Small trip the Netherlands - Off topic

[gold]

I wonder if there would be a discussion if some great pictures from an exotic location will be published over here, which are clearly not in line with (local) regulations.

Thijs

Ignorance is bliss in that Exotic case.. And you would be one of a few to show it here. In this case it is not..even my grandma can take pictures from P4

ps, P4 aint public road

just my 2 eurocent, if I had any that is....

[nilsko]

When all is said and done the basic fact is that not respecting the requests/rules of the KLu is contraproductive in any case for our hobby.. We might find those rules "absurd" but the sober fact is that we are no party at all in how we are treated by KLu / security. We can complain all we want, but in the end we need the KLu more than they need us..

[nilsko]

See also this topic (in Dutch) in which the whole situation regarding P4 has been discussed: http://forum.scramble.nl/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=85768&

[patrick dirksen]

If this was about pictures of some exotic place, the follow up would be different as well. Big possibility that the authorities involved in that case wouldn't even know that pictures of their base had been published on, say, Scramble forum. In the case of Eindhoven however, authorities will find out quickly enough I'm sure. And closing P4 for spotters/photographers will 'hurt' many people, while closing something similar in some exotic country will only have an effect on the very few daredevils who go there in the first place.

So all in all, as already said, officially taking pictures from P4 is illegal. The KLu "gedoogt" (allows) it. FOR NOW!
EWAS has asked their member not to publish these kind of pictures. Why would you run the risk of a troubled relationship between KLu and spotters, which could mean closing P4 totally.....??

And that's my two cents

[PH-BRAD]

No PH-BRAD, it is not allowed.
Article 430 Wetboek van Strafrecht (Penal Code) states the following: Hij die zonder verlof van het bevoegd gezag een opneming doet, een tekening of beschrijving maakt van enig militair werk, of die openbaar maakt, wordt gestraft met hechtenis van ten hoogste twee maanden of geldboete van de derde categorie. In English: He who makes a sketch or description of any military object, or makes that public, without permission of the autorities, will be punished either by being taken into custody for a maximum of two months or a fine of the third category. The aforementioned sketch or description includes taking photographs.

What a military object is, has been defined by the Hoge Raad (Supreme Court): military locations and fortifications. Military vehicles, ships, airplanes and weapons do not qualify as military objects, according to the Supreme Court. So therefore it is allowed to take pictures of a military airplane in the sky, or a tank on the road for example. However, once such a vehicle is on a military object, such as an air base, the article DOES apply, because you can't photograph the vehicle without automatically taking a picture of the surrounding area. The Supreme Court has ruled that the photography of military objects from the public road qualifies as an offense under article 430 Sr.

Now, the funny thing is that there also used to be a prohibition on aerial photography in the Netherlands in general. Without permission from the authorities it was not allowed to take aerial photographs of anything. Not even your own house. That ban has been lifted in 2013. And because in these days it is possible to create (and sell) satellite imagery of everything, including military objects, the Ministry of Defense has given a general permission beforehand for taking aerial pictures of military objects. So that is no longer punishable by law.

So: aerial photography = good, pictures from the same object on the ground = bad.

Whether or not the rules are enforced is a different matter of course.

Another example that you shouldn't always trust the media (http://nos.nl/artikel/510545-verbod-op- ... wijnt.html)
Probably your source: http://www.defensie.nl/documenten/beslu ... -juni-2013

And indeed if whether or not the rules are enforced is indeed a different matter thank you!

[Einstein]

You're welcome PH-BRAD.

[wamovements]

Vorige week was ik op P4, KMAR was er ook. Fotograferen was op dat moment geen probleem voor hen, er werd immers niet geladen of gelost. Dat men 's middags mensen heeft weggestuurd was tweeledig: 1. Er was activiteit op het platform en 2. Met 40 spotters tegelijk kan men niet controleren of andere zaken dan vliegtuigen vanaf P4 (metname lading) gefotografeerd wordt. Hoewel fotograferen op alle vliegvelden wettelijk verboden is, wordt dit in vrijwel alle gevallen gedoogd, zelfs vanaf P4 te Eindhoven. Verwijderen van foto's dan wel niet publiceren is dan ook niet noodzakelijk zolang men niet weet onder welke omstandigheden dit beeldmateriaal is gemaakt; ook wel Roomser dan de Paus gedrag genoemd. Verder moeten we elkaar m.i. niet angstig maken met mogelijke gevolgen van het verbod tussen een lokaal hobbyclubje en de luchthaven.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Nilson]

Some very clear and usefull response! Thanks.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gold]

Verwijderen van foto's dan wel niet publiceren is dan ook niet noodzakelijk zolang men niet weet onder welke omstandigheden dit beeldmateriaal is gemaakt; ook wel Roomser dan de Paus gedrag genoemd. Verder moeten we elkaar m.i. niet angstig maken met mogelijke gevolgen van het verbod tussen een lokaal hobbyclubje en de luchthaven.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

auch,, fijn dat jij dat even bepaald

Het kan natuurlijk ook voor anderen dan , het in jouw ogen, lokale hobbyclubje zo uitpakken dat niemand meer op p4 mag. En wel heel simpel: het is geen publiek terrein.

Persoonlijk zit ik niet zo te wachten op de zoveelste foto vanaf p4. Alleen maar omdat iemand anders ook de lift wist te bedienen

[Niek]

Toegang verbieden? Ik denk niet dat ze iemand kunnen verbieden om te parkeren in een openbare parkeergarage. Dat schijnt namelijk het doel van die parkeergarage te zijn...

[frank kramer]

Niek, this is rapidly becoming the same discussion all over again. You have to distinguish between several different things.

One: the parking is NOT public property or territory, but private property of the owner. The owner allows you to park your car there, for which you pay a fee to the owner. That is the only legal "contract" between owner and the individual parking his or her car. Thus, from a legal point of view, the owner is free to set rules that the client has to adhere to. That might be (just) the rules of the road, but also a ban on taking pictures. That the owner of the garage has not done so (yet) is in our best interest, but something that can change at any minute. So, why taunt the owner into taking these measures?

Two: the ins and outs of the legality of taking pictures of military objects have been explained in detail above. The fact that these rules are not, or not always, held up by authorities does not mean that they do not exist. (analogy: you CAN of course run a red light in your car, and you MIGHT get away with it, but that does NOT make it legal) These rules CAN be enforced by law officers, but again, why should we invite them to do so? The KLu is NOT happy with people publishing shots showing (part of) the military ramps (even when it's only background to an aircraft where no activity is going on) without authorisation, as they have stated repeatedly to EWAS and others. Their line so far is: fine if you take these kind of pictures, but keep them to yourself. And if something is happening on the platform that they really do not want to be photographed at all, they send up the KMar to send you away. If they get fed up with this (which MIGHT just happen if we keep ignoring their point of view), all they have to do is ask the owner of the garage to put a stop to this, invoking the legal rules cited above. This is not something said to scare anyone (I for one believe that most spotters are not easily scared by rules), but it still is a simple fact. It is their (KLu's) call, even if we (spotters) think differently. Military logic and civil logic might be two different things, but something we have to pay attention to.

So, why rock the boat? We all stand to lose if we p... off the KLu.

[Einstein]

Slotje erop? Op dit topic, niet P4

[Niek]

I understand most pros and cons in this discussion. What I miss though is an official statement from the KLu, that would clear every discussion. I have approached KLu Voorlichting for this and will let you all know about the outcome.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Mark B.]

De discussie over het wel of niet mogen fotograferen vanaf P4 zal zonder duidelijk statement van de Klu zelf nog wel even doorgaan. Ik heb vooralsnog mijn eigen beleid en gebruik gezond verstand als ik foto's wil plaatsen. Per toeval kwam ik vandaag het achter deze link geplaatste artikel op Flightglobal tegen, let op de 2e foto. Deze, niet door mij gemaakte, foto geeft vrij goed mijn gezonde verstand weer

[Niek]

Als het goed is volgt er zeer binnenkort een officieel statement van de KLu/Vliegbasis Eindhoven. Dit zal ik natuurlijk op dit messageboard delen.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]