photographer's rights

[Surrey_gareth]

we know a lot grooming go on with children,on the intenet if you saw someone using an laptop in the street or a moblie, i-pad would you stop them and ask what they are doing ?

Unbelievable!

Just to go along with your outrageous comparison, you could be stopped and asked what your doing what ever, when ever! It's called a stop and account, it's part of the job of policing. You don't even have to talk to them! Even under arrest you don't have to say a word... But, people with chips on their shoulder about human rights or anything else display behaviour... This behaviour or attitude can be seen as the same as someone who has a reason for not wanting to be in contact with the police, Usually because they are well known criminals!

P.s. how do you know people in the street are not up to something bad??? It's not your job to judge!

 

[jamesb84]

Photographers may have certain rights but so do the people having cameras pointed at them - and supplying the gutter press with images is no excuse for appalling behavior by some.

A ban on publishing photographs of people without consent may be the only way forward on this as the industry is obviously unable to regulate itself.

Kill the industry... would I have to ask all 22 players, 30,000 fans, managers, referee etc. for consent before I photograph them on a Saturday afternoon?

What about the MP who's been doing something silly, but wants it suppressed so he can keep his job...that's the public interest in action.

Utterly ridiculous. Simply put, if people object to the "gutter press" and their methods, then stop buying it. "Pap's" and their agencies will cease to exist if there's not a market for it.

 

[simonblue]

(Kate and Gerry McCann demanded a ban on publishing photographs of people taken without their consent” and “that repeat offenders in the press be thrown out of journalism” – yesterday’s Leveson inquiry.)

This was the couple who left 3 childrens,alone in an apartment,to go of for a drink,what about their responsibilities,to their own children :shrug:

 

[simonblue]

Unbelievable!

Just to go along with your outrageous comparison, you could be stopped and asked what your doing what ever, when ever! It's called a stop and account, it's part of the job of policing. You don't even have to talk to them! Even under arrest you don't have to say a word... But, people with chips on their shoulder about human rights or anything else display behaviour... This behaviour or attitude can be seen as the same as someone who has a reason for not wanting to be in contact with the police, Usually because they are well known criminals!

P.s. how do you know people in the street are not up to something bad??? It's not your job to judge!

I surgest,for your weekend viewing you watch the BBC.
Nazis a warning from History.
:shake:

 

[snaphappycat]

Simon
In the case of the first photographer, he could have been anyone else, but he wasn't. He was a photographer, and it is therefore relevent, if only to show that just because someone has a camera, it does not mean they are as innocent of any and every wrong doing.

Given that should be blatantly obvious, what unfortunately isn't always, is what a photographers motives are. Until Police Officers are recruited for having ESP, or Minority Reports becomes non fiction, photographers will continue to get stopped and asked what they are doing. As a former Policeman, I could always find a reason to conduct a stop on pretty much anyone, all perfectly legally.

In about 60% of cases those encounters went with no problem, in the others, when photog got on his high horse, then it ended badly, for them.

As a photographer, I have been stopped, sometimes with very good reason and asked what I am doing. I have been visited at home by the local Special Branch too, and guess what ALL of those encounters have ended with no problem. Not because I quoted legislation at them, but because I just answered the questions, let them search me, so what, whats the issue? When I put myself in their position, actually, I can see the point, and I accept thats an advantage I have over you, I've seen it from both ends.

Lastly, the PDF is out of date, and wasn't very accurate in the first place. I don't care who wrote it, it was full of errors.

The best, and in reality only advice people need, is to be polite, co operate, and 9999 out of 10000 time you will be on your way carrying on what you were doing within minutes. Being belligerent or waving inaccurate bits of paper, or claiming you have rights isn't going to help anyone. Yes, occasionally, and in relation to the number of people who take photos every day those occasions are very few and far between, Police Officers will get it wrong. Yep, shouldn't happen, but they are human, they carry round a huge amount of information, and photographers are not the only people that sometimes get the wrong end of it. Nut hey, until someone comes up with an infallible human being thats going to continue as well. After all, you make mistakes, as my last paragraph points out, if its ok for you to get it wrong why isn't it for them? More so given that in reality this is such an unimportant aspect of policing.

Lastly, the Met Police didn't issue any such edict. The put out an advertising campaign, that asked people to think about what they saw, people photographing unusual things, people paying for vans or commercial vehicles with cash, both of which can be perfectly innocent, but both can be the opposite. If you would rather people didn't report matters to Police, just because of a 'right' you think you have, then thats your problem, I'd rather they did, because I've picked up bits of bodies when people didn't.

Great Post! very interesting, other posts/replies are very good too, I'm glad I came across this discussion, best I've read on TP.

 

[Bernie174]

Simon

Would I stop someone on a laptop in the street? Depends on what they are doing, in what circumstances and a lot of other things. But thats in general not a crime you prevent or detect by stop and questioning
More sensible questions would be:
Would I stop person who's driving a car? Depends on what he's doing, the circumstances and a lot of other things. But the driver has a right to be driving, probably.
Would I stop a man carrying a box down a residential street at midnight? Probably, but he's got a perfect right to be doing so.
Would I stop a man carrying a man running away from a street where there's just been a burglary? Possibly, but he's got every right to be doing so.
I could go on all night, the more sensible will have already grasped that stopping and asking someone to account isn't a way of preventing someone from exercising their rights, its a way of preventing crime.
I don't doubt you'd scream blue murder, if you having been mugged, a Police officer ignored a likely candidate for doing it, just because they had a right to be near by.
As I said, in the vast majority of cases, act like a reasonable human being and thats the way you will get treated back. I find it odd, that all of us who've been stopped and acted reasonably, have never had a problem with it, it makes one come to an inescapable conclusion.

 

[simonblue]

Its your inescapable conclusion,that anybody who had a bad time with the police is lying,because its never happen to you.

That the police are alway right,and have never done anything wrong,i have come across some very good policemen & women,i have also come in to contact with some bad ones.

 

[Marc]

Its your inescapable conclusion,that anybody who had a bad time with the police is lying,because its never happen to you.

That the police are alway right,and have never done anything wrong,i have come across some very good policemen & women,i have also come in to contact with some bad ones.

He never said any of that Simon, stop twisting things.

 

[Splog]

He never said any of that Simon, stop twisting things.

Indeed!.... But we can only discuss things based on the information provided and to say that the info is 'one sided' although true doesn't really change much, otherwise we would all have to wait until the investigation was completed before we could argue over the detail :shrug: Nothing wrong with discussing the story as presented IMHO of course.

 

[simonblue]

He never said any of that Simon, stop twisting things.

(I find it odd, that all of us who've been stopped and acted reasonably, have never had a problem with it, it makes one come to an inescapable conclusion.)

I think by saying above,he has made out that some of us must be lying

 

[Marc]

(I find it odd, that all of us who've been stopped and acted reasonably, have never had a problem with it, it makes one come to an inescapable conclusion.)

I think by saying above,he has made out that some of us must be lying

Not quite the way you put it above though is it?

 

[simonblue]

Not quite the way you put it above though is it?

It was Bernie174,who said (inescapable conclusion)

When it happen to me,their gave me a very bad time,i did everything they asked, my name & address,as i was taking my camera out of my bag to show them my photos,it was grab of me, surrounded by 3 policemen & one SG.

It was a policeman who advised me to make an compliant,afterward i was visited by a seinor police officer,who addmitted thing were handle badly,that in the furture things would be handle a lot better,and the officer had,had a talking to,also it was outside a shop,and the manger rang me up to say,this is not how they expect their SG staff to act,and that he would be having a disapline action taken.

I just get a bit fed up,of everytime theses stories come up,that we must have done something wrong,because it has never happen to them.

 

[Dave *]

Would I stop a man carrying a man running away from a street where there's just been a burglary?

that's one job I never saw, I've heard of a man stealer, but never a man stolen in a burglary

 

[Bernie174]

Dave...Well, is a man not entitled in law to carry another? Well spotted, but the point I meant remains valid.

Simon, yes, some people do lie, if you deny that, then there's no point in you discussing anything. Thats the real world. What I implied is that some of the encounters that ended badly as far as the photographers are concerned are not going to be truthful. The shopping center incident being a prime example.

You give your version of one stop, you may be being completely honest, I don't know, I wasn't there, but you don't do your creditability any good by misquoting and trying to make what I said into something else. You see, if you've been shown to be unreliable in one aspect, why should anything else you say be relied upon?

The difference between you and I is that I fully accept Police sometimes get it wrong. Given that they are human, thats no surprise, and given the number of encounters with he public the level of error is very very very low.

Solicitors also get it wrong, your PDF shows that quite clearly. Doctors get it wrong, in fact every walk of life does, strangely including photographers, and even you.

Either way, you are obviously determined to see things in one narrow way, and to completely dismiss anything that contradicts it. While most photographers are doing nothing wrong, some are, and thats a fact of life. Just like some drivers are, and some men carrying boxes (or other men!) down a residential road at Midnight. Given that is another unfortunate fact of life, how do you suggest Police detect or prevent crime without stopping and asking to account? Or would you rather they didn't?

 

[simonblue]

Dave...Well, is a man not entitled in law to carry another? Well spotted, but the point I meant remains valid.

Simon, yes, some people do lie, if you deny that, then there's no point in you discussing anything. Thats the real world. What I implied is that some of the encounters that ended badly as far as the photographers are concerned are not going to be truthful. The shopping center incident being a prime example.

You give your version of one stop, you may be being completely honest, I don't know, I wasn't there, but you don't do your creditability any good by misquoting and trying to make what I said into something else. You see, if you've been shown to be unreliable in one aspect, why should anything else you say be relied upon?

The difference between you and I is that I fully accept Police sometimes get it wrong. Given that they are human, thats no surprise, and given the number of encounters with he public the level of error is very very very low.

Solicitors also get it wrong, your PDF shows that quite clearly. Doctors get it wrong, in fact every walk of life does, strangely including photographers, and even you.

Either way, you are obviously determined to see things in one narrow way, and to completely dismiss anything that contradicts it. While most photographers are doing nothing wrong, some are, and thats a fact of life. Just like some drivers are, and some men carrying boxes (or other men!) down a residential road at Midnight. Given that is another unfortunate fact of life, how do you suggest Police detect or prevent crime without stopping and asking to account? Or would you rather they didn't?

Yes people do lie,photography has been my life, passion,not just my work,or hobby,so i can get very hot header,over photographer rights,sometimes its the one thing that get me up every day,is knowing i can go out and take photos.

I would say i have tried to live an hosent life,i never been in trouble with the law,wheather you belive or not,is up to you its not a problem to me,and i do respect the law,but as i have said no one is above it or below it.

 

[rhody]

Kill the industry... would I have to ask all 22 players, 30,000 fans, managers, referee etc. for consent before I photograph them on a Saturday afternoon?

What about the MP who's been doing something silly, but wants it suppressed so he can keep his job...that's the public interest in action.

Utterly ridiculous. Simply put, if people object to the "gutter press" and their methods, then stop buying it. "Pap's" and their agencies will cease to exist if there's not a market for it.

I don't believe it is utterly ridiculous. If you want to make money out of taking someone's picture you should have their consent - especially if it shows them in a bad light.

The gutter press paps and journos will still take photos and sell them abroad - the control needs to be with the subject.

Everyone has a right to privacy - celebs or otherwise - no-one should be hounded and have cameras pointed at them 24/7 even if they are in a public place - that is appalling behaviour.

 

[simonblue]

I don't believe it is utterly ridiculous. If you want to make money out of taking someone's picture you should have their consent - especially if it shows them in a bad light.

The gutter press paps and journos will still take photos and sell them abroad - the control needs to be with the subject.

Everyone has a right to privacy - celebs or otherwise - no-one should be hounded and have cameras pointed at them 24/7 even if they are in a public place - that is appalling behaviour.

I think your right,but its just to easy to blame the gutter press,they would not make a living if people stop buying the stuff,the papers & mags,why are we so obsess with so called celebs life :shake:,and dont some of them thive on it to,when it suit them.

I wonder what would happen if we just said to the celebs world,their are more importent things going on in the world,we just dont want no more photos or stories about you were,fed up with it all :shake:

And yes the gutter press does need more control,but let not throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[rhody]

And yes the gutter press does need more control,but let not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Totally agree.

I'm all for a free press - but one that adheres to professional standards and ethics and acts responsibly.

The statements being made public concerning how the media have behaved in the Leveson inquiry are simply horrendous to think about.

The tabloid that knowingly and deliberately doctored the Sienna Miller photograph (full transcript now public) and then published it saying she was drunk when in fact she was pulling a face and playing with a seriously ill child, scrapes new lows of any form of decency and highlights how morally bankrupt these people are.

The editor, journo and photographer that colluded on that story to distort the truth and print lies should be thrown out of the industry. Miss Miller won her action and the paper did print an apology - but only after the damage was done.

What scum would deliberately do that to another human being?

 

[jamesb84]

I think your right,but its just to easy to blame the gutter press,they would not make a living if people stop buying the stuff,the papers & mags,why are we so obsess with so called celebs life :shake:,and dont some of them thive on it to,when it suit them.

I wonder what would happen if we just said to the celebs world,their are more importent things going on in the world,we just dont want no more photos or stories about you were,fed up with it all :shake:

And yes the gutter press does need more control,but let not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Exactly, if there was no interest then the paps would not exist.

We all know that at least half the time it's the celebs publicist that rings the paps to let them know where they are (all publicity is good publicity). Of course, it's only when it shows them in a good light...the slightest hint of negativity and they're up in front of the leveson inquiry.

I agree that the McCanns have been hard done by, but again they have courted an awful lot of publicity when it suits them.

The only solution to this is to stop buying these magazines and tabloids. If people simply ignored it, then it goes away. I'm all for it, the less gossip crap that fills the paper, the more sport gets in...win-win if you ask me.

 

[simonblue]

Totally agree.

I'm all for a free press - but one that adheres to professional standards and ethics and acts responsibly.

The statements being made public concerning how the media have behaved in the Leveson inquiry are simply horrendous to think about.

The tabloid that knowingly and deliberately doctored the Sienna Miller photograph (full transcript now public) and then published it saying she was drunk when in fact she was pulling a face and playing with a seriously ill child, scrapes new lows of any form of decency and highlights how morally bankrupt these people are.

The editor, journo and photographer that colluded on that story to distort the truth and print lies should be thrown out of the industry. Miss Miller won her action and the paper did print an apology - but only after the damage was done.

What scum would deliberately do that to another human being?

What happen to Sienna Miller was wrong,but let us not fall into the same old trap,where the the clebs get all the publicity,which will no dout help some of then in their flagging careers.
And not forget the outrage that brought on the Leveson inquiry on the Miller Dowler Story.

 

[Bernie174]

The Press is another subject I think, and not directly connected with Photographers rights per sae.
While it is obvious to most that 90% of what the papers print is utter tosh, there is still interest in what they print, so we have the press we demand and perhaps deserve. Notwithstanding that, I've seen some of the tricks they get up too, and a lot could be outlawed without impinging on rights. For example making the press only print whats capable of proof, enforced by very large fines for those that breach that.

As regards to freedom to take someones photo, which we currently have with or without consent, its already being eroded by default. Watch any of the Police Stop, Police interceptors type program now, and peoples faces are blurred out in more and more of them.
The current Inquiry into the press is I think going to lead to restrictions on who not so much what you can photograph in public, but in the main, the blame for that is going to have to be layed where its deserved, the press.

 

[simonblue]

Once again let us not forget,the main reason Leveson inquiry,is more to do with phone hacking,than photography, as those it has been brought to light,restriction on what the press can photo and not,is going to be very hard to uphold.
In a democracy, freedom of the press is very important.

For me the best way to handle this,is for all of us to stop buying this rubbish,I don't,without sales then their would be no living to make.

And why as a society are we so obsessed with clebs, it drive me ,and whether it a habit we can break.

Let have quick look at who this Market aimed at,does anybody on here really give a rats ass,what Hugh Grant new baby looks like,not me,so who is the Market,sorry to say but it's mainly Women,not all Women,but it is the biggest Market for this type of mag/news.
For some reason we become so obsessed,with how we look,what our children look like,what everybody has got, and the need for anybody who we think of as a clebs,fall and been seen in a bad light.