Peace and Good Will to all men (but not photographers)

Gazamonk

Gazamonk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,818
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
No
Well its that time of year again when all of us paedophiles and terrorists will be out in force with our covert/hidden and inconspicuous DSLRs. The latest one from this weeks AP site and another ill informed/trained or just downright idiot local authority employee thinks he's saving the free world from evil. It really should just make you laugh but it is just so infuriating that having a DSLR singles you out from anyone else.

LINK: http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/539317/santa-bans-photography-at-christmas-lights-event

Official statement reads (extract)

‘The council has a duty of care during events to members of the public, and has the right to question all photographers.

‘We ask all those wishing to film or take photos to complete a media request in advance and ensure that all appropriate consents/permissions are secured during photography sessions.

‘As a result of this, should any photographer wish to attend any future council-run events to take photographs, we recommend that they contact the Corporate Communications department prior to the event in order for us to support any requests and advise accordingly.'

A council spokesperson said the same rules apply to members of the public using camera phones.

and

"The other market stalls were also staffed by council members"

The rule would appear to NOT apply to council employees/members then (see the last photo of one of Santa's Helpers snapping away with her compact) and random bloke on the left with his camera phone. Mmm? No SLR? No problem.

Rant over and relax.........aah :D
 
Last edited:
Gazamonk said:
"The other market stalls were also staffed by council members"

The rule would appear to NOT apply to council employees/members then (see the last photo of one of Santa's Helpers snapping away with her compact) and random bloke on the left with his camera phone. Mmm? No SLR? No problem.
Click to expand...
To be fair - it can be assumed that as the organising party, council staff were allocated "automatic" "permits" to photograph... and anyone else could be assumed to have already got a pass.

However.

This is interesting:

from AP link said:
Some people don't like being photographed do they?' said an insider.
Click to expand...
I wonder how they deal with CCTV then, if the council is using that as an argument against photography in public?
 
A council spokesperson said the same rules apply to members of the public using camera phones.
Click to expand...
"Hello? Corporate Communications? I was thinking of coming down to the Christmas event this weekend, and would like to take the odd snap of my daughter in front of the reindeers with my phone. Can I have permission, please?"

I'm guessing there'll be guards checking everyone coming in with phones for media permits, and they'll be dragged off and forced to work in the mines if they don't have them.
 
Had to laugh that this is Merthyr Tydfil council .... seem to recall that town came bottom for all of Wales in the recent happiness index.
 
ok so you guys know where this is going dont you they will end up trying to pass some sort of law every person wanting to take photos in a city center will need a permit to do so and you will need to get consent off any 1 in your photo,now 1 am going to say how the hell can you do that if the place is mega full ,say at a public event if some 1 steps in to your frame at the time of the photo then gets lost in the crowd seconds later?there also going to demand you have public liability insurance ,this to me may well kill the hobby of photography as we know it
 
Last edited:
HMansfield said:
"Hello? Corporate Communications? I was thinking of coming down to the Christmas event this weekend, and would like to take the odd snap of my daughter in front of the reindeers with my phone. Can I have permission, please?"

I'm guessing there'll be guards checking everyone coming in with phones for media permits, and they'll be dragged off and forced to work in the mines if they don't have them.
Click to expand...

That was the bit that made me incredulous. How could they possibly enforce that. The lunatics have really taken over the asylum. :lol:
 
Or every photographer in the UK writes in for a permit, then phones them two days later asking where it is. That should keep their stupid brains occupied.
 
Jayst84 said:
They'll soon change their mind if they have to field 800 phone calls asking permission to bring a camera-phone every time they put a show on.
EDIT, Ken's quicker than me.
Click to expand...

No they wont, as they wont be the ones fielding the phone calls....if they were, then i would agree with ur statement
 
I haven't read the article, so apologies if I'm way out here.

If I'm in a public place the law states I can take photographs, doesn't it?

If some jobsworth tells me I can't then I could ask for their name, and the name of their manager, with a view to informing their manager of their harassment of a member of the public going about their lawful business, couldn't I?

Or just tell them to call the police.

Now, in a real life situation I would try to judge the mood and prefer to avoid confrontation but, if it's a public place, I don't need permission off anybody whoever they think they are, do I?
 
yes and no if its fenced off it is prob contracted to the event manager for that set amount of time and if that is the case then under the law they can stipulate who can and cant take photos in that fenced off zone but i may be wrong
 
It almost seems that they are saying they are exempt from the law, I.e. you can take photos in a public place unless it's at an event we have organised "zen you vill follow ze orders or you vill be shot Schweinhund". :lol:
 
simon ess said:
If I'm in a public place the law states I can take photographs, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

As I understand things it is a case that the law doesn't prohibit photography in a public place (rather than explicitly stating it as a right), so unless there is some other law prohibiting photography which comes into force due to specific circumstances then it's OK.

Where things get 'murky' is when you are attending an event on public land - where entry to the event can have conditions attached which can include things like photography only with permit. The problem is that such conditions are often hidden in small print, or are ambiguous (EG: No 'professional cameras').
 
Just spoke with the 'Corporate Communications department'

A slightly mixed and confused message.

Was first told that it would be best if i contacted the council beforehand as they have a 'duty of care' during an event. But was then told i absolutely didnt need to contact them beforehand, but if i did we could 'work together'.

Also told it would be a matter of courteys to let them know beforehand.

But was then told i absolutely didnt need to contact them beforehand, but if i did we could 'work together', share pictures with a credit.

I asked if a message could be sent out to council event workers informing them that there isnt a law banning photography in public, or requiring permission from the council or any people in the picture. She said she would get back to me...
 
Pretty much as expected really, most officials who challenge photographers are not acting on firm rulings nor do they have any clue about any such rulings or the law, they are under the misapprehension (probably based on years of listening/reading media exaggeration and hype) that they are performing a civic duty and it makes them feel big and clever. Nothing more nothing less and any attempts by anyone to rationalise or make any excuses for it will be given no ear by me. Jobsworths, nothing more.
 
Nothing more nothing less and any attempts by anyone to rationalise or make any excuses for it will be given no ear by me. Jobsworths, nothing more.
Click to expand...

That does put you at the same level as those you accuse.

I would agree they probably don't know anything about the law, but then as there is no law on the subject thats not exactly surprising.

Under a misapprehension? Yes, very likely, but thats where we will have to disagree, most of the 'jobsworths' are doing it more from a mistaken sense of right and wrong, not from malice. Dealing with them with the attitude in the quote from above helps no one, even if you are 100% sure that the circumstances are as they appear from the article. However these things have a habit of not being quite as clear cut, AP have for a very long time had an axe to grind on the subject, and to my certain knowledge have 'mistakenly reported' at least one incident.

The answer to this is politeness all round and trying to get the 'official' side re educated, not by slagging them off based on half the story.
 
I have been at the rough end of this several times in situations where I am surrounded by other people with Point and Shoot cameras clicking away with impunity (no mis reported half stories in these cases). I disagree that it puts me at the same level as those I accuse. I am being wrongly harassed and persecuted for nothing more that owning a particular type of camera. I am always polite and try to explain that I am not doing anything wrong in a public place. The rudeness and impoliteness comes IN my direction not FROM it. I disagree that education of officials will make any difference because the majority of officials implement common sense and need no further education. The people we are talking about here (and if you have ever been on the receiving end you would know that logic, common sense and rational argument means nothing) would not benefit from knowing the correct rulings because over officious people are just that. Its amazing how sometimes a Hi-Vis vest can empower idiots.

BTW my quote about "given no ear by me" wasn't in relation to how I dealt with these people at the time of the incidents, I was referring to anyone defending them in the forum. So I am already contradicting my own statement by giving your defence of them a reply (or ear if you will) , lol. ;):lol:
 
The council have got back to me. They have a 'duty of care' to protected children under their care that are present at the events. Their worry is that pictures taken at the event, and possibly posted online, may end up being used to identify children under protection and their location.

Have to say the lady was very nice and we had an interesting 10 minute conversation regarding these issues. So what is the correct way forward on situations like this? I can understand she has a legitimate concern.
 
Rapscallion said:
So what is the correct way forward on situations like this?
Click to expand...

The correct way forward is to adapt to the fact that technology is everywhere and the real-world model we all lived in during the past 200k years has now changed. So the authorities need to adjust to it.

the probability of a child being identified online is minuscule and on a risk/benefit analysis no one would prohibit photography from any public space. If they really want to protect children they should collaborate closely with online hosting sites/social networks. Face recognition algorithms are extremely efficient so they could put those in use.
 
I'm sure she was very nice, most people are and she may well have a legitimate concern but it wasn't enough of a concern that they bother people with P&S cameras or camera phones. It just always seems to be very arbitrary as to who gets the blunt end of this and it is almost always without exception is a lone MALE with a DSLR, not a male/female with a P&S or camera phone and I have never heard of an incident involving a WOMAN with a DSLR.

Please be assured I am not against the restriction or even banning of photography at specific occasions and/or events and to assume that I am belligerent or aggressively slagging off individuals is unrepresentative of how I feel. However if these conditions are to be implemented (and if the nice lady is correct, then legitimately so) by whatever official body then they have to be clearly stated and must apply to ALL. Regardless of sex/age/camera. Unreasonable ? I think not.

If we were being stopped from taking photos because of our religious beliefs, political stance, skin colour, ethnic background or race/nationality there would be a public outcry like no other. As it is we are a minority that no one gives a damn about so who gives a **** ? Well WE should and I applaud publications like AP for bringing it to the attention of more people.
 
 
The council stating that they have a duty of care for protected children is correct, however such children are likely to being included in any photograph taken wherever they may go. So are they prevented from going to the seaside in case some other holidaymaker may capture them in the background of their shot. I think not, common sense needs to be applied here.
 
With respect to incidents involving women - I was happily photographing birds at a local pond when a woman with a child whom I haven't even noticed came over and started giving me a mouthful of abuse for photographing her child without permission - I had my 100-400 pointing strictly at the birds on the pond and no-where near her child whatsoever. I explained, calmly and politely, that I have no interest whatsoever in photographing people, but even if I had been photographing her and her child it would have been legal in a public place. She explained that she works for a newspaper and they NEVER take photos of people without permission! At this point I was rendered speechless and she stormed off in a huff!
 
MadWoman said:
She explained that she works for a newspaper and they NEVER take photos of people without permission! At this point I was rendered speechless and she stormed off in a huff!
Click to expand...

First - you should have asked which paper. Then contacted them to ask why their representatives are telling the public "whatever she said....."

Second - ask her why they didn't ask for your permission last time you were at the local football game and you appeared in the sport section, happily minding your own business watching the game :lol:
 
MadWoman said:
With respect to incidents involving women - I was happily photographing birds at a local pond when a woman with a child whom I haven't even noticed came over and started giving me a mouthful of abuse for photographing her child without permission - I had my 100-400 pointing strictly at the birds on the pond and no-where near her child whatsoever. I explained, calmly and politely, that I have no interest whatsoever in photographing people, but even if I had been photographing her and her child it would have been legal in a public place. She explained that she works for a newspaper and they NEVER take photos of people without permission! At this point I was rendered speechless and she stormed off in a huff!
Click to expand...

Like you, I am speechless. She is another pathetic victim of the media hype that boils up occasionally and thinks she has the moral right to be accuser, judge and jury. :shrug:
 
Outlore, yes I should have, but I was too busy being speechless!
 
Yeah, because all those people outside courts, and in the Tottenham riots, and wading through the flooded streets were all asked for permission before their photo's were taken.

If I were the jaded cynical type, I would have thought that someone who marches up and says "I work for a newspaper and I know you're not allowed to take photo's of ducks without asking for their permission and checking that they're over 18" or any such piffle doesn't actually work for a newspaper.

Do ducks even live for 18 years?
 
MadWoman said:
... She explained that she works for a newspaper and they NEVER take photos of people without permission!...
Click to expand...

She was lying through her teeth. No newspaper in the whole of history has ever had such a policy.
 
Last edited:
Gazamonk

Yes, I've been asked what I am taking pictures for a number of times, mostly by the Police and a few times by other people.
One of who told me there was a law against it. Ok, we all know he was wrong, so I laughed at him and suggested he call the police. If he did, then they obviously laughed at him too.
The other time, was testing a new lens, I pointed the camera at a road, and took some pictures of someone's car tyre as it went past. Ok, he was tanking it a lot, and well, over 30, which is probably why he stood on the anchors and came back to the back end of the car park I was in, and started having a go. Granted he probably thought I was somehow going to report him to the Old Bill, which he deserved as he was driving like a T word.But after letting him have his rant, I simply explained, and he left with the wind having gone from his sails.
But I've also been on the opposite side of the coin, and been the asker, albeit as a Police Officer. I've spoken to as many people with P&S as with DSLR/SLR's.
There's a big misconception with some photographers, well, actually there are a number of big misconceptions. firstly everyone who owns a camera is innocent, they aren't. I have one caused one conviction that shows that to be wrong, and I know of a lot of others. Secondly, and this is the important one, is that you know what you are doing and why. Therefore to you it's perfectly innocent (well we will presume it is). But from the other side of the coin, it doesn't always appear that way to others.
Now, you will say you have a right to take photos, you don't though, as such. There just isn't anything in general terms to prevent you from doing so. On the other side of the coin, everyone else has as much right to ask you what you're doing and why. Yes, you can tell most people that ask to go and do one, but that only reinforces (I agree often wrong) suspicion.
I accept you have the hump over it, and you believe you have a right, but then other people have a point of view, rightly or wrongly too. I find accepting that makes it all much easier, it doesn't stop me taking pictures, and I certainly have never felt my freedom to do so has been compromised. But what it does do is stop me worrying about it.
 
Firstly I don't have the hump over it any more than most others in the thread and I have already stated that I am always reasonable when confronted and that the unreasonable aggressive behaviour is aimed at me the photographer not the other way around. I also disagree with " I believe I have a right" as though I were doing something wrong in the personal mistaken belief that I was right. On the contrary, I know I am not doing anything wrong. I also respect other people's points of view, however the people we are talking about here are not simply expressing a point of view or exercising there right to politely ask me what im doing they are trying to force me to do something I am legally allowed to do and using a mistaken sense of authority to enforce it. It's called bullying and it's unacceptable.

I am aware that the police should ,and thankfully are, diligent with regard to acts outside of the law and in particular terrorism and I applaud the fact you have caused a conviction which thwarted any such act. However lets not be naive here, you say a big misconception is that everyone who owns a camera is innocent! Where did that come from ? I don't recall anyone in the thread saying that. What we are saying is the polar opposite because these people are assuming that everyone with a camera IS guilty which is much much worse in a free society than the scenario you are describing.
Of course not everyone with a camera is innocent only 99.9% are, not everyone who drives a car is drunk and not everyone having a drink is going to cause trouble etc etc etc. personally I am glad I look at the world from this viewpoint and would hate to view it from the other direction you suggest.
I'm also not sure why, when most people in the thread are of the same opinion I have been singled out for special treatment from you or why you think my posts, to the exclusion of the others, are more inflammatory. Let me be clear, I do not have the hump about these people, they are a little irritating of course but ultimately i find them pathetic and amusing more than anything else.
 
Bernie174 said:
But I've also been on the opposite side of the coin, and been the asker, albeit as a Police Officer. I've spoken to as many people with P&S as with DSLR/SLR's.
Click to expand...
Good - that's the way it should be, providing you were either just being polite, or there was something "not quite right" (I'm sure I'd fit into that category, apparently I look shady :lol:)
I do think that a lot of the negativity was possibly caused by the way people were questioned - then the situation is made worse because people come to expect it, and "arm" themselves with rights - it's a vicious circle :D

Bernie174 said:
There's a big misconception with some photographers, well, actually there are a number of big misconceptions. firstly everyone who owns a camera is innocent, they aren't. I have one caused one conviction that shows that to be wrong, and I know of a lot of others. Secondly, and this is the important one, is that you know what you are doing and why. Therefore to you it's perfectly innocent (well we will presume it is). But from the other side of the coin, it doesn't always appear that way to others.
Click to expand...
Agreed, for the most part - but you have to admit (even as a LEO) that there did appear to be a problem with users of large cameras being singled out a while ago.
You could draw the same conclusion with anything. A woman walking down the road with a child in a pushchair, for example. I am sure that some of them are guilty of crimes - but does that mean that they should be quizzed over what they're doing, where they're going? Now, if they are standing in front of a jewelry store wearing a ski mask, with a brick in the tray underneath - yes, they should. Just the same as if someone (big camera or not) was taking pictures of something which could present a security risk should. :thumbs:


Bernie174 said:
Now, you will say you have a right to take photos, you don't though, as such. There just isn't anything in general terms to prevent you from doing so.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Last time I checked we didn't live in a dictatorship :lol: You're saying that anything we do is a privilege, not a right? Walking down the street? Sitting on a park bench? Photographers have the same rights as any member of the public. No more, no less.
 
The funny thing is, someone suspect - a p**** or someone scouting out any area for any reason - is much more likely to use a phone camera - not draw attention to themselves with a big dslr ... When will authorities get this? They should be questioning Missus Jones who's randomly snapping with her phone in the playground.
 
Cagey75 said:
The funny thing is, someone suspect - a p**** or someone scouting out any area for any reason - is much more likely to use a phone camera - not draw attention to themselves with a big dslr ... When will authorities get this? They should be questioning Missus Jones who's randomly snapping with her phone in the playground.
Click to expand...

This is a silly point that comes up too often. If I was "someone suspect" I could go out with a DSLR and then say, "oh come one, do you really think I would be taking photos with this big thing if I was up to no good?"

It takes away from the real point which is people being harassed for no good reason. Harassing people with camera phones instead would make things worse, not better.

Besides, I've been assaulted by police for taking photos with my camera phone, so they're already on that one. ;)
 
It's not silly at all IMHO. Which is why I posted it. Each to their own ideas eh. They wouldn't have anyone coming up to them if they used their phone ... see? It's like at gigs ... the guy trying to smuggle in a dslr gets pulled up, but you can fire away with a compact. And most compacts have much better zoom than your average dslr + zoom lens [you're not going to chance a 600mm lens are you? ] - Authorities. of any kind, see physically large equipment, as being more of a threat, automatically. Like it or not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top