 2004 11:45:17 >>>
We are performing an FOI audit for a local authority in England. They have
raised an issue regarding photos of listed buildings at risk. These photos
are all taken from a public highway or public footpath and show the
existing state of the building to act as evidence if any unauthorised
alterations are made.
The authority want to publish the photos as part of the publication
scheme, but have met strong resistance from the building owners, who are
concerned about security issues - potential for break-ins etc.
The authority have consulted their own legal department and English
Heritage and have not got an answer from either.
Has anyone come across this issue and if so what was the decision? My own
opinion is that they may be exempt under s38 - 'Health & Safety' - i.e.
not publishing anything that may endanger the health and safety of an
individual. This section is conditional, so it may not be cut and dried.
Dik Allison
4th Resource Consultancy Ltd
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
**********************************************************************
National Archives Disclaimer
This e-mail message (and attachments) may contain information that is
confidential to The National Archives. If you are not the intended
recipient you cannot use, distribute or copy the message or attachments. In
such a case, please notify the sender by return e-mail immediately and erase
all copies of the message and attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other
information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the
official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by
it.
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify our Help Desk
(e-mail: [log in to unmask] or phone: +44-1293-573333)
immediately.
You should not copy or use this e-mail or attachments for any purpose
nor disclose their contents to any other person.
Please note that all e-mail messages sent to the Civil Aviation Authority
are subject to monitoring / interception for lawful business purposes.
**********************************************************************
|
