Photographing member of the public.
Discussion
A question for our PH Police, or other legal types.
Is an offence being committed if you take a photograph of a member of the public in the street without their permission?
Yesterday I was parked up for five minutes as I was early for a 10am call, a man came out of a nearby house and took photographs of me sitting in my car waiting.
Now, I cant be sure, but I reckon this was some neighbourhood watch type just covering the bases with a strange car/person parked up their road (if you can call a bloke with a suit & ties sitting in an ordinary 54 plated car for five minutes suspicious at any rate).
I didnt talk to the bloke as I didnt have time, and as mentioned above, I reckon his intentions were honourable.
BUT, it's not exactly on is it? coming out and blatantly taking a piccy of an innocent party just using the road as I am entitled to do so. The more I think about it, the more offense I have taken, this is in effect some sort of personal slight. Who the hell does he think he is, and what right does he have to go taking pics of folks just in case they are up to no good, surely making a discreet note of the reg number would be more appropriate.
Has he committed an offence? and if I did go and have words, would I be entitled to see the picture deleted and/or demand his camera/memory card?
Is an offence being committed if you take a photograph of a member of the public in the street without their permission?
Yesterday I was parked up for five minutes as I was early for a 10am call, a man came out of a nearby house and took photographs of me sitting in my car waiting.
Now, I cant be sure, but I reckon this was some neighbourhood watch type just covering the bases with a strange car/person parked up their road (if you can call a bloke with a suit & ties sitting in an ordinary 54 plated car for five minutes suspicious at any rate).
I didnt talk to the bloke as I didnt have time, and as mentioned above, I reckon his intentions were honourable.
BUT, it's not exactly on is it? coming out and blatantly taking a piccy of an innocent party just using the road as I am entitled to do so. The more I think about it, the more offense I have taken, this is in effect some sort of personal slight. Who the hell does he think he is, and what right does he have to go taking pics of folks just in case they are up to no good, surely making a discreet note of the reg number would be more appropriate.
Has he committed an offence? and if I did go and have words, would I be entitled to see the picture deleted and/or demand his camera/memory card?
Balmoral Green said:
A question for our PH Police, or other legal types.
Is an offence being committed if you take a photograph of a member of the public in the street without their permission?
Yesterday I was parked up for five minutes as I was early for a 10am call, a man came out of a nearby house and took photographs of me sitting in my car waiting.
Now, I cant be sure, but I reckon this was some neighbourhood watch type just covering the bases with a strange car/person parked up their road (if you can call a bloke with a suit & ties sitting in an ordinary 54 plated car for five minutes suspicious at any rate).
I didnt talk to the bloke as I didnt have time, and as mentioned above, I reckon his intentions were honourable.
BUT, it's not exactly on is it? coming out and blatantly taking a piccy of an innocent party just using the road as I am entitled to do so. The more I think about it, the more offense I have taken, this is in effect some sort of personal slight. Who the hell does he think he is, and what right does he have to go taking pics of folks just in case they are up to no good, surely making a discreet note of the reg number would be more appropriate.
Has he committed an offence? and if I did go and have words, would I be entitled to see the picture deleted and/or demand his camera/memory card?
Is an offence being committed if you take a photograph of a member of the public in the street without their permission?
Yesterday I was parked up for five minutes as I was early for a 10am call, a man came out of a nearby house and took photographs of me sitting in my car waiting.
Now, I cant be sure, but I reckon this was some neighbourhood watch type just covering the bases with a strange car/person parked up their road (if you can call a bloke with a suit & ties sitting in an ordinary 54 plated car for five minutes suspicious at any rate).
I didnt talk to the bloke as I didnt have time, and as mentioned above, I reckon his intentions were honourable.
BUT, it's not exactly on is it? coming out and blatantly taking a piccy of an innocent party just using the road as I am entitled to do so. The more I think about it, the more offense I have taken, this is in effect some sort of personal slight. Who the hell does he think he is, and what right does he have to go taking pics of folks just in case they are up to no good, surely making a discreet note of the reg number would be more appropriate.
Has he committed an offence? and if I did go and have words, would I be entitled to see the picture deleted and/or demand his camera/memory card?
What do you think the paparazzi do all the time without commiting an offence, to the annoyance of many celebs ?
Bloody hell, recounting that must have made you angry!
It got from '...his intentions were honourable...' to '...who the hell does he think he is...' in a couple of sentences!
I know what you mean though, that would annoy me too. I would of felt exactly the same way, thinking I can be bothered in his little life, and then later wanting to find out what he was doing!
Sorry I cant answer your question apart from as you were in a public place, you may be pretty much fair game, if you were on your own property then this may be an invasion of privacy.
It got from '...his intentions were honourable...' to '...who the hell does he think he is...' in a couple of sentences!
I know what you mean though, that would annoy me too. I would of felt exactly the same way, thinking I can be bothered in his little life, and then later wanting to find out what he was doing!
Sorry I cant answer your question apart from as you were in a public place, you may be pretty much fair game, if you were on your own property then this may be an invasion of privacy.
justinp1 said:
It got from '...his intentions were honourable...' to '...who the hell does he think he is...' in a couple of sentences!
Mainly on account of being abused by all and sundry for no good reason, I have had a horrid week, all on account of horrid people, one after the other, who feel they have some sort of god given right to be shit to me this week. I dont know any of them, they have all been strangers. Keyboard catharsis I guess
Another perspective on this - walking through London with American in tow, both of us taking photos, mine involving the yankee visitor against suitable backdrop. random passer by remonstrated with me just after taking a photo which may have had him and random female as part of the scene. Said nothing, just gave the guy a blank look and he cleared off with together random female. Weird fecka - as though people are going to ask permission from distant background pondlife.
vonhosen said:
What do you think the paparazzi do all the time without commiting an offence, to the annoyance of many celebs ?
I'm more than willing to be wrong here but I thought that the fact that they were celebs was the difference here as what would be seen as an intrusion of privacy for a normal private citizen could be said to be "in the public interest" with celebs?
robbieduncan said:
vonhosen said:
What do you think the paparazzi do all the time without commiting an offence, to the annoyance of many celebs ?
I'm more than willing to be wrong here but I thought that the fact that they were celebs was the difference here as what would be seen as an intrusion of privacy for a normal private citizen could be said to be "in the public interest" with celebs?
I thought it became an invasion of privacy if the photographer had to gain access to private property to take the photo. In the street, or any other public place, I thought individual photos, not showing any surveilance of tracking intention, were fine. As far as the monitoring/surveilance aspects are concerned, that's a whole different kettle of ballparks.
turbobloke said:
BLiar hasn't got round to banning or taxing the taking of photos (yet, he's still got a few months).
On the other hand, with the ever expanding plethora of surveillance devices, CCTV, cameras etc all over the place, you could argue totally the opposite, Blair doesnt want to ban them, he loves them, and this bloke is more of the same, even MOP are at it now. Thats what irks me so. Edited by Balmoral Green on Saturday 2nd December 13:18
turbobloke said:
BLiar hasn't got round to banning or taxing the taking of photos (yet, he's still got a few months).
Agreed. It would be a bit more of the:
'If it moves, tax it!' policy - it even counts if the only thing moving is electrons and photons - anyone remember the proposed taxation on emails a few years ago!?
You can take anyone's picture in public. If you were to try to use it commercially and they are identifiable in the picture, then you would need to ensure that you have a model release form if you wanted to be 100% of no problems.
I stopped to take some pictures of what I considered to be a "hidden" camera van once. It was parked on the pavement outside a house. Couple in garden of house started getting most irate even though I wasn't pointing camera in their direction.
There is definitely a need to be more sensitive about using cameras these days as the public and "officialdom" are so brainwashed these days into thinking everyone's either a perv or a terrorist.
Stuart
I stopped to take some pictures of what I considered to be a "hidden" camera van once. It was parked on the pavement outside a house. Couple in garden of house started getting most irate even though I wasn't pointing camera in their direction.
There is definitely a need to be more sensitive about using cameras these days as the public and "officialdom" are so brainwashed these days into thinking everyone's either a perv or a terrorist.
Stuart
stuart b said:
You can take anyone's picture in public. If you were to try to use it commercially and they are identifiable in the picture, then you would need to ensure that you have a model release form if you wanted to be 100% of no problems.
Only if their image is directly related to the product/service being sold. If its just a shot of the general public, its fine.
I can see why it might feel invasive or weird to have someone take your photo. On the other hand, some of the best art or documentary photographs in history have been taken in a candid style.
From BG's original post, I guess it looks like this photographer had slightly different intentions. I might have been a little miffed, but it's not a major issue in the big scheme of things is it?
I used to do a little photography, and it seems like a greater loss to society that folks can't even take pictures of general urban scenes without having someone assume the worst. It seems hypocritical in fact, that on the one hand people wish to devour media images of celebrities, but get stroppy when someone takes a picture of them.
I'm not saying BG is being like that by the way, as this original context was not a wannabe Cartier-Bresson
From BG's original post, I guess it looks like this photographer had slightly different intentions. I might have been a little miffed, but it's not a major issue in the big scheme of things is it?
I used to do a little photography, and it seems like a greater loss to society that folks can't even take pictures of general urban scenes without having someone assume the worst. It seems hypocritical in fact, that on the one hand people wish to devour media images of celebrities, but get stroppy when someone takes a picture of them.
I'm not saying BG is being like that by the way, as this original context was not a wannabe Cartier-Bresson
A Similar thing happened to me last week. I walk the 1.5 miles to work, anyhow, walking down a street which fronts the towns park at 7.30am as every morning, and a front door opens, a women in a dressing gown points a camera at me --- Flash, and shuts the door without a word. I was somewhat perplexed and concirned at the time. Perhaps I look dodgy?
What's up, didn't he get your best side?
Suppose it had been on your road and the man with the camaera snapped another supposedly innocent party, who just turned out to be the bloke that burgled your house later that day? I can understand your being irked, as I guess I would be too, but I doubt he has anything other than what he sees as the best of motives.
Suppose it had been on your road and the man with the camaera snapped another supposedly innocent party, who just turned out to be the bloke that burgled your house later that day? I can understand your being irked, as I guess I would be too, but I doubt he has anything other than what he sees as the best of motives.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff