BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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...tographer.html

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

"somersetchris" wrote in message
...
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...tographer.html


Now that is man who did not like a camera, look at those eyes, genuine fear.

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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.

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On 21 Feb, 20:03, 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.

But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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

But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.


Of course not but there can be no doubt that his activity was bound to
lead to some tube passengers becoming upset.

It was a good job he wasn't aiming his camera at young children or
specifically at women as he may well have found himself the subject of
a wholly different type of police investigation (if the tube
passengers hadn't got to him first).

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

In message
,
allan tracy writes

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

But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.


Of course not but there can be no doubt that his activity was bound to
lead to some tube passengers becoming upset.

It was a good job he wasn't aiming his camera at young children or
specifically at women as he may well have found himself the subject of
a wholly different type of police investigation
I doubt it as neither of those activities is illegal, as has been
debated here many times. Inadvisable maybe, for reasons that have now
happened; but not illegal. Even if the police had been "interested"
they wouldn't; have pursued the matter, at least if it was on a public
highway. (If as seems to be the case here, it was in a station, then
other "rules" come into play.)

(if the tube
passengers hadn't got to him first).
I feel very unhappy these days taking photographs of buses and indeed of
streets and buildings because the world has gone mad with fear about
what photographers are up to.

If we want to photograph street scenes, as has been done since the dawn
of photography, then we can.

--
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 Feb 21, 10:12*pm, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message
,
allan tracy writes

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

But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.

Of course not but there can be no doubt that his activity was bound to
lead to some tube passengers becoming upset.

It was a good job he wasn't aiming his camera at young children or
specifically at women as he may well have found himself the subject of
a wholly different type of police investigation

I doubt it as neither of those activities is illegal, as has been
debated here many times. * Inadvisable maybe, for reasons that have now
happened; *but not illegal. * Even if the police had been "interested"
they wouldn't; have pursued the matter, at least if it was on a public
highway. * (If as seems to be the case here, it was in a station, then
other "rules" come into play.)

(if the tube
passengers hadn't got to him first).

I feel very unhappy these days taking photographs of buses and indeed of
streets and buildings because the world has gone mad with fear about
what photographers are up to.

If we want to photograph street scenes, as has been done since the dawn
of photography, then we can.

You are obviously a terrorist, as was this photographer. Thank
goodness this decent citizen beat him up.

(But seriously, what has it come to if we are more interested in what
someone taking snaps might be up to rather than what someone attacking
people might be up to?)

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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...

That site says this:
"A man taking some photographs of people on the London Underground was
attacked and hopefully the picture that he took of his attacker can
lead to their arrest..."

Why "their" arrest? How many people were there?

[OT] BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

Offramp wrote:
Why "their" arrest? How many people were there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

ESB

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On Feb 22, 1:16 am, Ernst S Blofeld
wrote:
Offramp wrote:
Why "their" arrest? How many people were there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

ESB

The picture at the site looks like a man, and the police are looking
for a man, so why the political correctness? Why not say, "his arrest"?

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On Feb 21, 8:51 pm, somersetchris wrote:
On 21 Feb, 20:03, allan tracy wrote:

On Feb 21, 7:37 pm, somersetchris wrote:

But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.

What about during a boxing match?

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On Feb 21, 7:37 pm, somersetchris wrote:

But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.

What about during a boxing match?

Or if someone attacks you, your wife, your children or your country.

"Oh please stop attacking my (Insert) as violence is so bad."


--
Cheers

Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway at:-
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/
Latitude: 48° 25' North
Longitude: 123° 21' West

[OT] BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

Offramp wrote:
The picture at the site looks like a man, and the police are looking
for a man, so why the political correctness? Why not say, "his arrest"?

I understand your point. I would suggest that the writer, for reasons of
style or semantics, was avoiding the use of the same pronoun in
proximity for two different people, i.e. "his attacker"/"his arrest"
versus "his attacker"/"their arrest".

This is probably suitable flame war material for alt.english.usage .

ESB

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

somersetchris wrote:
But is that an excuse for violence? I believe that there is never an
excuse for violence.

You clearly haven't seen it in the highly compelling 'dossier' format.

ESB

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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/

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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)

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

On 22 Feb, 08:06, 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...

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.



I'm *absolutely* not in approval of the actions of the attacker. 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).

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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.

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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.)

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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.

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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)

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

"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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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.

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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.
--
Bill Borland

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

Chris Tolley wrote:
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.

I'm not sure that would change much... there are plenty of photos
published with shop signs incorporating trademarks included within the
image.

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

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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/

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

In message k
Stimpy wrote:

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.


Happens all the time, just watch Crimewatch.

--
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
 

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)

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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.

Indeed. That's precisely the point behind what I wrote.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632993.html
(43 189 at Cardiff Central, 30 Jun 1999)

BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
 

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