Sussex Police make a new DMCA law

Once again the police decide they will make a new law for themselves.

This morning it came to my attention that Sussex Police were claiming copyright ownership of Gatso images.

At 09:01 I called and left a message for Alexandra Karrouze, who signs off as Solicitor for Sussex Police. She evidently felt no need to bother about my call, as it is now 17:30 and I have heard nothing back. I called again and was advised to call again tomorrow morning, along with an apology for not receiving a call back.

My specific question was whether Sussex Police were claiming copyright to a gatso image which had been made available as evidence in court, which was taken by a gatso camera owned by Sussex Road Safety Partnership, of which they are a partner and that I intended to post the relevant images on my blog.

The images in question are:

Peter Barker Gatso first capture

Peter Barker Gatso second capture

Peter Barker was snapped by a Gatso speed camera in Ditchling Road in June last year and given a fine, he contested the fine and the case was thrown out by the judge as he was able to provide evidence that the camera was faulty.

As an aside, it appears the police do not want motorists to know that a time-distance calculation can be performed on the images to check the vehicle’s speed against the radar reading. A difference of more than ten percent between the two figures renders the machine’s speed estimate ‘unreliable’ under UK guidelines, this calculation advisory doesn’t appear when you receive a speeding ticket

Sussex Road safety partnership wouldn’t let it lie and responded, after the case was thrown out of court with the statement:

“It is clear that the defendant, Mr Peter Barker, was breaking the prescribed speed limit of 30mph on the section of road in question, which is why the camera was triggered in the first place.”

He didn’t let this lie, so threatened legal action: claiming that the statement’s claim that it was “clear” he was exceeding the speed limit and therefore guilty of the offence contravened section 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights 1998 – a presumption to innocence.

West Sussex County County Council responded quickly to the threat of legal action releasing the following public apology:

‘At the trial the District Judge excluded the evidence of the Gatsometer speed detection device in question and Mr Barker was acquitted of the charge. Shortly thereafter the Sussex Road Safety Partnership issued a statement that indicated a view that the Partnership believed, in spite of his acquittal, Mr Barker must have exceeded the legal speed limit. The Partnership accept that such an assertion should not have been made and have apologised unreservedly to Mr Barker for this error.’

It now appears that East Sussex Council have got their knickers in a twist and wish to claim ownership of a gatso image, writing to Mr. Barker, who has nothing to do with the relevant website, informing him that:

‘…It has been brought to our attention that the photographs from the Gatso camera, produced for your recent court case, have been published on TheNewspaper.com website. The content of these photographs are the property of Sussex Police and publication of them is a breach of copyright. They should be removed from the website forthwith. If they are not removed further action may be contemplated.’

They haven’t actually bothered to contact thenewspaper.com.

Sussex Police and East Sussex County Council appear to believe they are above the law, claiming ownership for something they don’t actually own and can’t be bothered to respond to an enquiry from the general public.

I have now contacted the local newspaper, who may elicit some kind of a response.

Arrogant police and local authority attitudes cannot be left to drift.
I look forward to receiving my DMCA from Karrouze.