Had my first anti-photographers 'run-in'....

Status
Not open for further replies.
John Doran 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.
Click to expand...

Then they should call the police.
 
John Doran said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tell disgruntled dad if he dosen't like it he should remove his kids from said park. I have as much right to be there as he and his kids have.
 
Bernie174 said:
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?
Splog 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.
Click to expand...

Bernie

Are you actually reading my posts.... Where have I suggested they are commiting a crime? Or photographers as special cases?
 
Splog
I am reading them, and they are mostly very funny. If I were you I'd stop digging yourself in deeper.
I think we are at a very simple point. You say you have a right to carry on doing what you like. So perhaps you can tell me where that right is written? You must know, because you are so insistent that it exists?
 
Grayo said:
Tell disgruntled dad if he dosen't like it he should remove his kids from said park. I have as much right to be there as he and his kids have.
Click to expand...

Ask yourself why it's so important for an adult to be in a children's play park taking photos of kids and the result is where we are in this world of fear of the boogie man...

Just because you have the right doesn't mean it is right. If it were me as a parent, and said photographer said to remove my kids from the play area, they would find their way to A&E.
 
Bernie174 said:
Splog
I am reading them, and they are mostly very funny. If I were you I'd stop digging yourself in deeper.
I think we are at a very simple point. You say you have a right to carry on doing what you like. So perhaps you can tell me where that right is written? You must know, because you are so insistent that it exists?
Click to expand...

If you are going to quote what I have said then use the quote button that's why it's there. You haven't answered anything on here other than try and argue a straw man argument. Stop reading between the lines, there's no words there.

If you really are copper then you should know laws are usually preventative.
 
John Doran said:
Just because you have the right doesn't mean it is right. If it were me as a parent, and said photographer said to remove my kids from the play area, they would find their way to A&E.
Click to expand...

genius, so we've gone from the view that a photographer that has done nothing wrong should show every tom, dick and harry their photos to putting them in hospital for saying the truth.

wonderful.
 
Bernie174 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Data protection act Exemptions
personal data that is processed only for journalistic, literary or artistic purposes;

no win no fee only ever taken on if and it is a big if it is an open and shut case, how many can you find relevant to this topic
 
Bernie174 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bernie, you raise an interesting point regarding the DPA - particularly as it pre-dated the digital photography revolution.

Your assertion that all photographs of people are subject to the act, seems a little sweeping.

I believe that the DPA has exemptions where "data" is for journalistic, literary, and artistic purposes (however these terms are not defined within the Act and are therefore subject to interpretation). There are also other parts of the act which must also be considered in the above circumstances, but I don't believe it is quite as cut and dry as all images are subject to the act.

Additionally, I believe data (photographs) taken for "personal use" are also exempt from the Act, according to information issued by the ICO. Although exactly what constitues "personal use" is a little wooly (e.g. is posting it to your "personal" flickr page still personal use?).

It's a very interesting area to consider, and one which you could casually dismiss as not being relevant to your average tog in the street.

ETA - Beaten to it by Paul above, but as I said above - the exemptions are not clear cut!
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
genius, so we've gone from the view that a photographer that has done nothing wrong should show every tom, dick and harry their photos to putting them in hospital for saying the truth.

wonderful.
Click to expand...


:clap::clap::clap:
 
What Bernie & Co seem to be suggesting is that every photographer in a public place should be under suspicion. That is the start of a very slippery slope.
 
neil_g said:
genius, so we've gone from the view that a photographer that has done nothing wrong should show every tom, dick and harry their photos to putting them in hospital for saying the truth.

wonderful.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point.

It's called respect. Respect other people otherwise you will lose all respect from them. Why shouldn't a father defend his kids? Why is it SOOOOOOO important for a grown adult to be in a park taking photographs of strangers kids?

So, photographers (myself included) have a right to take photos. Whoopy do. It doesn't give us the right to be arrogant towards the general public.

Yes, filling someone in for taking a photo is extreme and I'm sure the police on here would love to come sort that mess out... Like they have nothing better to do.

Lol

Bottom line is, all it takes is a little curtesy on both parties to resolve any issue before it shows it's ugly self.
 
Bernie174 said:
Splog
I am reading them, and they are mostly very funny. If I were you I'd stop digging yourself in deeper.
I think we are at a very simple point. You say you have a right to carry on doing what you like. So perhaps you can tell me where that right is written? You must know, because you are so insistent that it exists?
Click to expand...

no he didnt
 
Splog 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?
Click to expand...

just because you and I know there is little crime that you could be committing
doesn't mean everyone else does, and likely they don't, which is why they ask. They think you might be so they intervene. I'd rather someone intervene when a crime isn't being committed than ignore one when there is.
 
Grayo said:
Tell disgruntled dad if he dosen't like it he should remove his kids from said park. I have as much right to be there as he and his kids have.
Click to expand...

So, on light of that comment, you would prefer to upset the kids enjoyment of the park instead of doing the responsible thing?

Lovely.
 
All getting a bit heated ! As a MOP I don't have a right to take photos in a public place, its just that there isn't a law against it. It's also not against the law for another MOP to ask me what I am doing. If that MOP is built like a brick ****house, with tattoos on his knuckles, and knuckles dragging on the ground, I am likely to comply with his request.
If MOP is a little old lady, I would politely try to allay her suspicions. Banging on about my rights and the law won't help. I can get photos elsewhere without all this carry on.

Apologies to tattood people and little old ladies everywhere.
 
John Doran said:
You're missing the point.
Click to expand...

am i?

and while we're on respect, wheres the respect for the photographer in a public place minding his/her own business. or the respect for presuming theyre innocent until proven guilty before threatening to "send them to A&E".

i lost my respect for your opinion at that comment to be honest.
 
Bluehawk said:
All getting a bit heated ! As a MOP I don't have a right to take photos in a public place, its just that there isn't a law against it. It's also not against the law for another MOP to ask me what I am doing. If that MOP is built like a brick ****house, with tattoos on his knuckles, and knuckles dragging on the ground, I am likely to comply with his request.
If MOP is a little old lady, I would politely try to allay her suspicions. Banging on about my rights and the law won't help. I can get photos elsewhere without all this carry on.

Apologies to tattood people and little old ladies everywhere.
Click to expand...

Lol
 
As one who has been approached by police simply because someone saw me in the woods with a DSLR and there was a children's park half a mile down (where coincidentally my own children play also) and asked to show all my pictures taken I find it odd people advocating that if a dad politely approaches a photographer to enquire and look at what he has been photographing one should abide to avoid confrontation.

You assume that its just one person who does that, so what about when five minutes later another one comes and wants to do the same, and then the next one and the trend continues. Do you still think that just because its a polite approach one should abide?
I for one would be angry as hell if I had to keep explaining to people every few minutes that what I am doing is nothing wrong. I have been there and I know the feeling. After starting with politene replies after 3 approaches I ended up not replying rudely but in terms that the parent immediately got the message that I had had one too many approaches of that kind and had enough.
 
neil_g said:
am i?

and while we're on respect, wheres the respect for the photographer in a public place minding his/her own business. or the respect for presuming theyre innocent until proven guilty before threatening to "send them to A&E".

i lost my respect for your opinion at that comment to be honest.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, if you were to be an arrogant photographer to the wrong person at the wrong time then what do you expect to happen???

I don't really care if my opinion matters or if you respect it or not, the fact remains that if asked politely by a parent who has a right to ask why you are taking photos of their kids then only bad things will happen if you (as a photographer) become all defensive and evasive or by telling disgruntled dad/mom/grandmother or even babysitter to sod off.

Do you think this is a good light to paint for our rights as photographers? No wonder people get upset.

I'm sorry for coming across as a thug but it does annoy me that there are those out there who seem to think it's socially acceptable to be an utter muppet to Joe Public because they think they have the right to photograph whomever they please and get away with it.

It's wrong, morally. Who gives two hoots if you miss that perfect shot of so'n'so's child smiling into the sunlight and it could have won countless awards. If you get asked politely by said parent or other guardian not to take photographs of said child(ren), we should behave accordingly. If the photographer is playing the "I have rights" card then hey.... Enjoy calling the police for an assault.
 
Oh.... That's not just me who thinks that.... I'm just vocalising what a lot of people think and how they would react.

I have asked quite a few people's opinions on this, and again, the response was pretty much the same. Ranging from calling the police to stop and search the photographer (who - by the time the police arrive may have left), to actually restraining the photographer and breaking the camera....

The majority of people asked did say that if the photographer played by the "rules of the game", politely stopped taking shots if the people when asked, nothing would come of it. Only when said photographer didn't play ball would things turn bad.

Hey ho....
 
Purely conjecture on my part but
There seem to be a lot of photographer feeling that just because they are using a dslr they suspicious is wrong.

The same as if there is someone black in a car they must be driving illegally
 
Thanks John, thought it was just me. When did 'common sense' and 'street-wise' get hijacked by 'I know my rights'. Lying in a hospital bed with a telephoto lens jammed where it shouldn't be, and not being able to ask for more pain-killers because your jaw is wired up won't feel any better because " I was within my rights officer".
 
Bluehawk said:
Thanks John, thought it was just me. When did 'common sense' and 'street-wise' get hijacked by 'I know my rights'. Lying in a hospital bed with a telephoto lens jammed where it shouldn't be, and not being able to ask for more pain-killers because your jaw is wired up won't feel any better because " I was within my rights officer".
Click to expand...

The assailant is still breaking the law and is wrong
Or have we got to the point in this country might is right
 
paulminus273 said:
The assailant is still breaking the law and is wrong
Or have we got to the point in this country might is right
Click to expand...

We aren't saying that. Look, it's just the way it is out there. There are really nice people who don't give two hoots. BUT there is a heck of a lot of people who do and whilst yes, belting a photographer is morally and socially wrong, so is being a PITA photographer who is adamant on taking photos of people he/she shouldn't. Or more to the point, don't want their photos taken... This paparazzi style of demeanour is going to land us as photographers in deep doo doo and it will be passed as law if things keep spiralling out of control. Common sense and courtesy is (i'm afraid) the best recourse.

So what if we get stopped ten billion times a day, as long as we remain professional, irrespective of we are pro's or not, we won't have issues.
 
John Doran said:
We aren't saying that. Look, it's just the way it is out there. There are really nice people who don't give two hoots. BUT there is a heck of a lot of people who do and whilst yes, belting a photographer is morally and socially wrong, so is being a PITA photographer who is adamant on taking photos of people he/she shouldn't. Or more to the point, don't want their photos taken... This paparazzi style of demeanour is going to land us as photographers in deep doo doo and it will be passed as law if things keep spiralling out of control. Common sense and courtesy is (i'm afraid) the best recourse.

So what if we get stopped ten billion times a day, as long as we remain professional, irrespective of we are pro's or not, we won't have issues.
Click to expand...

Even though I see your point, big camera paranoia (yes I have seen it) is bound to polarise the I have rights view
 
Looks like the bullies have won. What a ****** world we live in.
 
Ahem......

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- Why the early bird gets the worm;
- Life isn't always fair;
- and Maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death; by his parents, Truth and Trust; by his wife, Discretion; by his daughter, Responsibility; and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
 
awp said:
Looks like the bullies have won. What a ****** world we live in.
Click to expand...

Looks like your right, ah well, anybody want to buy a D3S and a D300S with lots of lens and other gear. Think I'll take up knitting instead.
 
phil8139 said:
Ahem......

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
- Why the early bird gets the worm;
- Life isn't always fair;
- and Maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death; by his parents, Truth and Trust; by his wife, Discretion; by his daughter, Responsibility; and by his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers;
I Know My Rights
I Want It Now
Someone Else Is To Blame
I'm A Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
Click to expand...

That is awesome. Do you mind if I put that on Facebook!?! :0)
 
Grayo said:
Looks like your right, ah well, anybody want to buy a D3S and a D300S with lots of lens and other gear. Think I'll take up knitting instead.
Click to expand...

Knitting needles are now banned for being offensive weapons....
 
How is it "the bullies have won"???

Sometimes I am actually saddened at the world we live in and that the "I know my rights" lot feel "bullied" by what? Common sense. FFS. Get a grip and stop throwing your lenses out the pram.
 
Can we have a whip round for the next tog who tells Gorilla man-bully with a low IQ, " I know my rights and I'm going to continue taking photographs of your child playing on the swings, for a photo competition, even though you have suggested that I don't".

Come on guys, you all know there are places in cities where you avoid going on your own at night. There are bullies lurking there, welcome to the real world.
Discretion is the better part of valour, so they say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top