Dishwasher????? have you lost the use of your hands?
BLUE SOCKS AND MIRRORS
-
paultreacy
- Posts: 487
- Joined: 10 Jun 2008 17:40
- Location: Lawrie Park Road
-
danstevens
- Posts: 116
- Joined: 6 Oct 2004 09:46
- Location: Sydenham
i agree with Paul too. Many people seem to live in some sort of paranoid fear with issues that relate to privacy and data protection and just have a fundamental misunderstanding. The Americans that live in the middle of no where and think the world is out to get them. Forget what they're called? Same principle. Have a think and relax. Who’s to say the lady wouldn't be pleased that the picture is on here?
-
paultreacy
- Posts: 487
- Joined: 10 Jun 2008 17:40
- Location: Lawrie Park Road
Here she is leaving the scene in her wheelchair as a mother with buggy passes...
And here's a man carrying a door past bendy iron gates...
There are plenty more such images of Sydenham life at
SydenhamShots.co.uk
Look out for more during the Sydenham Arts Festival
Cheers,
Paul Treacy
paultreacy.com
And here's a man carrying a door past bendy iron gates...
There are plenty more such images of Sydenham life at
SydenhamShots.co.uk
Look out for more during the Sydenham Arts Festival
Cheers,
Paul Treacy
paultreacy.com
-
jasonwebber
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 2 Feb 2009 15:43
- Location: sydenham
As a fan of street photography (both taking and viewing) myself this conversation is really interesting.
Paul is quite right that he has every right to take photos in a public place without the permission of the subjects. I do think that subjects should be dealt with sensitively though and should anyone ever ask me to remove or not display an image of them I would probably comply.
I did receive a passionate telling off once for a photo that was on my flickr site by someone who recognized themselves. I asked them if they wanted me to actually take it down, but they seemed more outraged about me taking it in the first place than it being public.
It's certainly true that many people don't like having their picture taken and I guess they have some (moral) rights in all this too. A difficult debate that probably doesn't have a final answer that everyone would be happy with.
Images of people who can clearly identify themselves can't of course be sold without their permission or a waiver or at least the photographer runs the risk of being sued if he/she does. [annie] not sure if this makes you feel better or not?
Paul is quite right that he has every right to take photos in a public place without the permission of the subjects. I do think that subjects should be dealt with sensitively though and should anyone ever ask me to remove or not display an image of them I would probably comply.
I did receive a passionate telling off once for a photo that was on my flickr site by someone who recognized themselves. I asked them if they wanted me to actually take it down, but they seemed more outraged about me taking it in the first place than it being public.
It's certainly true that many people don't like having their picture taken and I guess they have some (moral) rights in all this too. A difficult debate that probably doesn't have a final answer that everyone would be happy with.
Images of people who can clearly identify themselves can't of course be sold without their permission or a waiver or at least the photographer runs the risk of being sued if he/she does. [annie] not sure if this makes you feel better or not?
Interesting debate. The picture doesn't breach the guidelines here. In general if it is legal, is taken with care and compassion in public then I would need a compelling case to remove it from STF.
Which is not the last word as I too am confused by shifting opinions on freedom to photograph and publish. Ten or twenty years ago - there would probably have been no problem about taking people in the street. Nowadays TV News & Google pixellate faces. Whether this creates or reflects the feeling that one's personal image is private even in public I don't know. There is, AFAIK, no shift in law to sustain this - though terrorism, paedophile, pace laws and the Met's own advertising has not been kind to public photographers.
So anybody here is free to question whether photos such as these are appropriate or not. It is a passionate subject and hence it is natural that strong opinions are fielded. As long as they don't become personally abusive then that is what a good forum should be able to handle.
I do recognise the lady - so I will mention it to her when I see her again.
Admin
Which is not the last word as I too am confused by shifting opinions on freedom to photograph and publish. Ten or twenty years ago - there would probably have been no problem about taking people in the street. Nowadays TV News & Google pixellate faces. Whether this creates or reflects the feeling that one's personal image is private even in public I don't know. There is, AFAIK, no shift in law to sustain this - though terrorism, paedophile, pace laws and the Met's own advertising has not been kind to public photographers.
So anybody here is free to question whether photos such as these are appropriate or not. It is a passionate subject and hence it is natural that strong opinions are fielded. As long as they don't become personally abusive then that is what a good forum should be able to handle.
I do recognise the lady - so I will mention it to her when I see her again.
Admin
I have to say I'm not very keen on being photographed by someone I don't know and that photo then being used for someone else's entertainment without my knowledge. I've got nothing to hide (most of the time anyway) and I wouldn't object if I was in a public arena e.g. if I was taking part in a protest march or watching a football match, but it just feels wrong to me to take a photo of someone who can be clearly identified without their knowledge and then make that photo available to all and sundry. There are quite enough breaches of privacy going on as it is without any more being created! As it happens, you can see me in one of Ali B's photos of the football match - I'm quite happy with that because I know Ali and I knew at the time that he was taking the photos but this is quite different.
Now that I know Paul is on the loose in SE26 with his camera I shall have to make sure I'm smartly-dressed, clean-shaven and not with someone else's wife every time I step out of my front door...
Now that I know Paul is on the loose in SE26 with his camera I shall have to make sure I'm smartly-dressed, clean-shaven and not with someone else's wife every time I step out of my front door...
[quote="danstevens"]i agree with Paul too. Many people seem to live in some sort of paranoid fear with issues that relate to privacy and data protection and just have a fundamental misunderstanding. The Americans that live in the middle of no where and think the world is out to get them. Forget what they're called? Same principle. Have a think and relax. Who’s to say the lady wouldn't be pleased that the picture is on here?[/quote
If I were in a public protest group/football match etc etc like Thomas has said then i would be fair game for a photo of me to be included in some sort of article/story, but I personally would not like to be displayed in a public forum like this one.
I just think permission before publish should have been adopted.
As for the above Quote, I don't live in America I live here,and
I do not "live in some sort of paranoid fear with issues that relate to privacy and data "
Just my opinion,Freedom of speech and all that.
If I were in a public protest group/football match etc etc like Thomas has said then i would be fair game for a photo of me to be included in some sort of article/story, but I personally would not like to be displayed in a public forum like this one.
I just think permission before publish should have been adopted.
As for the above Quote, I don't live in America I live here,and
I do not "live in some sort of paranoid fear with issues that relate to privacy and data "
Just my opinion,Freedom of speech and all that.
You are correct that there is no specific legal change to laws restricting photography &c. that's why I'm slightly perplexed as to your reference to "terrorism, Paedophile and PACE....." lawsadmin wrote: There is, AFAIK, no shift in law to sustain this - though terrorism, paedophile, pace laws and the Met's own advertising has not been kind to public photographers.
The Terrorism Act doesn't restrict photography in any way...(unless you think that rather nebulous and ill-phrased ammendment does - which is doesn't)
Paedophillia Laws (Sex Offences Act 2003) only make it illegal (amongst other things) to photograph child abuse....
PACE is an old piece of law (1984) that does not mention photography or anything of that ilk. It merely regulates police procedure...
Here's an interesting guide on Photographers rights here & well worth a read.
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uplo ... hts-v2.pdf
I always find it strange that people object (not aimed at anyone here) to being photographed in public by individuals but not by the state with CCTV etc.
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uplo ... hts-v2.pdf
I always find it strange that people object (not aimed at anyone here) to being photographed in public by individuals but not by the state with CCTV etc.
http://thomashawk.com/2009/01/mp-stoppe ... on-of.htmlbensonby wrote:... I'm slightly perplexed as to your reference to "terrorism, Paedophile and PACE....." laws
The Terrorism Act doesn't restrict photography in any way...(unless you think that rather nebulous and ill-phrased ammendment does - which is doesn't)
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/25/el ... rohib.htmlbensonby wrote:Paedophillia Laws (Sex Offences Act 2003) only make it illegal (amongst other things) to photograph child abuse....
The above are not exceptional. I myself was stopped from photographing Kirkdale by a PC quoting PACE because an accident had occurred there earlier - even though all vehicles and people had long gone. OK he was wrong. However pointing that out is not a career enhancing move as other photographers have found:bensonby wrote:PACE is an old piece of law (1984) that does not mention photography or anything of that ilk. It merely regulates police procedure...
http://www.1854.eu/2009/02/police_v_pho ... nt_ta.html
Freedom to photograph is not what it used to be. The question I ask is that to stop material harm or because some people don't like it. Is the latter sufficient?
Admin
http://thomashawk.com/2009/01/mp-stoppe ... on-of.html
The laws on stop and search are wide and varied. S.44 (which I assume was the power used here) is an extremely powerful piece of legislation that allows police (in uniform) to stop and search anyone in a designated area (which includes the Metropolitan Police District at the moment) for articles for use in connection with terrorism. It's not a power aimed at Photographers and should not be used to "target" photographers.
That said, behaviour that is "out of the ordinary" - which may include photographing or taking a particular interest in, infrastructure - can certainly be questioned and may make oneself a target for a s.44 search. If nothing untoward is found on a search then the police will leave you alone to continue your activity and they have no power to stop you.
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/25/el ... rohib.html
That story has absolutely nothing to do with the law or police powers or procedure. Its just some bizarre rule that the council might have had or officious idiot deciding to flex his muscles. Of course, the council can enforce more or less any rule they like on their land, as can any private body. A shopping centre could have a "no red cameras" rule on its premesis - as they own the land, and people are guests there, that is perogative.
Of course, the council worker in question (or the police if they were the culprits) has no authority to confiscate or delete any photographs/equipment. If it is a public place (not private land) then he'd have no right to "demand" that the person stopped taking photographs.
Don't let the ignorant few police officers or stuffed shirts let you believe that freedom to photograph has been curtailed in any way. It hasn't.
As for the photographer stopped at the demonstration - he was vindicated by teh IPCC. That said, I don't understand why the police officers used s.44 or s.60 CJ&POA 1994 - where a search would have been perfectly lawful.
The laws on stop and search are wide and varied. S.44 (which I assume was the power used here) is an extremely powerful piece of legislation that allows police (in uniform) to stop and search anyone in a designated area (which includes the Metropolitan Police District at the moment) for articles for use in connection with terrorism. It's not a power aimed at Photographers and should not be used to "target" photographers.
That said, behaviour that is "out of the ordinary" - which may include photographing or taking a particular interest in, infrastructure - can certainly be questioned and may make oneself a target for a s.44 search. If nothing untoward is found on a search then the police will leave you alone to continue your activity and they have no power to stop you.
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/25/el ... rohib.html
That story has absolutely nothing to do with the law or police powers or procedure. Its just some bizarre rule that the council might have had or officious idiot deciding to flex his muscles. Of course, the council can enforce more or less any rule they like on their land, as can any private body. A shopping centre could have a "no red cameras" rule on its premesis - as they own the land, and people are guests there, that is perogative.
Of course, the council worker in question (or the police if they were the culprits) has no authority to confiscate or delete any photographs/equipment. If it is a public place (not private land) then he'd have no right to "demand" that the person stopped taking photographs.
Whoever "stopped" you probably did not have the authority to do so. What part of PACE did he quote? Just because a police officer asks or even tells you to do something it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to.The above are not exceptional. I myself was stopped from photographing Kirkdale by a PC quoting PACE because an accident had occurred there earlier - even though all vehicles and people had long gone. OK he was wrong. However pointing that out is not a career enhancing move as other photographers have found:
http://www.1854.eu/2009/02/police_v_pho ... nt_ta.html
Don't let the ignorant few police officers or stuffed shirts let you believe that freedom to photograph has been curtailed in any way. It hasn't.
As for the photographer stopped at the demonstration - he was vindicated by teh IPCC. That said, I don't understand why the police officers used s.44 or s.60 CJ&POA 1994 - where a search would have been perfectly lawful.
I'll repeat until I am blue in the face - you are generally free to take photographs wherever you like in a public place - the law has not changed in any respect. Some ill-informed plods may think they can stop you taking photographs - but a blue uniform doens't give you omnipotence or blanket arbitary authorityFreedom to photograph is not what it used to be. The question I ask is that to stop material harm or because some people don't like it. Is the latter sufficient?
Admin
Bensonby - you are responding to an accusation I was careful not to make.
What is legal/illegal is not relevant in any of these cases (and nearly all similar ones). It is a combination of mistaken understandings of what is the law and the suspicion endengered by the law. Whether the enforcer is a council jobsworth, a CPSO or a real copper - the effect is the same. Such photography is not allowed on pain of having your equipment confiscated or being ejected. The fact that you can lodge a complaint and get it back with, maybe, an apology still means the photo wasn't taken...
Admin
What is legal/illegal is not relevant in any of these cases (and nearly all similar ones). It is a combination of mistaken understandings of what is the law and the suspicion endengered by the law. Whether the enforcer is a council jobsworth, a CPSO or a real copper - the effect is the same. Such photography is not allowed on pain of having your equipment confiscated or being ejected. The fact that you can lodge a complaint and get it back with, maybe, an apology still means the photo wasn't taken...
Admin
Bit of an invasion IMHO
Im with Annie
I think it is wrong to take ans post publicly pictures of people without their permission.
A person may simply not want their picture taken...they may not want their pic taken when they are not 'at their best' so to speak and an unposed pic of a mature lady in a wheelchair would fit the 'not at their best' category.
I cant help but think of my once glam and active mother who is now disabled with arthritis...uses a walking stick and wears wrist supports when i look at this image...she and quite possibly this woman would be saddened and horrified to see such an image on my camera..let alone on a public forum!!!
Thats one issue, another is you may take and publicly post a picture of someone who doesnt want their whereabouts publicly displayed.. i have known of women who have moved into a completely unknown area to escape domestic violence and to have their face and whereabouts on an area forum like this would be a nightmare and have possible consequences for them and their families.
I would be really, really p1ssed off to see myself in such a way on this forum!!
That said Paul i have enjoyed looking at your other pics of sydenham and also your short film of your boys on the way to school
I think it is wrong to take ans post publicly pictures of people without their permission.
A person may simply not want their picture taken...they may not want their pic taken when they are not 'at their best' so to speak and an unposed pic of a mature lady in a wheelchair would fit the 'not at their best' category.
I cant help but think of my once glam and active mother who is now disabled with arthritis...uses a walking stick and wears wrist supports when i look at this image...she and quite possibly this woman would be saddened and horrified to see such an image on my camera..let alone on a public forum!!!
Thats one issue, another is you may take and publicly post a picture of someone who doesnt want their whereabouts publicly displayed.. i have known of women who have moved into a completely unknown area to escape domestic violence and to have their face and whereabouts on an area forum like this would be a nightmare and have possible consequences for them and their families.
I would be really, really p1ssed off to see myself in such a way on this forum!!
That said Paul i have enjoyed looking at your other pics of sydenham and also your short film of your boys on the way to school
Wow, a lively discussion.
My thoughts are purely personal and have no moral or legal basis.
Being photographed as a face in a crowd at a football match doesn't seem to upset people as much as being the sole subject of a photo. Maybe there is a feeling of security in numbers. If there were a throng of people around the lady in blue socks, then there would probably be less of an issue?
I also think because this is a local forum, we are perhaps more sensitive as people may be known to others.
Maybe because the blue socks lady is isolated and the focus of attention, the photograph has polarised some opinions. I find myself agreeing with all the previous posts to some extent, but have now finally decided that Paul is OK (on my personal judgement) to publish photos.
From a business perspective, if Paul made some money out of a particular photograph (such as the lady in blue socks), would they (the subject matter) be entitled to some form of commission?
And i apologise for posting the picture of Thomas in his football shorts. It was poor judgement on my part and not intended to cause offence..............though i realise it probably has.
My thoughts are purely personal and have no moral or legal basis.
Being photographed as a face in a crowd at a football match doesn't seem to upset people as much as being the sole subject of a photo. Maybe there is a feeling of security in numbers. If there were a throng of people around the lady in blue socks, then there would probably be less of an issue?
I also think because this is a local forum, we are perhaps more sensitive as people may be known to others.
Maybe because the blue socks lady is isolated and the focus of attention, the photograph has polarised some opinions. I find myself agreeing with all the previous posts to some extent, but have now finally decided that Paul is OK (on my personal judgement) to publish photos.
From a business perspective, if Paul made some money out of a particular photograph (such as the lady in blue socks), would they (the subject matter) be entitled to some form of commission?
And i apologise for posting the picture of Thomas in his football shorts. It was poor judgement on my part and not intended to cause offence..............though i realise it probably has.