I have a camera I must be a P**** !

Status
Not open for further replies.
gingerjon said:
This is true.

Before 2005 my opinions were worthless.

Some may say of course that little has changed since.

But, as a parent, I know that they are wrong.
Click to expand...

That's just the sleep-deprivation and advanced penury talking...lol
 
So some interesting links:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=874015

Street photographers are set to stage an open-air exhibition in London to demonstrate against the increasing restrictions being placed on photographers, as well as new government controls from the controversial Digital Economy Bill.

The I Heart Street Photo event will take place on 08 April from 7.30pm in central London, with the 30-strong group of photographers, known collectively as “So Shoot Me”, staging guerrilla projections.

“From twilight on the evening of Thursday 08 April, the ‘So Shoot Me’ members will begin popping up in busy spots all over London with their human light show. The impromptu I Heart Street Photo exhibitions will be projected onto a screen of handheld white boards, and show the best of new British street photography, out in the streets where it was made,” the organisers say. “The event carries the message that misdirected fears about terror, privacy and child protection could spell the end for [street photograpahy].”

John Easterby, former director of archives at the London office of Magnum Photos, and lecturer in Photojournalism and Documentary Photography at the London College of Communication, comments: “A society without street photography is a society that ceases to look at itself. The visual database we all carry in our memories is, in part, made up of photographs of ‘life’ by generations of photographers from the very first day of its birth onwards.”

The organisers add: “’So Shoot Me’ aim to illustrate that street photography is an important document of the world in which we live, and not a crime.”

The event will take place at locations including Trafalgar Square, Leicester Square and Hoxton Square in London. It will also run at The Book Club, 100 Leonard Street, near Old Street station. For more information, visit www.iheartstreetphoto.co.uk.

In celebration of street photography, BJP has also launched the Shoot The Street competition, which calls on photographers to submit a street photo project of up to 30 images. The winner will see its images exhibited at the Format photography festival in March 2011. For more details, visit bjp-online.com/street.
 
http://www.not-a-crime.com/

Increasing concerns about terrorism, paedophilia, health and safety, personal privacy and plain old paranoia about pretty much anything Her Majesty’s subjects get up to has resulted in a deep mistrust of photographers.

Police routinely invoke anti-terror legislation to prevent photographers from carrying out their work, and photojournalists are constantly filmed at public gatherings and their details kept on an ever-growing database. Tourists, particularly foreign tourists, are also targeted by police, as was the case with an Austrian father and son recently who made the mistake of photographing a building of an extremely sensitive nature—Walthamstow bus station.
Put simply, Britain has become a no-photo zone, and so if you fail to comply, you may find yourself liable to attack, arrest or harassment. Recognising that Britain is not the only country where such a draconian anti-photographer culture is developing, the British Journal of Photography is beginning an international visual campaign to raise awareness.

Over the next year we hope to gather thousands of self-portraits of
photographers-professional and amateur—from around the world,
each holding up a white card with the words, ‘Not a crime’ or ‘I am not a terrorist’.
 
OK, so as you can guess I've been doing some reading. Seems we're not the only ones to think this is getting silly!

“My daughter is a keen rugby player—she is only 13 and her mother hopes that she will learn to do something a bit more sensible, but she is my daughter so, unfortunately, the chances of her growing up to do something sensible are limited. I feel that I cannot even take a camera to a game of girls’ or boys’ rugby without being looked at in a strange way. At best, I might end up in a diary column; at worst, I might end up appearing in front of the local magistrate having to explain why I was taking a photograph of young children. The situation is getting to the point of hysteria.”

So commented the Conservative MP for Uxbridge, John Randall, in April this year during the photography debate in the House of Commons. True, MPs were debating the introduction of section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, however Shahid Malik, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of state for the Home Department replied:

“There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.”

It is a shame that no-one at ground level seems to have taken much notice.
 
not wrong just weird, but that opinion holds for taking pictures of adults that youdon't know too.

Byker28i said:
Really?

I've posted this picture before, I've no idea who the kids are but they were running through the fountains at the local shopping centre, about 5 years ago


You think this is wrong?
Click to expand...
 
POAH said:
what restrictions?
Click to expand...

Which do you fancy?

Section 44 of the terrorism act 2000, which has been deemed illegal in european court and despite notification to officers is still being used inappropriately?

Or the digital rights bill?

Or even the removal of your right to take photos in public places without being/feeling threatened?
 
section 44 is not a restriction and like you said has been deemed illegal.

digital rights bill is not really going to affect people is it

and the lose of a right to photograph stangers in public is not going to stop you taking snap shots in the city centre is it. While I do agree it serves no point its not going to prevent photography in public places.






Byker28i said:
Which do you fancy?

Section 44 of the terrorism act 2000, which has been deemed illegal in european court and despite notification to officers is still being used inappropriately?

Or the digital rights bill?

Or even the removal of your right to take photos in public places without being/feeling threatened?
Click to expand...
 
gingerjon said:
You've never taken a picture outdoors that had in the background some people whose permission you hadn't asked?
Click to expand...


thats not what the bill is going to stop though is it. Its not designed to stop people recording their holiday etc
 
POAH said:
section 44 is not a restriction and like you said has been deemed illegal.
Click to expand...

...in the european courts but the UK have no plans to amend or change this law. So you can be charged under a law that's deemed illegal but face the possibility of having to fight a long battle through the courts to be found innocent?

and as to that photo...
POAH said:
not wrong just weird, but that opinion holds for taking pictures of adults that youdon't know too.
Click to expand...

Seriously, why? Would you care to expand more as I don't think there's anything wrong with this sort of photography and would be interested in your views.
As an example, I don't know any of these people, but my peers on here thought this good enough to win photo of the month in the urban category
96806002.jpg


I've got others of homeless people/down and outs for a project I did.
 
section 44 does not stop you taking photos and the problems have been with the police misusing the law.

I just think taking pictures of strangers for no reason is a bit weird nothing wrong with that opinion. I can understand if it is for editoral purposes but apart from that its just voyourism no better than looking at picture of celebs etc

Byker28i said:
...in the european courts but the UK have no plans to amend or change this law. So you can be charged under a law that's deemed illegal but face the possibility of having to fight a long battle through the courts to be found innocent?

and as to that photo...


Seriously, why? Would you care to expand more as I don't think there's anything wrong with this sort of photography and would be interested in your views.
As an example, I don't know any of these people, but my peers on here thought this good enough to win photo of the month in the urban category
96806002.jpg


I've got others of homeless people/down and outs for a project I did.
Click to expand...
 
Good god, it's like a car-crash...you see it, you have to stop and have a look. There this thread was on page 1 of TP and I thought...yeah, I'll slow down and take a peek.

Rubbernecking at its best.
 
gingerjon said:
You are correct.

Aside from it being wrong there is nothing wrong with that opinion.
Click to expand...

explain how my opinion can be wrong - I'm not saying water is not wet, I am not making comment which is physically impossible. Just because my view on a certain type of photography differs from someone else does not make it any less valid.
 
POAH said:
Just because my view on a certain type of photography differs from someone else does not make it any less valid.
Click to expand...

Actually some opinions are less valid than others.

One which damns anybody who has ever taken a photo of someone they don't know as 'a bit weird' is quite low down the list of opinions to be taken seriously.

I say this as a parent.

EDIT - I've removed some childish namecalling bits. I promise to play nice from now on.
 
Can we stop the childish bickering and get this thread back on topic please, or it will be closed once and for all.
 
There's a suspicious bit of me wondering where the OP has gone.

Two posts, one saying hello, then thisthread and not been on since. Subject matter which is guaranteed to get people in conflict with each other and, for me, not the sort of thing I'd be shouting about as a newcomer to a forum. Strange.
 
POAH said:
I just think taking pictures of strangers for no reason is a bit weird
Click to expand...

Sounds fair enough to me. I would wager that everyone in this thread, and most likely everyone in the World that has ever taken a photo of a stranger has had a reason for doing so.

Do you have any particular examples of these weird people taking a photo of a stranger (or, indeed, anything at all) without a reason for doing so?

EDIT: Sorry Grendel. I started typing before you posted. ;)
 
I've cleaned some silly name calling posts from the thread
 
Byker28i said:
...in the european courts but the UK have no plans to amend or change this law. So you can be charged under a law that's deemed illegal but face the possibility of having to fight a long battle through the courts to be found innocent?

and as to that photo...


Seriously, why? Would you care to expand more as I don't think there's anything wrong with this sort of photography and would be interested in your views.
As an example, I don't know any of these people, but my peers on here thought this good enough to win photo of the month in the urban category
96806002.jpg


I've got others of homeless people/down and outs for a project I did.
Click to expand...


Any links to these other photos as I like this one.
 
You may not be effected by the limitation or restriction of street photography, but others most undoubtedly willl be. What of those doing photography courses where they must go onto the street for their assignments?

Attitudes which restrict our rights to take pictures in a public place must be challenged, or we will all find ourselves worse off.
 
POAH said:
I can understand if it is for editoral purposes but apart from that its just voyourism no better than looking at picture of celebs etc
Click to expand...
Reductio ad absurdum and you, as the self-proclaimed voyeur that you now are, will not be taking pictures of anything.
 
As soon as I have to google to check the meaning of something it tells me it's pretty much time to close it :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top