How do you deal with these nutters?

[Above&Beyond]

Sometimes if you behave like an idiot you won't have opportunity to call the police, at least not until after the event.

In the below vid, the scene begins with the photographer striking the biker.
In actual fact you can see (at the very start) the photographer is being manhandled by a couple of guy's and is actually acting in self defence rather than being the aggressor (footage is clearly biased).

However my guess is the photographer informed them of his legal rights, right before he shouted "get the police" and then got his arse kicked.

If he had just been a gentleman, and said ok ladies (who were clearly on a power trip) I'll leave you alone now, and left. He wouldn't be bloodied and bruised, and his camera wouldn't be damaged.

Know if the juice is worth the squeeze...

What is that video supposed to prove? Staged reality show stages some random act of entertainment? If you were assaulted going about your legal business then press charges and sue them for any damage to equipment. When you're up in court or paying me my restitution I'll shout over and ask you if the juice was worth the squeeze.

 

[Above&Beyond]

It's pretty much impossible for a tourist to take a photo of St. Paul's Cathedral and include someone's residential property in any kind of detail.

There's also a big difference between taking a landscape photo that happens to include someone's house and specifically photographing someone's house.

What is the difference?

 

[Rojin]

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?

This. For all they know you're taking photos through their windows not of the house.

 

[An Exception]

What is that video supposed to prove? Staged reality show stages some random act of entertainment? If you were assaulted going about your legal business then press charges and sue them for any damage to equipment. When you're up in court or paying me my restitution I'll shout over and ask you if the juice was worth the squeeze.

WTF Lol?
I think you have had a major comprehension failure.

 

[englishpremier]

..

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.

And CCTV

 

[Above&Beyond]

WTF Lol?
I think you have had a major comprehension failure.

You as in people in general, in this case the hypothetical attacker. Not you specifically. What you might be think is worth the squeeze is different to what I think is. Caving in to idiots who shout the loudest when you're doing nothing illegal just causes problems for the next person who wants to photograph something.

 

[radderfire]

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.

I think it's impolite to take pics of someone's home if you don't have permission.

Also, once you have the photo, you might use it for something they don't want you to, e.g. advertising etc.

It is their home after all.

Rgds

 

[Above&Beyond]

If you had a picturesque house your alternative would see people chapping your door all day to ask if they can photograph your house, which is absurd. People can think it is impolite or get offended but that is their problem.

 

[radderfire]

If you had a picturesque house your alternative would see people chapping your door all day to ask if they can photograph your house, which is absurd. People can think it is impolite or get offended but that is their problem.

I probably just wouldn't take a picture at all. The point is some people do get funny about photos being taken so I try to respect that. Taking a picture of say a village is OK, or a few houses, but when you start taking a picture of just one house, that starts to get a bit personal and some people won't like it. Certainly taking a few photos may get you noticed and some people will then get shirty. If you must take a photo then take a quick one surreptitiously.

In general as well, if you have someone with you and take a picture of them in front of something of interest, people will probably mind less as then they can see you are taking a photo of your friend instead of spying on them.

Rgds

 

[teaboy5]

You really think it's OK to stand outside someone's house and take a photo? For all the person who owns it knows you could be taking a photo of it to come back and rob it later.

The whole google street car is a non starter, as everyone knows what it's doing, but they have no idea what someone across the road is doing standing taking a photo of their house for.

If you stood outside where i live and started taking your photos and i asked nicely what your doing and you started on with your "It's a public place" BS, the next photo your camera would taking would be the inside of your ass.

 

[Duke]

Or alternatively, you could just stop taking pictures of their home? Seems a reasonable request to me.

Just out of common courtesy, surely? Maybe they could have asked in a better way.

Why does it have to be about grounds? its upsetting someone, even if it is a bit unreasonable of them and doesn't hurt you just to move on and do something else :S

This basically. Don't be a **** about it if someone asks you not to take pictures of their property... or as Raymond suggested, at least explain or offer a photo to them before you snap away.

 

[An Exception]

If you stood outside where i live and started taking your photos and i asked nicely what your doing and you started on with your "It's a public place" BS, the next photo your camera would taking would be the inside of your ass.

Now that's worth the squeeze!

 

[EdwardTeach]

You really think it's OK to stand outside someone's house and take a photo? For all the person who owns it knows you could be taking a photo of it to come back and rob it later.

The whole google street car is a non starter, as everyone knows what it's doing, but they have no idea what someone across the road is doing standing taking a photo of their house for.

If you stood outside where i live and started taking your photos and i asked nicely what your doing and you started on with your "It's a public place" BS, the next photo your camera would taking would be the inside of your ass.

Yeah, mentioning google is just a ridiculous argument. Google didn't get permission from any homeowners to do street view. Just because street view has happened doesn't mean that everyone is happy about it, and should therefore be fine with someone standing outside taking photos of their house.

 

[PhillyDee]

Yeah, mentioning google is just a ridiculous argument. Google didn't get permission from any homeowners to do street view. Just because street view has happened doesn't mean that everyone is happy about it, and should therefore be fine with someone standing outside taking photos of their house.

Not forgetting that you can have google remove it by submitting a request.

 

[D.P.]

You really think it's OK to stand outside someone's house and take a photo? For all the person who owns it knows you could be taking a photo of it to come back and rob it later.

The whole google street car is a non starter, as everyone knows what it's doing, but they have no idea what someone across the road is doing standing taking a photo of their house for.

If you stood outside where i live and started taking your photos and i asked nicely what your doing and you started on with your "It's a public place" BS, the next photo your camera would taking would be the inside of your ass.

Do you think it is NOT ok to take photos of buckingham palace, castle Howard,
Highcleer catsle or shakespear's birthplace?
The point is if you are lucky enough to live in a picturesque house then people will want to take photos of it. Instead of being angry at that fact just be happy that there are people very jealous of your home.

Why do you think some one taking a photo of your house? Because they want a photo of your house. It isn't rocket science. If you suspect someone is being suspicious then call the police, simples. Besides, if someone anted to recon your house they can simply use google street view or you know, just walk down your street without a camera, or god forbid, whip out their iPhone.

 

[D.P.]

Yeah, mentioning google is just a ridiculous argument. Google didn't get permission from any homeowners to do street view. Just because street view has happened doesn't mean that everyone is happy about it, and should therefore be fine with someone standing outside taking photos of their house.

Google didn't need to get permission because it is their right to display such images.
Why some people get so upset about a photo of their house I will never understand. It is a pile of brick, mortar and wood, when you die or sell someone else will have it. Any member of the public can walk and sit outside your house with a view of it, a photo is no different, which is precisely why it is perfectly legal and a protected right because it doesn't give anyone anything they couldn't get with heir own 2 eyes.

Anyone would think people are taking photos of their genetics in the gym changing room or soemthing get over yourselves, no one is intersted in your life, they just happen to like the pile of bricks and concrete you currently reside in (and which the bank most likely has a majority share of).

No one is infringing upon your privacy, so don't infringe upon their rights either.

And to reiterate my position, no one should do something which upsets another member of the public. But that goes 2 ways, a photographer should not needlessly upset someone and no one should harass a photographer, let alone threaten to shove a camera up their arse.

 

[neil_g]

Theres a lot of assumption that the homeowner/occupier was a "paranoid nutjob" just because they didn't want the house photographed.

Also I think it's far more damaging and alienating for photographers to bang on about their rights in the face of what is frankly a reasonable request. Whats to say that "nutjob" now doesnt go off and form a petition for a change in the law, start spreading the word about how photographers are unreasonable etc (granted that may not actually change the law but its still bad PR for photographers in general).

I'm all for Raymonds approach personally. Manners cost nothing, whos to say maybe the occupier would actually purchase some prints if they were nice enough.

 

[Demon]

It hugely depends on the situation, essentially I just use common sense and courtesy, if it's someone's private dwelling and it's just a random photo, I'd respect their wishes.. In the same way I respect anyone's wishes to not have their photo taken in public.. If it's some jobs worth telling me I can't take a picture of Buckingham palace, then I politely ignore them.

It's probably legal to defecate through their letterboxes, but oddly, I don't do that either (for the same reasons of common courtesy)..

 

[avatar12m]

imo take a photo of what you want if someone gets offended and you are doing nothing wrong ( within the law ) so what ****** to them they won't die over it.

 

[D.P.]

Theres a lot of assumption that the homeowner/occupier was a "paranoid nutjob" just because they didn't want the house photographed.

Also I think it's far more damaging and alienating for photographers to bang on about their rights in the face of what is frankly a reasonable request. Whats to say that "nutjob" now doesnt go off and form a petition for a change in the law, start spreading the word about how photographers are unreasonable etc (granted that may not actually change the law but its still bad PR for photographers in general).

I'm all for Raymonds approach personally. Manners cost nothing, whos to say maybe the occupier would actually purchase some prints if they were nice enough.

You are completely missing the point. The person described in the OP was hurling abuse form a window, not coming up to the OP and have a quite conversation and putting forward a rational request.

No one has argued at all that a calm and and reasoned request should not be met with a courteous apology, explanation and offer to delete the photos.

Abusing a harmless and law abiding citizen is not tolerated in my opinion.
And I would be much more worried about letting such options that infringe on our rights become widespread than some nutcase gets educated on the law.

all it take for evil to prevail is for a few good men to do nothing. Melodramatic yes, but if people don't stand up for their rights then they will slowly be eroded.

Change the scenario a little and see how it looks. There is a gay couple walking down the street holding hands when all of a sudden some bigoted nutjob starts shouting abuse at them. Sure, the couple could stop holding hands and walk away without kicking up a fuss but why should they tolerate such irrational hatred that infringes upon their rights? It is perfectly reasonable for them to defend their actions in a calm manner.