BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

Chris Tolley wrote:

Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Chris Tolley
writes
Human rights legislation may be close to conferring some nearby rights.
This is the problem thought. Such legislation may be in the pipeline
or maybe not (I don't know). But that is important is that it *isn't*
there yet and this is what people believe gives them certain rights
which they do not in fact have.

The legislation is there, but the case law isn't.

That may give the wrong impression. What I meant to indicate was that
the principle of protection of privacy is there, but no case law has yet
said (AFAIK) that the law should be interpreted to mean that someone
can't be photographed (IANAL etc.)

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633026.html
(47 170 on the "East Anglian" at Norwich, 24 Jun 1980)

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

In message
, The
Real Doctor writes
On 23 Feb, 18:02, Michael Hoffman wrote:
[Paul Corfield]

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.

[The Real Doctor]

A little more courtesy on the part of photographers would go a long
way.

A little more courtesy would be nice, but I doubt it would have any
effect on resolving the utter nonsense referred to above.

What exactly do you and Paul mean by the "utter nonsense" in this
case? I think it is quite reasonable to expect privacy - in the sense
of "being left alone" in a public place.
I don't think it is.

By definition "in a public place" and "left alone" can be incompatible.

One very good argument
against ID cards is that one should be free to go anonymously where
one likes, and that, it seems to me, also implies that one should be
free from unwanted photography and other forms of tracking.

The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them
have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
I suspect in this case they're *not* a "public place" insofar as they
are private land and the owners can allow entry on condition of not
participating in certain activities. This is the rule used by - for
example - the National Trust to "prohibit" photography inside their
properties.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

In message k
Stimpy wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:08:06 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote

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.

Happens all the time, just watch Crimewatch.

Given the millions of frames of CCTV footage shot every day, 20 seconds of
footage on Crimewatch once a month is hardly 'all the time' :-)

Plus all the other news programmes, Alastair Stewart's police video crap and
so on.


The key difference is, of course, that CCTV footage showed on Crimewatch
has been released to the police - exactly the reason the cameras were
installed in the first place.


But they are 'specific, recognisable images of an individual person' which
was the criteria, nit whether the police had them first.

Try putting 'security cam' into a web browser and see the amount of material
that I'm sure doesn't have model releases.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

In message , Chris Tolley
writes
Well, since as noted there is not a general right not to be
photographed, the question doesn't immediately arise in that vanilla
case. However, suppose you take a picture of Warwick Castle, and there
are some people in the foreground, one of whom is wearing a green jacket
and whose features may be recognisable, You might publish the picture
with a caption "Warwick Castle" and be okay.
This gives rise to a particular issue, that is to say what you *do* with
a picture after it's been taken.

If you keep it for your own use, then I suspect that there really is
*nothing* that someone featured in it can do (?), whereas publishing it
*might* give rise to other issues.

However uncomfortable this might make some people feel, it might
therefore be legal (or at any rate not illegal) for someone to go out,
take photographs of strangers' children in the street and then keep them
on your own computer at home.

Now I for one don't feel comfortable about *that* scenario but I would
find it difficult to actually draft any legislation to prohibit it. At
what point does someone cease to appear in a photograph and become the
subject of that photograph. It's (no pun intended, really!) all rather
subjective.

But if you published the
picture with a caption saying "here is X.... Y..... (wearing the green
jacket), the well-known paedophile, stalking children at Warwick
Castle", then you can expect X.... Y.....'s legal representatives to be
in touch in short order.
I'm playing Devil's advocate here but would this situation be affected
by whether or not the said allegation was true or not?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On 23 Feb, 22:57, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message
, The
Real Doctor writes

The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them
have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

I suspect in this case they're *not* a "public place" insofar as they
are private land and the owners can allow entry on condition of not
participating in certain activities.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. We can't have degenerated to this
already?

Summary: just because somewhere is private property does not rule it
out from being a public place. This arises about 86 times per year in
discussion of photography at stations ...

Why do you think all those pretty young policemen get sent into public
toilets ... ?

Ian

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:07:44 +0000, Bill Borland
wrote:

In article , Chris Tolley
writes


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.


As I understand it, you don't need a "right" to do anything under
British law. You can do anything you like, provided that neither -
(a) there is a law specifically forbidding it, in which case you may
be prosecuted, nor
(b) it may cause damage to another person, in which case he may bring
a civil action for damages.

You have missed the fundamental human rights confirmed by the Human
Rights Act; these in turn lead to other derived rights but apart from
those everything else that is done without general interference is
better described as enjoyed as a liberty (as in not something
necessary for enjoyment of life but generally accepted as having no
reason to stop most people doing it). Some rights not covered by the
above are endowed by law such as the right to kill yourself as long as
you are mentally capable and don't involve anyone else.

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:15:35 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Chris Tolley
writes
Human rights legislation may be close to conferring some nearby rights.
This is the problem thought. Such legislation may be in the pipeline
or maybe not (I don't know). But that is important is that it *isn't*
there yet and this is what people believe gives them certain rights
which they do not in fact have.

The legislation is there, but the case law isn't. People have a right to
privacy under human rights law.

Not so simple. AFAIR the right is actually not to have undue
interference to a person's private and family life; this is rather
different from a mere unqualified "right to privacy" as e.g. some
newspapers seem to be applying to offenders found guilty in court.

At present that right extends
effectively to situations in which information about them may not be
made public without their consent. So, it isn't right to say that people
can't take pictures, but it is right to say that there are certain
things they might then do with those pictures that might give rise to
complaints from the people featured in them, and some of those
complaints might be pursued under law.

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 it openly, while
others seem to be trying to pretend they aren't.
As a matter of fact, if I'd been asked under such circumstances, I'd
have politely declined. But I'm not sure how far any of us can go
in England to prevent photos being taken which include us. And
enforcing such things is impossible.

Think of all the photos taken every day ion Central London (or Bath,
Stratford-upon-Avon, Oxford, York, etc.) And how many people appear
in them. Legislating for this is just impossible. I realise there's
a difference between being a "subject" of a photo and being
incidental within it. But actually defining the difference in law
would be very difficult, wouldn't it?

Well, since as noted there is not a general right not to be
photographed, the question doesn't immediately arise in that vanilla
case. However, suppose you take a picture of Warwick Castle, and there
are some people in the foreground, one of whom is wearing a green jacket
and whose features may be recognisable, You might publish the picture
with a caption "Warwick Castle" and be okay. But if you published the
picture with a caption saying "here is X.... Y..... (wearing the green
jacket), the well-known paedophile, stalking children at Warwick
Castle", then you can expect X.... Y.....'s legal representatives to be
in touch in short order.

As for me, I'm much happier photographing trains.
As am I with buses and interesting buildings. But people do get in the
way!
Indeed. Sometimes deliberately.

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:50:31 -0800 (PST), Boltar
wrote:

On 23 Feb, 16:55, Paul Corfield wrote:
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.

I think he was, otherwise you could turn the argument around and say
people have no right to refuse to be photographed.

ITYF that in general they do not. OTOH they might have a number of
rights available to them WRT publication of any such photographs,
depending on the manner and purpose of such publication.

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.

Yes but the tourists won't be specifically photographing you will
they. If you end up in one of their pictures thats just the luck of
the draw , not a deliberate act on their part.

B2003

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

In message
, The
Real Doctor writes
On 23 Feb, 22:57, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message
, The
Real Doctor writes

The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them
have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

I suspect in this case they're *not* a "public place" insofar as they
are private land and the owners can allow entry on condition of not
participating in certain activities.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. We can't have degenerated to this
already?

No, we haven't. I think you've just misunderstood what I meant or else
I put it badly.

I fully understand that private property can be a public place. That -
for example - is how non-smoking legislation can be extended to
privately owned premises, even if the owner would be willing to permit
it.

What I meant here was that places like the toilets at Euston could have
restrictions placed on them by their owners which are independent of any
legislation or lack of it prohibiting photography in the street.

As it happens, I wonder vaguely about taking photographs in public parks
now, too, since they;re public places but private property and the
owners (local authorities) could restrict what goes on there.

Summary: just because somewhere is private property does not rule it
out from being a public place. This arises about 86 times per year in
discussion of photography at stations ...

Why do you think all those pretty young policemen get sent into public
toilets ... ?

I have no idea! ;-)

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

Ian Jelf wrote:

As it happens, I wonder vaguely about taking photographs in public parks
now, too, since they;re public places but private property and the
owners (local authorities) could restrict what goes on there.

If there is a no photography rule, there will be a notice about it on
your way into the park. No notice, no rule.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857144.html
("Thames " nameplate on 47 511 at Oxford, Aug 1982)