Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Photography At Paris CDG And LBG Forbidden!  
User currently offline1stspotter From Netherlands, joined Jun 1999, 521 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 16156 times:

Hi,
The message below was posted this evening an aviation mailinglist.
Not good news.

>Hello,
>
>I have a terrible news. Taking pictures from outside the airport is now
>strictly forbidden. A new law is now in force for CDG and LBG.
>
>Taking pictures of anything inside the restricted area from outside is
>prohibited. An amend of 350 euros is the price if someone is caught by
>policemen.
>
>Please advise the fellowship of spotters.
>
>For the moment, we discuss to see what we have to do.
>
>Stephane, president of Kerozen.

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 16136 times:

Geez, I thought we had it bad at DEN, that sucks.

How's the spotting at ORY?


User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 16104 times:

Well I'd be interested to see the actual legal document describing this new rule... Especially the fact that it's only for 2 specific airports, seems a bit strange. I wonder if it is not a rule created by the airport authority. If that is the case one would wonder if they can actually set rules for things happening outside the airport (like looking in).

I guess the next step is concrete walls around all airports! In any case, I'll definitely feel much safer now, next time I am in CDG  Yeah sure


User currently offlineMartin21 From Netherlands, joined Aug 2001, 347 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 16083 times:

Where is the world going ?  worried 
 yuck  stupid French (government)

Martin21



At 30.000 feet, the sun always shines !
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1668 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 16076 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

With the Musee de l'Air at Le Bourget I find this very unlikely !

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 16004 times:

If Stephane (from Kerozen) says something like that, it's got to be true! Sad news for all.
Spencer.



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineFL350 From Belgium, joined Feb 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 15954 times:

Le 7 novembre dernier, a été publié l'arrêté prefectoral N°05-4979 relatif à la police sur l'aéroport CDG.
" TITRE VIII - POLICE GENERALE ARTICLE 32 - DISPOSITIONS GENERALES Il est interdit :
5 - de procéder à des prises de vues à caractères privé, sur l'intégralité des biens, meubles et immeubles de la zone réservée depuis la zone publique. Aéroports de Paris est tenu de mettre en place la signalisation nécessaire à l'information du public quant à ces différentes interdictions par le biais d'affiches, affichettes, pictogrammes et autres messages informatifs et ceci de manière adaptée. Les messages écrits devront être rédigés en plusieurs langues dont, au moins, le Français et l'Anglais. "


From the mailing list of Belgium spotters thanks to Ludo.

Translation:
'Last 7th november was published a 'arrêté prefectoral' law # 05-4979 in connection with police regulations on CDG airport.
Title VIII - General Policy Article 32 - rules it is prohibited:
5 - to take pictures for private use, on all amenities, moving and non moving (buildings) of the reserved area from the public area.
Aeroport de Paris is responsible in putting correct communication to inform the public of those differents prohibitions, thru billboards, posters and other means of information messages. Messages should be written in severals languages and at least in french and english.'


Fabrice



Fabrice Sanchez - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineBeechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, RR: 41
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 15940 times:

Pfff, i´m sure this will make CDG and LBG a much safer place.
Anyway, it doesn´t say anything about photos taken from the ramp... Smile

Denis



That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 15925 times:

My interpretation:
So, it is forbidden to photograph any moving (aircraft) or fixed (buildings) objects belonging to the reserved zone (let's assume that is the airport grounds), from within the public area. Now I don't know if the decision also includes a definition of the term "public area" but I would assume these are the public areas within the airport grounds.
I would think it's still OK to photograph airplanes landing and taking off, from outside the airport. They first of all don't belong to the airport, and if I'm right with "the public area" then this doesn't affect any activity outside the airport grounds (which I would find logical).
So, no more interior views and gate shots (but A.net is quite picky on gate shots anyway  Wink)

Any more specialised legal minds around to interpret this gem of legislation?


User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 15918 times:

Quoting FL350 (Reply 6):
de la zone réservée depuis la zone publique.



Quoting FL350 (Reply 6):
of the reserved area from the public area.

What is classed as the "zone reservee"? Does this include runways and taxiways or is it more specific areas that are off-limits within the airport?

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 15893 times:

Quoting Edoca (Reply 2):
I wonder if it is not a rule created by the airport authority. If that is the case one would wonder if they can actually set rules for things happening outside the airport (like looking in).

Most likely. Most airport fences are not the actual boundary of the airport's property, usually they reside quite a bit inside their actual area of control.


User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 15887 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 10):
Most likely. Most airport fences are not the actual boundary of the airport's property, usually they reside quite a bit inside their actual area of control.

Good point. Don't know if there is a particular spotting area at CDG or LBG just outside the fence?
Still, that would leave it possible to photograph planes that are approaching or have taken off... (hopefully)
Just trying to look for loopholes, really...

[Edited 2006-01-18 01:22:48]

User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1668 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 15790 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting Edoca (Reply 8):
Any more specialised legal minds around to interpret this gem of legislation?

My Son is a Law student (English and French Law) at the Sorbonne (as Father preens himself with pride) and I have sent it for him to get an opinion from one of his Professors. Might take a few days though

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineVivwatts From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 15754 times:

That is really unfortunate, and reminds me of what is happening at Cape Town airport as well. I have been asked to stop taking photos both inside the airport terminal (more understandable) and outside the fence (I "need permission" from all airlines flying to CPT to photograph their aircraft). I cannot for the life of me understand what is secret or sensitive. If anything it is free photography for them. They fly right over my house anyway, and then I could photograph them easily too, if I could afford a 400mm IS lens, that is! Most airport officials have never heard of this hobby and that's a big reason for our trouble with security and stupid laws. I'd be interested to know in Mick's son finds out for the French case.


Canon 20D; 50mm f/1.8 II; 17-40mm f/4 L; 70-200 f/4 L; 1.4x II Extender
User currently offlineBeechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, RR: 41
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 15752 times:

Quoting Edoca (Reply 8):
So, no more interior views and gate shots (but A.net is quite picky on gate shots anyway

Maybe an airport employee had some photos rejected here and is really upset about this.

Although i don´t know how it could be done, people (we) should raise their (our)
voices and speak up against this kind of nonsense security decisions.

these days authorities get away with too much senseless crap.

Denis



That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1668 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 15716 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

Quoting Beechcraft (Reply 14):
Although i don´t know how it could be done, people (we) should raise their (our)
voices and speak up against this kind of nonsense security decisions.

Denis
I totally agree, but usually the time to voice opinions is BEFORE such laws are passed. Usually, once the law is fait accompli (as we are in French mode) it is too late.
Mick


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 15703 times:

The right thing to do would be to figure out who set this "law" and whether they had authority to do so. I think it is likely that this regulation violates other - higher level law and as such could be turned down by appropriate legal action (I don't know the French procedures on that). In the end you may even complain to the European Tribunal.

Was this issued by the Police? As far as I know Police does not have authority to issue law just to enforce it.

If we don't do that - soon we'll have these kind of regulations issued at all airports.

Daniel


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 15675 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 16):
Was this issued by the Police? As far as I know Police does not have authority to issue law just to enforce it.

If it was issued by the property owners, then they have aevery right and ability to do it. Just because an area is deemed public access, that does not mean it's not still privately owned property. And most airports are considered the private property of the city, state, county, etc. that they reside in. At least here in the U.S.

Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 15):
Usually, once the law is fait accompli (as we are in French mode) it is too late.

Very true.


User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15626 times:

Quoting Danny (Reply 16):
Was this issued by the Police? As far as I know Police does not have authority to issue law just to enforce it.

It was issued by the prefect (could be translated as the governor) of the département (France is divided in some 90-odd departements) in which CDG is located. This département is called Val d'Oise.

This law seems to be a general policy regulation regarding the airport. As such that would be perfectly valid. Question is in how far such a regulation can limit activity that is strictly outside the airport I guess. Hope Mick's son can find more info.


User currently offlineSkymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15621 times:

I think that its one thing to debate here how much activity can be limited outside of the airport, and another thing to be arguing this with an annoyed Gendarme who is intent on carting you off to an ATM to withdraw 350 Euros!

Andy


User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15619 times:

Quoting Edoca (Reply 18):
This law seems to be a general policy regulation regarding the airport. As such that would be perfectly valid. Question is in how far such a regulation can limit activity that is strictly outside the airport I guess. Hope Mick's son can find more info.

This is what I question. Do they have right to issue such law? If there's another law issued by higher authority like parliament that guarantees you certain rights - they should not be limited by some local prefect. Local authorities are usually limited to what they can/cannot do. They cannot come up with anything and call it the law.


User currently offlineDC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1406 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15464 times:

Quoting JeffM (Reply 17):
If it was issued by the property owners, then they have aevery right and ability to do it. Just because an area is deemed public access, that does not mean it's not still privately owned property.

This idea of "it's my land - I can do what I want with it" seems to be very much an American way of thinking. Under English law, if you are on a public right of way, such as a public footpath, neither the landowner or the police have the authority to move you, unless you are preventing people from passing or attempting to do so.

I had always assumed that pretty much the same principle applied in France too.

Tim.



Obviously missing something....
User currently offlineTUNisia From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1844 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 15445 times:

Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 21):
I had always assumed that pretty much the same principle applied in France too.

Sweden has very liberal land laws as well (for people to take in nature and such).



Someday the sun will shine down on me in some faraway place - Mahalia Jackson
User currently offline1stspotter From Netherlands, joined Jun 1999, 521 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 15342 times:

The message below was sent wat Stephane Gautron, a local Paris spotter who has contacts with the CDG airport authorities.

-------------------
This is a new prefectoral decree, published the 7th of november. It's about
the police at CDG airport. The 8th title, 32th article contains an specific
alinea (#5) which about photography. Taking picture is now strictly
forbidden from the public area to the restricted area. I copy you the
original part in french, so you could be able to have your own opinion. For
the moment, this decree only talks about photography.

We are very sad about it. Especially because, on our last meeting with
authorities, the situation seemed to be on the right way. And now, all is
going wrong.

Regarding binoculars (and taking registration), nothing appears on the
decree. But I am not able to confirm that this activity will be tolerate
anymore.

We decide to create a petition. We'll meet ADP next thursday, and we'll talk
about this new decree, and of course what we can do to continue our hobby.

Stephane.


User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 15280 times:

Personally I think this decree, or whatever it is, is totally nonsense. I wonder what the purpose is of this new decree? I can only think of one thing: getting some quick cash out of aviation enthusiast's pockets for investing in the (much needed) refurbishment of CDG's T1...

Seriously, is the world better off with such a decree? I mean, people all over the world take photos of aircraft and airports every single day. I've never seen in my whole entire life a single incident arising because of this behaviour or putting the lives of pax and airport workers in danger. And I've never heard of any industrial 'espionage' starting with the taking of photos of airports. I mean, it's not going to help much now, since there are probably 1 billion photos of CDG and LBG on the internet, not to mention all those highly detailed payware sceneries for MSFS.

I don't think this is really going to improve anything, it's making things only worse. What are they're going to do next? Ask us to close our eyes until we are on the aircraft or forbid us to bring our cellular phones with 2mp with us?

I'd sign a petition rightaway.

Greets,
Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
25 DC10Tim : I think you know the answer to that Ivan. No, of course not. You've hit the nail on the head. How many terrorist attacks in history, including 9/11 a
26 Andz : Another reason to avoid the most horrible airport in Europe, if not the world!
27 StealthZ : The photographers that pose the greatest risk to security in any context be it urban infrastructure, aviation, shipping etc do not carry Nikons or Can
28 Flybhx : A major concern that the Authorities have is not so much the photographing of the aircraft but of buildings and people. I agree with Stealth reagrding
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Update On Photo Ban For CDG And LBG And Airshow 07 posted Tue Sep 19 2006 04:26:21 by CcrlR
Photography At Beijing, Xian And Shanghai posted Thu May 18 2006 13:23:44 by UA935
Spotting Places In Paris CDG And Frankfurt? posted Mon Nov 11 2002 13:21:49 by Kay
Spotting Situation At Paris CDG posted Mon Feb 18 2002 12:49:26 by 1stspotter
Photography At Hong Kong And Taipei posted Tue Aug 22 2000 20:31:43 by Airways1
Paris: Spotting At CDG And Orly Advice... posted Thu Jun 16 2005 20:31:40 by Soundtrack
Watching And Photography At AMS posted Mon Jul 24 2006 18:40:50 by Wrighbrothers
Spotting At CDG And Other French Airports posted Wed May 24 2006 16:14:07 by Katzengras
Photography At CDG posted Sat Mar 18 2006 13:11:18 by MH017
In-Terminal Photography At CDG posted Wed Oct 19 2005 17:04:52 by JohnJ