Graeme Wall wrote:

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

SurveillanceSaver random surveillance cam screensaver:

http://i.document.m05.de/?p=418

The Windows version only works for me in preview mode--it crashes when
it is triggered by inactivity.
--
Michael Hoffman

On 24 Feb, 00:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:50:31 -0800 (PST), Boltar

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.

OK, you two, take out your cameras, go for a stroll round your local
town and insist on your right to take photographs of people form a
distance of, say, three feet. Be sure to point out to them that they
have no right to refuse to be photographed.

I'll bring you some grapes.

Ian

"The Real Doctor" wrote in message
...
On 24 Feb, 00:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:50:31 -0800 (PST), Boltar

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.

OK, you two, take out your cameras, go for a stroll round your local
town and insist on your right to take photographs of people form a
distance of, say, three feet. Be sure to point out to them that they
have no right to refuse to be photographed.

I'll bring you some grapes.

Ian

Surely intrusive surgery will be needed to recover their cameras.

"Ian Jelf" wrote

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.

A public place is one to which the public are admitted, whether on payment
or otherwise. The 'or otherwise' can encompass restrictions on what the
public can do there (the stands on the Centre Court at Wimbledon are a
public place, but the public are admitted subject to restrictions on flash
photography and mobile phones; a cinema may be a public place, but have
restrictions on taking in your own refreshments). In the case of a public
park owned by a local authority any restrictions have to be spelt out in
byelaws approved by the Home Office. However, the Public Order Act creates
the offence of 'in a public place using threatening, abusive or insulting
words or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be
occasioned' and someone taking photographs of children so that their parents
took exception could well fall foul of this.

Peter

"The Real Doctor" wrote

OK, you two, take out your cameras, go for a stroll round your local
town and insist on your right to take photographs of people form a
distance of, say, three feet. Be sure to point out to them that they
have no right to refuse to be photographed.

See my other post. The photographer's behaviour may well constitute a Public
Order Act offence.

Peter

Ian Jelf wrote:

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.

Precisely. In the general case, that is. The only cases where you might
get into trouble for simply taking a picture (which might mean, to be
technical, not even having something visible but merely a latent image
on film) is if there is a prohibition on taking pictures in a particular
place or circumstance. If you see a sign, for instance, that says, "This
is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Act", then...

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.

ITYM "his computer". I'm not making mine available for any of that sort
of thing. ;-)

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.

It may be context- or caption- dependent, as indicated in my example.

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?

There are several bits to the allegation, and each one of them could be
regarded as the kind of thing which interfered with XY's human rights,
whether true or not.

See http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html, which is the fons et origo,
specifically article 12.

Even if XY has previously been convicted of a relevant offence against a
minor, he might nevertheless not regard himself as, or might not
actually *be* a paedophile, so that bit is potentially dodgy, and the
suggestion that he is captured in the act of stalking children might
easily be completely untrue, even if the person taking the picture
genuinely suspected that was what he was doing. And even if those
statements are true, XY might be able to argue that the publication of a
statement that identifies him to people who would otherwise not have
known who he was is "an arbitrary interference with his privacy".

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p11938603.html
(47 511 at Reading, 3 Mar 1980)

Charles Ellson wrote:

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.

Agreed. As soon as I sent that statement out into the aether, I knew it
was an inadequate explanation.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589940.html
(20 141 at Buxton, Jun 1985)

In message , at 13:05:51 on
Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Chris Tolley remarked:
If you see a sign, for instance, that says, "This
is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Act"

I wish signs like that would say *which* Act.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:45:29 on Sun, 24 Feb
2008, Peter Masson remarked:
However, the Public Order Act creates the offence of 'in a public place
using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour whereby a
breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned' and someone taking
photographs of children so that their parents took exception could well
fall foul of this.

Which of those activities would be, just the "threatening", or some of
the others?

And why isn't a parent's reaction equally threatening and/or abusive?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:48:38 on
Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Peter Masson remarked:
OK, you two, take out your cameras, go for a stroll round your local
town and insist on your right to take photographs of people form a
distance of, say, three feet. Be sure to point out to them that they
have no right to refuse to be photographed.

See my other post. The photographer's behaviour may well constitute a Public
Order Act offence.

So if the mob doesn't like you, it's an offence for you to do something
the mob objects to? Mob rule in England, circa 2008.
--
Roland Perry