All Photographers are dangerous!
- Thread starter Spooky
- Start date
- Messages
- 544
- Name
- paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Another question to avoid the first one ?
On the Huh
Little Ball of Fur
- Messages
- 4,405
- Name
- Zulfi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
On the Huh
Little Ball of Fur
- Messages
- 4,405
- Name
- Zulfi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The majority of cheese in this country is produced from milk from cows. Dairy farmers have lots of overheads, The welfare of the cows in his care as well as the initial investment of buying and breeding cows in the first place are just a couple of things, butt here are also other things to consider, such as...............................................
- Messages
- 544
- Name
- paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Now you're doing the same!
To illustrate the point that the first question has yet to be answered, possible no one wants to answer as to weather I still have the right to go about my lawful business under common law.
On the Huh
Little Ball of Fur
- Messages
- 4,405
- Name
- Zulfi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yeah, I know, just trying to lighten up the thread with a bit of humour, which seems to be taking a nose dive IMHO.
I'm sure you have the right to go about your business,and at the same time a copper has the right to ask about your business if some f'kwit has found you acting supisously (in their mind), or even the officer themselves. Providing everyone is polite and upfront shouldn't be a problem.
- Messages
- 544
- Name
- paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It has been intimated that photography is not a right but it is my contention that under the common law about lawful business there is a right to photograph anything, from a public place, that is not specifically unlawful,
If a police officer asking what one is doing is answered with a question such as “why do you want to know” it may well be considered evasive and grounds for a robust action yet police officers on this forum do not seem to wish to give a direct answer to my question.
With the large proviso that EVERY ONE is polite I agree that there should be no problem
If a police officer asking what one is doing is answered with a question such as “why do you want to know” it may well be considered evasive and grounds for a robust action yet police officers on this forum do not seem to wish to give a direct answer to my question.
With the large proviso that EVERY ONE is polite I agree that there should be no problem
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Paulminus
There are 3 competing things in this argument.
1. Your 'rights'.
2. everyone elses 'rights'
3. Not everyone is a saint.
The last one of those only an idiot would dispute, and like it or not there are people who don't pick up and use a camera for lawful reasons.
Which leaves us with the the first 2. Ok, so who's 'right' is more important? Your 'right' to go around photographing what you want? Or another persons 'right' to either object or ask you what you're doing? Or, are they equal rights? The only answer is the latter, and that is where it stands.
And you're not quite correct, you have no 'right' whatsoever to take photos in public. There just isn't anything that lawfully prevents you in the main. But on the other side there is a common law obligation on everyone to prevent crime. As I've said, from experience, photography is used in crime.
Simon
You're mistaking enforcable with what is actually realistic. There's an offence of Burglary, but not everyone who commits it is prosecuted (even when caught, but thats a different discussion). As I said, depends on what the legislation says if it ever gets proposed. I'd suspect it'd be along the lines of being unlawful to photograph children, unless you are the parent, have in loco perentis or written permission. Which actually, I don't see an issue with. If it were to go futher, and make taking, for example "The Kiss" type photos unlawful, then yep, I'd be dead against it.
In the meantime common sense from both ends is the answer, yes. But that means both sides. It's difficult to accept for some and sadly thats on photographers side in my experience.
There are 3 competing things in this argument.
1. Your 'rights'.
2. everyone elses 'rights'
3. Not everyone is a saint.
The last one of those only an idiot would dispute, and like it or not there are people who don't pick up and use a camera for lawful reasons.
Which leaves us with the the first 2. Ok, so who's 'right' is more important? Your 'right' to go around photographing what you want? Or another persons 'right' to either object or ask you what you're doing? Or, are they equal rights? The only answer is the latter, and that is where it stands.
And you're not quite correct, you have no 'right' whatsoever to take photos in public. There just isn't anything that lawfully prevents you in the main. But on the other side there is a common law obligation on everyone to prevent crime. As I've said, from experience, photography is used in crime.
Simon
You're mistaking enforcable with what is actually realistic. There's an offence of Burglary, but not everyone who commits it is prosecuted (even when caught, but thats a different discussion). As I said, depends on what the legislation says if it ever gets proposed. I'd suspect it'd be along the lines of being unlawful to photograph children, unless you are the parent, have in loco perentis or written permission. Which actually, I don't see an issue with. If it were to go futher, and make taking, for example "The Kiss" type photos unlawful, then yep, I'd be dead against it.
In the meantime common sense from both ends is the answer, yes. But that means both sides. It's difficult to accept for some and sadly thats on photographers side in my experience.
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
your contention is incorrect - there is no right to photography given in common law.
you do have the 'right' to go about your lawful business , but the point then turns on whether photographing others in public could be said to be part of your lawful business - most of the time it is considered thus, but it is perfectly acceptable for a police officer to ask questions to make sure that it is.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why do you think a person has a 'right' to ask what I am doing?
- Messages
- 10,698
- Name
- Ken
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You also have the right to ignore them, but this whole discussion is a bit ridiculous. Being civil and reasonable will solve 99% of most situations, that sort of behaviour is what society is all about, being reasonable and trying to get along with everyone else.
This thread has strayed some way from the OP's original question, which I think has been fully answered.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,110
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It seems to me that the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Does it really make any difference of they ask what you are doing in a polite way? I know there are cases where they are over zealous, but this can happen with anyone in any line if work.
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
paulminus273 said:
You missed my point.
I'm saying it works both ways. You want the law upheld so you can go about your daily business? Then you have to respect the need to actually allow the law enforcers to go about doing their job to allow you to continue to act freely.
Unless you want to live in a lawless society, such as post war Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Somalia etc etc. See what would happen to you and your nice DSLR there. Make sure you bring some body armour.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
paulminus273
How many times do you need telling? There is a common law obligation on everyone to prevent crime. You can keep asking, but the answers not going to change. If you make someone suspicious, no matter how much you disagree with that thought, there's nothing preventing them from asking you.
Is there a problem or issue with answering, putting their mind at ease? Possibly even getting some co operation as a result? Maybe even doing something to prevent people having this idea that all photographers are up to no good (not that I agree that most, a majority or indeed more than a few people share that perception)?
Or you'd perhaps prefer the alternative, they go off, call the old bill and it becomes long drawn out and a waste of your time?
As I said before, in my experience it's the photographer who's more often the cause of the problems, and your attitude goes a long way to demonstrating just that.
How many times do you need telling? There is a common law obligation on everyone to prevent crime. You can keep asking, but the answers not going to change. If you make someone suspicious, no matter how much you disagree with that thought, there's nothing preventing them from asking you.
Is there a problem or issue with answering, putting their mind at ease? Possibly even getting some co operation as a result? Maybe even doing something to prevent people having this idea that all photographers are up to no good (not that I agree that most, a majority or indeed more than a few people share that perception)?
Or you'd perhaps prefer the alternative, they go off, call the old bill and it becomes long drawn out and a waste of your time?
As I said before, in my experience it's the photographer who's more often the cause of the problems, and your attitude goes a long way to demonstrating just that.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 544
- Name
- paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
1 I give and expect common courtesy , it oils the wheels of society.
2 I have not denied There is a common law obligation on everyone to prevent crime
3 do I still have the common law right to go about my lawful business
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
For about the third time, yes - but whether photography could be considered part of your 'lawful business' would depend on what you were photographing and why - and an officer of the law has the right , and indeed duty, to make sure your business is indeed lawful. :bang:
I would say its unfair to say its the photographer who mostly at fault.
As for complete ban on photographing children
,people have been taking pictures of children,since the camera when on to the street,burn all the photos of say Bert Hardy,shot of the kids of the Gorbal in Glasgow,or Don Mcullin shots of the kids of Bradford etc.
Also does that include the press ?
As some people have said,most children are at risk from people they know not stranger.
As for complete ban on photographing children
,people have been taking pictures of children,since the camera when on to the street,burn all the photos of say Bert Hardy,shot of the kids of the Gorbal in Glasgow,or Don Mcullin shots of the kids of Bradford etc.Also does that include the press ?
As some people have said,most children are at risk from people they know not stranger.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would say its unfair to say its the photographer who mostly at fault.
As for complete ban on photographing children
Also does that include the press ?
As some people have said,most children are at risk from people they know not stranger.
Its was a ban on photographing kids without their parent or guardians consent which he suggested - which seems eminently sensible to me , I'm not sure why anyone would want photographs of a strangers kids
and before annyone starts with the 'well what about collateral in photographing my own' in that situation you either ask the parents (Hi i'm nibs dad, i'm just going to get a few shots of him playing on the swings with your tommy is that okay ) or if its like an organised foofball match or something parents give consent as part of allowing the kids to take part and the organisers then act in loco parentis as far as pemission to shoot goes ... simples
Last edited:
- Messages
- 13,158
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Firstly it would be far too complex to implement as suggestion like that and secondly as Simon points out if children were banned as photographic subjects you'd lose an awful lot of documentary photography.
- Messages
- 3,959
- Name
- Adrian
- Edit My Images
- No
It would simply be impossible to enforce such a rule - it would mean that anyone under the age of 18 would likely be made a criminal if they were to take a photograph of one of their friends who are probably also minors. Of course they could get the parents permission but can anyone see this working in practise?
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Why would it be too complex ? - its hardly difficult to ask someone , can i take a photo of little tommy - and to respect their wishes if the say no , and as regards kids football matches etc the parents already have to sign a consent form for their participation vis a vis injuries and the right to seek treatment so it would be easy to have a ticky box for consent to shoot
and regards documentary photography - a) were not talking about banning taking photos , we're saying ask the parents first and b) the examples simon gives were in a different time when photography was much rarer - I don't see how taking shots of kids today playing in the park etc documents anything unique which isnt already being documented thousands (probably millions) of times a year by parents, guardians and those with permission.
and regards documentary photography - a) were not talking about banning taking photos , we're saying ask the parents first and b) the examples simon gives were in a different time when photography was much rarer - I don't see how taking shots of kids today playing in the park etc documents anything unique which isnt already being documented thousands (probably millions) of times a year by parents, guardians and those with permission.
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
big soft moose said:
You'd need to ask Harry Benson, or Bert Hardy or any of the other countless number of photographers who have documented life in our country over the last century or so.
The way things are going all future generations will have as a memento of the daily lives of our nations' children are a few school photos, with the faces of every other child present blurred out.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That argument gets trotted out over and over again , but as bernie said earlier on its impossible to enforce speed limits (in every instance), ditto the use of a mobile while driving , ditto with burgulary, being drunk and disorderly, loads of examples if we restricted crimes to things that could be enforced in every case there'd be a lot fewer laws - but does anyone really think we should make burgulary legal just because we only enforce it in some 13% of cases
Come to that there are lots of civil law examples too -e.g copyright law isnt readily enforceable in every case - so lets tear that up too
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm sorry but thats hysterical hyperbole - in the case of school photos , parents would simply give consent for kids to be photographed enmass (anyone who doesnt want little johny in the photo keeps him out of it - simples) , likewise with school football matches, sports days etc etc - the parents are told that if their kids participate they are going to have to consent to them being photographed (assuming thats what the majority of parents want - the other option being to have an official tog and pictures sold by the school - like you do with school photos)
future generations will have exactly the same mementoes as past ones - pictures taken by loved ones and freinds of the family - the pictures taken by strangers are never going to becopme mementos anyway because they were taken by strangers
Last edited:
Again no one breaking anys laws by photographing,but people speeding, driving with mobile etc,are putting other people life at risk.
And burglary,your stealing from someone.
Plus the biggest danger to children theses days by a stranger,is on the Internet,ban all computer,or pass a law that's said it's unlawful to talk to a child on a computer,unless you know them,to me that would make more sense.
Very well put,20,000 children die everyday from the lack of clean water,we barely blink an eye
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
do try to keep up , we arent talking about the situation at the moment but the issue of a ban on taking pictures of kids without parental consent - if such a rule existed , you'd be breasking it by taking pictures without such consent, but boliston contened that it wasnt worth doing because it was unenforceable , and I was demonstrating that lots of things that are against the law are unenforceable in every case, so something not being 100% enforceable isnt a good reason to to have the legislation
well grooming (which is the issue with online safety) is already illegal - its another example of a crime that happens despite it being legislated against.
The issue arround photographing kids without the parents consent isnt just about paedophiles (nonces are already criminals so they are going to break the law regardless - though they'd be easier to police if they werent hiding ammongst other togs) , its also about the enjoyment of the day out for the kids and parents being compromised by having kids pictures taken without their consent
Does your "right" to take photos take precedence over their right to enjoy their day without strangers photographing their kids - and if so why ?
Come to that at the end of the day why do so many people on here feel they should have the right to take pictures of strangers kids without their consent ? why do you want such pictures anyway ? (honest question and i am not for a minuite implying that any of you want them for any dodgy reason)
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Very well put,20,000 children die everyday from the lack of clean water,we barely blink an eye
Not in the UK they don't - and anyway how is that relevant to whether the UK should pass a law or not
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
big soft moose said:
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. My mother, who is just shy of 80, loves looking at pictures of old Glasgow and the children of her generation (and earlier/later) playing in street. She doesn't know any of these children, but they still represent her memories of growing up in the city.
The likes of the "Gorbals' Boys" photo mentioned earlier in the thread, or Harry Benson's one of the boys playing in the Kelvingrove fountain are classic images from Glasgow's past, yet neither would exist if the photographer had had to seek out each child's parents and obtain a release before taking the shot.
It's that sort of memento of days gone by that we risk losing.
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
so how would a photographer take photos somewhere like the junior Great North Run? Or even the torch relays, there are thousands of under 16s at both. Do you expect the photographer to get specific permission from 2 or 3 thousand parents? What about videographers who film, even something like the BBC when they report live and the kids jump around in the background, who do you propose is prosecuted for filming the kids without parents permission? The BBC cameraman.
I'm sorry, but on this one, the idea is impractical, if people are in a public place (and children are just small people) then normal photography (as allowed by the current law) shouldn't be a problem.
The hysteria of catching an under 16 in a normal street photograph as some sort of crime (or even proposing it) is just ludicrous.
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
but in days gone by cameras were rare - these days even familes on the dole have camera phones and compacts those pictures would have been taken by someone who did know them and have permission
and also these days the little ones arent playing in the street unsupervised anyway - for a start theres far too much traffic (something else which has changed massively since your mum was a little girl)
and also these days the little ones arent playing in the street unsupervised anyway - for a start theres far too much traffic (something else which has changed massively since your mum was a little girl)
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
{as ive already said you'd parents have to give consent to the organisers for kids to take part so you have a " I consent to my child having his photo taken" as part of the consent - don't want to give it , kid doesnt run - simples
can you really not see the difference between setting out to take pictures of other peoples kids and taking them incidentally - i'm talking about legislating for the former
see my point above - lots of laws are impractical to enforce 100% of the time - but they are still worth having for the times when they need to be enforced
So i'd ask again why does your 'right' to take these photos take precedence over the parents right to enjoy their day out without having people photographing their kids uninvited , and why do you want these picture in the first place ? (and again i'm talking about strangers kids as principal subjects, not a random child in the background while you are photographing your child, dog, tree , sunset or whatever )
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Simons right, the danger isn't necessarily from photographers, although people who do pose a danger aren't adverse to taking photos of doing just that.
But thats not the point, it's public appetite that is the issue.
Rightly or wrongly, its what some of the public think, and then spread as received wisdom. A bit like the stories on here about police, 10% truth, 90% speculation, rumor and out and out lying. Just like I do on here, we should provide some balance to the public, the other side of the story.
As for not being enforceable, of course it's enforceable. Just as speeding is, yet we all do it, or at least everyone that drives. It deters to an extent, ie we aren't all doing 90 down the local high street, and the same would apply. The objections aren't that difficult to overcome, if you want photos of kids, then make the effort to ask the parents. Besides, I am not saying I am in favour of such a law, although I can see a point to it, and I am only giving you an idea of how it could work.
If you want to stop it, then try approaching it from a better direction, not the flat refusal to co operate and put our side of things.
But thats not the point, it's public appetite that is the issue.
Rightly or wrongly, its what some of the public think, and then spread as received wisdom. A bit like the stories on here about police, 10% truth, 90% speculation, rumor and out and out lying. Just like I do on here, we should provide some balance to the public, the other side of the story.
As for not being enforceable, of course it's enforceable. Just as speeding is, yet we all do it, or at least everyone that drives. It deters to an extent, ie we aren't all doing 90 down the local high street, and the same would apply. The objections aren't that difficult to overcome, if you want photos of kids, then make the effort to ask the parents. Besides, I am not saying I am in favour of such a law, although I can see a point to it, and I am only giving you an idea of how it could work.
If you want to stop it, then try approaching it from a better direction, not the flat refusal to co operate and put our side of things.
- Messages
- 10,698
- Name
- Ken
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I attended my grandchildrens sports day today, cameras in evidence from lots of parents, who were they photographing their own kids, who else was in shot, lot's of their friends no doubt, has this placed them at risk, not very likely. I used my smaller 350D with a kit lens rather than my more obtrusive 7D with a massive 120-300 f2.8, which wouldn't have been much use in any case.
- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
big soft moose said:
There's a campaign just now in the hamlet I come from to save the play park from redevelopment. If an increase in the volume of traffic was a reason for kids not being allowed to play in the street you'd think it would be busy, but I've rarely ever seen a child, never mind an unaccompanied one, in it, despite being in a quiet, child-friendly area.
Kids aren't playing in the street because parents have been conditioned into believing that there's a paedophile (whether with or without a camera) lurking behind every lamppost or tree.
It has nothing to do with everyone owning a cameraphone, it's media scaremongering that has brought us to this current situation.
Moving away from the issue of photographing children,it has been in the news that SPT have relented on their ban on photography on the Glasgow Underground. The interesting thing though is that they are now claiming that the reasoning behind the ban was as a reaction to the 2005 London tube bombings.
Seriously? It took them 7 years to get around to banning photography in case there was a repeat of that outrage?
That's just another example of the whole baseless "photographer=evil" mindset that exists in the UK today.
The way you put it their our 100 of photographer,running round our town and city,just taking photos of other people children.
But some times in documenting the street today,as life is today,which photographer have been doing since the camera first left the studio,children will be apart of this.
The same as people wrote about or painted before cameras.
And not everybody uses Digtal or owes a printer,so if you wanted pictures printer of children,would you have to take in proof it was your child ?
Or would be when you went to pick your photos,their would be policeman waiting because you had picture of children in them,how would they know their were your children or you had permission.
Did I say banning all computers,I said banning adults taking to children on a computer unless they knew them.
It make more sense than banning photography,after all if adults were not allowed to make contact with any child on a computer they did not know how could people groom them.
It's just the big thing at the moment,photographer = pedeo or terrorist.
And some of us are just fed up with it
Last edited: