In message , Ian Jelf
writes

He claimed that it was now against the law to photograph someone

Presumably he had never driven a bus equipped with CCTV, in that case!

--
Paul Terry

Mizter T wrote:

Sometimes when one just wishes to go about one's business undisturbed
the prevalence of people willing to very openly take a photo of you
(specifically, rather than the building behind you or you as part of a
crowd) can be a little perturbing/annoying.

Exactly how good looking are you! I can remember only one time in my life
when someone wanted to take a picture of me, and that was when I was stood
at the front of a ship in heavy seas with my arms spread, enjoying the
spray. (When I turned around and saw her she reacted like the guiltiest
person on earth.)

In message , Paul Terry
writes
In message , Ian Jelf
writes

He claimed that it was now against the law to photograph someone

Presumably he had never driven a bus equipped with CCTV, in that case!

As he was driving one of the then new Scania bendibuses, that was
patently not the case.

This was actually a very distressing incident indeed and I fired off a
letter to TWM. I never even had a reply (although I didn't pursue it,
so can't really feel too bad at no further action being taken).

What is evident in this thread though is the difference between whether
or not we as individuals are *comfortable* or *approving* of being
photographed and whether or not we actually have any rights to prevent
it happening.

I would contend that, exclusive of concerns about obstruction, private
property and railway bye-laws, taking photographs in which someone
appears is not against any law.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On 22 Feb, 16:46, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:

Sometimes when one just wishes to go about one's business undisturbed
the prevalence of people willing to very openly take a photo of you
(specifically, rather than the building behind you or you as part of a
crowd) can be a little perturbing/annoying.

Exactly how good looking are you! I can remember only one time in my life
when someone wanted to take a picture of me, and that was when I was stood
at the front of a ship in heavy seas with my arms spread, enjoying the
spray. (When I turned around and saw her she reacted like the guiltiest
person on earth.)


Ugly as sin, you'd wince to look at me before puking up.

I suppose I drew my definition a little too tightly around the notion
of a portrait. Elsewhere on the thread Mark Robinson and Charlie Hulme
better enunciate my general stance - Charlie uses the phrase "at close
range", which I guess is what I mean.

Perhaps I'm just being far too sensitive, I dunno.

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.


Dan

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:55:52 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote this gibberish:

In message , Chris Tolley
writes
Jeremy Double wrote:

allan tracy wrote:
On Feb 21, 7:37 pm, somersetchris wrote:
Guy at Waterloo attacked for taking pictures

There's a photograph of the attacker in the post and police are
looking for people who can help identify him.

http://london-underground.blogspot.c...eeking-tube-ph...

Pretty dubious reason for taking pictures though the photographer
sounds like a complete t**t.

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

"Light the blue touch paper and retire"

It's still basically true, though.

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.

There are plenty of things that people do for pleasure that are frowned
on in public or when they involve others as unwilling participants.
Photography may sometimes be one of them. That's just how it is.

One problem is that people seem to increasingly think that there are
restrictions on photography that do not in fact exist.



there are so many misconceptions about the laws surrounding
photography that there are regular articles in trade magazines
covering it, that doesn't inform the general public though. I'm often
out around London with a camera around my neck, though if I'm not
immenently taking photos it tends to stay in my bag as everyone gets a
bit wary when someone is waving a camera about.

As for the case in point, the photo of the person appears to be a
blatent photograph of him, I'd consider that to be very inconsiderate
on the part of the photographer, general photos of crowds are fine, if
you want to photograph an individual without seeking their permission
then in practical terms it gets tricky,

merely taking a photograph is never an excuse to get violent with
someone, in this case I suspect the person the police are seeking is
either very ready to violence or has something to hide in both cases
the police ought to be very interested in making his acquaintance, and
while they are at it there seems to be an assault charge to go at.


--
Mark.
www.MarkVarleyPhoto.co.uk
www.TwistedPhotography.co.uk
www.TwistedArts.co.uk
www.BeautifulBondage.net

Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Chris Tolley
writes
Jeremy Double wrote:

allan tracy wrote:
On Feb 21, 7:37 pm, somersetchris wrote:
Guy at Waterloo attacked for taking pictures

There's a photograph of the attacker in the post and police are
looking for people who can help identify him.

http://london-underground.blogspot.c...eeking-tube-ph...

Pretty dubious reason for taking pictures though the photographer
sounds like a complete t**t.

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

"Light the blue touch paper and retire"

It's still basically true, though.

I'd be more comfortable if it were expressed as a double negative: in a
public place, there is generally no right for others to stop people
taking photographs. I don't believe there *is* a right to take
photographs, and can't imagine which legislation I would have to look at
to find it, but I think the statement above is pretty much on the mark.

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.

There are plenty of things that people do for pleasure that are frowned
on in public or when they involve others as unwilling participants.
Photography may sometimes be one of them. That's just how it is.

One problem is that people seem to increasingly think that there are
restrictions on photography that do not in fact exist.

Human rights legislation may be close to conferring some nearby rights.
I don't think that the mere taking of a photograph is the problem, but
there are many things that might be done with the photograph afterwards
that are definitely dodgy. Joe Busdriver below may have picked some of
that up and not properly understood it.

I had a spectacular incident some time again with a Travel West Midlands
bus driver threatening me and swearing at me because I'd photographed a
bus he was driving. He claimed that it was now against the law to
photograph someone and - ignorant thug that he was - I'm sure he
sincerely believed that to be the case.

Someone on a bus website (Oxfordshire, maybe?) agreed to deliberately
obscure photos of drivers before publishing the photos to the website
after being challenged by a bus driver. The photographer was under no
obligation to do this but I bet the bus driver was sure in his mind that
he was within his rights.

I can see circumstances where he may have been right. Certainly I
sometimes obscure people's faces when posting my train pictures.

There has arisen a belief in this country that new laws have come into
place protecting what I might term "the copyright of their face", which
simply isn't true.

Not as such, no. I wonder if anyone has trademarked their face. And if
so, what they do about the ravages of time.

The victim in this case won't be the first person to suffer for being in
the right.......

If you think of right and wrong as a see-saw, the photographer in this
case may have been nearer the middle than the right end. There's a bit
of the story missing, as in what happened after the photographer said
that he couldn't delete the image because it wasn't a digital camera,
and before the assault took place.

Mebbe it's a minority view, but I can't help feeling that there's
something potentially undesirable or seedy about people just taking
random photos of passers-by. There may be some perfectly innocent arty
reasons at one end of that see-saw, but the other end includes paparazzi
and deliberate invasions of privacy. Some years ago, I was a bit
surprised when someone approached me at Paddington and actually asked if
he could take my picture (I was wearing mirrored sunglasses, and he
wanted to capture the reflection of the roof) but I'm aware from time to
time that there are people taking photos of me, some of whom seem to be
doing openly, while others seem to be trying to pretend they aren't.

As for me, I'm much happier photographing trains.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589951.html
(37 411 at Bath Spa, 14 Sep 1998)

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 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