Concerned mum wants law changed

Messages
43
Edit My Images
No
I was thinking this. When I worked in London you would often see women sunbathing at lunch, occasionally in a bra but normally just with skirt rolled up a bit etc... As they are in a public place I guess its fine for people to just take photos of them?
What's the intent though? Such an act would be pretty pervy imo. You happy with someone objectifying your wife/GF/sister/mother/daughter in such a way?

Surely it's all about context. Like, if you're just showing a scene of people enjoying the sun, then fine. If you're zooming in on a woman because she's not wearing much clothing, that's a whole different kettle of fish. Unless you have her consent of course.
 
Messages
1,755
Edit My Images
No
Not so sure about 'downblousing'; I think it may come under the same offence as upskirting,
Here's a link to the text: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/2/introduction/enacted As you will see it's entirely about the lower part of the body "in circumstances where the genitals, buttocks or underwear would not otherwise be visible".

If you're zooming in on a woman because she's not wearing much clothing, that's a whole different kettle of fish.
You'll hate this picture then...

Sunbathing young woman at Budleigh Salterton IMG_0005.JPG
 
Messages
312
Edit My Images
Yes
What's the intent though? Such an act would be pretty pervy imo. You happy with someone objectifying your wife/GF/sister/mother/daughter in such a way?
'pervy'

There is nothing wrong with people thinking about or being motivated by sex. Whether they wander around the beach ogling or take photos.

There is everything wrong with invading the privacy of someone.

In answer to your question: yes. (see thoughtcrime)
 
Messages
43
Edit My Images
No
You'll hate this picture then...
To me, it just seems voyeuristic, with little other merit. Like you were sneaking around trying to get snaps of a young woman in a bikini. Of course, it could be your wife/sister/mother/daughter, and they could well have given their consent to be photographed. I don't know that. The viewer can't, without explanation. So, I'm left wondering about your motivation to take that shot. And I can't say I'm comfortable with it at all.
 
Messages
43
Edit My Images
No
'pervy'

There is nothing wrong with people thinking about or being motivated by sex. Whether they wander around the beach ogling or take photos.

There is everything wrong with invading the privacy of someone.

In answer to your question: yes. (see thoughtcrime)
Of course there's nothing WRONG with people thinking about sex. There is something very wrong with objectifying someone for the purposes of sexual gratification though, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. No, we can't stop that happening if we put ourselves in a public place, and decide to take our clothes off (or not, even). But people, and particularly women, have the right to NOT be objectified unless they choose to be. Again, it's down to CONSENT.

As for 'thoughtcrime'; of course we can't stop people thinking as they please. I'm not suggesting we try to do so. But try to consider the issue of consent, because this is very important.

"You happy with someone objectifying your wife/GF/sister/mother/daughter in such a way? "

This is a moot point. The real issue is whether the wife/GF/sister/mother/daughter consents to having their picture taken/being objectified. You cannot give such consent for someone else.
 
Last edited:
Messages
4,950
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
To me, it just seems voyeuristic, with little other merit. Like you were sneaking around trying to get snaps of a young woman in a bikini. Of course, it could be your wife/sister/mother/daughter, and they could well have given their consent to be photographed. I don't know that. The viewer can't, without explanation. So, I'm left wondering about your motivation to take that shot. And I can't say I'm comfortable with it at all.
Your skin will probably craw at this. :D

https://www.martinparr.com/wp-content/gallery/reporters-without-borders/1.jpg
 
Messages
43
Edit My Images
No
Your skin will probably craw at this. :D
Again, we don't know the context or situation regarding consent. A lot of Parr's work is clearly staged/set up, so many of his subjects would have consented to the images being taken. But a lot of his work is also very exploitative (Parr admits this himself). Parr does at least have a body of work where we can gain some form of understanding as to his motives, however. Looking at an image in isolation doesn't always reveal the true story. But what do we know of his subjects and their feelings on how their images have been used? This thread is about fear of abuse. Where is that fine line between recoding fact, and abuse? Who gets to decide where it is?
 
Messages
43
Edit My Images
No
"There is nothing wrong with people thinking about or being motivated by sex. Whether they wander around the beach ogling or take photos."

'Ogling' is one thing. All that results is a memory in one individual. A memory can't be shared. A photographic image, can. The sharing can create a situation of abuse. This is the difference.
 
Messages
312
Edit My Images
Yes
Of course there's nothing WRONG with people thinking about sex. There is something very wrong with objectifying someone for the purposes of sexual gratification though, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. No, we can't stop that happening if we put ourselves in a public place, and decide to take our clothes off (or not, even). But people, and particularly women, have the right to NOT be objectified unless they choose to be. Again, it's down to CONSENT.

As for 'thoughtcrime'; of course we can't stop people thinking as they please. I'm not suggesting we try to do so. But try to consider the issue of consent, because this is very important.

"You happy with someone objectifying your wife/GF/sister/mother/daughter in such a way? "

This is a moot point. The real issue is whether the wife/GF/sister/mother/daughter consents to having their picture taken/being objectified. You cannot give such consent for someone else.
Nope. You do not have the right not to be objectified. If your neighbour - Freaky Fred, Cute Cathy or Introverted Ian - decides you are his muse and draws pictures of you to stick up on his walls and does not harm you or invade your privacy (or break anti-stalking laws), he's entirely within his right to do so.

We've already considered the issue of consent. It's irrelevant in a public place. Your neighbour does not need your consent. You cannot stop him doing it, whether he's doing it for sexual gratification or just because you look interesting.
 
Messages
312
Edit My Images
Yes
"There is nothing wrong with people thinking about or being motivated by sex. Whether they wander around the beach ogling or take photos."

'Ogling' is one thing. All that results is a memory in one individual. A memory can't be shared. A photographic image, can. The sharing can create a situation of abuse. This is the difference.
Of course a memory can be shared! There are hundreds of years of exactly that, long before photography was even a spark in Daguerre's imagination. Identifiable subjects portrayed as the artist saw fit, sometimes unflattering and often to the subject's annoyance (see Hogarth, etc).

If the sharing of a photograph constitutes abuse, then that's already prosecutable. But now you've moved the goalposts. Who here has said anything about abuse being OK?
 
Messages
43
Edit My Images
No
Nope. You do not have the right not to be objectified. If your neighbour - Freaky Fred, Cute Cathy or Introverted Ian - decides you are his muse and draws pictures of you to stick up on his walls and does not harm you or invade your privacy (or break anti-stalking laws), he's entirely within his right to do so.
We're not talking about 'drawing pictures'. We're not talking about one individual doing something surreptitious for their own individual 'gratification'. We're talking about the fear of the very real situation of abuse. Everyone has the right to be free from such abuse. It's enshrined in law.

As for 'consent'; hiding behind the fact that something isn't actually 'illegal', doesn't stop an act being wrong and abusive. As photographers, we are obliged to consider the rights of others to be protected from such abuse. We may not have the 'right' to not be photographed in a public place, but I wasn't talking about that. And you know that.
 
Last edited:
Messages
43
Edit My Images
No
Of course a memory can be shared!
It can't. In spite of your deliberate obfuscation. You cannot share a moment in time that is stored in your memory, as we don't have the ability to communicate telepathically (thank ****!). Of course, we can produce an INTERPRETATION of said memory, but it remains only ever an interpretation, unlike a photograph. Which can be physically/electronically shared.
 
Messages
1,755
Edit My Images
No
To me, it just seems voyeuristic, with little other merit.
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. In the western democracies it's called "freedom of expression" and we value it highly. However this cuts both ways. If you wish others to regard your opinion benignly you need to show them the same consideration.
As for 'consent'; hiding behind the fact that something isn't actually 'illegal', doesn't stop an act being wrong and abusive.
To be accurate: it does. English law starts from the principle: "that which is not forbidden is permitted". A common sense extension of this is "that which is permitted cannot be wrong".
 
Last edited:
Messages
43
Edit My Images
No
But now you've moved the goalposts. Who here has said anything about abuse being OK?
This thread is all about the fear of abuse. That's the point. I haven't 'moved the goalposts' at all. If we are to retain the 'freedoms' we currently enjoy, regarding photography, we need to consider any and all concerns regarding potential abuse. Now some people might think it absolutely fine to photography other people in public places, without any consideration for their 'subjects', but obviously we do need to balance that with having respect for other human beings. A workable solution where everyone is happy, probably isn't possible. But we can at least try to arrive at some form of general consensus. Currently, the situation has to be constantly scrutinised for any flaws and ways to move forward positively. It is far from ideal. Whining on about 'well it's not actually illegal', isn't helping when there exists abuse of children, women and vulnerable people. Because with the situation as it is, such 'freedoms' as we enjoy now, may well be under threat. The abuse of anti-terrorism legislation to harass people photographing bus stations, is just one example of the iceberg showing it's tip. Of course we don't want to live in a society where we can't take ANY pictures, but if we, as photographers, can at least act with consideration and respect, then we'll be doing ourselves a massive favour. And of course, it's not 'photographers' who will cause the harm, as much as pervy, sick individuals out for kicks. But as always, the act of one individual can ruin it for the rest of us. So all I'm saying is, don't be 'that' person. That's all.
 
Messages
312
Edit My Images
Yes
It can't. In spite of your deliberate obfuscation. You cannot share a moment in time that is stored in your memory, as we don't have the ability to communicate telepathically (thank ****!). Of course, we can produce an INTERPRETATION of said memory, but it remains only ever an interpretation, unlike a photograph. Which can be physically/electronically shared.
Every photograph is an interpretation of the subject. There can be no photograph that entirely captures a subject. By definition, it is an objectification of the subject. This is Photography 101, and what we choose to show/omit/focus/defocus/etc of our subject and setting is our art.

> Whining on about 'well it's not actually illegal', isn't helping when there exists abuse of children, women and vulnerable people.

And none of what we are talking about here is relevant to any of that. That's in your imagination. If you care about the victims of abuse, you know that the #1 cause of harm to children and vulnerable people is ... parents and close relatives. It's most definitely not street/urban photographers!

You're late to the thread. I suggest you start from the beginning.
 
Messages
2,045
Edit My Images
No
And none of what we are talking about here is relevant to any of that. That's in your imagination. If you care about the victims of abuse, you know that the #1 cause of harm to children and vulnerable people is ... parents and close relatives. It's most definitely not street/urban photographers!
It is relevant, and to an extent it is no different to your statement about any photograph being an interpretation of an image. Just as you may interpret that photograph you took of a child playing happily on a beech as lovely picture of a child playing. The parent may interpret it as something a bit more sinister. (despite them having just taken a very similar shoot and posting it on social media) If challenged surely the easiest and best thing is to apologise explain what you are doing and why. Being prepared to delete it if requested ?

I am sure any parent or the police would love to hear you say most abuse of children is by parents or close relatives. True though it may be it adds nothing to this debate. Or are you seriously saying no child has ever been abused by a photographer?

Before you answer that, remember every image of children being abused posted online was taken by a photographer. (dictionary definition of a photographer is someone who takes photographs.)

So can you can see why some parents don't like people they don't know taking photographs of their children.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
7,179
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
399
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
No
I’m very conscious about photographing children, and wouldn’t go out my way.. but if a moment occurred right in front of me I might click

This was just on Saturday, I don’t feel bad about posting this child online.

London Street
by Daniel Cook, on Flickr
This is my position. I'm aware, as I'm aware whenever I take a photograph, to respect the subject and some subjects require more thought than others. But I would still take the shot. How many photos of cities from the 1900's onwards do we have with kids in them, which show us what life was like. Despite the number of photographs taken every day, the number of them which intentionally show ordinary life isn't in the billions, so I think they have value. This shot has value.

Equally, easy to understand how someone can be intimidated if a collection of people with cameras all suddenly start taking shots of them. I see the odd 'photo walk' group around in the city doing street photography, and there's something immediately more intrusive when 4 or 5 people are pointing their cameras at you.
 
Messages
12,072
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
As we seem to be going way off topic can I ask a question, has anyone that has posted on this thread been on a 'Child Wellbeing and Protection in Sport Course' or a
'Safeguarding Children and Vulnerable Adults Course'?
 
Messages
2,045
Edit My Images
No
Yes, I have actually and if I am honest it wasn't particularly good. Go on line and some companies will do them for £10 or even less. For a lot of employers it has become another one of those tick box things. No doubt there are good courses out there, but doubt you get much for £10 online

Your point being?
 
Messages
11,872
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
But people, and particularly women, have the right to NOT be objectified unless they choose to be. Again, it's down to CONSENT.
We're not talking about 'drawing pictures'. We're not talking about one individual doing something surreptitious for their own individual 'gratification'. We're talking about the fear of the very real situation of abuse. Everyone has the right to be free from such abuse. It's enshrined in law.
Could you please indicate where these rights and laws exist?

I don't personally agree with objectification but I abhor people making up laws and rights that don't exist to justify their own point of view.
 
Messages
11,872
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
The abuse of anti-terrorism legislation to harass people photographing bus stations, is just one example of the iceberg showing it's tip.
Interesting that you should mention the above in a paragraph that effectively talks about curbing the rights of photography in public.

The legislation in question was Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

A highly successful campaign called PHNAT (I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist) was launched in 2009 to counter the abuses of Sect 44 by various agencies.

It is one of the few times that a body of photographers has managed to have a restrictive (and largely abused) article of legislation repealed by public protest and campaigning.

Educate the public - don't restrict rights.
 
Messages
1,755
Edit My Images
No
Educate the public - don't restrict rights.
A good plan but there are some people who confuse their private morality with public laws. Arguing with such people only makes them feel relevant and the best thing any of us can do is to quote the real laws and stick at that.
 
Messages
11,872
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
A good plan but there are some people who confuse their private morality with public laws. Arguing with such people only makes them feel relevant and the best thing any of us can do is to quote the real laws and stick at that.

Yes. Hence my comment:

... but I abhor people making up laws and rights that don't exist to justify their own point of view.
 
Messages
43
Edit My Images
No
Could you please indicate where these rights and laws exist?

I don't personally agree with objectification but I abhor people making up laws and rights that don't exist to justify their own point of view.
Well, the recent law regarding upskirting is an obvious one, that's already been mentioned. I think you're missing the point. You've selectively quoted my comment, to try to 'win' an argument.

So let's look at the comment properly:

Of course there's nothing WRONG with people thinking about sex. There is something very wrong with objectifying someone for the purposes of sexual gratification though, WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. No, we can't stop that happening if we put ourselves in a public place, and decide to take our clothes off (or not, even). But people, and particularly women, have the right to NOT be objectified unless they choose to be. Again, it's down to CONSENT.
That's my opinion. It's one shared by others. There are laws which help protect people from abuse, and there is a current review regarding such:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...g-and-sharing-of-sexual-images-to-be-reviewed

Hiding behind an argument that because something isn't actually illegal, therefore it's ok, is just cowardly. Rape within marriage was only outlawed in 1991, in the UK. Does that mean it was ok before that time? There are countries where it is still legal. Does that mean it's ok there? Just because there isn't a specific law regarding something, doesn't mean people don't still have fundamental Human rights. I concede that this does come down to opinion, but so what? Laws only come about because of opinions. I am not advocating a major change in existing legislation, nor am I advocating the curtailment of freedom of expression. I just think we all need to address the issue of how our behaviour can potentially affect others.
 
OP
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
7,179
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
I am always as careful as I can be, when taking photos on the street. I know some will say if the subject is walking on the street, then the subject should not expect, or has no expectation of privacy. ( fair game) I think I have got that the right way around, just looks messy, the way I have written it.

I know some will say you can photograph anything, or anyone on the street. But I would not photograph some people, or get them in frame, if I thought it may cause offence. Hey, I have a hard enough job as it is, getting the courage to photograph in public as it is. But I tend to think about the person who may be in the photo, they may take offence, I did not want to bring religion into it, but it seems I just have done so. Some may take offence to being photographed, because of their beliefs etc.
 
Messages
908
Name
Jamesev
Edit My Images
No
Interesting that you should mention the above in a paragraph that effectively talks about curbing the rights of photography in public.

The legislation in question was Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

A highly successful campaign called PHNAT (I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist) was launched in 2009 to counter the abuses of Sect 44 by various agencies.

It is one of the few times that a body of photographers has managed to have a restrictive (and largely abused) article of legislation repealed by public protest and campaigning.

Educate the public - don't restrict rights.
These still seem to be quite confusing for the layman being written in legalese. There seems to be much focused on rights on NUJ card carriers but its not so clear for the everyday amateur
 
Messages
1,257
Edit My Images
Yes
I am always as careful as I can be, when taking photos on the street. I know some will say if the subject is walking on the street, then the subject should not expect, or has no expectation of privacy. ( fair game) I think I have got that the right way around, just looks messy, the way I have written it.

I know some will say you can photograph anything, or anyone on the street. But I would not photograph some people, or get them in frame, if I thought it may cause offence. Hey, I have a hard enough job as it is, getting the courage to photograph in public as it is. But I tend to think about the person who may be in the photo, they may take offence, I did not want to bring religion into it, but it seems I just have done so. Some may take offence to being photographed, because of their beliefs etc.
It's YOU. If you don't have the confidence to take photos that you are entitled to take then you don't do it.
I feel uneasy about some of my street shots but I want them and it's MY right to take them not the publics right not to have them taken.
Confidence is the key. Get yourself well versed in the law.
I just say to people complaining about me taking photos I have an absolute right to take. "If you don't like it call the police".

I had a day out as I had heard that Hull City centre had a drugs dealing problem in public. This is just a few of the somewhat dangerous shots.

2.JPG . 5.JPG

3.JPG Hull_town_Center_29JUN19_Ian_Lyall140.JPG
 
Messages
1,257
Edit My Images
Yes
I am always as careful as I can be, when taking photos on the street. I know some will say if the subject is walking on the street, then the subject should not expect, or has no expectation of privacy. ( fair game) I think I have got that the right way around, just looks messy, the way I have written it.

I know some will say you can photograph anything, or anyone on the street. But I would not photograph some people, or get them in frame, if I thought it may cause offence. Hey, I have a hard enough job as it is, getting the courage to photograph in public as it is. But I tend to think about the person who may be in the photo, they may take offence, I did not want to bring religion into it, but it seems I just have done so. Some may take offence to being photographed, because of their beliefs etc.
If you wnat to become more confident at pointing a big camera into someones face. Try and find a street social event to photograph like 'Pride'. You I doubt will get any problems with the Pride people and you can used to taking photos of strangers.It build confidence. Keep a copy of this letter in your pocket to read when you start to doubt yourself have a quick read.:LOL:

img010.jpg
 
OP
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
7,179
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
It's YOU. If you don't have the confidence to take photos that you are entitled to take then you don't do it.
I feel uneasy about some of my street shots but I want them and it's MY right to take them not the publics right not to have them taken.
Confidence is the key. Get yourself well versed in the law.
I just say to people complaining about me taking photos I have an absolute right to take. "If you don't like it call the police".

I had a day out as I had heard that Hull City centre had a drugs dealing problem in public. This is just a few of the somewhat dangerous shots.

View attachment 268711 . View attachment 268712

View attachment 268713 View attachment 268714


The area that I grew up is a rough/tough area, I am ok walking about in those areas, as I still recognise faces, and some will recognises me. But if a stranger were to photograph a local, the photographer could get his head kicked in. Yes, the photographer has a right to take a photo, but they could still get a thumping.
 
Top