How do you deal with these nutters?

D.P. said:
Well you learn something new every day but it doesn't change the argument.
I don't assume every person walking down the street is a burglar or pedophile and someone living in a nice house should either if they see someone casually taking photo of the hay fields who turns around to snap at their Tudor cottage.

Anyway, this is just going round in circles.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that you refuse to see both sides. I don't assume everyone I see is an axe murderer :D but odd behaviour will always draw my attention. For some people having someone stop to take a picture of their house isn't normal and will draw comment. I'd certainly ask someone what they were doing if they took a picture of my house, and I'd most likely shout from a window rather than lose sight of them.

It's all making a mountain out of a mole hill to be honest.
 
D.P. said:
In the real world this is infeasible. You want to photo of the Eiffel tower, so do you go around knocking on everyone's houses in the periphery to ask permission? That is the whole point of the law to give people permission inherently.

sure in isolated cases it can make sense (especially when asking people for their portrait) but in general that doesn't work.
Click to expand...

You're not pointing your camera in someone's window if you're photographing something else and the law is irrelevant, if I saw someone standing outside my home taking photos of it, like other posters, I'd be inserting his camera up his rear end on the end of my boot.

I expect privacy and I expect other people to respect that.
 
Cuchulain said:
You're not pointing your camera in someone's window if you're photographing something else and the law is irrelevant, if I saw someone standing outside my home taking photos of it, like other posters, I'd be inserting his camera up his rear end on the end of my boot.

I expect privacy and I expect other people to respect that.
Click to expand...

I expect not to be physically assaulted by irrational nutjobs, and luckily the law is on my side

No one is invading your privacy :rolleyes:
 
PistolPete said:
On what grounds??
Click to expand...

Moral grounds? Empathetic grounds? The grounds of a polite and simple request? - Why does everything we do need to be dictated by twisted Governments?

Life isn't as black and white as the law that's been made for the government by the government. Get along with your neighbours because you can care about each other, not the government because they only care about keeping a leash on it's citizens. Amazing how some people have their head stuck so deep in the law and their so called "rights to do things" they think they have for photographing in public that they completely forget about their neighbours personal wishes. Disgusting in the grand scheme of things.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
I expect not to be physically assaulted by irrational nutjobs, and luckily the law is on my side

No one is invading your privacy :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The next time one continues taking pictures of someone's home after being asked to stop, I hope they follow them all the way to their house where the other's wife and children are playing and keeps taking pictures of it for days.

Maybe then they'll understand empathy.
 
asim18 said:
The next time one continues taking pictures of someone's home after being asked to stop, I hope they follow them all the way to their house where the other's wife and children are playing and keeps taking pictures of it for days.

Maybe then they'll understand empathy.
Click to expand...

So your solution to someone doing something perfectly harmless and legal is to stalk them which is classed as illegal harassment and intimidate?
Moreover you feel that photographing someone's house is an invasion of privacy when legally and morally it isn't, but you suggest purposely invading someone's by privacy by taking photos of them within their home where there is an expectation of privacy?
 
D.P. said:
So your solution to someone doing something perfectly harmless and legal is to stalk them which is classed as illegal harassment and intimidate?
Moreover you feel that photographing someone's house is an invasion of privacy when legally and morally it isn't, but you suggest purposely invading someone's by privacy by taking photos of them within their home where there is an expectation of privacy?
Click to expand...

Again DP, I feel I shouldn't need to correct easily comprehensible things like this.

"The next time one continues taking pictures of someone's home after being asked to stop, I hope they follow them all the way to their house where the other's wife and children are playing and keeps taking pictures of it for days."

The key word here is IT. IT ≠ people.
The poster was not saying to specifically take pictures of wife + child, but to take pictures of the house/home where they reside. The only difference was the poster suggested doing it for an extended period of time. Please stop making things up and putting words in peoples mouths in order to defend a weak position. Just an FYI, strategically you would be better off abandoning such a weak position imo.
If this scenario is not acceptable, then neither is photographing someones home after they ask you not to.
 
Last edited:
An Exception said:
Again DP, I feel I shouldn't need to correct easily comprehensible things like this.

"The next time one continues taking pictures of someone's home after being asked to stop, I hope they follow them all the way to their house where the other's wife and children are playing and keeps taking pictures of it for days."

The key word here is IT. IT ≠ people.
The poster was not saying to specifically take pictures of wife + child, but to take pictures of the house/home where they reside. The only difference was the poster suggested doing it for an extended period of time. Please stop making things up and putting words in peoples mouths in order to defend a weak position. Just an FYI, strategically you would be better off abandoning such a weak position imo.
If this scenario is not acceptable, then neither is photographing someones home after they ask you not to.
Click to expand...



Someone can sit outside my house and photograph the house for as long as they want. It is odd, and i might have a polite word with them to find out why but I don't care if they have a rational reason. However, repeatedly monitoring a house like that quite possibly falls under harassment and stalking laws. What they certainly can't do it follow me home and stalk me, which is illegal and immoral.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
I expect not to be physically assaulted by irrational nutjobs, and luckily the law is on my side

No one is invading your privacy :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But if you end up with enough DSLR's up your jacksie you might think twice before invading someone elses privacy, no?
 
Cuchulain said:
But if you end up with enough DSLR's up your jacksie you might think twice before invading someone elses privacy, no?
Click to expand...

taking a photo of someone's house is not invading their privacy, that is the entire point. Invading people's privacy is illegal and immoral.
A house is an inanimate object, the concept of privacy doesn't apply houses.

We are talking about photographing a house, not someone's genitals in the changing room showers!
 
It's pretty simple really. If someone objects to having a photo taken, and you're not covering some event as a reporter - shooting because it suits you to do so, then I would simply stop shooting and move on. Don't sweat the small stuff.
 
An Exception said:
Again DP, I feel I shouldn't need to correct easily comprehensible things like this.

"The next time one continues taking pictures of someone's home after being asked to stop, I hope they follow them all the way to their house where the other's wife and children are playing and keeps taking pictures of it for days."

The key word here is IT. IT ≠ people.
The poster was not saying to specifically take pictures of wife + child, but to take pictures of the house/home where they reside. The only difference was the poster suggested doing it for an extended period of time. Please stop making things up and putting words in peoples mouths in order to defend a weak position. Just an FYI, strategically you would be better off abandoning such a weak position imo.
If this scenario is not acceptable, then neither is photographing someones home after they ask you not to.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have replied better to D.P.'s utter miscomprehension. Thank you.

And thank you again for understanding.
 
D.P. said:
So your solution to someone doing something perfectly harmless and legal is to stalk them which is classed as illegal harassment and intimidate?
Moreover you feel that photographing someone's house is an invasion of privacy when legally and morally it isn't, but you suggest purposely invading someone's by privacy by taking photos of them within their home where there is an expectation of privacy?
Click to expand...

Why are you twisting my words?

I didn't say photographing a house is an invasion of privacy. How dare you make up bull ****.

Im saying continuing to photograph someone's property after being asked politely to stop is bad manners, conflictive, childish behaviour, annoying, etc., etc..

You don't have to break laws to be an annoying little **** you know.
 
asim18 said:
Why are you twisting my words?

I didn't say photographing a house is an invasion of privacy. How dare you make up bull ****.

Im saying continuing to photograph someone's property after being asked politely to stop is bad manners, conflictive, childish behaviour, annoying, etc., etc..

You don't have to break laws to be an annoying little **** you know.
Click to expand...

Fine, I misinterpreted what you said - keep your hair on.:)

No where did you use the phrase "politely ask" though. Everyone is agreement that if you are politely asked then you can have a rational discussion on the matter and delete photos if a sensible reason is given or they would be really offended.

The annoying little **** also goes both ways. As I've said all a long there is absolutely no need for the photographer to needlessly upset someone and at the same time there is no need for the home owner to needlessly upset the photographer over something so harmless. They are both at fault here.

Ignoring the legal side is also fairly stupid because the laws are there to outline the moral code of society who have deemed it accept to photograph in public places.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
taking a photo of someone's house is not invading their privacy, that is the entire point. Invading people's privacy is illegal and immoral.
A house is an inanimate object, the concept of privacy doesn't apply houses.

We are talking about photographing a house, not someone's genitals in the changing room showers!
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the concept of an invasion of privacy, it's nothing to do with the law but how the person who's privacy you're invading perceives it.

e.g. If I'm in the house and see some neckbeard pointing a camera at me, I regard that as an invasion of my privacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom