On 23 Feb, 00:12, Dan G wrote:
On Feb 22, 12:34 pm, Mizter T wrote:

All I
will say is that sometimes people don't want to be photographed when
they are out and about, and photographers/ those with cameras should
try to respect their wishes. Of course this is a difficult thing to do
in practice, but this issue is much more likely to arise when a
photographer is attempting to capture shots of people or indeed just
single individuals (e.g. 'portraits of strangers' type photography).

If you don't want your photo taken in public, don't go out in public.
It's that simple.

Thats a valid argument , but theres a difference between someone
taking a picture of general street/station/whatever scene and someone
specifically taking a picture of *you* without your permission. Ok ,
the latter might still be legal but I imagine it would annoy a lot of
people (including myself) simply because its rude if you don't ask
permission. Some people might get so angry we have the incident here
though its hard to tell if the photo was just of that guy or whether
thats a zoom in shot from a larger pic.

B2003

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:12:15 +0000, Dan G wrote
On Feb 22, 12:34*pm, Mizter T wrote:
All I
will say is that sometimes people don't want to be photographed when
they are out and about, and photographers/ those with cameras should
try to respect their wishes. Of course this is a difficult thing to do
in practice, but this issue is much more likely to arise when a
photographer is attempting to capture shots of people or indeed just
single individuals (e.g. 'portraits of strangers' type photography).

If you don't want your photo taken in public, don't go out in public.
It's that simple.

As for CCTV -- I have no problem with it. I doubt the residents of
Ipswich do either.

But it's unlikely that specific, recognisable images of an individual person
will be released by the CCTV operators, especially if those images might then
end up in a magazine without the subject having signed a release first.

On 22 Feb, 08:06, Jeremy Double wrote:

Similarly, some people get pleasure from taking pictures in public
places (probably hoping to be the next Cartier-Bresson). I don't see
that it's anyone else's business to approve or disapprove of it.

I think it's very much the business of anyone who is being
photographed. In this case the photographer seems to have been
extremely rude - taking closeups of strangers without asking
permission - and while a smack in the chops is a bit over-the-top I
can understand the reaction.

The photographers should have nursed his wounds and pride - and
learned some manners - rather than go crying to the police.

Ian

"Jeremy Double" wrote in message
...

It is anyone's right to take photos in a public place...

I may think that it's dangerous to climb precipitous rock faces, and the
treatment of people who fall off is a potential burden on the NHS. I
wouldn't do it myself, but many people get enjoyment from the hobby of
rock climbing, so I wouldn't condemn people for doing it.

Similarly, some people get pleasure from taking pictures in public places
(probably hoping to be the next Cartier-Bresson). I don't see that it's
anyone else's business to approve or disapprove of it.


If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you
agree otherwise with the photographer. Therefore the subject was within his
rights to ask for it to be deleted - or sue to have it subsequently removed
from any websites/magazines etc that it might appear in.

D

Dave wrote:
"Jeremy Double" wrote in message
...

It is anyone's right to take photos in a public place...

I may think that it's dangerous to climb precipitous rock faces, and
the treatment of people who fall off is a potential burden on the
NHS. I wouldn't do it myself, but many people get enjoyment from the
hobby of rock climbing, so I wouldn't condemn people for doing it.

Similarly, some people get pleasure from taking pictures in public
places (probably hoping to be the next Cartier-Bresson). I don't see
that it's anyone else's business to approve or disapprove of it.


If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you
agree otherwise with the photographer.

No, you don't. The copyright belongs to the photographer. Just like if I
write a book about you or a song about you the copyright still belongs
to me.
--
Michael Hoffman

In article , Dave
writes


If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you
agree otherwise with the photographer. Therefore the subject was within his
rights to ask for it to be deleted - or sue to have it subsequently removed
from any websites/magazines etc that it might appear in.


How can that be, in the case of a photo of two or more persons? How
about a photo of a street with dozens of people, some of whom are
clear enough to be recognised?
I *thought* copyright was in the photographer - but if that is
correct, why is it necessary for the photographee (yuk! - there must
be a better word) to sign a release if the photo is to be published?
--
Bill Borland

Dave wrote:
"Jeremy Double" wrote in message
...

It is anyone's right to take photos in a public place...

I may think that it's dangerous to climb precipitous rock faces, and
the treatment of people who fall off is a potential burden on the
NHS. I wouldn't do it myself, but many people get enjoyment from the
hobby of rock climbing, so I wouldn't condemn people for doing it.

Similarly, some people get pleasure from taking pictures in public
places (probably hoping to be the next Cartier-Bresson). I don't see
that it's anyone else's business to approve or disapprove of it.


If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you
agree otherwise with the photographer.

Incorrect, the photographer owns the copyright unless it is assigned to
someone else (like the photographer's employer, for instance).

--
Jeremy Double
jmd.nospam@btinternet {real email address, include the nospam!}
Steam and transport photos at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

Dave wrote:

If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you
agree otherwise with the photographer.

Rubbish. The photographer owns copyright, as the person who made the
image. The photographer may assign that copyright to someone else,
perhaps in exchange for a fee, but in the absence of such an
arrangement, the copyright rests with the person responsible for making
the image.

It *is* the case that someone who publishes a picture (whether or not
they took it themselves) may want to assure themselves that they have
the permission of the person whose picture it is to publish it
(typically by use of a "model release") but that's a different matter.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632774.html
(20 196 and 20 194 at Warrington Bank Quay, Jun 1985)

Chris Tolley wrote:
Dave wrote:

If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you
agree otherwise with the photographer.

Rubbish. The photographer owns copyright, as the person who made the
image. The photographer may assign that copyright to someone else,
perhaps in exchange for a fee, but in the absence of such an
arrangement, the copyright rests with the person responsible for making
the image.

It *is* the case that someone who publishes a picture (whether or not
they took it themselves) may want to assure themselves that they have
the permission of the person whose picture it is to publish it
(typically by use of a "model release") but that's a different matter.

Depending on the use, this may be unnecessary in the UK.

See the last paragraph of "Harassment and Invasion of Privacy" in
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php.
--
Michael Hoffman

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:05:42 -0000, "Dave" wrote:

"Jeremy Double" wrote in message
...

It is anyone's right to take photos in a public place...

I may think that it's dangerous to climb precipitous rock faces, and the
treatment of people who fall off is a potential burden on the NHS. I
wouldn't do it myself, but many people get enjoyment from the hobby of
rock climbing, so I wouldn't condemn people for doing it.

Similarly, some people get pleasure from taking pictures in public places
(probably hoping to be the next Cartier-Bresson). I don't see that it's
anyone else's business to approve or disapprove of it.


If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you
agree otherwise with the photographer.

No you do not.

Therefore the subject was within his
rights to ask for it to be deleted - or sue to have it subsequently removed
from any websites/magazines etc that it might appear in.

No, he was not. Neither was he "within his rights" to punch the
photographer in the face.

Something needs to be done to resolve the utter nonsense that seems all
too prevalent these days concerning photography, "security" and the
perception of rights to privacy in public places.

I strongly dislike being photographed but I would not thump anyone who
did it just because I was walking down the road and happened to get
snapped. Working in Central London near many tourist sites it is
inevitable you'll get snapped some time.

The only time I have been asked to be photographed by a photographer in
the street was in Walthamstow where there was a project to photograph
several thousand people to represent the diverse nature of Waltham
Forest's population. I politely declined the request.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!