How do you deal with these nutters?

[Phal]

You are assuming it'll get physical so you bolted, well that just re-enforced to the householder he had something to be concerned about and makes the life of the next photographer even harder. Well done.

Grow a pair, talk to the guy as civil as possible and explain in clam and rational manner what you're doing and engage him. If he still doesn't like it while not 'right' delete the image and move on with your life.

Ideally a civil conversation would be best but depending on how the other guy reacts initially, I can definitely understand why he'd walk away before anything stats.

I'm not a small guy but I wouldn't be keen to try to start a conversation after some guy shouted at me out of a window. Some people can react unreasonably to this kind of thing and having a pair of balls won't help you if this guy decides to come out and want a fight... Much less if he's definitely some kind of nutter who comes out with a knife or something.

Personally I've never taken pictures of people's houses for this precise reason. Sadly, this is the world we live in and whilst we may have the right to take the photos, we also have the right to deal with the crazies that go along with it :/

It's not something that's likely to happen but I weigh that up with the fact that there isn't really a house out there that I want a picture of that badly! If there was a house like that then I guess I'd get permission first.

 

[An Exception]

The one time this has happened to me and I explained that I was in a public place so could take a photo's. He seemed to accept my explaination was correct but still looked peed off so I offered to leave anyway. I know I didn't have to but I am not going to knowlingly annoy someone just to take a couple of photo's.

Yep, same thing happened with me once.

 

[An Exception]

It's easier for the photographer to move on than it is for the home-owner. All of the arguments for allowing the photography in this thread are the same arguments that paparazzi use when defending their work. Even then, at least it's the paparazzi's livelihood at stake rather than just their hobby.

I've been asked if I would ever do paparazzi work. My response was never, they are the lowest of the low. The law that permits paparazzi (and our freedoms) however far outweighs the negative implications imo.

 

[Sh4rkie]

Bolted, don't be ridiculous. If you think me continuing along on my bike rather than going onto his property to talk to him through a window is going to impact the world of photography you over estimate my importance...



Sorry, I thought you were implying that's what I was doing/planning to do.

Bolted from what you described does cover it. And at no point has anyone in this thread suggested trespassing on to his property to further enrage the householder before then trying to have a conversation with him about the photography.

Your impact on the world of photography doesn't matter, what matters in this case is the impact of your actions with the property owner.

Ideally a civil conversation would be best but depending on how the other guy reacts initially, I can definitely understand why he'd walk away before anything stats.

Yeah each situation is different and would have to be taken on merit but the OP comes across as a complete idiot (in my view) in his posts.

 

[D.P.]

In this case the legal law is at odds with natural law.

People are hardwired to fear strangers.. for good reason. This fear is reinforced in isolated areas, and particularly when a stranger appears to be behaving in an odd manner. Perhaps the man suspected the Op's intention was Voyeurism or worse, which of course is illegal.
Whatever the legality, it is simply common decency to unselfishly stop causing someone emotional distress.

p.s.
Please start typing properly. I'm literally having to guess what you are meaning to type.

My point is he emotional distress goes both ways - the home owner is causing distress to the photographer without basis.
There are 2 things that should happen - 1) the home owner should shut up and come to his senses and 2) the photographer should just walk away.
Both parties are at all fault morally, while legally the photographer is perfectly within their rights, while the home owner is not allowed to hurl abuse.

PS: Sorry for the typing, it was on a phone and I hadn't woken up yet.

 

[Dyson]

What I would've done is just explain to him who you are, what you are doing, show him the photo.

Say something like, I love your house, against the backdrop makes a great landscape shot and smile.

If he says he is still uncomfortable with it, say that's cool, not a problem, you will move on.

Standing there arguing about your rights as a photographer on public space etc, as much as it is your right, life is too short, and how special was his house that you makes all that worth it anyway?

Perfect response!

 

[ElDude]

I'm waiting for these laws to change. With UAVs arriving on the scene and you not allowed to be within 50m of a building taking photos/video, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that law was extended to a general rule regarding private residences.

With this example though, it's a clear case of morals overriding laws. Taking the photo is fine, if the resident protests, delete it out of common courtesy. It's really that straight forward. It doesn't really matter if they're being a tool about it, as people all react differently. Some will think you're casing the place for robbery, others think it's an invasion of privacy (which you could understand) and others just want to cause trouble. The way I look at it is that I'd be suspicious of anyone taking photos of my house, as there's no reason to be doing that as far as I'm concerned. If however it was a very scenic property I'd accept that people may want to do that and as long as they're not on my property taking photos through the window at the contents of the house, I'm really not that fussed.

Just use a zoom lens and hide in the bushes

 

[D.P.]

It's easier for the photographer to move on than it is for the home-owner. All of the arguments for allowing the photography in this thread are the same arguments that paparazzi use when defending their work. Even then, at least it's the paparazzi's livelihood at stake rather than just their hobby.

You can't compare the paparazzi to a standard photographer, especially in the current scenario.

The OP didn't give 2 hoots about the home owner being in the photo (in fact more than likely the photo would be better with no one visible), the house was the subject of the photo.
The paparazzi in contrast purposely invade peoples privacy and want to expose personal and private photos of people (but when the person is in a public place to keep things technically legal).




In contrast, all the reasoning for having the photographer stop would equally apply to pretty much every other kind of photography such as street, landscape, cityscape, event and wedding, and not forgetting you everyday tourist holiday snaps.

Secondly it is a big assumption that the photographer is just doing something for a hobby. It may very well be their profession. A few years ago I took stock photography seriously and architecture was a big them.

 

[D.P.]

I'm waiting for these laws to change. With UAVs arriving on the scene and you not allowed to be within 50m of a building taking photos/video, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that law was extended to a general rule regarding private residences.

With this example though, it's a clear case of morals overriding laws. Taking the photo is fine, if the resident protests, delete it out of common courtesy. It's really that straight forward. It doesn't really matter if they're being a tool about it, as people all react differently. Some will think you're casing the place for robbery, others think it's an invasion of privacy (which you could understand) and others just want to cause trouble. The way I look at it is that I'd be suspicious of anyone taking photos of my house, as there's no reason to be doing that as far as I'm concerned. If however it was a very scenic property I'd accept that people may want to do that and as long as they're not on my property taking photos through the window at the contents of the house, I'm really not that fussed.

Just use a zoom lens and hide in the bushes

The UAv laws are more related to safety than anything else.

The rules on photography in public places wont change, and you better hope it wont otherwise cameras will be pretty much illegal to ever operate and you can kiss good buy to landscape, nature, wildlife, street, wedding photograph etc. Everything will have to be done inside with blacked out windows photographing flower arrangements and pet dogs.

 

[D.P.]

Perfect response!

It is a perfect response if you are speaking to someone who is rational and politely approaches you with their concern. That wont work at all with your typical paranoid loons. 99 times out of 100 it the latter case you have to deal, where probably the best thing is just to walk on but if you get that kind of response frequently (I don't by the way, only ever happened once, in Crete) then it must be very tiring having your rights infringed and your morals questioned.

 

[Energize]

Bolted from what you described does cover it. And at no point has anyone in this thread suggested trespassing on to his property to further enrage the householder before then trying to have a conversation with him about the photography.

Your impact on the world of photography doesn't matter, what matters in this case is the impact of your actions with the property owner.

You said talk to the guy, to do that I would have to go onto his property, unless you want me to shout across 50m (which I am not going to do).

In this case I was acting well within the law and doing nothing immoral, while he started acting in an unsociable and inappropriate way, I decided not to deal with him and left, that is a completely appropriate response in that situation, not risking a confrontation over it.

 

[Sh4rkie]

You said talk to the guy, to do that I would have to go onto his property, unless you want me to shout across 50m (which I am not going to do).

Just hang around on the public highway and wait to see if he came to you within a reasonable period of time.

In this case I was acting well within the law and doing nothing immoral, while he started acting in an unsociable and inappropriate way, I decided not to deal with him and left, that is a completely appropriate response in that situation, not risking a confrontation over it.

You were and no one is saying you aren't within the law or doing anything immoral, nor that he acted rationally by your account.

You asked how others would have dealt and when told picked those responses apart as being wrong.

 

[An Exception]

Can you post the picture of this house?

 

[Phal]

Can you post the picture of this house?

lol

 

[Raymond Lin]

It is a perfect response if you are speaking to someone who is rational and politely approaches you with their concern. That wont work at all with your typical paranoid loons. 99 times out of 100 it the latter case you have to deal, where probably the best thing is just to walk on but if you get that kind of response frequently (I don't by the way, only ever happened once, in Crete) then it must be very tiring having your rights infringed and your morals questioned.

That would be my starting position, right off the bat I am not going to go in all guns blazing ranting on my rights as a photographer, that is asking for a confrontation which the other guy is clearly geared up for. Throwing the law back at him would just wind him up more. People in these kind of situation want to feel they got the upper hand and come out winning. Putting them in their place with the law is not the way to handle it.

Depending on the situation, depend how confrontational he looks, you can go from "Sorry, I just love your house, make a great photo, looks like a post card, but I'll leave now." And if he seems receptive then you can show him the photo like what I suggested above and explain a bit more when you are coming from. Perhaps he might come around.

If he sees the photo and still goes "no, I still don't like it, I want you to delete it."

Just delete it, right in front of him, and show him it is gone by scrolling through the photos. (they invented dual card slots for a reason Like I said, people like to come out on top. This way, he comes out thinking he has won, except you still have the photo and legally if you want to use it, he can't exactly stop you, and certainly isn't there to physically stop you either.

If you go in straight with " I am standing in public space, go call the police if you don't like it." is just escalating things unnecessarily.

 

[D.P.]

That would be my starting position, right off the bat I am not going to go in all guns blazing ranting on my rights as a photographer, that is asking for a confrontation which the other guy is clearly geared up for. Throwing the law back at him would just wind him up more. People in these kind of situation want to feel they got the upper hand and come out winning. Putting them in their place with the law is not the way to handle it.

Depending on the situation, depend how confrontational he looks, you can go from "Sorry, I just love your house, make a great photo, looks like a post card, but I'll leave now." And if he seems receptive then you can show him the photo like what I suggested above and explain a bit more when you are coming from. Perhaps he might come around.

If he sees the photo and still goes "no, I still don't like it, I want you to delete it."

Just delete it, right in front of him, and show him it is gone by scrolling through the photos. (they invented dual card slots for a reason Like I said, people like to come out on top. This way, he comes out thinking he has won, except you still have the photo and legally if you want to use it, he can't exactly stop you, and certainly isn't there to physically stop you either.

If you go in straight with " I am standing in public space, go call the police if you don't like it." is just escalating things unnecessarily.

That is all fair enough but again it takes someone with a some level of rationality to begin that approach.

I don't think anyone is saying to be confrontational, but equally no one should have to take verbal abuse from an irate paranoid nutjob.


Deleting the photos and showing proof of that is fine if the person happens to be calm and quietly concerned, but I don't advice that for the verbally abusive critters. They will more than likely want to take you CF card or worse still your whole camera "as evidence to give to the police", or will simply take it off your hand and smash it to the ground.


When someone comes from an irrational point of view you can't reason them out of it easily. So however polite and calm you are and explain that you just like their house and wouldn't do anything with the photo and oh you will delete it anyway to be polite - that may not go as far as you think.

 

[D.P.]

Can you post the picture of this house?

organize the next OCUK photo meet there.....

EIT" And before someone takes thatseriously, there is a big smily at the end of that sentence.

 

[Raymond Lin]

That is all fair enough but again it takes someone with a some level of rationality to begin that approach.

I don't think anyone is saying to be confrontational, but equally no one should have to take verbal abuse from an irate paranoid nutjob.


Deleting the photos and showing proof of that is fine if the person happens to be calm and quietly concerned, but I don't advice that for the verbally abusive critters. They will more than likely want to take you CF card or worse still your whole camera "as evidence to give to the police", or will simply take it off your hand and smash it to the ground.


When someone comes from an irrational point of view you can't reason them out of it easily. So however polite and calm you are and explain that you just like their house and wouldn't do anything with the photo and oh you will delete it anyway to be polite - that may not go as far as you think.

Hence I said "depending on the situation"

That includes depending how much of a nut job he is.

 

[413x]

organize the next OCUK photo meet there.....

EIT" And before someone takes thatseriously, there is a big smily at the end of that sentence.

Tele lenses compulsory!

 

[The__Malteser]

This. I wouldn't be happy to see anyone taking photographs of my home. It is plain rude to continue doing something after you have been asked stop. You don't need a legal basis for manners.

I agree with this.

I don't think it is a reasonable request, it's a building clearly visible to the public and is on google street view, there is no privacy being violated. Just because someone owns a property doesn't give them reasonable grounds for blocking photography of it.

Not true. You can request you house to be blurred in google street view.