Candid photography involving children in public

theboffin said:
As a parent i would feel extremely uncomfortable if someone was taking clandestine photos of my kids.

Plainly not acceptable, take photos of wildlife instead folks ... or have your own kids...
Click to expand...

Not the best of reasons to have children, I wouldn;t have thought?! :eek:
 
Les McLean said:
Sorry to be pedantic about this, but it's not the case, without going over all the previous arguments, Linda Macpherson made it quite clear, 'There are many legal restrictions on the right to take a photograph, and it would be more correct to say one is free to take photographs, except when the law provides otherwise'

Now before anyone gets on their high horse to suggest I'm not qualified to make such a statement, it's a direct quote from a person who is a University lecturer in Law.
Click to expand...

But, the point is that there are in fact relatively few situations in which the law prevents us from taking photographs!

Also - for what it's worth, there was no "high horse" involved with my comment to you yesterday - I was simply attempting to stop you radically misleading the membership of this forum by posting innacuracies as facts. Hope that clarifies things? :D
 
pxl8 said:
Well Les as we're being pedantic...

You're quoting out of context. That quote is taken from the opening paragraph of the UKPR pdf and is a general statement of the overall situation for photographers. So instead let's pick a quote from the section of the document that does specifically address privacy issues. Try this one on for size...



Ahem...
Click to expand...


Sorry, I'm not getting into silly points scoring with you, she clearly and succinctly details the restrictions (and laws ) regarding photography in the UK.

To suggest you can photograph anyone in any public place is naive.

I apologised previously for getting into a mindless (and pointless ) point scoring argument , I'm not going to do it again.
 
Witch said:
But, the point is that there are in fact relatively few situations in which the law prevents us from taking photographs!

Also - for what it's worth, there was no "high horse" involved with my comment to you yesterday - I was simply attempting to stop you radically misleading the membership of this forum by posting innacuracies as facts. Hope that clarifies things? :D
Click to expand...


Again, I'm not getting into a silly argument about this, I didn't post innacuaracies as facts.
 
Forgive me if I am being naive.... these protective parents (I am one) from what are they protecting their children? Especially, I would like to know within the context of this tome/thread.

Marianne and I have discussed this at length many and we just don't get it. Sorry, but that's the plain truth. :shrug:
 
chuckles said:
Forgive me if I am being naive.... these protective parents (I am one) from what are they protecting their children? Especially, I would like to know within the context of this tome/thread.

Marianne and I have discussed this at length many and we just don't get it. Sorry, but that's the plain truth. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to hear this too. As I see it, the truth of the matter is that they think they are "protecting" the children in question from the terrors that the media tells them are out there. Don't get me wrong - in those people's minds there is a genuine reason for fear - "all the children" you read about getting attacked, abducted, abused..... Of course, what the headlines don't stress is that the bulk of the attacks are from peers of those children - bullying or theft of mobiles etc (Bullying took place at my school, attacks for the purpose of theft were rarer as then parents for the most part simply didn't provide children with the expensive gadgets and gizmos that the majority of 8 year olds seem to consider their right these days) . Abduction? these are ludicrously rare anyway - when they do happen the majority are perpetrated by family members or friends of the family - very few children have ever been abducted by total strangers. As for abuse - as CT posted earlier, again the majority of child abuse happens within a family unit. So in fact children are actually at very little risk whilst out on the streets or playing with their friends - however, the media has ensured that a parent who takes their eyes off a child for a second, even if entirely innocent, is publicly ripped to shreds should any harm, no matter how minor, comes to that child.

So the short of it is, I think that some people feel that there are risks, because they are told that these risks exist, and because society makes them feel like they are being bad parents if they ignore them. :shrug:
 
Les McLean said:
Sorry to be pedantic about this, but it's not the case, without going over all the previous arguments, Linda Macpherson made it quite clear, 'There are many legal restrictions on the right to take a photograph, and it would be more correct to say one is free to take photographs, except when the law provides otherwise'

Now before anyone gets on their high horse to suggest I'm not qualified to make such a statement, it's a direct quote from a person who is a University lecturer in Law.
Click to expand...

Les, I don't think you are qualified to make such a statement as you have continually shown you are unable to make sense of the UK Law but continue to quote wrongly and out of context! :woot: Even though the vast majority of responses to all your ramblings have pointed this out quite clearly and gracefully this has failed to shift your obstinate stance. :nono:Attitudes like this cause conflict but in the words from Desiderata "As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant they too have their story." So I am sure you will continue to follow your interprtation of the Law and I hope for the rest of us you are the only one who does. I would rather stick to mine but use common sense to deal with the moral issues involved in candid photography (not covert photography as I believe this to be wrong). That my 2p worth.
 
Les McLean said:
To suggest you can photograph anyone in any public place is naive.
Click to expand...

You quite obviously interpret the law in a different way to most other people (as is your right)

I for one will continue to photograph people in public safe in the knowledge that I am not committing any offense according to English law. I would further more suggest that anyone else reading this thread who has any concern regarding their rights having read your comments take your opinions with as large a pinch of sodium chloride as they feel necessary.
 
Wow, this seems to be a pretty heated debate.

Here's my input in short simple terms.

Legally - There is nothing illegal about taking photo's of childing in a playground or anywhere else thats public without consent (in the UK).

Morally - I don't even think this would come into the equation. Whats the difference between taking a Candid photo of a child against an adult???

Fear - The fear of being branded a Peodophile is what stops this kind of photography and why I won't try it out. It's got anything to do with the Legalities or Moralities, it's all about the fear that has been cast upon us by the tabloids and the government.
 
Les McLean said:
I think you have made some excellent points there, particularly regarding restraints on how we act, we do live in a democracy, and laws/ethical issues are driven by the will of the people, however unpalateable they may be to some folk.

And I see the reasonable custom of seeking consent before taking an image of a child as not taking away rights, but giving additional rights to the child and their parents i.e. the right to be photographed or not.
Click to expand...

Sorry but what country are you living in? The british government couldnt care less about the WILL of the people.

I think the Tabloids are what influence the Governments actions more than anything.
 
Interestingly, very few women seem to have contributed to this one - I wonder if there's a reason for that?
 
Hammerhead64 said:
Les, I don't think you are qualified to make such a statement as you have continually shown you are unable to make sense of the UK Law but continue to quote wrongly and out of context! :woot: Even though the vast majority of responses to all your ramblings have pointed this out quite clearly and gracefully this has failed to shift your obstinate stance. :nono:Attitudes like this cause conflict but in the words from Desiderata "As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant they too have their story." So I am sure you will continue to follow your interprtation of the Law and I hope for the rest of us you are the only one who does. I would rather stick to mine but use common sense to deal with the moral issues involved in candid photography (not covert photography as I believe this to be wrong). That my 2p worth.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I don't think I have quoted wrongly and out of context, any discussion should have checks and balances, I was (and am ) concerned that some folk reading this thread, go away with the view that it's fine and dandy to take anyone in any public situation, when it's clearly not the case.

In two of my posts, I posted a link to Linda Macphersons excellent guidelines concerning the law and photography, and reading from the responses to these (I provided the link for that also) it seems folk are using it as a reasonable steer in their approaches to photography.
I hope that folk will take into consideration some of the issues she raised, and hopefully prevent some of the difficult situations we see and hear about seemingly ever so frequent nowadays.

A previous poster alleged that some of my posts are inaccurate I have since requested (via pm) what the poster considers inaccurate. I am in the process of putting together my response to these allegations, but I can safely say, my posts that referenced legislation were based firmly within that legislation, and any quotes were taken from the relevant legislation, or an expert's interpretation of that legislation (e.g. Linda Macpherson).
After seeking advice on the allegations (to which I will be responding to the poster directly via pm), the person advising commented that I could be 'guilty' of emphasis, i.e. I saw some legislation as more important than it actually was, conversely some folk saw it as less important than it actually was. But given the state of play regarding some legislation and the current fuzziness around it, it's perhaps understandable.


I accept that I maybe in a small minority (possibly the only one) that sees it somewhat differently, but that doesn't make my views or opinions wrong or less valid.

As I mentioned in a previous post, before I retired I managed a city wide child and adolescent mental health service, so on a daily basis was working within some of the legislation mentioned, and I realise just how difficult the interpretation and implementation was (and is), but and I think this is so important, regardless of the interpretation, we can't ignore some aspects of legislation.
 
Witch said:
Abduction? these are ludicrously rare anyway - when they do happen the majority are perpetrated by family members or friends of the family - very few children have ever been abducted by total strangers. As for abuse - as CT posted earlier, again the majority of child abuse happens within a family unit.
Click to expand...

The incidence of murder of a child by a stranger has been more or less constant since the 1930s, running in at between 30 and 40 a year. What has changed since then is the development of a national media and irresponsible and sensationalist reporting of the incidents which do occur.
 
Witch said:
Interestingly, very few women seem to have contributed to this one - I wonder if there's a reason for that?
Click to expand...

I was thinking yesterday about giving the ICO a call and see what their interpretation is. Unfortunately I was too busy all day. I might get around to it on Monday.
 
woadrage said:
The incidence of murder of a child by a stranger has been more or less constant since the 1930s, running in at between 30 and 40 a year. What has changed since then is the development of a national media and irresponsible and sensationalist reporting of the incidents which do occur.
Click to expand...

My point precisely - this is also compounded by the fact that people now have much more access to the media than they had 100 years ago. It's close to impossible nowdays to go through a day without some exposure to the news - be that via a newspaper, radio or television.

Here's a story for you - as many of you know we travel to the Western Isles (Outer hebrides) for a holiday on an annual basis. Once there the rule is that the car stero gets turned off and the television in our accomodation doesn't get turned on. In other words, we look for a total break from the outside world. On one occasion we were coming back from the Isle of Barra - got onto the ferry, and were surprised to see the flag at half-mast. After a little head-scratching, we finally asked someone why it was, and were astonished to be told that the Queen Mum had passed away....goes to show that in certain circumstances you CAN still remove yourself from the media, but by god it takes an effort!
 
Les :)it is not your opinions I and some others on this thread have issue with. It is instead your continued obsinate stance on the fact that it is legally wrong to photograph people in public. My point is that the politicians seem to take judgement from the media and put in place laws to combat situations where common sense should be used. This IMHO will never work and is impossible for the authorities to police and just takes precious resources away from our Police force. In fact all these additional laws do is criminalise more normally lawful people and don't actually stop the criminals who work outside the law anyway. I fully appreciate that in a democratic and lawful society you must have laws to protect the innocent but not to an extent that it ends up restricting law abiding members of the public from following their way of life, or as this debate is centered, their hobbies.

In terms of your extracts from Linda Macphersons "guidelines" ( they are just that "guidelines" not law) and the extracts you have used from other various legislation are used in the wrong context. Once again I will point you to the Digital Camera Feb 2008 issue where it clearly states under the heading Kids in a park " Taking pictures of children inside a public park isn't a crime. For non-commercial use it's fine, as long as the pictures are decent and there are no other bylaws that prevent photography." I am presuming (not always a good thing) that a national magazine would get something that is printed in b&w checked legally. At the end of the day though it appears you can never be 100% certain until a case has gone through the courts and this then sets a legal precedent. I'm sure that someone else has raised the issue within this tome of a thread, By stopping photography hobbists from taking candid photographs of "street life" what and who are the laws trying to protect? Is it just yet another way of controlling the masses and giving those in power a boost to their own ego's?;)
 
Hammerhead64 said:
Les :)it is not your opinions I and some others on this thread have issue with. It is instead your continued obsinate stance on the fact that it is legally wrong to photograph people in public. My point is that the politicians seem to take judgement from the media and put in place laws to combat situations where common sense should be used. This IMHO will never work and is impossible for the authorities to police and just takes precious resources away from our Police force. In fact all these additional laws do is criminalise more normally lawful people and don't actually stop the criminals who work outside the law anyway. I fully appreciate that in a democratic and lawful society you must have laws to protect the innocent but not to an extent that it ends up restricting law abiding members of the public from following their way of life, or as this debate is centered, their hobbies.

In terms of your extracts from Linda Macphersons "guidelines" ( they are just that "guidelines" not law) and the extracts you have used from other various legislation are used in the wrong context. Once again I will point you to the Digital Camera Feb 2008 issue where it clearly states under the heading Kids in a park " Taking pictures of children inside a public park isn't a crime. For non-commercial use it's fine, as long as the pictures are decent and there are no other bylaws that prevent photography." I am presuming (not always a good thing) that a national magazine would get something that is printed in b&w checked legally. At the end of the day though it appears you can never be 100% certain until a case has gone through the courts and this then sets a legal precedent. I'm sure that someone else has raised the issue within this tome of a thread, By stopping photography hobbists from taking candid photographs of "street life" what and who are the laws trying to protect? Is it just yet another way of controlling the masses and giving those in power a boost to their own ego's?;)
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's legally wrong to take images of people in public (although I do consider it ethically wrong to take photos of children without consent), I just think it's dangerous assuming there are no restrictions.

I accept your point regarding the media driving some laws, but this situation (photographing folk in public places), the confusion regarding the interpretation of the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act is also muddying the water for everyone.


In respect of the legislation, I don't think I have used it in the wrong context, to this end I have contacted the DPA (via ICO) to clarify a number of issues that's been raised.
 
as a matter of interest, i'd be interested to know whether the various members posting on both sides of this issue, have children or not? as it has a huge effect on your veiws toward this tricky subject.
 
I don't have kids and I don't set out to photograph kids but I'll certainly defend my right to do so if I want to.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
but I'll certainly defend my right to do so if I want to.

Bob
Click to expand...

Quite right too... Just be careful how you do it otherwise you might:
* get thumped
* get questioned/cautioned/arrested by the police
* be misquoted/misrepresented by the press
* add fuel to the arguments of those who believe otherwise than you and
* lose the right you were defending
 
Throughout this thread, I have been accused of a few things (none very complimentary), and normally I would accept this as the normal cut and thrust that a thread like this throws up. However one poster went beyond what I consider the norm for such a discussion, and as so often happens in these situations, it became a bit of a feeding frenzy.

So I pm'd the poster asking what the obvious inaccuracies that I presented.

The response was primarily around the right to privacy within the UK, and that the Human Rights Act only applies to public bodies, and that my notion that there is a right to privacy within the UK and that the HRA applies to individuals as well as to public bodies is totally inaccurate.

I responded to the poster outlining (as below) why I maintain that these statements are valid accurate and true.

I sent my response yesterday morning and invited comment on the points I raised.
At time of posting this I have not had a response.

So I will attempt to refute the allegations and justify my statements via this post.

I'm aware that it will not be of the slightest interest to most of you, and the likelihood is that your eyes are starting to glaze if you have got this far, however it is important to me, so I'll press on.

Please note, I will not be giving an opinion on the aspects of legislation presented. Also to prevent any accusation of quoting out of context, I have included links to the full text where I have quoted parts of the legislation or rulings.

In the context of this discussion, the two areas of the Human Rights Act (convention) that have influence, Article 8 -Right to Privacy And Article 10-Freedom of Expression.

Article 8 includes reference to private photographs (my emphasis in the text.)

The right to privacy consists essentially in the right to live one's own life with a minimum of interference. It concerns private, family and home life, physical and moral integrity, honour and reputation, avoidance of being placed in a false light, non-revelation of irrelevant and embarrassing facts, unauthorised publication of private photographs, protection against misuse of private communications, protection from disclosure of information given or received by the individual confidentially. Those who, by their own actions, have encouraged indiscreet revelations about which they complain later on, cannot avail themselves of the right to privacy.
Source Resolution 428 (1970)

Full text: http://assembly.coe.int//main.asp?l...oe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/TA70/ERES428.htm

Prior to 1998, the wording of the act (convention) did in fact mean only the Right to Privacy in relation to public bodies, however (partly as a consequence of the death of Princess Diana) a new resolution was issued which contained the following instruction:

However, the Assembly points out that the right to privacy afforded by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities, but also against interference by private persons or institutions, including the mass media

Full text: http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/adoptedtext/ta98/eres1165.htm

Source: Resolution 1165

Since the HRA came into force in 2000, and as up till then the UK had no constitutional right to privacy, Article 8 and Article 10 (among others) had to be accommodated within the law.

There have been a number of high profile cases recently concerning photographs of famous people and their 'right to privacy' under the HRA, and in each instance the courts had to consider (alongside other legal considerations), and make a judgement regarding these 'right to privacy' under the HRA

To give some examples
Campbell-v- MGN

Full text: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/22.html

Some relevant parts from the Lords of Appeal judgement on the case:

Part 17
The time has come to recognise that the values enshrined in articles 8 and 10 are now part of the cause of action for breach of confidence. As Lord Woolf CJ has said, the courts have been able to achieve this result by absorbing the rights protected by articles 8 and 10 into this cause of action: A v B plc QB 195, 202, para 4. Further, it should now be recognised that for this purpose these values are of general application. The values embodied in articles 8 and 10 are as much applicable in disputes between individuals or between an individual and a non-governmental body such as a newspaper as they are in disputes between individuals and a public authority
Part 18
In reaching this conclusion it is not necessary to pursue the controversial question whether the European Convention itself has this wider effect. Nor is it necessary to decide whether the duty imposed on courts by section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 extends to questions of substantive law as distinct from questions of practice and procedure. It is sufficient to recognise that the values underlying articles 8 and 10 are not confined to disputes between individuals and public authorities. This approach has been adopted by the courts in several recent decisions, reported and unreported, where individuals have complained of press intrusion

Part 50
- but I can see no logical ground for saying that a person should have less protection against a private individual than he would have against the state for the publication of personal information for which there is no justification. Nor, it appears, have any of the other judges who have considered the matter.



Murray-v-Express Newspapers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1908.html

Zeta Jones/Douglas-v-Hello

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/786.html

In 2002 Sarah Thomas (the law firm that represented Hello) made these comments on the above case:

Full article: http://privacydataprotection.co.uk/journal/articles/media/

The three Lord Justices charted the progress of the common law in this area whereby the Courts have created, in effect, an artificial relationship of confidence in order to protect what is essentially an individuals claim to privacy but dressed up in the name of confidence. But the Court now also had to give equal consideration to the Human Rights Act that many have hoped would provide a fresh aspect to the law of privacy. Although the Human Rights Act clearly enshrines the right to privacy as set out in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (and therefore allows individuals to enforce this and other Convention rights), the larger consideration is whether it allows private individuals to bring proceedings against one another for breaches of these rights, i.e. does the Act have 'horizontal effect'? The question had to be asked because of section 6 where it is stated that the Act only applies to public authorities ('vertical effect').
In order to allow Douglas and Zeta-Jones to assert their right to privacy under Article 8, the Court needed to consider whether or not the Act did have 'horizontal effect'. The argument in favour of horizontal effect is that Courts are public bodies and as such they are obliged to give regard to the Convention when applying the common law in litigation between private individuals. As it was an interim hearing, the Court did not analyse this point in depth, but it did accept that it had to give some regard to the effect of Article 8 together with the other rights enshrined in the Convention. It was made clear in the judgment that the media, although clearly not a public body, would not be immune from respecting the protections afforded to individuals by virtue of the Act

......The individual's right to privacy has finally been recognised by English law
 
I don't mean any offense Les, but I am going to take the advice of the legal advisors who wrote the UK Photographers Rights guide. This doesnt mean I don't respect your opinion, but you spent a long time stating that the DPA forbids photos when it clearly stated that individuals were exempt - which to me indicates that you may be wrong.
 
Les - you initially PM'd me and accused me of having made serious allegations relating to your honesty and integrity within this thread. This I had not. I apologise to other forum members now for the fact that this has ended up coming to the thread at all - it is not the place for it but I will not stand by and watch another member imply such untruths about me.

I stated to you in the thread that you were being misleading to other members by posting opinion as fact. I made no suggestion as to whether this was by accident or design. I backed up this statement to you in the PM I sent in response, and posted the following examples:
If you are unsure why I felt you were being misleading then I refer you to your following posts:
#216 - you state that "everyone has a right to privacy"
#227 - quote:"It's not my legislation, it's based the Human Rights Act"
#238 - Quote: "Unless you are perceived to be invading their privacy, then it's not legal (Article 8 Human Rights Act)"
#240 - Quote: "Article 8 of the Human Rights Act provides those rights to privacy."
#251 - Quote: "Your statement about just applying to public authoroties is incorrect, this ruling applies to individuals (albeit the media) and it's interpretation could (and does) have massive implications for all togs.

Sorry, the HRA guarantees our rights to privacy."
#264 - Quote "I agree, as long as it does not breach the terms of Article 8 of the HRA , and this must be my final word on this aspect of the discussion."

The above quotes clearly underline the issue I was specifically thinking of regarding your posts when I used the phrase "posting inaccuracies as facts" earlier. They demonstrate your ongoing insistance that the Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act are a matter of huge significance for your average amateur photographer taking candid snaps in a public place. Also your determination to state that there is a law of privacy in this country. In spite of being told you were wrong by someone who had spoken directly with the DPA helpline, and again by someone who had sought advice from a trained legal professional (a barrister), you continued to insist that you knew better - this is where my concern about you misleading people lies.

Yesterday morning (some 36 hours later) you responded again via PM, with various items googled from the internet, none of which go anywhere to prove that you are in any way correct in your interpretion of the laws concerned, Indeed you place heavy emphasis on resolutions from meetings of the Council of Europe - this in spite of the fact that these resolutions are not law in this country. The cases you quote excerpts from refer to existing principles of English law which do not have direct bearing, and in at least one case have no bearing whatsoever on the Human Rights Act or Data Protection Act.

The reason you had not had a response to your second and third PM's was that we were out for most of the day yesterday, and as in common with most others on here I have to work for a living, I have also been out of the house from 7am - 6.30pm today. Not entirely unsurprising on a weekday, I wouldn't have thought? Had you had the patience to wait a little, my Husband was going through the passages you sent through and was putting together a response to be sent to you by PM to inform you of exactly where you were getting your interpretation wrong.

So - to sum up. I have not made any allegations of dishonesty or in any way called into question Les's integrity anywhere on this thread, or indeed elsewhere in the forum. Other members reading the thread can see that this is the case. I have however stated that he is misinterpreting the law - something which I know to be the case, and something which continues to be the case even in his post above.

As I stated previously - members may take their choice of who to believe - a trained legal professional qualified since 1995, or someone whose legal training appears to extend to Google searches on the internet.

Les - as I previously requested in my response to your first PM, I suggest if you are not happy with my clarification of your misleading comments, you now take this directly to the Moderators to sort out. Please do not harass me further via PM
 
Helium_Junkie said:
I don't mean any offense Les, but I am going to take the advice of the legal advisors who wrote the UK Photographers Rights guide. This doesnt mean I don't respect your opinion, but you spent a long time stating that the DPA forbids photos when it clearly stated that individuals were exempt - which to me indicates that you may be wrong.
Click to expand...

No-I think I said it appears the DPA appears to provide some restrictions regarding 'processing', and then got into a point scoring exercise (wrongly) with pixl regarding some of the interpretations.

I'm waiting for a response from the ICO regarding some clarification, so I think you are entirely correct in contacting them, I think Linda Macpherson does (or did) post on POTN.
 
Les McLean said:
No-I think I said it appears the DPA appears to provide some restrictions regarding 'processing', and then got into a point scoring exercise (wrongly) with pixl regarding some of the interpretations.
Click to expand...

"Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual's personal, family or household affairs (including recreationalpurposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts 2 and 3."

That's very clear, data processed (processed means that the data has in any way been recorded, stored or modified) by an individual (I assume we don't have to debate the meaning of individual) is exempt from any of the data protection principles.
Quite simply put, the DPA does not apply.
There is only one way to correctly interpret that. The DPA was the focus of the Law module I scored a 1st in, I am 101% confident that it has no application to me in any way shape or form for as long as I take photos as a hobby - including candids in the park, whether they include children or adults or big fluffy aliens :)

The right to privacy does not apply in any public place where there is no reaosnable expectation of privacy unless other restrictions are in place - or other laws are being broken. Quoting laws out of context wont win your argument :)
 
I'll sum up the last post in this thread by Les for those can't be bothered to wade through it themselves!

If you take a photo of someone in a public place and manage to get it published in "Hello" magazine or possibly another magazine or news paper you could (in certain circumstances) find yourself in trouble....mabey!

If you take photos of someone in public for your own pleasure and don't intend to sell them to a glossy mag or tabloid...carry on as you were:thumbs:

HTH
 
Eric Mc said:
I'll sum up the last post in this thread by Les for those can't be bothered to wade through it themselves!

If you take a photo of someone in a public place and manage to get it published in "Hello" magazine or possibly another magazine or news paper you could (in certain circumstances) find yourself in trouble....mabey!

If you take photos of someone in public for your own pleasure and don't intend to sell them to a glossy mag or tabloid...carry on as you were:thumbs:

HTH
Click to expand...


No, sorry, my post did not say (or imply that)

My whole post was around the notion of a right to privacy within the UK, and that right applies in relation to individuals as well public bodies, as a number of posters said that I was wrong to maintain that notion.

I deliberately avoided voicing any opinion on the application of that right, because that wan't the reason for my post.
 
Helium_Junkie said:
"Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual's personal, family or household affairs (including recreationalpurposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts 2 and 3."

That's very clear, data processed (processed means that the data has in any way been recorded, stored or modified) by an individual (I assume we don't have to debate the meaning of individual) is exempt from any of the data protection principles.
Quite simply put, the DPA does not apply.
There is only one way to correctly interpret that. The DPA was the focus of the Law module I scored a 1st in, I am 101% confident that it has no application to me in any way shape or form for as long as I take photos as a hobby - including candids in the park, whether they include children or adults or big fluffy aliens :)

The right to privacy does not apply in any public place where there is no reaosnable expectation of privacy unless other restrictions are in place - or other laws are being broken. Quoting laws out of context wont win your argument :)
Click to expand...


As I mentioned, I'm waiting for clarification from IOC on data p[rotection so will not comment on that aspect, my post above , I deliberately did not give a view on how the right to privacy should be applied, that was not the point of my post, I maintain that in the UK there is a right to privacy, and I did not quote any laws out of context, that's why I provided the full text in each instance.
 
I think at this point in the thread all I can do is offer a piece of advice that has served me well. This advice is not aimed at anyone in particular but if you feel it may be of use to you please do except it!

"If you find your self in a hole of your own making.....your best course of action is not to keep digging!
 
Eric Mc said:
I think at this point in the thread all I can do is offer a piece of advice that has served me well. This advice is not aimed at anyone in particular but if you feel it may be of use to you please do except it!

"If you find your self in a hole of your own making.....your best course of action is not to keep digging!
Click to expand...


It's OK, I'll throw you a rope
 
Thanks for the offer Les.....but from my position up on the rim here I'm not sure I need one;)
 
This subject has evolved into an emotive and interesting debate, as I'm sure we all agree, and albeit fascinating reading, it is, (sadly?) very typical of how some "similar" threads, (on various forums, not just TP,) tend to go ime.:|

This thread now seems more concerned with specific points of law, rather than with answering the question the OP asked...:shrug::bang:

*No opinions, or points of law, were offered, (or harmed,) in the making of this post*

:)
 
Witch I am in total agreement of your post #346, and the few postings I have made with regard to Les' numerous posts were prompted for the same reasons.

I am in no way qualified to give any legal advice but my understanding of the rights of photographers in the UK from various sources seem to follow that which you have quoted so eloquently. I'm still unsure how references to the DPA and Human Rights ever got into this thread?

:'(My real concern is that if more and more people take the stance that a few in this thread have, this will inevitably prompt a "knee-jerk" reaction in government passing laws that inhibits usually law abiding people from pursuing photography as hobby/interest. This has got to be an errosion of our "human rights" ?

I do have kids and I don't set out to photograph other kids but I do not think it right to put laws in place where (and I've said this before) common sense should be used. I do not know how I would react to someone taking a few candid shots of my kids in a public place/park but I would like to think that I would be understanding and I would most definitely not just thump the person. I just hope I'm never put in this situation by a photographer who is rude enough not to ask or inform me of their reasons without offering some explanation.
 
:agree:
Being the master of entrenchment i fully appreciate the subtle art of subterfuge,smoke screen, deviation and repitition. Not helpful when sustained ad-nauseam and a million miles from the original point / question.

You hit it on the head here HH64:
Hammerhead64 said:
common sense should be used.
Click to expand...

Sadly, many of our countrymen have had this simple trait for survival brain-washed out of them
 
To take Jonnyreb's and Hammerheads point about 'common sense should be used' , it's sometimes difficult to establish where the line in the sand should be drawn?

An example of this was there was a recent image posted, of an official who had told the tog he couldn't take photographs in that particular area. Leaving any legal considerations aside, and in no way criticising the poster, I felt uncomfortable with that image, and I said so in the thread? , I felt uncomfortable, not from any legal perspective, but from a ethical/moral stance, the individual probably was an officious busybody, but to be identified in such a way, without her consent and in an unflattering light, somehow didn't sit comfortably with me.

Now I'm not suggesting for one minute that I was the only one to feel uncomfortable, but going back to my original point, the line in the sand in respect of 'common sense' or ethics or moral responsibility, is different for different people, what you do need on occasion is a degree of checks and balances into the equation, which perhaps in this instance was provided.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top