Eh? No it's not, it's around 5'10 1/2" (at least a year or two ago, so unless people have shrunk massively since then it will be the same). And to put that into perspective, i'm 6'2" and I don't think of myself as being particularly tall (if the average height was 5'9" I would only ever be seeing people bald patches).
Photographer arrested for...wait for it...being too tall!
- Thread starter Ricochet J
- Start date
Eh? No it's not, it's around 5'10 1/2" (at least a year or two ago, so unless people have shrunk massively since then it will be the same). And to put that into perspective, i'm 6'2" and I don't think of myself as being particularly tall (if the average height was 5'9" I would only ever be seeing people bald patches).
Of course it is relevant. Because that alters the legal situation entirely! The two are connected. In principle taking photographs in public is fine but there are stacks of conditions that quite rightly prohibit the photographer from having free rein to do what they like.
Because some members of the public were a little concerned or felt harassed by what he was doing? Hence he is reported. Cant he understand how he behaves could have been seen as intrusive.
We dont know the details - we dont know how he acted. But whoever reported him does.
He should have considered how his actions *may* affect others and not just selfishly be concerned with his own rights. Hence him taking umbrage at being asked for ID and refusing to give it.... sigh.
If you were asking me to clarify it why leave out half of what i said? To give an entirely different impression of what i said?
I think its rude because the photographer is assuming primacy of his right to photograph whomever he likes over the persons right not to be photographed without their permission. Its simple basic manners that admittedly are a rarity these days.
His actions may have been agressive. Like i've said we dont know the details - if he was unobtrusive and not getting in anyones way then why would he have been reported?
Surfer, may I recommend this for clarification:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photographer-Law-Don-Cassell/dp/0907297447
Should clear things up for you.
I have been a photographer for the last 20 years and have never had problems photographing my local high streets, fairs, village fetes, kids at said events, as well as street photography around the world.
If the pics were for personal, artistic or editorial usage, in the UK a public place is just that and the people can be included (if someone explicitly requests it, I have deleted the image from the camera..as should everyone...however that was a little more difficult in the days when we used film
)
If abroad, i have made it quite clear i have a camera and will take a photo which includes a person, and have thanked them after.
Frankly, Im not sure the photographer in question fully co-operated (his spin) with the authorities, hence the rigmarole (and i have come across several ******* photographers in my time), on the other hand the council workers and the PCSOs come across as a bunch of unimaginitive divs as well
edit: you may think it rude, and a reflection of failing manners today, but i wonder whether Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Don McCullin, Robert Frank and all of the other great photo-journalists and street photographers of the past would have got the results they did without getting close.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photographer-Law-Don-Cassell/dp/0907297447
Should clear things up for you.
I have been a photographer for the last 20 years and have never had problems photographing my local high streets, fairs, village fetes, kids at said events, as well as street photography around the world.
If the pics were for personal, artistic or editorial usage, in the UK a public place is just that and the people can be included (if someone explicitly requests it, I have deleted the image from the camera..as should everyone...however that was a little more difficult in the days when we used film
)If abroad, i have made it quite clear i have a camera and will take a photo which includes a person, and have thanked them after.
Frankly, Im not sure the photographer in question fully co-operated (his spin) with the authorities, hence the rigmarole (and i have come across several ******* photographers in my time), on the other hand the council workers and the PCSOs come across as a bunch of unimaginitive divs as well
edit: you may think it rude, and a reflection of failing manners today, but i wonder whether Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Don McCullin, Robert Frank and all of the other great photo-journalists and street photographers of the past would have got the results they did without getting close.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 16,121
- Location
- Chengdu
If the police weren't willing to provide ID then why should he co-operate?
We live in a country filled with scum, I wouldn't provide my details to someone based on the strength of their word.
We live in a country filled with scum, I wouldn't provide my details to someone based on the strength of their word.
What i find sad is that the person/photographer who is taking offense cares only about their rights and how they have been violated/ignored.
He cares nothing for the rights of others. People live in communities maybe he should try acting that way.
You're right it is sad a police response is required because this man refused to communicate very very simple facts to account for his suspicious behaviour. I assume it was members of the public who reported him btw.
Instead he has a bit of a strop, refuses to co-operate and it takes the police coming down for him to see a little bit of common sense. Bit of a waste of police time dont you think? All caused because this man decides he doesn't have to answer a question.
I'll agree with that. They should've reasonably explained why they were asking for his ID and also provided their own ID as well.
Police should never have *needed* to be called in this case. But its a sign of the times...
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
you've gone from saying 'photography in public is illegal' to 'it's only illegal sometimes' and now you're saying 'it's the guys fault' but 'it's the PCSOs fault'. why don't you try to post in a coherent manner and run what you post via your brain before posting it.
just as an aside why do we need this level of security now after 7/7 when we went without it during all the many many bombings by the IRA and attempted/threatened bombing by the IRA? it seems ridiculous that you can go out to do some casual photography and get arrested for being to tall, what a farce our legal system has turned in to since the introduction of the completely unnecessary anti-terror laws. it's turning in to a country of micro managing busy bodies
Last edited:
And he wasn't in breach of any of those conditions.
They weren't just members of the public, they were council workers that asked him what he was doing. He told them. They then asked for ID while refusing to supply their own.
Because that was the only part that wasn't entirely clear, you could just have easily meant that not providing ID to the coucil workers was rude.
I think you insulting all photographer's ethics is a hell of a lot worse than taking some pictures.
The fact is the people having their photo taken don't actually have any rights in a public place, the only rights they have pertain to the use of the images after they are taken. That is as long as none of the images breach any of the laws in place (for example, no indecent photos of anyone aged under 18, not following the same person around, not using the image for commercial use etc.).
What "rights of others"? He was in a public place taking photographs of buildings and people. None of this is a violation of anyones rights, his or anyone elses. He was approached by two people who demanded to see his ID and refused, rightly, to comply. Why should he be forced to curtail his own liberty and give out personal information just to make the lives of overbearing jobsworths easier?
If the two people had been concerned members of the public asking him to delete the photos, or to cease taking photos, then maybe you'd have a point. They didn't, as far as we can tell. They demanded to see his identifcation and to justify his perfectly legal activities, seemingly without any other reason than their paranoid assumption that he was acting suspiciously.
Hmmm, having said that the study also says for those between 16-24 and up to around 50 the average height is 5'10", it's only the old people that push the height down, which explains why most of my friends are around 6 ft, and why 6'2" isn't exceptional in everyday life.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
Do registered reporters/Photographers not a have a licence for their job?
Maybe random joe smchoe can take pictures of random people in the street, but he would then have to gain permission from said person to do anything else with it(art gallery etc..)
Maybe by law he doesn't but it's the moral and decent thing to do is it not? If he hasn't he's a bit of a douch isn't he?
Maybe random joe smchoe can take pictures of random people in the street, but he would then have to gain permission from said person to do anything else with it(art gallery etc..)
Maybe by law he doesn't but it's the moral and decent thing to do is it not? If he hasn't he's a bit of a douch isn't he?
Hey, the old people make me an average height. Go old people
When they die you are going to be short...
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
How many holiday snaps have you taken with other people in them? If any does that make you a bit of a douche too?
he's going to be short when he gets old as well
And remember, you will probably loose around 2 inches as you get older.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
And remember, you will probably loose around 2 inches as you get older.
that's fine, i'll still be above average height, 6ft for the win
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
none You take pictures of landmarks not people. Unless they are part of the attraction?
You take pictures of landmarks not people. Unless they are part of the attraction?none
So there are never any people in and around said landmarks? I know that plenty of my NZ holiday snaps have other people in them, it would be a bit rude to tell them all to get out of the way I want to take a photo of a building...