View Full Version : Innocent photographer or terrorist?
kryogenik
17-04-2008, 16:05
Searched - don't think a re-post.
Misplaced fears about terror, privacy and child protection are preventing amateur photographers from enjoying their hobby, say campaigners.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm
Worth a read to the end.
tweetiepooh
17-04-2008, 16:17
I wonder how folk would react to one of these (http://www.zenit-camera.com/photosniper_zenit_camera.htm) nowadays.
Shame I can't get one for more modern cameras. Pop a digital SLR with a 1000mm lens or longer onto a similar stock with an electronic trigger. Who needs a tripod?
More stupidity from the police!
kryogenik
17-04-2008, 16:30
From what I could read there, uneducated officers. An SPC?
Must admit, I've been twitchy myself about taking photos of our nipper in the park and whatnot with an SLR. You don't know what people will think and I suppose to some extent they have a right to be wary. Instead of worrying about it, I just tend not to anymore which is a bit of a shame, being a keen photographer. Seems people using phone cameras are beyond suspicion sometimes though, despite the quality some of them can produce.
Meh.
:rolleyes:
From what I could read there, uneducated officers. An SPC?
Must admit, I've been twitchy myself about taking photos of our nipper in the park and whatnot with an SLR. You don't know what people will think and I suppose to some extent they have a right to be wary. Instead of worrying about it, I just tend not to anymore which is a bit of a shame, being a keen photographer. Seems people using phone cameras are beyond suspicion sometimes though, despite the quality some of them can produce.
Meh.
:rolleyes:
If you can't even take pictures of your own kids nowadays without people getting suspicious then that shows how bad things are getting...
I mean if a peadophile or someone who liked that stuff were taking pictures, then I'm pretty sure they'd be hidden...
Does that actually work with this thread? Hmm...
kryogenik
17-04-2008, 16:48
If you can't even take pictures of your own kids nowadays without people getting suspicious then that shows how bad things are getting...
I mean if a peadophile or someone who liked that stuff were taking pictures, then I'm pretty sure they'd be hidden...
Well, yeah - exactly.
Still, people have this impression (media driven no doubt) that anyone taking an innocent picture near their property/kids is doing so without their consent, when in fact it's not illegal to take pictures in a public place.
This 'copper' asked the photographer if he had a license for goodness sake!
I fully accept there are certain circumstances which may look dodgy though.
I'd have to say if a parent was uncomfortable, I'd tend not to argue the point.
I would certainly not be willing to delete anything though, unless it was clearly not of what I intended to shoot (i.e. my own kid).
Using an SLR with a decent lens on it it can look pro to anyone who's not into photography.
I once asked a couple of parents if I could take photos of my kid on a see-saw as theirs was on the other end. They agreed - and I offered to email them copies and gave them my card - but at the end of the day, I only asked as they were looking me up and down. I don't have to ask anyone's permission. Once I did however, they were nice as you like so no harm done I suppose.
But I mean, what is one supposed to do if they want to take pics of their kids outdoors? Wait until everyone's gone home? Or ask everyone's permission first?
Like I said, it's too much hassle these days & I tend not to bother, which is a shame. Due to circumstances, I've no pics from me growing up playing, I'd like to have as many as possible of my kid.
AntiSilence
17-04-2008, 16:53
If I was asked by a parent to stop taking photo's of my own kids (when we have some that is) I would tell them where to go.
As for the police officer, how daft would he feel trying to prosecute someone for not having a license for a camera! And I certainly would not delete anything either.
I remember getting my new Olympus camera in 2002 because I wanted to take lots of photos in and around Manchester while the Commonwealth Games were on. I remember seeing a guy being questioned in Piccadilly Gardens by the police, and one of them was checking the photos he'd been taking. Since then, I have trouble using my camera in public just incase anybody thinks i'm a perv.
I was fine and didn't think nothing of taking photos of the public and their surrounding, I love candid shots of real people getting on with real life, and not putting a face on for the camera. But now, i'm just too paranoid, so haven't taken any pictures for ages. Apart from the odd few with my mobile phone.
kryogenik
17-04-2008, 17:07
I remember getting my new Olympus camera in 2002 because I wanted to take lots of photos in and around Manchester while the Commonwealth Games were on. I remember seeing a guy being questioned in Piccadilly Gardens by the police, and one of them was checking the photos he'd been taking. Since then, I have trouble using my camera in public just incase anybody thinks i'm a perv.
I was fine and didn't think nothing of taking photos of the public and their surrounding, I love candid shots of real people getting on with real life, and not putting a face on for the camera. But now, i'm just too paranoid, so haven't taken any pictures for ages. Apart from the odd few with my mobile phone.
I know how you feel.
I just bought a new zoom and then thought why did I bother!
I mean, there's legally nothing to stop me putting the cam on a tripod in the middle of Market St and shooting away. But paranoia plays a big part - you're not on your own there.
I'm sure there's a list of your photographic rights somewhere online, I know many photographers (even professional ones) carry it with them all the time incase some dopey copper gets too big for his boots.
Course, rolling them up and smacking some sense into the copper may be satisfying, but not helpful :D
Delta Whiskey
17-04-2008, 17:51
The only time I got 'noticed' by the Police was when I took photo's of the newly built Police Station. I could see officers looking at me, but no-one came across and tried to stop me. http://www.flickr.com/photos/deltawhiskey/2342506053/in/set-72157603656075972/
The only time I got 'noticed' by the Police was when I took photo's of the newly built Police Station. I could see officers looking at me, but no-one came across and tried to stop me. http://www.flickr.com/photos/deltawhiskey/2342506053/in/set-72157603656075972/
Now that is a big speaker attached to that building. :)
AntiSilence
17-04-2008, 17:59
Now that is a big speaker attached to that building. :)
30kW RMS by the looks of it! :D
Wicked_and_Crazy
17-04-2008, 18:28
30kW RMS by the looks of it! :D
i dont think much to the disco lights ;)
kryogenik
17-04-2008, 19:12
I'm sure there's a list of your photographic rights somewhere online, I know many photographers (even professional ones) carry it with them all the time
Same source gave this link if it's the one you mean Xaccers?
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
Same source gave this link if it's the one you mean Xaccers?
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
Excellent mate! :)
I take photos all the time and no one has ever bothered me. Mind you, anyone who did would not really like the reply they got. ;)
kryogenik
17-04-2008, 20:50
Fair play, Paul.
It's right awkward when it happens (or looks like it's may happen) though.
I guess I'd probably be the same as yourself, but it's a real iffy situation.
I think we all know who's in the right, it's just.. You know.
I think I should definitely take the higher ground anyway - I love taking pictures, especially of the family outdoors. Cobblers to being restricted.
It's not fair or even right.
Scarlett
17-04-2008, 21:18
I've been told to stop in Kings Cross before now, I was just trying to get some panoramic shots of the main station platforms and one of the offical staff put his hand in fron of the camara phoen and told me it wasn't allowed.
Didn't think much of it at the time but it's obviously getting worse
Don't think this has been posted before -
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM&feature=related
Don't think this has been posted before -
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM&feature=related
It has, but it is very relevant to this thread.
It was posted here (http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/20/33630171-interesting-confrontation-pair-csp-officers-video.html) earlier.
Mind you, as I said in the other thread, I wouldn't appreciate being filmed in the way that bloke was filmed. It's not on to just shove a camera in the face of people that are just minding their own business imo.
"If you are a normal person going about your business and you see something you want to take a picture of, then you are fine unless you're taking picture of something inherently private," says Hanna Basha, partner at solicitors Carter-Ruck. "But if it's the London Marathon or something, you're fine."What the hell does that mean?What's inherently private? :confused:
Time was when a bobby would pose for a photo...it was called community policing.
What the hell does that mean?What's inherently private? :confused:
Someones privates perhaps :shrug:
Someones privates perhaps :shrug:
Well that would be porn and illegal I'm sure in a public place.If that what's was what was meant why not say so clearly.
I don't think i'd want someone photographing my partner/children whether they were fully clothed or not. Likewise I wouldn't want someone standing on a ladder so they can photograph into my garden either.
I thought faces had to be obscured if you didn't get the permission of the person being filmed if its for commercial or public use. I thought those people (the subjects) had rights too.
I thought faces had to be obscured if you didn't get the permission of the person being filmed if its for commercial or public use. I thought those people (the subjects) had rights too.
Nope, you can even print the face of someone you took a photo of in public and sell it (happened to someone in the crowd of a football match).
What the hell does that mean?What's inherently private? :confused:
Someone's home, an office building, sensative goverment buildings (you don't want to upset a building!)
tweetiepooh
18-04-2008, 11:27
For my 21st birthday (eons ago) I got a SLR camera. I borrowed a 135mm lens and went to town. It was school out time and one school is next to a grave yard so there are lots of children walking in a grey background on a sunny day in light clothes. I snap of a shot and get a lovely picture of a toddler looking pensively back over her shoulder. In the setting it made a great picture. I don't know who she is and have no intention of using the picture.
I also got a great shot of some abulance men helping a lady change the tyre on her car, the ambulance parked in front of hers as an AA van would be. Again I would never use the shot without asking but to ask to get shots like that would spoil it.
What I wouldn't do is take shots of military bases either here or abroad like those daft guys taking piccies at Kalamata airport. I've used that airport and the travel broucher even mentioned that the civil airport shares space with the military and not to take photos, that was in 1996.
I don't mind folk taking pictures of me and mine as long as it's for legitmate private use ie pursing a hobby and that the pictures will not be published without permission from me or my wife. Publish would include web sites (other than a private store).
For my 21st birthday (eons ago) I got a SLR camera. I borrowed a 135mm lens and went to town. It was school out time and one school is next to a grave yard so there are lots of children walking in a grey background on a sunny day in light clothes. I snap of a shot and get a lovely picture of a toddler looking pensively back over her shoulder. In the setting it made a great picture. I don't know who she is and have no intention of using the picture.
I also got a great shot of some abulance men helping a lady change the tyre on her car, the ambulance parked in front of hers as an AA van would be. Again I would never use the shot without asking but to ask to get shots like that would spoil it.
What I wouldn't do is take shots of military bases either here or abroad like those daft guys taking piccies at Kalamata airport. I've used that airport and the travel broucher even mentioned that the civil airport shares space with the military and not to take photos, that was in 1996.
I don't mind folk taking pictures of me and mine as long as it's for legitmate private use ie pursing a hobby and that the pictures will not be published without permission from me or my wife. Publish would include web sites (other than a private store).
Why?
Not every photographer is a voyeur or a pedophile.I'm an artist and I often take pictures for reference.I'm not going to use it directly as a picture of you and yours but as a basis for a painting,etching,cyberart.At the end of the process you won't be recognisable.Would I still need your permission and would you even KNOW that I had done so?What if you are just part of the background and just part of the crowd?Do I really have to ask each individual of a crowd their permission if they are just background in my picture?
I'm left wondering why photography gets us this bothered.Does this extend to drawings,paintings?Where are we going with this?
Where did our freedoms go?They went when Mrs T was in power and it escalated under TB and I'm wondering how faster the pace is going to be in the future.
Why?
Because the people you are photographing have as much right to not be harassed (as they may see it) as you do to take there picture. In a public place you have the right to take pictures of what you want but if the people you are taking pictures are upset or distressed at having there picture taken you shouldn't.
If you believe a subject (even a member of a crowd) doesn't know/doesn't seem bothered your taking a picture you should be fine, but if they ask you not to photo them or they obviously try and avoid having there picture taken you have no right to try.
Disclaimer: This is my opinion and I feel common courtesy and not based on law. :D
Because the people you are photographing have as much right to not be harassed (as they may see it) as you do to take there picture. In a public place you have the right to take pictures of what you want but if the people you are taking pictures are upset or distressed at having there picture taken you shouldn't.
If you believe a subject (even a member of a crowd) doesn't know/doesn't seem bothered your taking a picture you should be fine, but if they ask you not to photo them or they obviously try and avoid having there picture taken you have no right to try.
Disclaimer: This is my opinion and I feel common courtesy and not based on law. :D
But if they are part of a crowd on a public highway then they should expect that they will be seen and possibly noticed/photographed.I can only assume under those circumstances they have something to hide but what the heck do I care what they want to hide.I'm just taking a picture of the scenery.Of course if they truly objected then I will ask them to get out of shot which what I would do the minute I see someone with a camera trying to take a photo of a landmark out of simple courtesy to the photographer.
With CCTV on practically every high street it's a possibly stupid idea to think that you have a right not to be photographed.If Big Brother wants a photo of you they will get it anyway without asking your permission and you won't know anything about it.At least I'm out in the open and can be avoided.;)
UK Photographers Rights (http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.