Giving up photography ?
- Thread starter just jon
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,110
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Rebel t3i said:
Again, never had an issue, as said earlier by big soft moose, I really do think it depends on if you look confident or not, if you look nervous then you will arouse suspicion, look confident and 99.9 percent of people will ignore you.
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
no that would be entirely misleading because you don't have any right at all to take photographs on private land regardless of whether you are on a PRoW.
I'm not in favour of paranoia but I am also not in favour of people wandering arround thinking they have rights that they don't actually have - that just leads to confusion and people getting themselves in lumber when they start trying to insist on non existent rights
All photography on private land is by permission either implicit (ie the landowner hasnt made any effort to stop you) or explicit (ie the landowner has actively invited photography.
However something that happens by permission is not a right and can be unilatteraly withdrawn by the landowner or his agents.
Stepping away from the legal techicallities the common sense answer is that if you want to take pictures on private land, then most landowners don't have a problem with you doing so on public rights of way , but since you don't have a right to take pictures you should stop if asked .
(if you want to take pictures on private land to which you have no legal access then you should definitely ask the landowner first)
Last edited:
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This
and also along with the right to take picture in a public place comes the responsibility to consider the impact of our action on those arround us
so if i'm going to say take pictures of my nephew in a childrens play ground and thers other kids and mothers about i'll defuse any possible misunderstanding by strolling over an introducing myself
"Hi i'm Pete, I'm just going to take a few shots of the little man here playing on the swings, I hope thats okay"
I've never had a problem, once they see that you are a doting father (or uncle in my case) all the potential suspicion goes away- I've even had mothers specifically ask if i can get some shots of their kids for them with my "big fancy camera"
- Messages
- 8,536
- Edit My Images
- No
to the people taking pics of their children/other children/in a private place with the go ahead, what camera and lens did you use to do so?
Its fine for using your iphone or a point and shoot but if you have a semi pro body or a big white lens, just walking in public with that camera and lens will attract a lot of attention!
i am not saying there is a law that you cannot take pictures of kids. i am just saying our society is stupid filled with paranoid idiots who think you are a p*** or even a terrorist(if you look like a asian muslim or none white person).
That is another thing. appearence of a person sadly is another factor as there still till this day many racist/prejudice people around.
If you look like david becham, people will flock to ask u to take pictures of them but if you look like an asian muslim person, well some people will think you are some terrorist or something.
sad but true lads.
Appearence plays a big role and i agree, body language does play a role too but not as big as appearance
Its fine for using your iphone or a point and shoot but if you have a semi pro body or a big white lens, just walking in public with that camera and lens will attract a lot of attention!
i am not saying there is a law that you cannot take pictures of kids. i am just saying our society is stupid filled with paranoid idiots who think you are a p*** or even a terrorist(if you look like a asian muslim or none white person).
That is another thing. appearence of a person sadly is another factor as there still till this day many racist/prejudice people around.
If you look like david becham, people will flock to ask u to take pictures of them but if you look like an asian muslim person, well some people will think you are some terrorist or something.
sad but true lads.
Appearence plays a big role and i agree, body language does play a role too but not as big as appearance
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I generally use a canon 20D or 40D with grip and a 18-135 for close up shots and 170-500 for stuff like kids sports.
However you've missed my point above - I'm not worried about attracting attention, in fact i positively welcome it as a chance to engage with people and show them that photographers are not (predominantly) weirdos
If you walk about scared of attracting attention and thinking that everyones going to think you are up to no good then your body language is going to communicate that, which in turn makes people more likely to think you are up to no good.
If on the otherhand you stride about with a confident step happy to speak to anyone who wants to talk to you, and proactively engage with anyone (like mothers in play areas) who might have concerns then you don't have problems.
On the appearace thing while I am white, I assuredly dont look like David Beckham, i'm a big rough looking bloke, but my day job puts me in contact with the public all the time and that gives me the confidence to come across open, freindly and charming. It isnt about looks its about personality and state of mind.
And it isnt a race issue either my mates Delroy (who's afro carribean british) and Arman (who's kashmiri british) have the same experience. Yes there is a tiny proprtion of people out there who think that every black person is a mugger, every asian is terrorist, and every photographer is a paedophile , but you'd be pretty unlucky to meet one of the predjudiced minority.
The vast majority of joe public may have heard those stereotypes but unless you give them reason (by your body language, manner, and conduct) they won't apply them to you.
However you've missed my point above - I'm not worried about attracting attention, in fact i positively welcome it as a chance to engage with people and show them that photographers are not (predominantly) weirdos
If you walk about scared of attracting attention and thinking that everyones going to think you are up to no good then your body language is going to communicate that, which in turn makes people more likely to think you are up to no good.
If on the otherhand you stride about with a confident step happy to speak to anyone who wants to talk to you, and proactively engage with anyone (like mothers in play areas) who might have concerns then you don't have problems.
On the appearace thing while I am white, I assuredly dont look like David Beckham, i'm a big rough looking bloke, but my day job puts me in contact with the public all the time and that gives me the confidence to come across open, freindly and charming. It isnt about looks its about personality and state of mind.
And it isnt a race issue either my mates Delroy (who's afro carribean british) and Arman (who's kashmiri british) have the same experience. Yes there is a tiny proprtion of people out there who think that every black person is a mugger, every asian is terrorist, and every photographer is a paedophile , but you'd be pretty unlucky to meet one of the predjudiced minority.
The vast majority of joe public may have heard those stereotypes but unless you give them reason (by your body language, manner, and conduct) they won't apply them to you.
- Messages
- 3,110
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
jonneymendoza said:
A gripped Nikon d300 and either 50mm or 24-70 or my 70-200, and normally with a sb900 on top.
As to appearance I'm 6 foot 18 stone and Have very short hair. Again as big soft moose said, it does come down to confidence and body language, nervous does come across in body language as being a little suspicious. The must common things I get said to me are " oh that camera nice, it must take nice pictures" "oh can you take a picture of little Jimmy"
I honestly believe that some people look for trouble where there is not a problem.
Again a BSM said, engage with people around you, even off it's just eye contract and a smile, this ha always been enough for me, if they start chatting then I am always polite and have a chart with them, job done and everyone is happy.
Last edited:
Galaxy66
Jeremy Beadle
- Messages
- 9,192
- Name
- My name is Mal not Jeremy :)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
To be fair our size and appearance (i'm 4inches taller and 3 stone lighter but otherwise pretty similar) probably does help , because in the minds of the paranoid few, paedophiles are either furtive pallid geeks or dirty old men in dirty macs (or priests but lets not go there)
big confident blokes who have no problem talking to women don't fit the stereotype.
(of course the stereotype is largely a load of arse - stats show that the far highest proportion of child abusers are either family members or mothers boyfreinds , stranger danger exists but its not the major issue - something that daily mail readers like to ignore)
Also the sort of arsey little prat who might kick off with a small weedy geek is much less likely to make an issue of anything when loking at 15 stone of solid muscle
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,751
- Name
- urrrm.... Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
tbh this is an old conversation but it's always a hot topic!
as it stands I have two thing...firstly every tom dick and harry has a DSLR now they are becoming very common!
and the phone camera phenomenon?
my phone camera is as good or better than some of the compacts I've had a few years ago.
everyone snaps away with those now. I think paranoia is going to be controls.
Frankly if you take pics of kids leaving school. well I'd need a damn good reason for that but in a public area? and obeying the law. go out and enjoy yourself.
the problem will occur when people hide away for fear of being branded a 'P****' for taking a picture of Tower Bridge or a sunset on a beach.
as it stands I have two thing...firstly every tom dick and harry has a DSLR now they are becoming very common!
and the phone camera phenomenon?
my phone camera is as good or better than some of the compacts I've had a few years ago.
everyone snaps away with those now. I think paranoia is going to be controls.
Frankly if you take pics of kids leaving school. well I'd need a damn good reason for that but in a public area? and obeying the law. go out and enjoy yourself.
the problem will occur when people hide away for fear of being branded a 'P****' for taking a picture of Tower Bridge or a sunset on a beach.
- Messages
- 456
- Edit My Images
- No
Anything from a gripped Nikon D80 with the 70-300mm and an SB600 on top, to a TLR to a Trip35.
Good. If your camera is big enough to attract attention, then you can't be accused of secretly taking photo's, or "covert" photography.
I bought one of my DSLRs from Argos. Since when has Argos been the bastion of professional supplies? It wasn't even the most expensive camera that Argos sell! Anyone can walk into Argos (or Tesco, or Asda) and buy one of these. It doesn't make them a professional any more than buying a flashy pair of boots from JD Sports makes them a professional footballer.
I think the most amusing comment I've received when I had the TLR out, was from someone who thought it was one of those laser level things for surveying.
I had a private security guard approach me in the street and tell me I wasn't allowed to take photo's of the flagstones (I was playing with my new ultra-wide) as there were children about 40 feet away, and in a different direction to where I was shooting.
Some people would accept that kind of command without question, further perpetuating this idea that cameras emit beams of rapey light than can turn corners and rob children of their innocence.
He was only following orders, and once he'd given himself a headache by trying to explain these orders and realising they were full of contradictions and nonsense, we had a chuckle over it.
I am around children every day,i take little one to school or pick her up,and i help out at the school.
You know what scare most parents,traffic, driver,they come speeding pass the school,a lot of them on their mobiles,jumping the traffic lights by the school,the poor old lollypop lady get abuse from them.
And yes we have inform the police and the council,same old story we know their a problem,we will try a get some partol cars out,but nothing ever happen :shake:
You know what scare most parents,traffic, driver,they come speeding pass the school,a lot of them on their mobiles,jumping the traffic lights by the school,the poor old lollypop lady get abuse from them.
And yes we have inform the police and the council,same old story we know their a problem,we will try a get some partol cars out,but nothing ever happen :shake:
Galaxy66
Jeremy Beadle
- Messages
- 9,192
- Name
- My name is Mal not Jeremy :)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Taken while contributing to this thread...
Shock horror!! they should have their faces blurred out Tony!!
Seriously though why is it that the faces of kids are often blurred out by the media, surely that only adds to the paranoia.
- Messages
- 456
- Edit My Images
- No
That's nothing to do with the media. Kid's faces go blurry from not eating their vegetables.
- Messages
- 4,225
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Taken while contributing to this thread...
That guy in the white shirt MUST be dodgy - look how close he is getting to those children
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,440
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
That guy in the white shirt MUST be dodgy - look how close he is getting to those children
and he's bald......tsk!
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,440
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
You pick a tree.. I will get the rope!
Seriously though.. My point was.. he was tkaing pics.. I was taking pics.. the room was full of adults ..parents, staff everyone.. all taking pics willy nilly.. I cover a lot of schools sports and everyone takes pics... You can see them videoing wiht phones and stuff..
Nobody really cares...
The ONLY people I ahve ever seen or heard moan about photogrpahing children.. Is photographers on TP moaning how its not allowed...
I ahve had the odd word with people .. lots of teachers havent a clue what they are talking about... but nothing heavy and never asked to stop that I can recall..
- Messages
- 456
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep same happen at the school,little one goes to,no problems.
What they did a few years ago,was an op out policy,that if you did not want photos of your children taken at school,you could op out
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,440
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
What they did a few years ago,was an op out policy,that if you did not want photos of your children taken at school,you could op out
Thats the opposite of what it seems to be now.. but the perfect answer IMHO ..
Forbiddenbiker
The Enforcer
- Messages
- 11,048
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm with you on the technicalities sure, and they are the important bit, but lets face it ... Us people are easily led, and your new statement above is far less likley to achieve a 'negative' understanding that the original does.
I'll steer away from using the word rights then, and go with your kind of wording above.
Taken while contributing to this thread...
[/QUOTE]
...just don't tell us it was manual. :p
[quote="KIPAX, post: 4669185"]
Seriously though.. My point was.. he was tkaing pics.. I was taking pics.. the room was full of adults ..parents, staff everyone.. all taking pics willy nilly.. I cover a lot of schools sports and everyone takes pics... You can see them videoing wiht phones and stuff..
Nobody really cares...
[/QUOTE]
Good to hear.
[quote="bigrob, post: 4669200"]So I'd better not go near a school with my new coat on then?
[/QUOTE]
No best not, you'll get mugged by the kids who aren't laughing :D ;)
- Messages
- 10,097
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
So why do many government authorities seem to advise that you can?
N.B. We're talking about Public Rights of Way and not Permissive Paths.
Wiltshire Council
Wiltshire Council said:
Worcestershire County Council
Worcestershire County Council said:
Natural England
Natural England said:
City and County of Swansea
City and County of Swansea said:
Same advice from Kent County Council, West Sussex County Council, Milton Keynes Council, etc., etc.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Because they are trying to put an incredibly complex situation into lay terms - rights of way law is an incredibly difficult area and whole books have been written on rights of way law so anything thats saidf in a post here or on a website is always going to be a simplification.
However in brief
the purpose of a right of way is to allow you to freely pass and repass by permitted means (on foot on a footpath, on fot bike or horse on bridleway and so forth )
A camera is considered to be a usual accompaniement - that is something you can take with you while exercising your right of passage (dogs are also a usuall accompiement and just the case law arround that one point makes up a pile over an inch thick)
It is not an offence to stop briefly on a right of way for purposes incidental to the journey (or more technically by doing so you don't commit an offence of obstructing a right of way by doing so , so long as you don't physically impede the pasage of other users)
However 'purposes incidental to the journey' is a very difficult area - by the strictest interpretation of the law this means that you can stop on a public right of way to take a picture that is illustrative of your journey, but you can't use a right of way with the intent to take pictures - so for example in the examples i mentioned above its not acceptable to use a right of way to document a GM crop , because your purpose of being there is photography not free passage (that was established in case law in 2008)
You also dont have a specific right to photography in the same way that you do to free passage - so a landowner can prohibit it, but he can't legally stop you using the right of way.
There are also other germane points like - technically rights of way law only applies on a the definitive line of the right of way - and there are many points where the route on the ground is not the definitive line . Defence to tresspass in those cases tends to revolve arround whether you had a reasonable belief you were on a right of way (ie if its signed as such, marked on a map as such and the landowner hasnt put any signs to say it isnt)
Also rights of way have a definitive width (usually - but not always- 3ft for footpaths , 8 for bridleways and 12 for byways) step outside of that width and assuming you arent on access land you are tresspassing , and no provision of PRoW law applies.
I could go on , but ive got better things to do. And with respect I'd suggest that reading a few websites doesnt provide the same degree of insight into Right of Way law as being a Rights of way officer for 5 years , and being an expert witness at public enquiries and court cases.
The bottom line is that for usual photography (i.e non comercial photography which is not opposed to the actual interests of the landowner) you'll be fine taking pictures on a public right of way 99.9% of the time - but that doesnt translate to an absolute right to do so and if a landowner or his agents do ask you to cease then its a good idea to comply , rather than winding up fighting it out in the courts
For those wanting a greater insignt into public rights of way law i'd suggest the following books
riddal and treveylan (this is used in most PRoW offices as a handy refference ) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rights-Way-...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337339638&sr=1-1
Sydenham - more indepth but bloody expensive http://www.amazon.co.uk/Public-Righ...=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337339671&sr=1-2
and blackford (looks at the planning aspects principally) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rights-Way-Planning-law-practice/dp/1858111668/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b
However i would note that even a full reading of all of these and of the 1949 Access to the Countryside act, 1968 Countryside Act, 2000 Countryside and Rights of Way act, and the 2005 Natural environments and rural communities Act still won't provide a completely definitive understanding as English law is defined by precedent and cae lasw and is thus the implications are constantly changing.
To give an example of what i mean about simplification take this advice from swansea (as per your post)
Now thats okay as far as it goes - but the real legal situation is that wheelchairs are not in fact a usual accompaniement at all - in fact the user of a manual wheel chair, powered wheelchair (aka a class one mobility device) or a small powered scooter (class two mobility device) is legally considered (again established by case law) to be a pedestrian. a big tramper type mobilty scooter (class three) is considered to be a motor vehicle and is therefore only legal on byways. (the reason a wheel chair isnt considered an accompanyment is complex but in lay terms its because you don't take a wheel chair with you on a walk - a user uses it to exercise their access rights)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 45,543
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Pins in eyes comes to mind!
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wasn't thinking of giving up photography but all this talk of rights or way has got me thinking of it.
For me to give up would clearly be of no loss to the photographic world (in fact it would probably be a benefit) but it is bad if all these reasons are putting off potentially good photographers out there. Hopefully they will carry on in ignorance...
For me to give up would clearly be of no loss to the photographic world (in fact it would probably be a benefit) but it is bad if all these reasons are putting off potentially good photographers out there. Hopefully they will carry on in ignorance...
Forbiddenbiker
The Enforcer
- Messages
- 11,048
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's sad you feel that way, I cant help but think this is what happens when we all start referring to the details of individual rules that say NO, instead of an all encompassing overview of the true reality which really still does say yes..
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's sad you feel that way, I cant help but think this is what happens when we all start referring to the details of individual rules that say NO, instead of an all encompassing overview of the true reality which really still does say yes..
Personally I think that most of the time reality says "maybe" and its better to have the information to form an informed view, ignorance isnt blissful when it blows up in your face
- Messages
- 3,751
- Name
- urrrm.... Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So I'd better not go near a school with my new coat on then?
LOL a fan of the Two Towers? or Dresden files??
Hey...I have a new solution for this
okay, I might offend some people here but for the purposes of sarcasm please grin and bear it...
LET'S MAKE PHOTOGRAPHY A RELIGION!
let's go out on our chosen day, saturday perhaps? and make the taking off photographs the worship of....I don't know.... Gaia or something. :bonk:
then our right to to have freedeom of photography would be lawfully protected.
