Czech PM lashes out at photographer
- Thread starter hyakuhei
- Start date
Mikesphotaes
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,842
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
Aaahh well.
I see this is unfortunately degenerating into something far removed from what was and could have remained a proper discussion about the rights and the responsibilities of photographers in general and the rights and responsibilities of those being photographed.
Such is life
I suppose the bottom line here is nothing to do with legality and all to do how you would react if you were the person getting hassled.
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Aaahh well.
I see this is unfortunately degenerating into something far removed from what was and could have remained a proper discussion about the rights and the responsibilities of photographers in general and the rights and responsibilities of those being photographed.
Such is life
If you look at the OP it was Tut tut tut... which to me suggests an opinion on the situation / reaction was being called for and had nothing to do with togs rights, however I accept it evolved into that
Appologies from me if I offended, however to be constantly told what the legalities are doesn't help anyone as I really believe this about behaviour in a situation that anyone could find themselves in and that is both photographer and the photographee (there you go I just made a new word
) Steve
Mikesphotaes
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,842
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
2nd bag!
I forgot to say that your 3rd post on this thread was admirable!
"..Well I haven't got the details to hand but J K Rowling took a tog/paper to court for a very similar incident and she won her case. Something to do with the child should be entitled to privacy even if parents are famous. There is also a law in this country of harasment and looking at the video, has was being harassed.........."
- Messages
- 29,411
- Name
- Marcel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And Ill reiterate my point, which piddles on that argument.
JK Rowling was having a private moment, this PM was working, therefore he can not expect his child to have privacy if he takes it to his public job.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head as to why there is such a divergence of opinion here and why it is so strongly diverged.
In the one scenario we have a photographer taking a picture that you happen to be in. The photographer is not in your way and is not in your personal space. It would seem that most of us are comfortable with that. A bit of an assumption but I would hope none of us have too big an issue with this.
In the second scenario the photographer is in your face, you can smell his breath so to speak. Here the treatment and view is the response you would give to anybody who did this to you (for example: a time share salesman waving a leaflet in your face, a beggar deliberately standing in your way, a photographer shoving a camera in your face). In this scenario it is not the act of photography that is the problem but the intrusiveness of the act due to the proximity and the way it is done.
If we can assume that the first scenario is ok then the issue is at what point does the photographer overstep the mark and how you react to it.
I am sure the point of discomfort is different for us all. For some it will be 10 feet away and for others it will be 10 inches. When the point were we feel uncomfortable is reached the key question then becomes how to let the photographer know he has overstepped your comfort zone.
Personally I think lashing out is the last resort and is something for those moments when you have no other choice and it is both appropriate and proportional to threat level. I just don't consider someone taking my photo however intrusive they may be as warranting a good kicking. There is of course the possibility that the good kicking may backfire and I end up getting hammered instead which could be part of my reluctance to escalate an unpleasant experience to a painful one
In the one scenario we have a photographer taking a picture that you happen to be in. The photographer is not in your way and is not in your personal space. It would seem that most of us are comfortable with that. A bit of an assumption but I would hope none of us have too big an issue with this.
In the second scenario the photographer is in your face, you can smell his breath so to speak. Here the treatment and view is the response you would give to anybody who did this to you (for example: a time share salesman waving a leaflet in your face, a beggar deliberately standing in your way, a photographer shoving a camera in your face). In this scenario it is not the act of photography that is the problem but the intrusiveness of the act due to the proximity and the way it is done.
If we can assume that the first scenario is ok then the issue is at what point does the photographer overstep the mark and how you react to it.
I am sure the point of discomfort is different for us all. For some it will be 10 feet away and for others it will be 10 inches. When the point were we feel uncomfortable is reached the key question then becomes how to let the photographer know he has overstepped your comfort zone.
Personally I think lashing out is the last resort and is something for those moments when you have no other choice and it is both appropriate and proportional to threat level. I just don't consider someone taking my photo however intrusive they may be as warranting a good kicking. There is of course the possibility that the good kicking may backfire and I end up getting hammered instead which could be part of my reluctance to escalate an unpleasant experience to a painful one
Mikesphotaes
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,842
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
"And Ill reiterate my point, which piddles on that argument.
JK Rowling was having a private moment, this PM was working, therefore he can not expect his child to have privacy if he takes it to his public job. "
He was working was he?
So what great diplomatic job was he involved in?
Was he on the phone to Bushy baby about the credit crunch?
Was he dictating letters to Brown about the "War on Terror"?
Or was he simply taking his daughter for a wee wander in her pram?
So your "piddle on that argument" is simply urine (I'd love to say pish but one is refined)!
JK Rowling was having a private moment, this PM was working, therefore he can not expect his child to have privacy if he takes it to his public job. "
He was working was he?
So what great diplomatic job was he involved in?
Was he on the phone to Bushy baby about the credit crunch?
Was he dictating letters to Brown about the "War on Terror"?
Or was he simply taking his daughter for a wee wander in her pram?
So your "piddle on that argument" is simply urine (I'd love to say pish but one is refined)!
Mikesphotaes
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,842
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- No
I think you may have hit the nail on the head as to why there is such a divergence of opinion here and why it is so strongly diverged.
In the one scenario we have a photographer taking a picture that you happen to be in. The photographer is not in your way and is not in your personal space. It would seem that most of us are comfortable with that. A bit of an assumption but I would hope none of us have too big an issue with this.
In the second scenario the photographer is in your face, you can smell his breath so to speak. Here the treatment and view is the response you would give to anybody who did this to you (for example: a time share salesman waving a leaflet in your face, a beggar deliberately standing in your way, a photographer shoving a camera in your face). In this scenario it is not the act of photography that is the problem but the intrusiveness of the act due to the proximity and the way it is done.
If we can assume that the first scenario is ok then the issue is at what point does the photographer overstep the mark and how you react to it.
I am sure the point of discomfort is different for us all. For some it will be 10 feet away and for others it will be 10 inches. When the point were we feel uncomfortable is reached the key question then becomes how to let the photographer know he has overstepped your comfort zone.
Personally I think lashing out is the last resort and is something for those moments when you have no other choice and it is both appropriate and proportional to threat level. I just don't consider someone taking my photo however intrusive they may be as warranting a good kicking. There is of course the possibility that the good kicking may backfire and I end up getting hammered instead which could be part of my reluctance to escalate an unpleasant experience to a painful one
Can't disagree with your post at all.
A resort to violence entails risk, as does the actions of the paparazi.
Splog - no problems. I think I see now that we were coming at this from quite different scenarios. I was thinking more in the general sense rather than the intrusive 'in your face' type scenario.
As you said, I think we are all agreed on the legal aspects it is the reaction bit we seemed to drift apart on.
I still hold the view that thumping someone for taking a picture is OTT but I can see where you are coming from if the thumping is as a result of someone getting very close and very personal. Still don't agree with it but I can understand it better
As you said, I think we are all agreed on the legal aspects it is the reaction bit we seemed to drift apart on.
I still hold the view that thumping someone for taking a picture is OTT but I can see where you are coming from if the thumping is as a result of someone getting very close and very personal. Still don't agree with it but I can understand it better
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Splog - no problems. I think I see now that we were coming at this from quite different scenarios. I was thinking more in the general sense rather than the intrusive 'in your face' type scenario.
As you said, I think we are all agreed on the legal aspects it is the reaction bit we seemed to drift apart on.
I still hold the view that thumping someone for taking a picture is OTT but I can see where you are coming from if the thumping is as a result of someone getting very close and very personal. Still don't agree with it but I can understand it better
No probs...
- Messages
- 29,411
- Name
- Marcel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 29,411
- Name
- Marcel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
By the way, he *wasn't* leaning over the pram, he wasn't close enough so he could "feel his breath" as someone said. He was a good 3-4 feet away.
Infact so far away that when the PM shoved the tog he had to lean to do so..which is evident in him almost pulling the pram over.
So it was nothing to do with personal space IMO, it was because he was taking pictures of his son. I think that's pretty clear anyway when he said 'Why are you taking pictures of my son?'
Infact so far away that when the PM shoved the tog he had to lean to do so..which is evident in him almost pulling the pram over.
So it was nothing to do with personal space IMO, it was because he was taking pictures of his son. I think that's pretty clear anyway when he said 'Why are you taking pictures of my son?'
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
By the way, he *wasn't* leaning over the pram, he wasn't close enough so he could "feel his breath" as someone said. He was a good 3-4 feet away.
Infact so far away that when the PM shoved the tog he had to lean to do so..which is evident in him almost pulling the pram over.
So it was nothing to do with personal space IMO, it was because he was taking pictures of his son. I think that's pretty clear anyway when he said 'Why are you taking pictures of my son?'
He (photographer) was sticking his lens arms length away from the baby and who knows what lens he was using? but I doubt it was wide angle and most likely telephoto and therefore close up :shrug: Why? and anyway he (tog) wasn't hurt as he took another shot as soon as he bounced off the wall
He crept up on the pm from behind and pointed the camera at his childs pram thing
Why does anyone think it is OK for someone to point a camera into someones face without permission? as was said earlier the other togs were at a reasonable distance - he wasn't and deserved the slap
- Messages
- 29,411
- Name
- Marcel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No he wasn't he had it to his eye all the time.
One, you have no idea what lens he was using.
Two, what does it matter?
Three, the pm didn't know whether it was a wide lens or close up either.
No he didn't. You see him raise his camera a very tiny bit as he was going out of shot, but that was probably as he was stepping off the kerb.and anyway he (tog) wasn't hurt as he took another shot as soon as he bounced off the wall
No he didn't he was walking behind him to the left. He didn't 'creep' up at all.
Are you watching the same clip as me? He didnt point it 'into anyones face' at all.
The PM didn't like the fact someone took a photo of his son so he lashed out. It's assault, plain and simple.
WillyNelson
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 173
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not so much turning on fellow photographers (and I was playing devil's advocate when I asked "how would you feel"), as recognising when someone has overstepped the boundary of reasonable behaviour as a photographer.
Pictures of the PM pushing a pram and pics of PM & his son when out in public are one thing, but close up pics of the child alone aren't newsworthy or of interest and imo the removal of the major subject (the PM) is what changes it from acceptable to unacceptable.
It's like the difference between pics of a celeb leaving a nightclub, which may be of interest to celeb-watchers & trend spotters, and pics of a celeb leaving a nightclub taken from such a low angle that you can see their knickers, which render the pics tawdry and unnecessarily voyeristic.
OP
hyakuhei
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,732
- Name
- Robert
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd say the difference is about £20k per sale if it was britney or someone similar. Its simply supply and demand. If people didn't buy the magazines with these shots, the editors wouldn't pay the togs to take them.
The hypocrisy in this part of the industry is terrible. As a press photographer I sometimes have to photograph something nasty like an RTA - The abuse I get when doing this actually comes from the people who are standing around gawping at the accident anyway. I'm doing no different to them - Its interesting to see how badly photographers have been demonized in the last few years...
Nah, thats definitely an issue now what with some people wanting to throw small moons at photographers for taking photos of their family, despite living in the most CCTV'd nation and everyone one having camera phones.
Its photos of the most important man in the country's baby. Thats newsworthy. Everyone would want to see photos of the kid. Go to shops now and have a look at the mags and papers. Have a good look at the current photos that they print and then tell me that a photo of the PM's son isn't newsworthy. Photos of Jade Goody shopping... If Gordon Brown had a freshly made kid and took him to work all the press would take photos of the kid and Brown would let them because he accepted that it would happen by taking his kid into that arena.
Both of which you'll see on the front page of some newspaper. If this really was an issue then this thread wouldn't even exist because it would be so common place. But this thread exists because the OP was quite shocked at the reaction of the PM because its not common place. Whats the story here? Photographer takes photo of PM's baby? No. Its PM pushes photographer into a wall. I'm surprised none of the people here who want to bus a cap in his ass commented on the fact that he nearly dropped his kid.
- Messages
- 3,313
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
wow, what a thread. so far off track.
so can i ask how close is considered too close for a shot? not trying to upset the apple cart, but i think it looks like the problem is the distance the tog is away.
and how far is too far going to the other end. assuming if they are too far away then they are up to no good and hiding from you.:shrug:
so can i ask how close is considered too close for a shot? not trying to upset the apple cart, but i think it looks like the problem is the distance the tog is away.
and how far is too far going to the other end. assuming if they are too far away then they are up to no good and hiding from you.:shrug:
The problem is no-one knows how close is too close as it is personal to each individual. In this example it would seem to be a combination of personal space and subject that caused the problem.
However, the real issue is not what the photographer did but how the PM responded. In an ideal world the response from anybody would be to bring their discomfort to the photographers attention in a manner which addressed the problem without escalating it. In the PMs case we have a man trusted to carefully consider decisions and options before acting who is seen to be lashing out like an out of control lout. It is the combination of the facts that he is the PM and handled this very badly which makes it news worthy and casts significant doubt (in my view) on his suitability as a PM. He should also be charged with assault.
How close should you go? Not very from some of the responses we have had in this thread
However, the real issue is not what the photographer did but how the PM responded. In an ideal world the response from anybody would be to bring their discomfort to the photographers attention in a manner which addressed the problem without escalating it. In the PMs case we have a man trusted to carefully consider decisions and options before acting who is seen to be lashing out like an out of control lout. It is the combination of the facts that he is the PM and handled this very badly which makes it news worthy and casts significant doubt (in my view) on his suitability as a PM. He should also be charged with assault.
How close should you go? Not very from some of the responses we have had in this thread
- Messages
- 3,313
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i completely agree that the pm should be charged and it was OTT to say the least. and i would say he is using the baby as publicity since taking it to his working headquarters. personally i dont think the photographer was too close and was well within his rights.
if someone did it to my child then i wouldn't react that badly. it is madness to think you need to push someones head into the wall without any verbal communication first and i would hope the majority of the population wouldnt act like this.
if someone did it to my child then i wouldn't react that badly. it is madness to think you need to push someones head into the wall without any verbal communication first and i would hope the majority of the population wouldnt act like this.
admirable
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,612
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Some info pertaining to
http://www.schillings.co.uk/Display...-df50-4c0f-9166-809c88e3fc09&NavigationId=325
http://www.schillings.co.uk/Display...-df50-4c0f-9166-809c88e3fc09&NavigationId=325
specialman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It seems the Czech politicitions like a bit of tooing and froing...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7695064.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7695064.stm
admirable
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,612
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
specialman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
admireable, I was expecting someone to say that
