You're not allowed to take photos of me!!

[szymon]

Just had an "incident" with, of all people, the folks who kindly collect our green recycling bins every week. I decided that I want no part in a shouting match and that I'd be better off writing to the council. To make sure they can identify the individuals concerned, I went inside and got my camera and took a number of photographs of them (they were quite a way away, but my EF 200 f/2.8L was on the 50D so I got some pretty good shots).

When they saw me taking the photos, they ran back and started screaming about how dare I take photographs of them, I don't have their permission to do so, and that it's illegal. Suggestions that if they believe an illegal act had taken place they should call the police were met with anger and demands that I delete the photos!

It's my first time coming up against this kind of attitude, and it kind of surprised me. Do people really still believe that they can 'demand' someone doesn't take their photo?

Or maybe I'm wrong and I shouldn't be allowed to do so? (They were standing on the road - public property - and I was on my drive and on the pavement in front of it; I believe that I can take photos of folks in public as much as I like, and even publish and sell the work should I choose to do so - although in this instance I won't be because I don't think it would help at all).

Luckily their gaffer popped round and defused the situation (funny how I react very calmly to people who talk to me calmly), so the incident is over, but it just blows my mind that people can have this attitude to photography (especially in this day and age when I can all but guarantee that every single one of them had at least one camera about his person!).

Thoughts?

-simon

 

[viv1969]

Just had an "incident" with, of all people, the folks who kindly collect our green recycling bins every week. I decided that I want no part in a shouting match and that I'd be better off writing to the council. To make sure they can identify the individuals concerned, I went inside and got my camera and took a number of photographs of them (they were quite a way away, but my EF 200 f/2.8L was on the 50D so I got some pretty good shots).

When they saw me taking the photos, they ran back and started screaming about how dare I take photographs of them, I don't have their permission to do so, and that it's illegal. Suggestions that if they believe an illegal act had taken place they should call the police were met with anger and demands that I delete the photos!

It's my first time coming up against this kind of attitude, and it kind of surprised me. Do people really still believe that they can 'demand' someone doesn't take their photo?

Or maybe I'm wrong and I shouldn't be allowed to do so? (They were standing on the road - public property - and I was on my drive and on the pavement in front of it; I believe that I can take photos of folks in public as much as I like, and even publish and sell the work should I choose to do so - although in this instance I won't be because I don't think it would help at all).

Luckily their gaffer popped round and defused the situation (funny how I react very calmly to people who talk to me calmly), so the incident is over, but it just blows my mind that people can have this attitude to photography (especially in this day and age when I can all but guarantee that every single one of them had at least one camera about his person!).

Thoughts?

-simon

I had a similar encounter with the chap recording images for - of all things - Google street view

 

[Phil V]

Thoughts?

What kind of reaction would you expect when photographing someone at work who you had obviously already had a level of disagreement with?

He may 'know' that you're legally allowed to take his picture, but that doesn't mean he should just accept a stranger pointing a long lens at him.

What would your reaction be if he had started recording your converstaion? Or if his mate started filming you taking pictures? The photography appears to be a catalyst here rather than the reason for his anger.

 

[KIPAX]

theres nothing new in your post.. its the way of the world.. learn to live with it.. these guys where probably hard at work as binmen.. hardly looking there best.. probably worried your going to put binmen pictures on facebook and try to redicule them..

try to look at it from there point of view.. yes your legally wihtin your right and they are legally wrong.... but that doesnt mean its right

 

[KIPAX]

oops wasn't driving home the point.. was typing as phil answered so didnt see.

 

[supersammy]

Maybe they consider it harassment to follow them around taking photos after an argument. If they did then you could be acting unlawfully. In this case you were not IMO.

 

[KIPAX]

Maybe they consider it harassment to follow them around taking photos after an argument. If they did then you could be acting unlawfully. In this case you were not IMO.

its pretty much written in stone he wasnt acting unlawfully..

just like walking to the front of the que in the bank.. no law says you cant.. you would be within your rights.. most people just don't

 

[szymon]

Thoughts?

What kind of reaction would you expect when photographing someone at work who you had obviously already had a level of disagreement with?

He may 'know' that you're legally allowed to take his picture, but that doesn't mean he should just accept a stranger pointing a long lens at him.

What would your reaction be if he had started recording your converstaion? Or if his mate started filming you taking pictures? The photography appears to be a catalyst here rather than the reason for his anger.

I'd have been fine with a recording of the conversation and a video of me taking pictures. I don't particularly like being seen on camera, but that's mostly due to my not being particularly photogenic - by all means, record my behaviour in public. Nowadays you have to behave in public as if you're being recorded 100% of the time anyway - at least in the cities. In any case, a video recording would have highlighted phrases from the other guy which could well have been construed as illegal under racial hatred laws...

What exactly do you mean by "accept a stranger pointing a long lens at him". You make that sound threatening? It doesn't take your soul away, you know ;-)

I personally think he saw the camera and realised that I was quite serious about reporting his behaviour to his employer, and that there would be consequences to his behaviour. That made him angry, and so he demanded it doesn't happen. Yeah, that's right, how can it be legal that this guy can collect evidence of my bad behaviour, right?

 

[KIPAX]

I personally think he saw the camera and realised that I was quite serious about reporting his behaviour to his employer

was you? remind me again why you took the pictures.. I am getting confused now..

 

[szymon]

theres nothing new in your post.. its the way of the world.. learn to live with it.. these guys where probably hard at work as binmen.. hardly looking there best.. probably worried your going to put binmen pictures on facebook and try to redicule them..

try to look at it from there point of view.. yes your legally wihtin your right and they are legally wrong.... but that doesnt mean its right

Thanks for that. I didn't realise "binmen pictures" was a thing.

 

[st599]

Maybe they consider it harassment to follow them around taking photos after an argument. If they did then you could be acting unlawfully. In this case you were not IMO.

The legal definition of harassment requires a course of action - not just one incident.

 

[Phil V]

I'd have been fine with a recording of the conversation and a video of me taking pictures. I don't particularly like being seen on camera, but that's mostly due to my not being particularly photogenic - by all means, record my behaviour in public. Nowadays you have to behave in public as if you're being recorded 100% of the time anyway - at least in the cities. In any case, a video recording would have highlighted phrases from the other guy which could well have been construed as illegal under racial hatred laws...

What exactly do you mean by "accept a stranger pointing a long lens at him". You make that sound threatening? It doesn't take your soul away, you know ;-)

I personally think he saw the camera and realised that I was quite serious about reporting his behaviour to his employer, and that there would be consequences to his behaviour. That made him angry, and so he demanded it doesn't happen. Yeah, that's right, how can it be legal that this guy can collect evidence of my bad behaviour, right?

You might want a cuppa and a biscuit. Your posts are full of the animosity spilling over from this incident. It's obvious why the guy wasn't happy, you know you were perfectly within your rights to photograph him - but that doesn't mean he has to be happy about it.

There are many people who would feel uncomfortable having a camera pointed at them (me and you for a start) and I'm fairly sure we don't think it'll steal our soul.

 

[szymon]

was you? remind me again why you took the pictures.. I am getting confused now..

Sure. As I wrote above:

I decided that I want no part in a shouting match and that I'd be better off writing to the council. To make sure they can identify the individuals concerned, I went inside and got my camera and took a number of photographs of them

Maybe I should add that I did actually tell them that I'd be writing to the council (their employer). I wanted to be clear as to the individuals involved, especially as there was a third person on the shift who I explicitly didn't want accused - he was calm, polite and tried to diffuse the situation until his colleagues shouted him down.

 

[szymon]

You might want a cuppa and a biscuit. Your posts are full of the animosity spilling over from this incident. It's obvious why the guy wasn't happy, you know you were perfectly within your rights to photograph him - but that doesn't mean he has to be happy about it.

Ok. Ommmmmmmmmmm

 

[jon ryan]

The legal definition of harassment requires a course of action - not just one incident.

Could be 'behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace' (Public Order Act 4& 5, I think)

In that, the camera is irrelevant, but the action may be construed as aggressive.

 

[Neil B]

I think it could be one of those moments that just needs to be forgotten about and maybe sit back and see the funny side
Sometimes life is just to short for things like this.

 

[andya700]

I have read the first post over again, and it seems to me that there was an "incident" which then made the OP get the camera to take pictures to identify the people concerned.
Maybe the people concerned can see a problem there, but I certainly cannot. I have taken images of rogue metal collecters and passed them on the the police - admittedly I didn't go up and ask them to pose for the shots though

 

[antihero]

I have read the first post over again, and it seems to me that there was an "incident" which then made the OP get the camera to take pictures to identify the people concerned.
Maybe the people concerned can see a problem there, but I certainly cannot. I have taken images of rogue metal collecters and passed them on the the police - admittedly I didn't go up and ask them to pose for the shots though

You might be right, but it also might be helpful if the Op let people in on exactly why the green bin men have upset him so much.

 

[Laudrup]

theres nothing new in your post.. its the way of the world.. learn to live with it.. these guys where probably hard at work as binmen.. hardly looking there best.. probably worried your going to put binmen pictures on facebook and try to redicule them..

try to look at it from there point of view.. yes your legally wihtin your right and they are legally wrong.... but that doesnt mean its right

Not sure if serious?

 

[szymon]

You might be right, but it also might be helpful if the Op let people in on exactly why the green bin men have upset him so much.

Sure. They didn't take the green bin last week because our cleaner had accidentally put some bottles from the recycling bin (blue) into the green bin. Following that incident, I took the bottles out and put them where they should be. This week I was at home, and when they came to pick up the green bin, they looked in it and walked on, so I came out and asked why. They said that it was "contaminated" with cardboard (although we had previously received leaflets from the council stating that brown cardboard was OK for wrapping food waste). I reached in and took the most obvious bits of brown cardboard out, and the guy said no, it's contaminated and I'll need to put it all into the grey bin (waste to landfill). His colleague then came out of the vehicle and proceeded to shout at me. He tipped the bin over onto the sides to find small bits of cardboard in amongst the congealed mass of two week old food waste at the bottom, and was shouting the whole time (my neighbours and family came out to see what was going on). At that point I decided that I don't need a shouting match about it, and said that I'd be writing to the council, and ushered my family inside.

Note: when the gaffer came around later, he was quite clear that the cardboard was OK - brown cardboard, newspaper or biodegradable sacks are what they recommend that food waste be wrapped in. He apologised and stated unambiguously that the bin should have been collected this time around, and of course he also apologised for the behaviour of his men. Interestingly he did say that "he gets where his guys are coming from regarding the camera, you can't just take pictures of them doing their job"...

Have calmed down a lot now though, tea and biccies were just what the doctor ordered

 

[daharro]

I think if it hadnt been preceeded by an incident, they probably wouldnt mind so much. May query you, may just be assh**es who will pick a fight over anything. If they are already riled up they are unlikely to calm down and think "Yeah, this is perfectly legal. i'll just get on with life" Im not saying its right, im not saying they should have shouted at you, but i can understand why it escalated like that. I probably wouldnt have bothered, i'd have issued a description of the gentlemen in question in my letter, possibly with the reg number of the van and the date time group the incident occured. They should know who was on shift if they can't work out who it was from the description.

 

[Yves Geza]

My thoughts?

I predict you getting a load of rubbish up your drive soon and you'll be able to share photos of it here without needing your long lens!

Of course taking photographs of them isn't illegal but it stands to be a Pyrrhic victory. You might want to exploit your new relationship with their gaffer to smooth things and then get busy smoothing things with the Joes who do a dirty, generally thankless job!

 

[KIPAX]

Not sure if serious?

it took a couple more reads of the OP to see theer was an incident before he took pics.. read to me like he just decided to start tkaing for no apparent reason..

 

[seriousrikk]

it took a couple more reads of the OP to see theer was an incident before he took pics.. read to me like he just decided to start tkaing for no apparent reason..

I read the opening sentence

 

[KIPAX]

I read the opening sentence

You must have had wipers on yer glasses because it can read either way.. I just had an.... i got my camera.... it looked like he was explaining what the incident was...

clear as a binmans back pocket ...

 

[viv1969]

To be honest, this is why everything goes in the blue bin.

 

[szymon]

You must have had wipers on yer glasses because it can read either way.. I just had an.... i got my camera.... it looked like he was explaining what the incident was...

clear as a binmans back pocket ...

Looks more like you read selectively ;-). There's a world of difference between "I got my camera" and what I wrote, which was "To make sure they can identify the individuals concerned, I went inside and got my camera"!

Mind you, the details don't always seem to matter. For example, aoccdrnig to a rseearch taem at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Scuh a cdonition is arppoiatrely cllaed Typoglycemia .

-simon

 

[KIPAX]

Looks more like you read selectively ;-).

no.... i read how i read.. reading selectively suggest purposely taking bits you want and putting a different spin on it.. i read it as i find it thats all..

 

[seriousrikk]

You must have had wipers on yer glasses because it can read either way.. I just had an.... i got my camera.... it looked like he was explaining what the incident was...

clear as a binmans back pocket ...

Fair point. Read it again, and it could be the 'incident' is describing the whole palava with photographing the binmen.

 

[andya700]

My thoughts?

I predict you getting a load of rubbish up your drive soon and you'll be able to share photos of it here without needing your long lens!

Of course taking photographs of them isn't illegal but it stands to be a Pyrrhic victory. You might want to exploit your new relationship with their gaffer to smooth things and then get busy smoothing things with the Joes who do a dirty, generally thankless job!

On the other hand, if you read the second paragraph of post#20, you will see that the OP was in the right, and the bin men (sorry - refuse operatives) were in the wrong. Not only were they in the wrong but they were being loud and aggressive with it.
No point in being nice or polite to muppets like that, they are not worth it.
And if they should offload a binfull of rubbish up his drive, I hope that he has the camera ready. I think a spell of unemployment would do them a world of good.

 

[Cagey75]

There's a lot of assuming here. We don't know exactly what happened in this "incident" - for all we know the binmen could be in the right.

Either way, there's not a lot to do with photography here, I think this would be best in out of focus tbh.

 

[chip]

On the other hand, if you read the second paragraph of post#20, you will see that the OP was in the right, and the bin men (sorry - refuse operatives) were in the wrong. Not only were they in the wrong but they were being loud and aggressive with it.
No point in being nice or polite to muppets like that, they are not worth it.
And if they should offload a binfull of rubbish up his drive, I hope that he has the camera ready. I think a spell of unemployment would do them a world of good.

Are you serious??

All they have done so far is point out that the OP had mixed up his recycling for the 2nd week in a row.

 

[Southdowns]

There's a lot of assuming here. We don't know exactly what happened in this "incident" - for all we know the binmen could be in the right.

Not from the OP's description they aren't.

All they have done so far is point out that the OP had mixed up his recycling for the 2nd week in a row.

But a) he hadn't, and b) it's the manner in which they (mistakenly) pointed it out that's the "crime".

 

[KIPAX]

) it's the manner in which they (mistakenly) pointed it out that's the "crime".

wow!


Quick get a camera..lets get these muthers sacked!

 

[Danny8oy]

Point here is if you didn't want a dispute you should have included the time and truck number in your letter not stood there taking photos with a long lens.... what did you really expect them to do? I'm sure the Council knows who works your street already...

 

[andya700]

Not from the OP's description they aren't.



But a) he hadn't, and b) it's the manner in which they (mistakenly) pointed it out that's the "crime".

Exactly Mark, it sounds as though they were getting "leary" with the OP despite the fact that they were in the wrong.
I can think of many jobs I have had in the past, where arguing/becoming aggressive with clients would have resulted in instant dismissal.
I really cannot see why people are defending the binmen instead of the OP:shrug:

 

[RJL2005]

I really cannot see why people are defending the binmen instead of the OP:shrug:

Try this.

When I lost my job as an analytical scientist I both swept the streets and did the bins rather than sign on. That was twenty years ago and not much has changed I bet. Cat's **** on the bags, that was my pet hate. Other classics were scalpels, broken glass and even diabetic syringes hiding like booby traps.
Then there were the people who threw litter at you and laughed about it giving you work.
I could go on but...

Luckily for me I went back to scientific employment after six months but have never forgotten my time with the council.

 

[fracster]

Some threads on here truly beggar belief,this is one of them.

 

[KIPAX]

Some threads on here truly beggar belief,this is one of them.

cor blimey guvnor .... it's a great thread.. it's got binmen in it... a super grass.. an argument.. job losses.. conspiracies.. just needs a women and a wedding photographer.. this could be thread of the year

 

[fracster]

This bit made me laugh Tony "but my EF 200 f/2.8L was on the 50D so I got some pretty good shots"...........thread would have been pointless without bragging about which bloody lens was used,for chrissakes...............

What a palavar about nothing.