- Messages
- 12,774
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
(EG No nude photography of under 18's - which includes criminalising nude self portraits)
Just to clarify, the wording is 'indecent images' not 'nude'. They are two very different things.
(EG No nude photography of under 18's - which includes criminalising nude self portraits)
I think I am summarising this correctly ... but essentially in a public space you are free to do anything which the law does not prohibit. In a private space - or a psudo public space the Guardian article was about - that principle is reversed and you are not allowed to do anything except those things which are allowed.You're very much mistaken.
For most of us, most of the time we're in public space where we're free to do what we like within the law.
Which is the whole point of the article in the OP, because lots of things that look and feel like public space are now owned by private companies, who have very different rules about what they allow.
Just to clarify, the wording is 'indecent images' not 'nude'. They are two very different things.
I think I am summarising this correctly ... but essentially in a public space you are free to do anything which the law does not prohibit. In a private space - or a psudo public space the Guardian article was about - that principle is reversed and you are not allowed to do anything except those things which are allowed.
The big problems are that (a) many of these spaces are not obviously privately owned and (b) the sets of rules and regulations are not readily available and (as found by the Guardian) even writing to the owners of the property do not get you details of what is and isn't permitted. Leading to the thought that rules are just made up as they feel like it.
Now non of this (the control over private property) is illegal ...
No, I don't understand this either and it's even more odd since in English cities people are being filmed all the time by CCTV.I've never understood why people feel the need to harass photographers. It's rare I take photos of people/photos with people In the background so that's not a big issue for me. I do fully understand if a persons face is clear in a photograph and they don't want to be photographed I'll delete it. But if you're taking pictures of a landscape/macro ext and you're on public property or even private property that has no signs and no barriers so it is not clear that it's private property I don't see the issue? If someone asks you to leave and you're on private property that again isn't marked as private/has no barriers be polite and leave as requested but you should still be allowed to keep the photographs? You're not harming anyone, you haven't damaged anything as long as you're respectful I don't see what harm you have caused.
How do people usually respond in these situations?