Photographer arrested for...wait for it...being too tall!

Telescopi said:
Newsflash, you have no right to privacy in a public place.

And what about kids? Do you mean you let yours out of the house? How irresponsible are you, any sick deviant could be looking at them :eek: If you're letting them out of the house without a full length sack over the head (for the sprint from the safety of the car to the house) you deserve everything you get.
Click to expand...

So he can use those photos of other people for whatever reason at all? I dont think so.

Ive got the right to walk down the street without some photographer jumping in front of me taking my photo then using it for whatever illicit means (ie commercial or for their own "artistic" use)

The photographer does not have the right to do that. Maybe they do in UK law i dunno - but that doesnt mean its right.

I can understand the police being suspicious of someone who is photographing strangers and then refuses to give his own identification and then has the cheek to try to put the blame on the police when he is the one who is acting in an underhand manner.
 
Surfer said:
So he can use those photos of other people for whatever reason at all? I dont think so.
Click to expand...

Yes, he took it, he can use it, its call copyright.

Surfer said:
Ive got the right to walk down the street without some photographer jumping in front of me taking my photo then using it for whatever illicit means (ie commercial or for their own "artistic" use)
Click to expand...

No you don't, same reason you don't have the right to stop people looking at you, nor stop the CCTV taking video and photos of you.

Surfer said:
The photographer does not have the right to do that. Maybe they do in UK law i dunno - but that doesnt mean its right.
Click to expand...

The Law is the point, otherwise we'll be basing it on what? Your views?

Surfer said:
I can understand the police being suspicious of someone who is photographing strangers and then refuses to give his own identification and then has the cheek to try to put the blame on the police when he is the one who is acting in an underhand manner.
Click to expand...

He is saying the police is in the wrong because they had no cause for arrest.

You are arguing manner, we are talking about the law. The police is there to enforce the law, the law in this case is not on the police's side. full stop, if the law is indeed on the police's side, he would be charged and being prosecuted by the CPS right now.
 
Raikiri said:
It's called candid portraiture and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

You have photos and videos of you taken every time you go out, why is it wrong if an individual does it? Plus, in most cases the photographer will let you know and delete the picture if you are unhappy about it.
Click to expand...

So what does candid portraiture mean legally? As you've said theres nothing wrong with it? Do you mean thats your opinion or is that UK law?

Photos and videos taken of the public daily are held under data protection legislation and for a specific purpose only.

Clearly different from an individual off the street doing the same......
 
Surfer said:
So what does candid portraiture mean legally? As you've said theres nothing wrong with it? Do you mean thats your opinion or is that UK law?

Photos and videos taken of the public daily are held under data protection legislation and for a specific purpose only.

Clearly different from an individual off the street doing the same......
Click to expand...

I'll spell it out for you.

Photographs taken in public, is free for all, we can all do it. Otherwise papparazzi would be an illegal profession. some say they should be, but that's another kettle of fish and whole other argument. The point is that you are free to take photographs in public of anything in public, it's the whole point of P U B L I C.

The only leverage the police has is if they suspect you of doing terrorist activities, such as photographing government buildings, CCTV cameras locations, think if someone want to attack a building and they need to do some survallience on the place, and need to locate where all the security and cameras are. That's what they are basing this all on, and as it turns out, without grounds.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Yes, he took it, he can use it, its call copyright.
Click to expand...

Uhh i work in copyright m8 so dont need to patronise me. You need to expand what you've said because as a blanket statement without restriction NO he cant do that.


No you don't, same reason you don't have the right to stop people looking at you, nor stop the CCTV taking video and photos of you.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Images collected via CCTV and the like are covered under other legislation and are held for specific purposes (public safety etc).

An individual off the street cannot claim the same.



The Law is the point, otherwise we'll be basing it on what? Your views?
Click to expand...

Which law?


He is saying the police is in the wrong because they had no cause for arrest.

You are arguing manner, we are talking about the law. The police is there to enforce the law, the law in this case is not on the police's side. full stop, if the law is indeed on the police's side, he would be charged and being prosecuted by the CPS right now.
Click to expand...

Police can detain him for questioning on grounds of suspicious behaviour can they not? As i understand it it was reported to police about his activities so that means some people/persons were uncomfortable with what he was doing. Personally i think its highly offensive and rude (and i would have reported him as well) but photographers go by a different sense of etiquette and ethics i guess.
 
Surfer said:
The photographer does not have the right to do that. Maybe they do in UK law i dunno - but that doesnt mean its right.
Click to expand...

Yes they do by law.

Surfer said:
I can understand the police being suspicious of someone who is photographing strangers and then refuses to give his own identification and then has the cheek to try to put the blame on the police when he is the one who is acting in an underhand manner.
Click to expand...

He refused to give ID to two council workers and a PCSO, neither of which and the authority to demand ID (well the PCSO does but only when authorised by an officer of at least the rank of assistant chief constable or commander).

When placed under arrest and obligated to provide ID, he did so.


Surfer said:
Personally i think its highly offensive and rude (and i would have reported him as well) but photographers go by a different sense of etiquette and ethics i guess.
Click to expand...

What is highly offensive and rude, taking pictures?
 
Last edited:
Show me a law where you can't photograph in public.

So are you telling me, BBC news can't do an on location report on location? Speilberg can't shoot in the streets of london for his new movie?

as for using photos for whatever reasons, the only limitation are civil litigation in terms of damages i loss of revenue from the subject taken, such as using a photo of cocacola to advertise your business as cocacola is a trademark. He is photographing a building......and besides, its a civil matter, not a criminal matter and the police does not get involve in a civil matter.

I got to go back to work, lunch over...
 
Raymond Lin said:
I'll spell it out for you.

Photographs taken in public, is free for all, we can all do it. Otherwise papparazzi would be an illegal profession. some say they should be, but that's another kettle of fish and whole other argument. The point is that you are free to take photographs in public of anything in public, it's the whole point of P U B L I C.
Click to expand...

You normally this rude? It depends on what his intention i.e. his purposes are. That opens a whole other avenue of inquiry AND THAT determines whether he can do what he is doing.

Its not as simple as "yeah its fine" it also depends on what he does with the photos/images.

You should know that.
 
Surfer said:
So what does candid portraiture mean legally? As you've said theres nothing wrong with it? Do you mean thats your opinion or is that UK law?
Click to expand...

as far as law goes, as long as you are standing on public property when taking a photograph, its legal, even of kids, however if you want to use the images commercially, a signed model release form is needed, and in the case of kids, consent by the parent/guardian


this was an interesting read

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/
 
Surfer said:
Its not as simple as "yeah its fine" it also depends on what he does with the photos/images.
Click to expand...

Right, but taking the photos in a public place itself is not a crime, if her were to use them in an illicit manner then they could arrest him.
 
Raikiri said:
Yes they do by law.
Click to expand...

You can take photographs in public yes i'll say that much but thats only about 10% of the entirety of the legal situation tbh. And to assume that that clears it up is ignorant of the fuller ramifications of each situation.

He refused to give ID to two council workers and a PCSO, neither of which and the authority to demand ID (well the PCSO does but only when authorised by an officer of at least the rank of assistant chief constable or commander).

When placed under arrest and obligated to provide ID, he did so.
Click to expand...

So why the whole rigmarole?, why initially refuse to just tell them what he was doing??? Is this what people have become like nowadays? Someone is acting suspiciously they are reported by a member of the public. He's asked for some ID and suddenly he doesnt want to co-operate?? Bizarre frankly...

What is highly offensive and rude, taking pictures?
Click to expand...

No i didnt say that you are mis-using what i said to give your argument more credence. Its offensive and rude if its photographing someone without their permission. That clear enough for you?
 
Surfer said:
So why the whole rigmarole?, why initially refuse to just tell them what he was doing??? Is this what people have become like nowadays? Someone is acting suspiciously they are reported by a member of the public. He's asked for some ID and suddenly he doesnt want to co-operate?? Bizarre frankly...
Click to expand...


he was asked for I.D by two people that didnt identify themselves, by any rights those two could be muggers using the excuse of "I.D" for him to get his wallet out, frankly if ANYONE asked me for I.D without showing any identification themselves I would rufuse as well. as for explaining himself, why should he, it may have smoothed things over a little but either way he was in his right to just ignore them and get on with his hobby/
 
Last edited:
Surfer said:
You can take photographs in public yes i'll say that much but thats only about 10% of the entirety of the legal situation tbh. And to assume that that clears it up is ignorant of the fuller ramifications of each situation.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, he did not break any laws by taking the photos. How he uses them is a different matter but one that isn't relevant in this situation.


Surfer said:
So why the whole rigmarole?, why initially refuse to just tell them what he was doing??? Is this what people have become like nowadays? Someone is acting suspiciously they are reported by a member of the public. He's asked for some ID and suddenly he doesnt want to co-operate?? Bizarre frankly...
Click to expand...

He told them what he was doing and they had no right to request ID, why should he provide it?

Surfer said:
No i didnt say that you are mis-using what i said to give your argument more credence. Its offensive and rude if its photographing someone without their permission. That clear enough for you?
Click to expand...

No I'm not, I was simply asking you to clarify what you had said.

Why is it offensive and rude? It's only a picture, if you don't like it you can simply ask them to stop.
 
Surfer said:
So why the whole rigmarole?, why initially refuse to just tell them what he was doing??? Is this what people have become like nowadays? Someone is acting suspiciously they are reported by a member of the public. He's asked for some ID and suddenly he doesnt want to co-operate?? Bizarre frankly...
Click to expand...

Not really. I find it much worse that we are become a society so paranoid that a police repsonse is required to a man who is simply out in public with a camera, probably enjoying his hobby.

As I said, if someone demanded to see ID from me without first supplying their own, I would tell them where to go. Even if a police officer demanded to see some form of ID, I wouldn't until I was given a reason for the demand. Our society is based around the premise that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, not a police state where the law can make demands on me without justification.
 
Stev said:
he was asked for I.D by two people that didnt identify themselves, by any rights those two could be muggers using the excuse of "I.D" for him to get his wallet out, frankly if ANYONE asked me for I.D without showing any identification themselves I would rufuse as well. as for explaining himself, why should he, it may have smoothed things over a little but either way he was in his right to just ignore them and get on with his hobby/
Click to expand...

Thats the only bit they got wrong admittedly. The arrest, however imo was justified. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom