- Messages
- 27,793
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Caution: contains swearing and garbled logic
[YOUTUBE]hcy8hBfEdds[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]hcy8hBfEdds[/YOUTUBE]
He must be a pervert though.....I mean...who would take photos of a Golden Wonder factory for their own personal use?
While you absolutely have the right to stand on public property and photograph almost anything you like (There are exceptions in place for certain govt. installations) I do think that often arguments like this can be somewhat diffused by explaining why you're taking the photograph.
You're not legally required to explain yourself to a security guard of course but we should all try to understand that they have to apply due dilligence when asked to protect a property. If I was a security guard at golden wonder I think I'd approach a photographer to ask why they were photographing such an ugly building. If they reply with "I'm interested in local architecture" or "I'm writing a book on Golden Wonder and the positive impact they've had locally" or whatever sounds reasonably legitimate I as the security guard will be put at ease and can inform $complainant that there's nothing to worry about.
If I approach a photographer who staunchly asserts there rights without providing any explanation (which they have every right to do) I'm likely to consider that they form some form of threat to the company, further if I was not seen to make every effort to convince them to move on and there was a subsequent break-in or similar, my job could be in jeopardy.
Clearly the initial approach of the security guard was wrong, had the approach been more conciliatory in nature this whole conversation could have easily gone differently. Similarly there are plenty of photographers spoiling for a fight, armed with their rights - youtube is full of them.
As a former freelance press photographer I know what its like to get into discussions with security and the police and it was always the case that explaining "why" I was doing something and that I had a legal right to do it was the best way to diffuse any hostility.
Simply stating "This is my right" puts me in mind of so many other sectors of society that cling to rights without accepting any of the accompanying responsibility, we all have a responsibility to make our lives and the lives of the people we interact with a little bit easier.
Although I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post, please consider what I've said next time you're challenged by a florescent jacket. You may get more from being co-operative than combative - even if you are well within your rights.
Although I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post, please consider what I've said next time you're challenged by a florescent jacket. You may get more from being co-operative than combative - even if you are well within your rights.
An excellent, balanced post Robert.
While you absolutely have the right to stand on public property and photograph almost anything you like (There are exceptions in place for certain govt. installations) I do think that often arguments like this can be somewhat diffused by explaining why you're taking the photograph.
You're not legally required to explain yourself to a security guard of course but we should all try to understand that they have to apply due dilligence when asked to protect a property. If I was a security guard at golden wonder I think I'd approach a photographer to ask why they were photographing such an ugly building. If they reply with "I'm interested in local architecture" or "I'm writing a book on Golden Wonder and the positive impact they've had locally" or whatever sounds reasonably legitimate I as the security guard will be put at ease and can inform $complainant that there's nothing to worry about.
If I approach a photographer who staunchly asserts there rights without providing any explanation (which they have every right to do) I'm likely to consider that they form some form of threat to the company, further if I was not seen to make every effort to convince them to move on and there was a subsequent break-in or similar, my job could be in jeopardy.
Clearly the initial approach of the security guard was wrong, had the approach been more conciliatory in nature this whole conversation could have easily gone differently. Similarly there are plenty of photographers spoiling for a fight, armed with their rights - youtube is full of them.
As a former freelance press photographer I know what its like to get into discussions with security and the police and it was always the case that explaining "why" I was doing something and that I had a legal right to do it was the best way to diffuse any hostility.
Simply stating "This is my right" puts me in mind of so many other sectors of society that cling to rights without accepting any of the accompanying responsibility, we all have a responsibility to make our lives and the lives of the people we interact with a little bit easier.
Although I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post, please consider what I've said next time you're challenged by a florescent jacket. You may get more from being co-operative than combative - even if you are well within your rights.
CaelansMummy said:Ahh aren't scunny folk lovely!
The only scunner in that video was the photographer who went out of his way to belittle two people trying to do their jobs.
Tenubracon said:I think they managed to belittle themselves without the help of the photographer. An over-inflated sense of their own importance coupled with ignorance of the law is not a good combination for a security guard.
The only scunner in that video was the photographer who went out of his way to belittle two people trying to do their jobs.
Now where's that walkers factory?
If this had been a police operation, it would have been classed as entrapment, in that the photographer engineered a situation designed to elicit a specific response.
Another thought is, perhaps the security guards training is site specific and the scenario where someone came to photography the factory hadn't occurred to anyone. Whereas security at a more popular tourist attraction may have the requisite knowledge as it's more likely to be photographed.
I don't think a knowledge of the law and an over inflated ego s a good combination in a photographer on a mission.
EDIT: Some of the security I have been approached by have guns. It seems to focus your attention slightly!
Well that makes everything alright, then, doesn't it.It may very well have been engineered
That's a huge assumption, isn't it? Unless you know something we don't..
all security staff are brainless grunts, barely capable of writing their own name, and therefore fair game for baiting. Bit like picking on the slow kid at school. Not big or clever. Grow up.
i think we all agree the security guards where wrong and she just kept backing herself into a corner and got mad when she realised it...... but the photographer is the sort that gives us all a bad name...
Well that makes everything alright, then, doesn't it.
Makes me wonder how many of these juveniles with video-capable cameras go around until they find a guard that bites, simply for their 15s of exposure on youtube.
Obviously, this forum's vocal minority consensus seems to be that all security staff are brainless grunts, barely capable of writing their own name, and therefore fair game for baiting. Bit like picking on the slow kid at school. Not big or clever. Grow up.
It does annoy me though that we're all looked on as the lowest, when all we're trying to do is stay employed in an over-subscribed field. In a recession.
A good security company trains it's staff well. The property manager/owner often feels the need (over-inflated sense of their own importance?) to try and override this (ignorance of the law?), with the very real threat of requesting that officer be reallocated if they won't comply. This is often a common clause in the contract between the security company and the property, no reason need be given for the request.
Fair do's.Should be settle for unedifying on both sides?
To be honest I agree with Robert. The guy who made the film was obviously looking to bait the security guards. The problem was that they rose to it.
had they simply ignored him, he would have got cold and bored and left within 5 minutes.
He was aksign security for details of 'what law' and would have had a far easier time if he had been able to produce a copy of the memo to the Met Police that was widely circulated explaining to police officers what the law was.
The 'photographers' aim was primarily to get a rise out of the security guards - which he did - and nothing to do with actually taking photos - which he was totally entitled to do.