Don't put the name Gary Glitter on the shirt!!
Had my first anti-photographers 'run-in'....
- Thread starter specialman
- Start date
- Status
Don't put the name Gary Glitter on the shirt!!
phil8139
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,028
- Name
- Go on, have a guess
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry Andy, I had to scroll up and down to see where I was upto, posts go in reverse order when you reply ..... 
Can't think why he assumed I would want to see the pics though? I never intimated any desire or distaste :shrug:
Can't think why he assumed I would want to see the pics though? I never intimated any desire or distaste :shrug:John Doran
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 123
- Name
- t***iness
- Edit My Images
- No
inaneredstripe said:I had parents of children, who were guest at a wedding were were shooting, ask me to delete photos of their kids.
they were right in the middle of a group of guests i had just shot.
I refused and refered them very politely to the Bride and groom who had EMPLOYED us to take photographs of the wedding and guests..
I believe the groom told him to, p*** off ,as it was his wedding, and couldnt he see there were two official photographers on site.AND....
If he was that paranoid, he should NOT have brought his kids with him.
I TRIED SO HARD TO SUPRESS A SMILE AT THAT POINT.
VERY UNPROFFESIONAL OF ME, BUT I FAILED.
Not unprofessional at all. You are there in an official capacity and as such you politely referred the chap to your boss. I would have done the same thing as you and additionally showed him the shot.
John Doran
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 123
- Name
- t***iness
- Edit My Images
- No
Splog said:
Why? Isn't it best to diffuse a situation from a disgruntled parent than enflame it??
John Doran
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 123
- Name
- t***iness
- Edit My Images
- No
Bernie174 said:
Exactly. I see it as diffuse the situation before it gets silly. It doesn't hurt to be professional and polite.
As a parent and as a photographer I would play along and respect the parents wishes. If someone that I didn't know took photos of my kids without consent and was evasive if/when asked to see the images I would probably get a little upset.
I know the rights, but there are also morals of society to consider. I
f the shot is a good one, you might get a sale, if it's a little too 'personal' then maybe not.... Depends on the shot....
It was mentioned on another thread that I left, if you are actively going to a kids play area to take photos, parents are going to be suspicious and ask what you are doing. It is an inherent right to self defence of their children. Questions will be asked and if the photographer is in anyway dodgy then what do you expect??
John Doran
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 123
- Name
- t***iness
- Edit My Images
- No
awp said:
Yet the police are the first to be blamed when things go bang or kids get abused.....
Your point isn't valid. The bottom line is about being professional (albeit even as amateurs), being polite will win in the long run. If you are an arsey photographer when questioned by disgruntled security/parents/etc then the situation is bound to escalate.
John Doran
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 123
- Name
- t***iness
- Edit My Images
- No
phil8139 said:
Agreed, but.... If asked by a parent to stop taking photos of their child(ren), would you continue to do so??
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Isolation or not, the quote is what it is. Vic clearly asks how a crime can be committed by taking a photograph.
phil8139
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,028
- Name
- Go on, have a guess
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As I said, I have common sense, so the answer would be I would talk to the parent, show them what I was doing. If it was in my capacity as official tog at an event, I would try not to capture them, if it was in the street or park, I would have asked beforehand if the child was the main feature of the shot.
It's strange that while we are home, we are made to feel guilty walking around with a big camera & lens, yet while on holiday, no one bats an eyelid. Im going to Malta soon and will have no problems getting out my camera and 70-300 on the beach, even taking it into the water to get some low shots. Got some nice candids last year and made a distant friend who wanted the pics, we really are an uptight bunch with fear instilled into us. Relax, enjoy, be nice. When Mr jobsworth gets uppity, educate him.
Phil.
John Doran
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 123
- Name
- t***iness
- Edit My Images
- No
I think that's the thing though. You answered the question in a professional manner.
Show the photos.
"Ask" before hand where possible.
Avoid if necessary.
There are those out there with their copy of "The photographers rights" firmly tucked in their back pocket ready to have a pop and "defend" their "right" to photograph.... Yet disregard the parents "right" or persons "right" to privacy.
It's why I don't read news papers, hate paps. Ruins the enjoyment of photography. Ok.... Hate is a strong word.... Dislike...
But on the flipside.... Without "paps", who would capture the shots of the holyoaks girls in their bikinis in the med? Lol
Show the photos.
"Ask" before hand where possible.
Avoid if necessary.
There are those out there with their copy of "The photographers rights" firmly tucked in their back pocket ready to have a pop and "defend" their "right" to photograph.... Yet disregard the parents "right" or persons "right" to privacy.
It's why I don't read news papers, hate paps. Ruins the enjoyment of photography. Ok.... Hate is a strong word.... Dislike...
But on the flipside.... Without "paps", who would capture the shots of the holyoaks girls in their bikinis in the med? Lol
zulupentax
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,176
- Name
- Amin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Reading this thread brings to mind a very recent episode that happened last wednesday with me.
I was taking photographs officially on behalf of Butterfly World Project in St Albans for the official opening of the new children's play area. The event was attended by one of the patrons, Jake Wood (Max Brannings from Eastenders), and there were reporters and press photographers all around the place also shooting the event. Plenty of kids around and lots of parents wanting to be photographed with Jake Wood and having kids also in the pics etc, typical celebrity stuff things going on.
My surprise when sitting in the office processing the pics towards the end of the day after everything had finished and visitors and celebrities had gone I overheard one of the staff members answering a phone call and discussing something to do with photographers... publishing etc etc. So I got up and went to him and tried to ascertain what was going on. It turned out that he had taken a call from a lady who was adamant in making sure that no pics of her child had been taken and/or going to be published anywhere, including into the newspapers. She said that her child was disabled and she did not want the picture if the child was included in it to be published or printed anywhere.
This really left me with a huge dilemna. While I understand her concern, up to a point, but how can I be sure that the child is not in the background in any of the pics I might have taken even though just focusing particularly on Jake Wood or the other children and parents who were being photographed with him? Many press photographers also took lots of shots and they could well have images where the child is in the background. For goodness sake, it was a public opening day, thousands of people came on that day and we took a series of pics all around the centre not only in the playground area. Shouldn't the mother have envisaged this and probably avoid this particular day to come and attend the centre? Most people were queuing to be photographed and appear in the papers.
Well in the end I went through my 300 odd pics and at first glance I can't notice anyone who might seem to me as having any physical disability. But that doesn't guarantee the fact that he or she might still be in one of the pics. I have no idea what type of disability the child has, mental or physical, she didn't mention it.
But at least I have the backing of the Director of the centre. I spoke to her and she immediately said how on earth can we guarantee that? We are trying to get as much exposure as possible hence the press photographers and reporters present, and now the last thing we would want to do is call the press photographers and tell them "oh please check your images before publishing and remove any if you see any disabled child in the background"
I was taking photographs officially on behalf of Butterfly World Project in St Albans for the official opening of the new children's play area. The event was attended by one of the patrons, Jake Wood (Max Brannings from Eastenders), and there were reporters and press photographers all around the place also shooting the event. Plenty of kids around and lots of parents wanting to be photographed with Jake Wood and having kids also in the pics etc, typical celebrity stuff things going on.
My surprise when sitting in the office processing the pics towards the end of the day after everything had finished and visitors and celebrities had gone I overheard one of the staff members answering a phone call and discussing something to do with photographers... publishing etc etc. So I got up and went to him and tried to ascertain what was going on. It turned out that he had taken a call from a lady who was adamant in making sure that no pics of her child had been taken and/or going to be published anywhere, including into the newspapers. She said that her child was disabled and she did not want the picture if the child was included in it to be published or printed anywhere.
This really left me with a huge dilemna. While I understand her concern, up to a point, but how can I be sure that the child is not in the background in any of the pics I might have taken even though just focusing particularly on Jake Wood or the other children and parents who were being photographed with him? Many press photographers also took lots of shots and they could well have images where the child is in the background. For goodness sake, it was a public opening day, thousands of people came on that day and we took a series of pics all around the centre not only in the playground area. Shouldn't the mother have envisaged this and probably avoid this particular day to come and attend the centre? Most people were queuing to be photographed and appear in the papers.
Well in the end I went through my 300 odd pics and at first glance I can't notice anyone who might seem to me as having any physical disability. But that doesn't guarantee the fact that he or she might still be in one of the pics. I have no idea what type of disability the child has, mental or physical, she didn't mention it.
But at least I have the backing of the Director of the centre. I spoke to her and she immediately said how on earth can we guarantee that? We are trying to get as much exposure as possible hence the press photographers and reporters present, and now the last thing we would want to do is call the press photographers and tell them "oh please check your images before publishing and remove any if you see any disabled child in the background"
Last edited:
LCPete
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,785
- Edit My Images
- Yes
completely agree Phil
I went to Turkey last year and there were mainly Russians and Germans staying at the hotel
I was wandering around the gardens with my camera looking for Butterflies the only problem I had was with a British woman who was agressive towards me.
The Russians and Germans thought I was barmy
but were really friendly
I was a bit embarrassed to be British at one point to be honest as several British people were complianing about Hotel and the food which I thought was excellent
zulupentax
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,176
- Name
- Amin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And yet we hear constantly that we are the least complaining type of public.
I suppose it might mean different things we most often put up with and tend to moan and grumble about stuff that others just get on with it and let others get on with their lives.
paulminus273
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 544
- Name
- paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I am sure Bernie will correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it no one has a legal right to privacy in a public place, under English law.
I for one if approached in a civilised manner am happy to show people what I have been photographing ( probably bore them to death going on about how the light falls, composition and so on} and delete any that show someone who does not want to be photographed.
My main proviso is be civil to me.
If I am within my rights
Will you, will get if possible yes
You will, will get hell is going to freeze over first
phil8139
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,028
- Name
- Go on, have a guess
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think this is the common crux of the discussion, yes we have a right to photograph in public, in the main if people are civil & polite, they will get the answer they are looking for. If people are just following orders with no real idea of what is acceptable / allowed, then tempers soon flare. Each different situation needs to be judged individually, regardless of what is right or who has rights. There is a moral breakdown in todays society, I still believe in respect, but that stops if not a two way thing.
Phil.
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Paul
You're right, no one has copyright or a 'right' to privacy in public. There are criminal exceptions to that, but not likely to be an issue to most on here.
But you have to bare in mind that a photo which shows someone in a way that could be way which gives a misleading impression of them or their character, could lead to being sued, but thats civil law, and is dependent on publication.
The one thing that so far no ones cottoned onto, yet, is the Data Protection Act. A photo is Data, and if you hold data about someone you are restricted in how and why you hold it.
Because there's money in it for both Lawyers and people who've been photographed, its only a matter of time.
On the subject of matter of time, I think that also applies to photographing children. I would hazard a guess that in the not too distant future, someone will come up with the idea of making what some think is already law, actually become law.
Being stroppy and rude to people asking what you're doing will only make that eventuality more likely.
AWp
Far easier and quicker to ask a few questions! Police officers have enough to do, without spending hours doing something that can be solved in a few minutes, and being called to things that could be resolved between the 2 parties by both being polite and open.
As for being brainwashed. No, the point of all of this is there are 2 sides to it. Having been on both sides, I have the advantage over you, the advice I've given is valid, you can chose to take it or ignore it, its up to you. But if you want a one sides discussion where all you read is 'ahhh, poor photog, did the nasty man want to know what you were doing?', then hard luck.
You're right, no one has copyright or a 'right' to privacy in public. There are criminal exceptions to that, but not likely to be an issue to most on here.
But you have to bare in mind that a photo which shows someone in a way that could be way which gives a misleading impression of them or their character, could lead to being sued, but thats civil law, and is dependent on publication.
The one thing that so far no ones cottoned onto, yet, is the Data Protection Act. A photo is Data, and if you hold data about someone you are restricted in how and why you hold it.
Because there's money in it for both Lawyers and people who've been photographed, its only a matter of time.
On the subject of matter of time, I think that also applies to photographing children. I would hazard a guess that in the not too distant future, someone will come up with the idea of making what some think is already law, actually become law.
Being stroppy and rude to people asking what you're doing will only make that eventuality more likely.
AWp
Far easier and quicker to ask a few questions! Police officers have enough to do, without spending hours doing something that can be solved in a few minutes, and being called to things that could be resolved between the 2 parties by both being polite and open.
As for being brainwashed. No, the point of all of this is there are 2 sides to it. Having been on both sides, I have the advantage over you, the advice I've given is valid, you can chose to take it or ignore it, its up to you. But if you want a one sides discussion where all you read is 'ahhh, poor photog, did the nasty man want to know what you were doing?', then hard luck.
Last edited:
paulminus273
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 544
- Name
- paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Good manners are the oil for society, it is everyones moral duty to approach others politely even if you have authority and it is the moral duty of everyone to respond politely. Only if this is not followed is there likely to be a problem.
paulminus273
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 544
- Name
- paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The moral duty is in how you approach not who, photographer, artist, old lady crossing the road or what ever.
paulminus273
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 544
- Name
- paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Too open ended question, what ,when, why and how.
For instance
Hi mate that a nice bit of kit got, any good shots yet
To
Hi do you mind telling me why you are pointing a huge telephoto lens at my wifes bedroom when she is changing
And lots of other possibilities
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And then there's the time I was taking evening shots of kids at a funfair on the waltzers, when this guy came over and very aggressively asked " Are you a kiddy fiddler or what?"
Getting my nose very close to his I asked him if I looked like one, and advised him to consider his answer very carefully!
I've no problem being approached by anyone as long as they do it in the right manner - that certainly wasn't it.
Getting my nose very close to his I asked him if I looked like one, and advised him to consider his answer very carefully!
I've no problem being approached by anyone as long as they do it in the right manner - that certainly wasn't it.
John Doran
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 123
- Name
- t***iness
- Edit My Images
- No
paulminus273 said:
That's the point though.... Just because we as photographers have a right to photograph in a public place doesn't mean that it is right. Certain people will undoubtedly get upset if we as photographers become evasive or arsey.
If someone doesn't want their photo taken why cause a fuss over a shot that will potentially be useless??
I really don't understand why there is this utter "need" to go out and photograph random strangers/kids other than for our own personal "hobby"...?
If you are a pro, surely people will approach you to have photos taken? If you are an aspiring pro, offer shoots for free?
I say "you" and mean photographers in general so there is nothing personal in this...
John Doran
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 123
- Name
- t***iness
- Edit My Images
- No
Bernie174 said:
Nail on the head...
John Doran
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 123
- Name
- t***iness
- Edit My Images
- No
CT said:
That would get a similar response from me as well. Idiot approach will get an idiot response.
OP
specialman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Didn't think my little old thread about a Sunday afternoon shoot would still be going strong.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Moreorless
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 989
- Edit My Images
- No
Just remember to bring Phil Collins along...
I'm wondering if a white telephoto was #7 in the Daily Mails "top 10 ways to spot a p***" pullout speical?
It never ceases to amaze me, that it seems to be photographers with DSLRs get stopped or questioned, when in fact, the people more likely to be up to no good, taking obscene photographs, would do so whilst trying not to attract attention, by using small compact cameras/mobile phones.
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
Bernie174 said:
Bernie
As I've said earlier, it serves no useful purpose. If I was doing something wrong then I'm not going to admit anything to them, am I? and if my actions are innocent, then I don't need to explain myself.
If I was approached my reaction would be 'what's the problem' and take it from there. If they have a problem then they should call the police.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you were doing something wrong and someone approached you there is a good chance you would stop doing it if approached.
The fact is you "could" be doing something wrong. And I'd like my general public to question behaviour if they think it is suspicious, no matter what it is. That way you air on the side of caution and as long as the person is relaxed about saying they aren't doing anything wrong then we end up having a safer world.
If nobody stops anyone when they think something might be wrong then we'd be a worser place for it.
paulminus273
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 544
- Name
- paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Civil law, you need very deep pockets to pursue with not much chance of success.
Data Protection act requires much more date than a photo to apply
As I pointed out I have no problem with any civil approach
Otherwise it is a polite “go away or I will call the police “
Police should be civil anyway within the bounds of reason it is part of their duty
Last edited:
Splog
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
joescrivens said:
With regard to photography and without any silly extremes to back up your point and regarding previous posts i.e. If Im in a public place with a camera and just taking photos, then what crime could I be commiting?
John Doran
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 123
- Name
- t***iness
- Edit My Images
- No
Splog said:
Seriously? As mentioned, depending where you are, what you are photographing and your demeanour on the day could lead to all sorts of issues.
Let's say you are taking photos in a park of kids playing on swings. Innocent? Maybe. But say disgruntled dad asks you to stop taking photos of his kids... What then...? You tell him to sod off? That's what will cause further issues.
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Splog
And what 'crime' is he committing by asking you?
Again, as I've pointed out, there are crimes that can be committed with a camera, so how is a MOP to know that you aren't? Or are you suggesting that because you are a photographer, people should ignore the possibility you could be?
And not quite, a MOP has as much right to ask you what you are doing, as you have to do it. Nothing in law prevents them from doing so, just as nothing in law says you can carry on without being asked.
Paul
Fraid not, the data protection act applies to any form of data. An image is data whether you store in in digital form or on paper. Thats why you now see warning signs about CCTV, telling you that it is for crime prevention, ie one of the reasons why it can be stored.
As for civil law, try no win no fee. Chances of success? Reasonably high if you have been shown in an inaccurate light.
On the last part, the only person that seems to argue against it, is Splog.
And what 'crime' is he committing by asking you?
Again, as I've pointed out, there are crimes that can be committed with a camera, so how is a MOP to know that you aren't? Or are you suggesting that because you are a photographer, people should ignore the possibility you could be?
And not quite, a MOP has as much right to ask you what you are doing, as you have to do it. Nothing in law prevents them from doing so, just as nothing in law says you can carry on without being asked.
Paul
Fraid not, the data protection act applies to any form of data. An image is data whether you store in in digital form or on paper. Thats why you now see warning signs about CCTV, telling you that it is for crime prevention, ie one of the reasons why it can be stored.
As for civil law, try no win no fee. Chances of success? Reasonably high if you have been shown in an inaccurate light.
On the last part, the only person that seems to argue against it, is Splog.
Last edited:
- Status