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...

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.

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

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...

Careful - you have no more of a right to take photos than you have a
right to make a cup of tea, a right to read a book or a right to wear
brown shoes....

cue ill-informed rant from the Fake Doctor, including references to
having invented photography, advising the board of Canon, etc etc

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.



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

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"

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.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632811.html
(31 403 at Oxford, 2 Jun 1985)

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.

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.

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.

Any photograph, postcard, news report or book will contain incidental
photos of people whose views on whether or not they appear cannot be
under their control.

The victim in this case won't be the first person to suffer for being in
the right.......
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Any photograph, postcard, news report or book will contain incidental
photos of people whose views on whether or not they appear cannot be
under their control.

The victim in this case won't be the first person to suffer for being in
the right.......
--
Ian Jelf, MITG


I would posit that there is a difference between incidental photos of
people, and portrait or close up photos of strangers - not a legal
difference of course, but certainly a difference with regards to the
outcome. I'm sure I'm not the only one (or maybe I am) who's not
always wildly keen to feature in the photographs or video recordings
of others - I'm talking here about being a subject, as opposed to an
incidental passer by. Perhaps there are more people of an artistic
leaning in the places I'm often around in London, some of whom seem to
think that holding a camera pointed towards you somehow makes them
invisible, and can then seem somewhat surprised when you don't want to
play along. (And no I don't expect to be able to walk across Trafalgar
Square or outside Buckingham Palace without being photographed - I'm
talking of more everyday locations than that.)

There are of course a lot more cameras out there these days, and
digital photography has meant that pressing the shutter button to take
a shot has no financial implications in itself - so there are lots
more people out there liberally taking photos of everything and
anything.

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.

However I do wish to stress that I absolutely *do not* approve of the
actions of the man who attacked the photographer.

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.)

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.

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

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 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