How do you react to your picture being taken without permission?

I've just read this thread from beginning to end - shaking my head!! :( - a simple question about a guy taking a photo on a beach to well - the bizarre really.

Reading it was something you know you shouldn't do - but do anyway.
 
Byker28i said:
And it's really time to stop when once again I find myself agreeing with Joe :D
Click to expand...


this is happening more and more lately with my mortal enemies. Dinners agreed with me about football the other day!!!

I must be getting more and more wise :D
 
But to answer original question - I was peed off when someone stuck a camera in the face of my 2 year old - he was covered in ice cream and it was a typical tourist scene - I didn't and wouldn't say anything but I think when they got that close to him - they should have asked as a matter of courtesy.

I personally wouldn't take random pictures if kids I don't know - but I do take loads at parties and stuff myself.

There is no such thing as privacy in this digital age anyway - it's not the photos we put on the internet / fb of ourselves - it's the ones others put on there of us we can't control.
 
asphotographymk said:
This is of course an extreme example. Walking up to you and threatening you when you have done nothing is again different to being angry at someone for continued aggravation.

If a photographer was taking a shot of a scene and my son was in that scene. I would most likely move or stay depending on how much i felt my son was involved. If however the photographer then decided to follow me and take photographs specifically targeted at me or my family then i would happily land a straight right to there jaw with no regrets.

Any reasonable person would of course talk to the photographer before reaction it is how the photographer acts after this that would matter. If they do not understanding they are PI**ING someone off then they get what they need.
Click to expand...

You obviously do not know what violence is, because you would simply attack someone (despite the fact that you have martial arts training, together with the discipline which that is supposed to instil in you), without speaking to them first.
There is no need to attack anyone, unless you are threatened with physical violence yourself.
 
andy700 said:
You obviously do not know what violence is, because you would simply attack someone (despite the fact that you have martial arts training, together with the discipline which that is supposed to instil in you), without speaking to them first.
There is no need to attack anyone, unless you are threatened with physical violence yourself.
Click to expand...

You obviously have not read anything i have said as i have said over and over that this would only be after speaking to them several times. I did not at any point say i would attack somone without speaking to them. Infact very much the opposite. Now why dont you get over it and move on. I am not going to react or argue any more. I have given my honest answer if people do not like it thats fine. I think many would react very similar to me when faced with the extreme end of this situation if they admit it or not.

Now why not stop trying to put words in my mouth and move back to the OP.
 
Last edited:
andy700 said:
You obviously do not know what violence is, because you would simply attack someone (despite the fact that you have martial arts training, together with the discipline which that is supposed to instil in you), without speaking to them first.
There is no need to attack anyone, unless you are threatened with physical violence yourself.
Click to expand...

you highlighted one part of his quote but yet did not read this part:

asphotographymk said:
Any reasonable person would of course talk to the photographer before reaction it is how the photographer acts after this that would matter. If they do not understanding they are PI**ING someone off then they get what they need.
Click to expand...

which was in the same post. Rather than just picking one section to respond to, you should read the whole post first
 
joescrivens said:
you highlighted one part of his quote but yet did not read this part:



which was in the same post. Rather than just picking one section to respond to, you should read the whole post first
Click to expand...

Thank you Joe. I dont spend my days going round beating people up for fun. That is what i have some of the best sparing partners in the game for ;)
 
Greenninja said:
I was out on a general photo walk (just along a quayside), when a bloke came up out of the blue and told me "point that at my kids and I'll break your legs".

How is that ever acceptable?

More amusing considering the camera slung over my shoulder and the he was actaully walking behind me (he had to run to catch up).

Why should I be subject to threats when I'm not doing anyone any harm?

(incidently I don't as a rule photograph strangers, just don't find them interesting enough)
Click to expand...

I think this is an interesting point that leads to the rest - people outside the photographic community I don't think appreciate that a photographer can be looking for an interesting picture, their first reaction if you take a picture is - "why are you taking my picture?" They do not consider light and the scene or anything like that, and they would in general not consider their child to be "interesting enough" to others - unless for the wrong reasons and so the assumption is that the people who are taking pictures can only be up to no good. I'm not saying its right - just my opinion of why people react they way they do.
 
asphotographymk said:
Many photographers do have the attitude that they can photograph who they want when they want and no matter wht you say to them they wont stop. They are the people that would get an angry reaction from me.
Click to expand...

And as a photographer - should you stop? I know I'm jumping to the other side of the fence now but that is why I felt so torn myself about the whole issue. I wouldn't want a nasty situation if I was out shooting and never want to upset anyone but would also be annoyed if someone told me I couldn't take a picture if I knew I was legally allowed to... I'm not sure if there is any real answer to the question - maybe the question should be about the law and what should be deemed acceptable. A time limit of shots? I know the pap arguments that go on but I would hate to have a bunch of people outside the house or snapping me outside a bar, the blessing of not being famous! I'm not sure that the argument of people having to stay indoors with the house blacked out is a fair argument to give to someone who wants privacy. I know that's off topic but my mind does wander...
 
big soft moose said:
you are also misinterpreting what andy's saying

I'd see it as

step 1 someones taking a picture of his kid so he gives him a disaproving look and hopes the tog will take the hint

step 2 the tog ignores him and continues to take pictures so "scuse me mate would you mind not taking any more pics of my kids"

Step 3 99% of people would be "sure mate no problem" but unfortunately today we are dealing with one of the 1% who thinks that his legal rights are more important than good manners so now we move on to the less pleasant "look mush i've told you already , stop taking pictures of my kids"

Step 4 still ignored we move to "look ive given you fair warning , now **** off "

Step 5 as the tog still ignores all the warning signs of a p'd off martial artist- " okay **** it we're moving down there you better not follow us or there'll be consequences"

Step 6 tog follow them still taking pictures and has now moved from innocent tog to someone whos clearly up to no good " look ****wit last chance, I dont know what your game is but if you dont **** off i'm going to take that zoom lens and stick it right up sideway, capeesh"

Step 7 - fist meets face - or more likely some incapcitating but unmarking body blow or nerve point grip

Now I know some people will say violence is never justified and that step 7 should be to call the police but get serious the police arent going to roll to a report of a bloke with a camera following you arround - especially a call from a bloke, and to my mind step 7 is justified so long as it stops there and doesn become knocks him down and kicks him senseless which no one is suggesting is justified.
Click to expand...

Anyone have a police background that could tell us what would happen if after step 7 the photographer called the cops to report the incident. With fair warning and the person moving away would the cops even look into it or put it down as a "got what they deserved"?
 
asphotographymk said:
The truth is my experience with the police has always been pretty negative in what they see as small cases. They normally talk to both partys both have separate storys they they do nothing more.

As you said in an ideal world and in most cases the photographer and person questioning the photographer would have a nice chat. If this was not waht happened then more measures may need to be taken.
Click to expand...

Firstly thanks for all the contributions - another interesting point you bring up here that could be discussed by all - is it down to the photographer to initiate that conversation or the person who has the problem, if the photographer didn't take the picture there is no problem, the law is however is on the side of the photographer, so is it fair and reasonable - not great terms to use I know but still, is it fair to put someone on the back foot and then expect them to be the one to ask politely. As much as you may say you're in public - tough, I think most people would consider it an invasion of privacy to have their picture taken by an unknown member of the public.

Random example to stir things up even further - people taking "upskirt" shots. IF the woman wants to have that angle of view on display is it her own fault? Is the photographer permitted to drop the camera to his lap or on the floor in a tube to achieve such a shot? I have NO IDEA of the law on this so am just throwing out whats coming into my head.

Thanks again to all for the contributions, its interesting reading!
 
andy700 said:
As a matter of interest, what do people think, when there is a TV broadcast of sports - football, golf, tennis, and the cameraman (on a live broadcast - no permission asked or granted) decides to focus on a cute child, maybe swinging a little golf club off to one side, or having a nap, or dressed up in club colours chearing on their favourite team?
Is that OK or do the producers get floods of complaits afterwards, that they are invading the privacy of the children concerned?
Click to expand...

I think all tickets have a disclaimer that says they can use your image for whatever/whenever. I think looking through all the posts the motive is the thing that people are concerned about, an innocent person taking an innocent picture who is respectful is not a problem - though may not always be welcome, and I think that there is a difference there, I have yet to meet a family where EVERYONE is happy to be part of the pictures, someone always wants to hide away and not be in the picture and I think everyone here has agreed that with that understanding there isn't much of a problem. I did wonder what I would do if the person taking picture of my child had not stopped and I wasn't that sure - hence the question posed here so am quite happy for the discussion to have gone through the extreme cases - like it or not these are the ones the law tends to be formed around, I doubt the 'normal' cases where the person says 'sorry mate' and moves on isn't really in need of the courts attention...
 
asphotographymk said:
I dont even have have images of my boy on facebook as there are people out there i dont want to see my son so if a photographer started taking shots of him they would get a black eye from me and some.
Click to expand...

Please have the courage to admit what you originally said. There was no mention of talking to the photographer.
 
andy700 said:
Please have the courage to admit what you originally said. There was no mention of talking to the photographer.
Click to expand...
I think i have been into a fair bit more detail than that one comment so stop being so silly and move on.
 
cjevans said:
Random example to stir things up even further - people taking "upskirt" shots. IF the woman wants to have that angle of view on display is it her own fault? Is the photographer permitted to drop the camera to his lap or on the floor in a tube to achieve such a shot? I have NO IDEA of the law on this so am just throwing out whats coming into my head.

Thanks again to all for the contributions, its interesting reading!
Click to expand...

Ok so it was in the US so a little different but did Russel brand not give a photographer a slap for doing somthing like this to katie perry? And then did he not get arrested? I say fare play to him for sticking up for his missis i would do just the same.... See it is not always black and white can anyone say the would not do the same if it was there wife or girlfriend.

cjevans said:
Anyone have a police background that could tell us what would happen if after step 7 the photographer called the cops to report the incident. With fair warning and the person moving away would the cops even look into it or put it down as a "got what they deserved"?
Click to expand...

My experience with assaults is that they always look into it. I got jumped by 6 solders after nthey had been refused entry to a club i was working. One of them ended up with a busted jaw and another got put to sleep and i got arrested for assault. Yes it was clearly self defense and the cctv evidence showed that so cps did not want to know. However the police were still very keen to arrest me. You could say this is rightly so or wrong there would be both views i am sure. My point however is that if an assault has been reported the police will take it serious no matter what the background may be. Of your going to do the crime you have to be willing to take that on board. However the moral issue would be far more important to me no matter the outcome.

v
cjevans said:
And as a photographer - should you stop?
Click to expand...

I think so yes. I think even if the law allows you to do something you should still respect other peoples wishes.

I would love to hear if there is anyone out there that would not stop if requested? Or who feels they should not have to stop if requested by a parent or individual?
 
Last edited:
asphotographymk said:
I think his point is that i did not say that in my very first post.... I am sorry i did not go into full detail of what situation i would do this in. :bonk:
Click to expand...

oh right, well just make sure that the first post you write contains exactly all the information needed to clarify your point, even to the point where you should pre-empt any further questions and answer them in advance. You do not have the right to further clarify anything after you have made this initial post.

Stick to those rules and you should be fine
 
cjevans said:
... the law is however is on the side of the photographer, so is it fair and reasonable - not great terms to use I know but still, is it fair to put someone on the back foot and then expect them to be the one to ask politely. As much as you may say you're in public - tough, I think most people would consider it an invasion of privacy to have their picture taken by an unknown member of the public.
Click to expand...

Whilst it is perfectly legal to take images of people in public, in practical terms the law is most definitely not on the side of the photographer. It seems that only experienced photographers and media lawyers appear to know their rights when it comes to taking pictures! I'm sure you've seen some of the countless episodes in the last few years were photographers are blatantly harassed by the public (and I'm not talking about photographers who are deliberately irritating) and unfortunately by the police for simply capturing images on the street, and innocent images where people are in the frame, or in some cases simply for having a camera about their person. The general public, and many police, have limited knowledge and limited interest in what the photographer may or may not do legally. Instead they are generally very quick to shout "P****" or "you've breached my privacy" or "that's against the law". It's a massive subject on the majority of photography forums. It's no surprise that this was rare until recent years, and perhaps that's something you can speculate upon, with respect to terrorism threats, paranoia, over political correctness, and many years of a government who made an art form of the nanny state, likewise you may want to consider if you would see this kind of thing in other countries.

The public believe what they want to believe and unfortunately in too many cases the police unwittingly or deliberately side with them. Just do a search and you'll find plenty of examples of what I'm talking about. Whilst I firmly agree that if someone is blatantly the subject of your picture then it's polite to gain permission if you can, I draw the line at being abused by members of the public simply because I have a camera in my hand and I'm taking a street scene or landscape image. The public need educating. And so to the police.
 
Lindsay D said:
The public need educating. And so to the police.
Click to expand...

Now this i agree with. There needs to be a balance between both issues i think. I think people should have a right to privacy but photographers should have a right to work/take part in there hobby without the assumption they are doing wrong.
 
Lindsay D said:
<snip>...The public need educating. And so to the police.
Click to expand...

You're completely right, Lindsay, and I can see both sides of the argument... but I must admit, I'd find it a tad rude if someone decided that my kids and me were going to be the primary subjects of some stranger's photography without having any say in the matter. Even if it is in a public place. Me on my own, I wouldn't mind so much... but why would anyone want photos of my kids...? :shrug:

I would like to be asked beforehand, I'd like to know why they want to take photos of them, and I'd like to be able to see the photos afterwards as well...

It's a courtesy that I would extend if I were the tog, so I'd expect no less in return - common courtesy. It doesn't cost anything and can lead to a lot less awkwardness all round...
 
Andy and Chris, we are in agreement that there needs to be common sense on both sides. I too would get fed up if somebody made me the subject of their photographic outing, and I would prefer to be asked, or at least to have some friendly dialogue to ease any concerns. I completely agree that courtesy can make a huge difference - at the risk of sounding old-fashioned, courtesy is often in short supply these days. Having said that, I do believe that the situations we're describing in this thread are very rare. An example of what makes me sad is when you have parents at sporting events taking pictures of their kids or relatives, and other parents becoming aggressive towards them because they think their offspring are in the frame. It's almost although there is an inbuilt assumption that photographers are up to no good (when there is little or no evidence to support that), and almost always the reaction from such parents and onlookers is completely irrational.

To take that a stage further, there were some upsetting cases in recent years of picture developing places (like a drugstore) setting the law on parents who had sent images in of their children playing at bath time, these parents having then been treated to a less than pleasant visit from the police where they are presumed to be criminals for taking what most normal people would see as the kind of pictures people take of their kids when they're young (my parents have got countless pictures of me being bathed in everything from a bucket to the kitchen sink, but I suspect some parents these days would think twice). When situations like that start to happen, it's little wonder that the myth that people who take pictures of kids are paedophiles persists.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top