Should people have the right not to be photographed

[Arkady]

this fellow was beginning to resent my prescence...

He doesn't have a choice in the matter - as a serving member of HM Armed Forces on Public Duties, he is there to be seen (and photographed).
...if he doesn't like it he can transfer out of the Household Division...lol

 

[POAH]

They have the right not to be pestered or disturbed. I'm not bothered about getting my photo taken but if I'm pestered then you'll be pestered back.

Hi everyone

The law is clear(ish). If it is a public place and we are not causing a breach of the peace or collecting information for an act of terror, then as photographers we are at liberty to photograph members of the public without asking their permission. My question is, is this right? Why should we be allowed (provided we are not trangressing all the possible illegal scenarios) to photograph someone if it is against their wish to be photographed? I am not stating an opinion here, merely posing the question.




God bless
Dave

 

[mrtoad]

He doesn't have a choice in the matter - as a serving member of HM Armed Forces on Public Duties, he is there to be seen (and photographed).
...if he doesn't like it he can transfer out of the Household Division...lol

too right...if you get close to these guys they get pretty gruff...
one photograph i tried to take with my 8 year old daughter standing next to one at the entrance to horse guards...i was about 6 feet away
was
MOVE ORF!!

 

[Arkady]

too right...if you get close to these guys they get pretty gruff...
one photograph i tried to take with my 8 year old daughter standing next to one at the entrance to horse guards...i was about 6 feet away
was
MOVE ORF!!

haha...report him to the Guard Commander - just inside and to the right in HG's...
The GC will be a full-Corporal (two stripes) and if he's out of his depth he'll call the BOS - Battalion Orderly Sergeant. If he can't deal with it (very unlikely as Sergeants run the Army as everyone knows) he'll call the BOO - Battalion Orderly Officer, who'll be a junior subaltern or Lieutenant.

Everyone in the Guards Div knows this is a Public Duty and they're just 'on-show' for the tourists - the real security is provided by the MGS (Military Guard Service - blue uniforms) inside the building.

 

[Voyager]

They have the right not to be pestered or disturbed.

Is there a law that supports that - specifically related to photography?

 

[littlemonster]

Is there a law that supports that - specifically related to photography?

I'd imagine it comes under the general "no harrassing people" stuff.

An ABSO on the grounds of photography related incidents? :shrug:



Like so many things I can't quite make my mind up on this - I don't like being photographed, and I'd not be pleased to find a picture of me online (well err, any more of me... it's 2010, it appears there's a time limit to how long things stay offline!) - that said banning it would seem mad to me too.

I'd go with the genera; "if they ask you to stop please do" - obviously not applying when they walk in front of the church you're taking a picture of!

 

[Voyager]

I'd imagine it comes under the general "no harrassing people" stuff.

What law specifically is the one that relates to pointing a lens at someone is considered harassment?

 

[mercmanuk]

It's not the fear of being photographed, i think it's the possibilities of what can be done with them WWW., and who could see them.


example teacher off with stress and back problems, photographed on a float for Manchester pride dancing away.??? unfortunate but was seen on the Internet by one of our other teachers.

some people don't mind some do, because of my job i drove a very unusual HGV, there where only 6 in the world like this specialist vehicle and the amount of times i was photographed, and it only came out to play when there was a problem, smile please.




Regards merc

 

[Arkady]

What law specifically is the one that relates to pointing a lens at someone is considered harassment?

There is no such Law - but if the person being photographs considers they are being harassed then it's for you to prove differently - perhaps in Court if it goes that far.

It's the same as bullying in the workplace - someone might consider their behaviour as freindly banter, but the 'victim' may think otherwise - it's all down to the perception of the person being photographed.
You might think it acceptable to point a lens at someone, and maybe for one or two frames, you'd be right. But what if you then decide to 'work' the subject? Different angles, viewpoints, change of lens, etc - by the time you've fired off maybe 10-20 frames, the subject might be justified in feeling pretty p'd off, especially if you didn't ask permission first.

Another reason I always advocate asking the subject if possible before doing 'street' work.

 

[whiteflyer]

example teacher off with stress and back problems, photographed on a float for Manchester pride dancing away.??? unfortunate but was seen on the Internet by one of our other teachers.

Perfect example why we should be allowed to photograph in public, any help in catching benefit cheats and scroungers is good to me.

 

[Richard King]

There is no such Law - but if the person being photographs considers they are being harassed then it's for you to prove differently - perhaps in Court if it goes that far.

It's the same as bullying in the workplace - someone might consider their behaviour as freindly banter, but the 'victim' may think otherwise - it's all down to the perception of the person being photographed.
You might think it acceptable to point a lens at someone, and maybe for one or two frames, you'd be right. But what if you then decide to 'work' the subject? Different angles, viewpoints, change of lens, etc - by the time you've fired off maybe 10-20 frames, the subject might be justified in feeling pretty p'd off, especially if you didn't ask permission first.

Another reason I always advocate asking the subject if possible before doing 'street' work.

You really are making an important distinction

1. what the law says
2. what the photographer thinks is socially, emotionally or artistically acceptable
3. what the subject feels is socially, emotionally or artistically acceptable

As a photographer, on the street, you are normally only aware of 1&2

However I still have a nagging thing that keeps bringing all arguments on this matter back to the same place - CCTV cameras. We live in a surveillance society. The only difference between a photographer,and a CCTV operator, is that the CCTV operator is out of range, and often totally un-noticed - which in a way is even worse than the photographer, which at least has to stand there and show his/her hand

 

[Arkady]

You really are making an important distinction

1. what the law says
2. what the photographer thinks is socially, emotionally or artistically acceptable
3. what the subject feels is socially, emotionally or artistically acceptable

As a photographer, on the street, you are normally only aware of 1&2

However I still have a nagging thing that keeps bringing all arguments on this matter back to the same place - CCTV cameras. We live in a surveillance society. The only difference between a photographer,and a CCTV operator, is that the CCTV operator is out of range, and often totally un-noticed - which in a way is even worse than the photographer, which at least has to stand there and show his/her hand

It's not the only difference - I can justify all manner of things if I play the 'security' card...
How many of us can claim that our images will be used to protect the security of the subjects we photograph?

(I say 'claim' deliberately here BTW).

If you ask permission of the subject then you're covered. If you don't ask, then get a couple of shots in the bag and move away if the subject doesn't like it and asks you to stop.
While there's no expectation of privacy in public areas, members of the public do have the right not to be harassed and as I said it's their perceptions that matter here, not your intentions.

 

[alexkidd]

aye, it should be allowed, if requested to stop by the then photographer should stop

 

[Richard King]

It's not the only difference - I can justify all manner of things if I play the 'security' card...
How many of us can claim that our images will be used to protect the security of the subjects we photograph?

(I say 'claim' deliberately here BTW).

If you ask permission of the subject then you're covered. If you don't ask, then get a couple of shots in the bag and move away if the subject doesn't like it and asks you to stop.
While there's no expectation of privacy in public areas, members of the public do have the right not to be harassed and as I said it's their perceptions that matter here, not your intentions.

I agree, which is why I made point 3.

Asking is polite, a fast 600mm lens however removes the need to be polite - hence my comment about CCTV cameras

People only "feel" harassed when you are in their face, and they notice you

the laws of this land can not really be based on feelings, it can really only be based on factual things: He did "that" and "that" broke the law

 

[Arkady]

I agree, which is why I made point 3.

Asking is polite, a fast 600mm lens however removes the need to be polite - hence my comment about CCTV cameras

People only "feel" harassed when you are in their face, and they notice you

the laws of this land can not really be based on feelings, it can really only be based on factual things: He did "that" and "that" broke the law

Not so - perception plays a significant part in how the law is applied.
Take the law on the use of force if being threatened.

If I am physically threatened by someone (a knife-wielding mugger, perhaps) in the street and kill them, as long as I can prove that I genuinely believed my life was in danger and that there was no other way of preventing harm to myself or others (including running away), and that my response was proportional to the threat, then I am in the clear.
The key phrase is: proportional response.

Even if I used a firearm. I would be still charged with illegal use of a firearm and illegal discharge of a firearm in a public place, but those are separate charges. The killing would still be a lawful act if I could prove I felt I was justified. Feelings again.

Even if other witnesses felt that my response was an over-reaction - it is my perception that carries weight. Other people cannot decide what my feelings were at that precise moment.

 

[Richard King]

Not so - perception plays a significant part in how the law is applied.
Take the law on the use of force if being threatened.

If I am physically threatened by someone (a knife-wielding mugger, perhaps) in the street and kill them, as long as I can prove that I genuinely believed my life was in danger and that there was no other way of preventing harm to myself or others (including running away), and that my response was proportional to the threat, then I am in the clear.
The key phrase is: proportional response.

Even if I used a firearm. I would be still charged with illegal use of a firearm and illegal discharge of a firearm in a public place, but those are separate charges. The killing would still be a lawful act if I could prove I felt I was justified. Feelings again.

Even if other witnesses felt that my response was an over-reaction - it is my perception that carries weight. Other people cannot decide what my feelings were at that precise moment.

Agreed - you are justifying your subsequent actions by your feelings - which is slightly different. The act of photographing is somewhat different to waving a gun in someone's face - the only way I would feel threatened by a photographer, is if he was going to throw his camera at me. My reaction to what I would do next would depend if the camera was a canon or a nikon

(clearly Cannon shooters get frustrated, and are a bit unstable, and the kit isn't worth catching... if it was a D3, I would consider catching the camera and doing a Linford)

 

[Arkady]

lol...

OK but you and I, as photographers wouldn't necessarily feel threatened by a camera, but there are those who would - and do...

 

[corbystock]

I'm 50/50 on this & i guess it depends where the image ends up - what if you take a shot of someone next to a well known land mark without them knowing & then put it on line somewhere BUT it turns out that they have been relocated for their own safety?

 

[Voyager]

There is no such Law - but if the person being photographs considers they are being harassed then it's for you to prove differently - perhaps in Court if it goes that far.

Is that so?

Do you know what law that is?

It's the same as bullying in the workplace - someone might consider their behaviour as freindly banter, but the 'victim' may think otherwise - it's all down to the perception of the person being photographed.
You might think it acceptable to point a lens at someone, and maybe for one or two frames, you'd be right. But what if you then decide to 'work' the subject? Different angles, viewpoints, change of lens, etc - by the time you've fired off maybe 10-20 frames, the subject might be justified in feeling pretty p'd off, especially if you didn't ask permission first.

That is a different matter - repetitive (as in every hour or day for weeks on end) is not quite the same as taking (a few) pictures of someone in the street.

And it is that which I read as POAH suggesting people had a right in law not to be 'pestered or disturbed' by. And I'm not convinced that stating there is such a law is correct.

Another reason I always advocate asking the subject if possible before doing 'street' work.

Fine, but not relevant to my question.

 

[Voyager]

the laws of this land can not really be based on feelings, it can really only be based on factual things: He did "that" and "that" broke the law

That is what I'm getting at - is there a law of 'harassment' that can be applied to the taking photographs? Not using 'loitering' or 'Section 44' but a specific regulation relating to a single issue of harassment - it would not surprise me if there was, but I don't know of it.

 

[boyfalldown]

There is the 2007 protection from harrassment act.

Under the act

Harassment is defined as causing alarm or causing distress and states that ‘a course of conduct’ must involve conduct on at least two occasions.

so I guess you'd be safe if you followed common sense, someone asks you to stop and you do - but vunerable to the act if you followed someone, used a camera in a threatening way and basically stalked them (what the act is for)

 

[Arkady]

Is that so?

Do you know what law that is?

That is a different matter - repetitive (as in every hour or day for weeks on end) is not quite the same as taking (a few) pictures of someone in the street.

And it is that which I read as POAH suggesting people had a right in law not to be 'pestered or disturbed' by. And I'm not convinced that stating there is such a law is correct...

There is no 'Law' specifically preventing you from photographing someone in a public area as I clearly stated, but if someone complains that they feel harrassed by your continuing actions after being asked to stop then the law will get involved as they are duty-bound to attend in the event of a complaint by a member of the public.
There are plenty of public-order offences that could be easily used to justify your being detained.

It's all about the perception of the person making the complaint - no amount of argument from you as the photographer will change that.
If they feel they are being harassed, then they are being harassed - that was the point I was trying to make by making the comparison with bullying in the workplace (and that doesn't have to be a repetetive series of occurrences over a prolonged time-frame either by the way - it can be a single incident).

You will be held accountable - try it and see.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There is a huge difference in Photographing a street scene, and invading some ones personal space.
The second is always, and at the very least bad manners.

However People in a foreign land always like to photograph the natives
sometimes we are those natives
the same applies in any touristic situation, here or abroad.


As photographers we have taken on the " self appointed" role of making records for posterity. when we photograph a person in a public place we are recording a "Typical" person, not a personal image. The law understands that, as do most people.

Certainly, when you get to the point of entering their space, bring yourself to their attention, block their way or make a nuisance of your self and you have passed the point of civilised behaviour.

If you must get up close and personal, at the very least introduce yourself, explain what you are trying to do and ask for their permission and cooperation, then remember to smile and thank them.

The Chances are then going to be. that the next photographer will get a better reception.

 

[Voyager]

There is no 'Law' specifically preventing you from photographing someone in a public area as I clearly stated, but if someone complains that they feel harrassed by your continuing actions after being asked to stop then the law will get involved as they are duty-bound to attend in the event of a complaint by a member of the public.
There are plenty of public-order offences that could be easily used to justify your being detained.

It's all about the perception of the person making the complaint - no amount of argument from you as the photographer will change that.
If they feel they are being harassed, then they are being harassed - that was the point I was trying to make by making the comparison with bullying in the workplace (and that doesn't have to be a repetetive series of occurrences over a prolonged time-frame either by the way - it can be a single incident).

You will be held accountable - try it and see.

I think boyfalldown has found some law that might pertain to answer my question, thanks.

A 'course of conduct' does not look to be quite the 'if the person being photographs considers they are being harassed then it's for you to prove differently' as you suggested.

 

[Kaouthia]

However People in a foreign land always like to photograph the natives
sometimes we are those natives
the same applies in any touristic situation, here or abroad.

So, the trick to getting Brits to comply with having their photo taken in public is to put on a foreign accent and speak broken English?

I'll have to remember that.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There is no 'Law' specifically preventing you from photographing someone in a public area as I clearly stated, but if someone complains that they feel harrassed by your continuing actions after being asked to stop then the law will get involved as they are duty-bound to attend in the event of a complaint by a member of the public.
There are plenty of public-order offences that could be easily used to justify your being detained.

It's all about the perception of the person making the complaint - no amount of argument from you as the photographer will change that.
If they feel they are being harassed, then they are being harassed - that was the point I was trying to make by making the comparison with bullying in the workplace (and that doesn't have to be a repetetive series of occurrences over a prolonged time-frame either by the way - it can be a single incident).

You will be held accountable - try it and see.

Absolutely true, "Perception", in these cases is paramount.
Your "intent" counts for nothing. (the same applies in all work place discipline procedures.)
The is no point in claiming you did not intend to upset someone, their complaint demonstrates you have.

 

[Voyager]

so I guess you'd be safe if you followed common sense, someone asks you to stop and you do - but vunerable to the act if you followed someone, used a camera in a threatening way and basically stalked them (what the act is for)

Thanks. As I suspected no-one has come up with a specific '"no harassing people" stuff' law that can be used if an individual doesn't want to have their picture taken in a public place.

 

[Arkady]

A 'course of conduct' does not look to be quite the 'if the person being photographs considers they are being harassed then it's for you to prove differently' as you suggested.

I think it does...sorry... who decides what course of conduct is acceptable or not? You or the complainant? The law will generally side with the complainant.

 

[Voyager]

Absolutely true, "Perception", in these cases is paramount.
Your "intent" counts for nothing. (the same applies in all work place discipline procedures.)
The is no point in claiming you did not intend to upset someone, their complaint demonstrates you have.

What law(s) would you be breaking if someone claims to be upset after you took their picture in a public place?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So, the trick to getting Brits to comply with having their photo taken in public is to put on a foreign accent and speak broken English?

I'll have to remember that.

That is actually more true than than you might think... Even a regional accent helps. and if you can't do accents mumble gibberish and mime.
Always works

 

[boyfalldown]

I think it does...sorry... who decides what course of conduct is acceptable or not? You or the complainant? The law will generally side with the complainant.

the course of conduct for the protection from harressment act is defined in that piece of law as 2 or more occasions.

However I have to agree, if somebody complained to the police you were 'harrassing' them, then the police would find a way to make your life difficult - breach of the peace maybe, rather then use the harrassment act itself.

 

[Voyager]

I think it does...sorry... who decides what course of conduct is acceptable or not? You or the complainant? The law will generally side with the complainant.

I'd still be asking what law they imagined was being broken.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What law(s) would you be breaking if someone claims to be upset after you took their picture in a public place?

To have taken their photograph breaks no law.

To cause a "breach of the peace" certainly does.
Any thing you might do that breaches the peace, including the upsetting people by being a nuisance with your camera, can leave you open to arrest.
The likelyhood is that the police would simply warn you to move on. If you persist you are likely to be arrested.
I would expect no less, for idiot behaviour.

As for the Harassment act... the initial complaint is the first act. your persisting is the second... not worth pushing your luck you would lose.

 

[Arkady]

I'd still be asking what law they imagined was being broken.

...and they will politely but firmly ignore your quite reasonable requests as you are pushed around and generally F****d over...

"Sorry Sir, but we've recieved a complaint from a member of the public, blah blah blah..."

You will have to convince them otherwise...