Private use and social media

Break out the long lens and go to public land.

He's fooling himself, and the film set, if they think those shots aren't surpassed by many, many other shots, knowing that area reasonably well, there's plenty of places to see the set from a higher vantage.
 
john.margetts said:
If the paramedics are treating someone on the pavement prior to putting them in the ambulance, they (patient and ambulance crew) have a clear expectation of privacy. There are many other specific exceptions to the general lack of expectation of privacy in a public place.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They are visible in public, they have no expectation or right of privacy. Please quote the ‘many other specific exceptions’ you state.
 
DemiLion said:
How is that relevant?

Your comment was...



So you've just disproved your own opinion.
Click to expand...

No I haven’t. If you are in the back of an ambulance and the door is shut then you can’t just go up and open the door and start taking pictures. If the door is open then feel free to shoot away at what you can see.
 
Rather sadly, you are the type of photographer that leaves the rest of us with a bad reputation.
 
Andrew Smith said:
Wrong. They are visible in public, they have no expectation or right of privacy. Please quote the ‘many other specific exceptions’ you state.
Click to expand...
Saying 'wrong' is all very well but can you quote from where they have no expectation of privacy? The rule that judges use is that where someone is in a public place and have to deal with a situation that is normally and reasonably dealt with in private but are unable to do so.

If you think you privacy has been invaded in a public place you 'can bring an action in tort for misuse of private information (Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 and Vidal-Hall v Google [2015] EWCA Civ 311). '. That bit in brackets is case law where a judge has interpreted English law and decided that such an action is valid. If you paste that part in brackets into Google, you will get the full details.
 
Last edited:
A bit more detail about an expectation of privacy in a public place:

"The category of what can be protected is wide. It can include activities carried out in public (Von Hannover v Germany (Application no.59320/00) and Application 44647/98 Peck v United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 719). Photographs have been deemed particularly intrusive and children are likely to be accorded greater protection. Business information communicated in the course of a personal relationship could be capable of qualifying as "private", however, this depends on the circumstances (Lord Browne of Madingley v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 295)."

From https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreut...ansitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
 
DemiLion said:
Rather sadly, you are the type of photographer that leaves the rest of us with a bad reputation.
Click to expand...

I am fully aware of my responsibilities. I also stand up for my rights. You seem willing to know-tow to anyone who claims authority. I don’t.
 
john.margetts said:
Saying 'wrong' is all very well but can you quote from where they have no expectation of privacy? The rule that judges use is that where someone is in a public place and have to deal with a situation that is normally and reasonably dealt with in private but are unable to do so.

If you think you privacy has been invaded in a public place you 'can bring an action in tort for misuse of private information (Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22 and Vidal-Hall v Google [2015] EWCA Civ 311). '. That bit in brackets is case law where a judge has interpreted English law and decided that such an action is valid. If you paste that part in brackets into Google, you will get the full details.
Click to expand...

The Campbell case overturn of the appeal ruling centered on the publishing of additional general and irrelevant information, not on the publishing of a photo of her leaving an NA meeting.
 
Andrew Smith said:
I am fully aware of my responsibilities. I also stand up for my rights. You seem willing to know-tow to anyone who claims authority. I don’t.
Click to expand...
I think the suggestion is that its more about mutual respect as opposed to me me me (my responsibilities, my rights etc.). The what i'm allowed to do rather that what can I achieve working with others rather that the undercurrent of what appears to come across in some of the above posts that security and people who challenge you are mere underlings rather than are simply interested in reducing the threat of the few that seem to be making life more difficult for the many (eg photographers)
 
Andrew Smith said:
You are so wrong..

View: https://youtu.be/YY4U4dGuSXs


How do you think surveillance is done?
Click to expand...

'so wrong'...

“Where the BBC suspects that an occupier is watching live television but not paying for a licence, it can send a detection van to check whether this is the case…”
That’s targeted surveillance, which is deemed acceptable under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and related legislation.

Thats completely different to you taking photos through someones window, where they have an expectation of privacy
 
Andrew Smith said:
I am fully aware of my responsibilities. I also stand up for my rights. You seem willing to know-tow to anyone who claims authority. I don’t.
Click to expand...

There are many laws and rules governing photography, which one needs to be aware of, to allow one to make an informed opinion. A simple cart blanch approach of "you can't tell me what to do" is, to use your words, so wrong.
Also, sometimes it's better to defuse the situation by moving away and then contacting the organisation blocking your photography. Standing arguing with someone who thinks they're right achieves nothing other than to reinforce their opion that photographers are arseholes and they were right to challenge them.
 
Byker28i said:
Standing arguing with someone who thinks they're right achieves nothing other than to reinforce their opion that photographers are arseholes and they were right to challenge them.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
I remember a while ago some Press reporter taking photos of Hove town hall, he got really gobby with the people who asked him what he was doing so he got nicked. Me I take photos of Hove town hall and when asked what I am doing, I am polite and all is fine. So IMO press photographers can give a bad name too.
 
Dave70D said:
I remember a while ago some Press reporter taking photos of Hove town hall, he got really gobby with the people who asked him what he was doing so he got nicked. Me I take photos of Hove town hall and when asked what I am doing, I am polite and all is fine. So IMO press photographers can give a bad name too.
Click to expand...


Yeah, not a great example. A member of police staff misrepresented herself as a police constable. The photographer in question was absolutely in the right in that case.
 
Byker28i said:
'so wrong'...

“Where the BBC suspects that an occupier is watching live television but not paying for a licence, it can send a detection van to check whether this is the case…”
That’s targeted surveillance, which is deemed acceptable under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and related legislation.

Thats completely different to you taking photos through someones window, where they have an expectation of privacy
Click to expand...

It’s still taking pictures through someone’s window..........from a public space.
 
Byker28i said:
There are many laws and rules governing photography, which one needs to be aware of, to allow one to make an informed opinion. A simple cart blanch approach of "you can't tell me what to do" is, to use your words, so wrong.
Also, sometimes it's better to defuse the situation by moving away and then contacting the organisation blocking your photography. Standing arguing with someone who thinks they're right achieves nothing other than to reinforce their opion that photographers are arseholes and they were right to challenge them.
Click to expand...
It takes 2 people to have an argument. Simply don’t engage with those who seek to question you unless it’s the Police. There is no need to talk to some jumped up security guard if you don’t want to. That way there is no argument.
 
Andrew Smith said:
It takes 2 people to have an argument. Simply don’t engage with those who seek to question you unless it’s the Police. There is no need to talk to some jumped up security guard if you don’t want to. That way there is no argument.
Click to expand...

And therein is the issue, jumped up security guard. You blanket treat others with such condescension and you wonder why they end up treating photographer equally.
 
jamesev said:
And therein is the issue, jumped up security guard. You blanket treat others with such condescension and you wonder why they end up treating photographer equally.
Click to expand...

I was once stood on a public street taking a picture of a building when some jumped up security guard came running out of the building bellowing at me to stop taking pictures or he would seize my camera. I asked him to stop shouting at me to which he then started telling me to empty my pockets and give him my name and address.

I told him to sod off and if he didn’t like me taking pictures of the building then tough luck because the law says I can. He skulked off.
 
Andrew Smith said:
I was once stood on a public street taking a picture of a building when some jumped up security guard came running out of the building bellowing at me to stop taking pictures or he would seize my camera. I asked him to stop shouting at me to which he then started telling me to empty my pockets and give him my name and address.

I told him to sod off and if he didn’t like me taking pictures of the building then tough luck because the law says I can. He skulked off.
Click to expand...

Your parents must have been beaming with pride when you narrated that story to them.
 
DemiLion said:
Telling someone to sod off is not standing your ground. It's acting like a cock.
Click to expand...

Someone with zero authority telling me to empty my pockets and telling me they are going to seize my camera is acting like a cock. Standing up for my rights isn’t.
 
Andrew Smith said:
It’s still taking pictures through someone’s window..........from a public space.
Click to expand...

That's targeted surveillance which is totally different to you as a normal photographer.

But you can't admit you're wrong, so it's pointless continuing.
 
Byker28i said:
That's targeted surveillance which is totally different to you as a normal photographer.

But you can't admit you're wrong, so it's pointless continuing.
Click to expand...

I can stand on the pavement and take photo’s of someone’s house. Anyone can. If that includes the windows it includes the windows and whatever you can see through them. Bye.
 
jamesev said:
No it isn’t, but how you go about it absolutely is.
Click to expand...

You have very different views and values to me. Enjoy being searched and told what to do by someone who has no authority to do so. If you do not stand up for your rights they will be quickly eroded. An awful lot of people have died for the right to vote, Many millions still don’t have it. Give an inch and people take a mile. And with that mile goes your freedom and liberty.
 
Andrew Smith said:
I can stand on the pavement and take photo’s of someone’s house. Anyone can. If that includes the windows it includes the windows and whatever you can see through them. Bye.
Click to expand...
You are aiming for a great deal of trouble with that mistake.
 
Gogster said:
Break out the long lens and go to public land.

He's fooling himself, and the film set, if they think those shots aren't surpassed by many, many other shots, knowing that area reasonably well, there's plenty of places to see the set from a higher vantage.
Click to expand...
Would you agree that its impossible to know the land is private especially leaving the M3 at the Odyssey and driving straight passed the Premier Inn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top