Street pics and 'rules'?

POAH said:
because its taken from the street and they are not trying to peer into your home. you have windows people can see in everyday remember
Click to expand...

Actually streetview should be illegal in the uk due to the height of the camera used. It is place well over the height of a normal person and can therefore see over hedges and walls to get views through peoples windows that is shouldn't. If you or I went out with a step ladder and did the same we would be arrested. That is my only objection to street view, if they force them to re-shoot the lot with a camera fixed no higher than 6ft I will drop all my complaints, as then it will truly just be shooting what the average every day person in the street sees.

Back on topic as long as a street photographer has reasonable moral compass I don't have a problem with it, exploiting the homless or emotionally distressed for a hobby is probably taking it too far but snapping pics of me doing my shopping isn't really an issue!
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
Actually streetview should be illegal in the uk due to the height of the camera used. It is place well over the height of a normal person and can therefore see over hedges and walls to get views through peoples windows that is shouldn't. If you or I went out with a step ladder and did the same we would be arrested. That is my only objection to street view, if they force them to re-shoot the lot with a camera fixed no higher than 6ft I will drop all my complaints, as then it will truly just be shooting what the average every day person in the street sees.
Click to expand...

does that mean most CCTV cameras would be resited too?

For what its worth, I don't see an issue with the cameras height.
 
I've done street togging and to be fair never had a problem, much to the opposite. I have had people spot me and pull a face/pose etc. My advice to anyone doing it. Dont look shifty. Walk around with a smile. Do it in plain site and not shooting from street corners etc...
 
If I want to take a photo of somebody (as in take a picture of THEM rather than them happening to be in a scene I shoot), I'll ask if it's OK. Not had a knockback yet. Likewise, If someone asks me, I'll say yes. If someone doesn't ask and trys a candid snapshot, the likelihood is that I'll have my tongue out when they press the button, or be facing the other way. I wouldn't ask that they delete a shot once taken, although if I was asked, I would delete a shot, knowing full well that I can retrieve it when I get home anyway.
 
boyfalldown said:
does that mean most CCTV cameras would be resited too?

For what its worth, I don't see an issue with the cameras height.
Click to expand...

CCTV is a different matter most of the cameras you are talking about ar placed by local authorities for public protection and not for the profit of a giant corperate machine. CCTV cameras also in general film public space, there are probably some pretty strict regs about them placing them in such a way that they can film private property and you would certainly have a valid case for objection if one were set up on a twelve foot pole pointing straight at your window.

The height issue is the only valid criticism og Google Strretview, the justification used by google and people such as yourself is that the cameras are simply recording what anyone walking down the street would see and could freely photograph. This is simply not the case, if you go out this afternoon and walk around a residential area setting up a step ladder to take pictures over peoples hedges and walls you will be arrested.
 
a1ex2001 said:
CCTV is a different matter most of the cameras you are talking about ar placed by local authorities for public protection and not for the profit of a giant corperate machine. CCTV cameras also in general film public space, there are probably some pretty strict regs about them placing them in such a way that they can film private property and you would certainly have a valid case for objection if one were set up on a twelve foot pole pointing straight at your window.
Click to expand...

its not one rule for one and one rule for another, and CCTV is used to make money as well.

I wish you had the right to object to CCTV cameras,but you don't. The one outside my house, that the council saw fit to write to me(unprompted) assuring me that it would never be used to invade my privacy(I don't believe them), but that I had no right of objection too would be a good place to start.

a1ex2001 said:
The height issue is the only valid criticism og Google Strretview, the justification used by google and people such as yourself is that the cameras are simply recording what anyone walking down the street would see and could freely photograph. This is simply not the case, if you go out this afternoon and walk around a residential area setting up a step ladder to take pictures over peoples hedges and walls you will be arrested.
Click to expand...

The height thing isn't a valid arguement. I'l stick by my justification cause 'people such as myself' have perfectly valid opinions (as do you) and there is nothing on street view I couldn't of photographed myself (had I time). You may be arrested for setting up a step ladder in the street (not clear for what, but you probably would be), but I could drive round standing through my sunroof and take as many photos as I wanted
 
Last edited:
You can't ask for permission when you're doing street photography - it defeats the whole idea of capturing the moment and capturing people acting naturally. As soon as you ask permission the person stops acting naturally. And either way - the moment is lost forever.
 
awp said:
It is absolutely vital that we, as photographers, record the life in the streets of Britain today. These pictures will all become little historical documents and of immense interest in the future.
Click to expand...

I agree, we shouldn't just stop taking photos to appease the Daily Mail readers, or we will lose a record of a whole generation.
Having said that though, I do feel much more relaxed taking street photos when I am abroad. I have become much more hesitant to pull my camera out in public these days in the UK, due to media hysteria and demonisation of photographers.
 
From another forum;

A typical Daily Mail reader is one who espouses the paper's right-wing, middle-England, anti-immigrant, racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-intellectual, sanctimonious mind-set.
 
BarryG said:
From another forum;

A typical Daily Mail reader is one who espouses the paper's right-wing, middle-England, anti-immigrant, racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-intellectual, sanctimonious mind-set.
Click to expand...

I see no problem there..........:cuckoo:
:lol::)
 
BarryG said:
From another forum;

A typical Daily Mail reader is one who espouses the paper's right-wing, middle-England, anti-immigrant, racist, misogynist, homophobic, anti-intellectual, sanctimonious mind-set.
Click to expand...

As opposed to a Sun reader who has trouble with words of more than two syllables? Off at a tangent ...
 
Yes minister;

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
* The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
* And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
 
On topic, I think you need a degree of sensitivity when photographing 'street'. If its a carnival, protest or other large gathering of people, then be prepared to ask, perhaps be rebuffed, but generally get on with your 'job'. If you're just wandering around a local town, be more sensitive towards people who figure in your shots. I would suggest you tell them you're working on a project, explain what its about 'documenting our local way of life', that sort of thing. Most people are flattered to be asked, involved. Some won't, but there's always someone else. Photographing strangers can be quite stressful, but if you're confident, pleasant, chatty, then usually there's a positive outcome.
 
My version of street photography wouldn't be the same if I stopped and asked permission. The moment would be gone and they would pose anyway.

I guess I could ask someone after taking their picture, but quite frankly I don't have time for this nicety.
 
BarryG said:
Yes minister;

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:

* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
* The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
* The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
* And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
Click to expand...

LOL - and which paper do I read? The Metro.
 
The Metro - Associated Newspapers Limited - The Mail lol

Anyway, I'm annoying myself being OT now, so sorry.
 
boyfalldown said:
i but I could drive round standing through my sunroof and take as many photos as I wanted
Click to expand...

Standing through the sun roof of a moving vehicle is a crime for which you will be arrested, doing so in order to take pictures into poeples houses would be a simple double whammy.

As th council have said the camera isn't filming you in your house, if it were to be found out that it was I'm sure you could seek recompense in law. If they put it anywhere pointing straight into your house you would have very very good grounds to bring a case to court.
 
Last edited:
You don't see pictures of celebrities in their houses from shots taken through their window, so I think that answers the question on law there. If they could, they would.
 
BarryG said:
My version of street photography wouldn't be the same if I stopped and asked permission. The moment would be gone and they would pose anyway.

I guess I could ask someone after taking their picture, but quite frankly I don't have time for this nicety.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this, but just sometimes you can engage your 'subject'. I'll often use my compact camera to be less obvious to catch candids. My SLR alerts people from a distance. Depends on what you are out to do.
 
I very much favour short distance pictures. You've got to be quick to get the shot though!! I have engaged with subjects before, but I prefer to just get the shot and move on.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Standing through the sun roof of a moving vehicle is a crime for which you will be arrested, doing so in order to take pictures into poeples houses would be a simple double whammy.
Click to expand...

repectfully, I'll jst disagree with you on the height of the photos from which google streetview are taken. You think it an issue, I don't. Lets leave it at that. :thumbs:

a1ex2001 said:
As th council have said the camera isn't filming you in your house, if it were to be found out that it was I'm sure you could seek recompense in law. If they put it anywhere pointing straight into your house you would have very very good grounds to bring a case to court.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt it. Its already been pointed out that I have no recourse over this camera.
 
Nice shots on your website, Barry. Love the bloke in the pushchair! I see what you mean - not really practical to ask before most of those shots.
 
boyfalldown said:
I very much doubt it. Its already been pointed out that I have no recourse over this camera.
Click to expand...

I can agree to disagree on the first point, even though the law supports me.

I can't however believe for a minute that you actually believe that is would be within the law for the council (or anyone else) to setup a camera pointed deliberately at you house with a view through your windows? Can you not see the lunacy of that statment, the police can't even do that without a warrant.
 
a1ex2001 said:
I can't however believe for a minute that you actually believe that is would be within the law for the council (or anyone else) to setup a camera pointed deliberately at you house with a view through your windows? Can you not see the lunacy of that statment, the police can't even do that without a warrant.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the council set up a camera pointed directly at my house. The council have set up a moveable & zoomable camera on the lampost outside my house, although it has the ability to be pointed directly into my living room, or study. They've also written to me to assure me that they won't ever point it at my house (as stated without prompting from me). I don't belive them BTW. Having checked I have no recourse over the cameras siteing.

Thats not lunacy, please read what I said, not what you think I said here and having no recourse has been been well checked.
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
I can agree to disagree on the first point, even though the law supports me.
Click to expand...

I promised myself I wasn't going to bite on this, but can you show me the law you're refering too?

edit - I'm sure if there was one, privacy campaigners would of jumped on it
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
I promised myself I wasn't going to bite on this, but can you show me the law you're refering too?

edit - I'm sure if there was one, privacy campaigners would of jumped on it
Click to expand...

I can't quote you an actual law, but I do know that taking pictures of people in their houses going about their daily business is not allowed. My sad source for this a fly on the wall documentary about Katie Price where she was in dispute with a photographer for using a long lens to take pictures of her going about her daily business in her home and garden. It was basically invasion of privacy but I think due to the weak privacy laws in this country is cam under harrasment.

The best way to find out would be to go to a nice big housing estate with a step ladder and start taking a pic of the front windows on every house from the top of it. I think it should be pretty obvious that you will be moved on.
 
a1ex2001 said:
I can't quote you an actual law, but I do know that taking pictures of people in their houses going about their daily business is not allowed. My sad source for this a fly on the wall documentary about Katie Price where she was in dispute with a photographer for using a long lens to take pictures of her going about her daily business in her home and garden. It was basically invasion of privacy but I think due to the weak privacy laws in this country is cam under harrasment.

The best way to find out would be to go to a nice big housing estate with a step ladder and start taking a pic of the front windows on every house from the top of it. I think it should be pretty obvious that you will be moved on.
Click to expand...

I agree about being moved on in the last case, but carrying and using a stepladder on the street isn't against the law though (if you were sad enough to try)

I think the point above about Katie Price illustrates where we disagree nicely. A pap with a long lens spending large periods of time peering into someones home is very different from a drive past with what is in effect a CCTV
Hugh
 
This is a great thread - thanks OP. I've often wondered about this subject myself. I did once ask for someone to delete pictures of my son when we were on a beach. We were only stood 10' away and if they'd have asked me I'd have most likely said yes...but to just start snapping at my boy - without asking - was IMO a bit necky.
 
steveinhants said:
but to just start snapping at my boy - without asking - was IMO a bit necky.
Click to expand...

....why? Are you a Daily Mail reader? Is everyone who owns a camera and takes a picture of a child a nonce? :lol: What he/she did is 100% perfectly legal, and the photographer actually has the legal right to tell you to get stuffed!! I wouldn't mind at all if someone took pictures of my children.....what harm can it actually do??! :thinking:

As I've already said in this thread, that isn't the way I do things myself, but to describe someone as "necky" because he's taking a photo of something he thought would make a good photo?! :shake: Where is the harm....:shrug:

Come on, admit it, you are a Daily Mail reader aren't you???!! :p
 
boyfalldown said:
I didn't say the council set up a camera pointed directly at my house. The council have set up a moveable & zoomable camera on the lampost outside my house, although it has the ability to be pointed directly into my living room, or study. They've also written to me to assure me that they won't ever point it at my house (as stated without prompting from me). I don't belive them BTW. Having checked I have no recourse over the cameras siteing.

Thats not lunacy, please read what I said, not what you think I said here and having no recourse has been been well checked.
Click to expand...

Oh dear! If it were me, I think I'd get one of those large halogen security lights and have it point directly towards the camera, in case they decided it was fun to check my house out.
 
boyfalldown said:
I didn't say the council set up a camera pointed directly at my house. The council have set up a moveable & zoomable camera on the lampost outside my house, although it has the ability to be pointed directly into my living room, or study. They've also written to me to assure me that they won't ever point it at my house (as stated without prompting from me). I don't belive them BTW. Having checked I have no recourse over the cameras siteing.

Thats not lunacy, please read what I said, not what you think I said here and having no recourse has been been well checked.
Click to expand...

You can write to the Council and ask for assurance that your windows have been protected by a 'Privacy Zone' in the camera programming to prevent viewing of your window(s)at all, even by accident. The 'Privacy Zone' replaces your windows(s) with a white square whenever the camera is directed toward them.
 
gramps said:
You can write to the Council and ask for assurance that your windows have been protected by a 'Privacy Zone' in the camera programming to prevent viewing of your window(s)at all, even by accident. The 'Privacy Zone' replaces your windows(s) with a white square whenever the camera is directed toward them.
Click to expand...

thank you - I'll do that
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Is it just me, or are we in mad times when we have to write to our local government and ask for reassurance that we’re not being spied on. :lol:


Dear Santa ….
Click to expand...

:lol: but they write to me to offer that assurance when I hadn't asked for it
 
Slimbert said:
....why? Are you a Daily Mail reader? Is everyone who owns a camera and takes a picture of a child a nonce? :lol: What he/she did is 100% perfectly legal, and the photographer actually has the legal right to tell you to get stuffed!! I wouldn't mind at all if someone took pictures of my children.....what harm can it actually do??! :thinking:

As I've already said in this thread, that isn't the way I do things myself, but to describe someone as "necky" because he's taking a photo of something he thought would make a good photo?! :shake: Where is the harm....:shrug:

Come on, admit it, you are a Daily Mail reader aren't you???!! :p
Click to expand...

LOL....no afraid not. It's my opinion, it's the rules I myself stick to and overall I don't think it's too much to ask.
 
steveinhants said:
LOL....no afraid not. It's my opinion, it's the rules I myself stick to and overall I don't think it's too much to ask.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's too much to ask either! :thumbs: Whatever my own views are on the subject, I understand not everyone shares my views and it's not too much trouble to delete a photo if it might upset someone if I don't....

I just think unless a person buys in to the whole "everyone is a p****" media hype thing, then what is there to fear from someone taking photos of your kids??! :thinking: I honestly can't think of anything at all to be worried about!! :shrug:
 
If someone was taking pictures of my kids, I'd stop them, end of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top