Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Photography in Public Places

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Keith-369
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    Originally posted by Wreckdiver View Post
    Why is a mobile phone "perfectly fine" when a camera isn't? They are both cameras and both take photographs.

    This is just an example of stupid, ignorant public attitude that a conventional camera in public is somehow different from a phone/camera. They BOTH take photographs!

    This really annoys me

    Steve
    I was being very tongue in cheek and extremely sarcastic when I said that. If you go back a little to my previous comments in this thread you might have realised that.

    No harm done and no offence taken, I can see why you took it at face value. I should have finished my minor rant by using the qualifier "in the eyes of the authorities and most other people who are wont to complain"

    Leave a comment:


  • Wreckdiver
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    Originally posted by Keith-369 View Post
    Surely anyone wanting to take pictures which could be 'used' wouldn't be so daft as to use a camera.
    They would use a phone which is perfectly fine for any use, application, area, near schools, at private places, etc. etc. etc. you name it.
    Why is a mobile phone "perfectly fine" when a camera isn't? They are both cameras and both take photographs.

    This is just an example of stupid, ignorant public attitude that a conventional camera in public is somehow different from a phone/camera. They BOTH take photographs!

    This really annoys me

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Petrochemist
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    Originally posted by RobEW View Post
    The way cars are used is very heavily regulated: driver training and licencing, age restrictions, car condition and roadworthiness, speed limits, traffic lights etc. I for one don't want that level of regulation around cameras, which are comparatively harmless devices. Few people if any are hurt or killed by photography (though I do realise someone might know of a scenario where a murderer found a victim by way of a photo innocently taken and shared by an innocent party).
    There have been quite a few deaths caused by people taking selfies just in front of dangerous animals/situations. Nearly all of these would presumably be with camera phones so perhaps they should be banned...

    Leave a comment:


  • Naughty Nigel
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    The real issue here is "providing information recklessly and without knowledge of the truth" (knowing that another party will make a decision based on that information).

    I am not sure whether this is an offence as such, but in Contract Law any Contract signed as a result false or misleading information is voidable in law.

    Leave a comment:


  • timboo
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    Originally posted by Graham_of_Rainham View Post

    All to often young inexperienced officers will say things which are intended to give them the position of authority. Sometimes what they say is incorrec

    “Misrepresentation
    An untrue statement of fact or law made by Party A (or its agent) to Party B, which induces Party B to enter a contract with Party A thereby causing Party B loss. An action for misrepresentation can be brought in respect of a misrepresentation of fact or



    if a Police Officer or PCSO tells you to do something which they do not legally have the backing to do it would be an abuse of power, which falls under misconduct. Its not always inexperienced officers which get it wrong sometimes very experienced officers with the ‘Old school approach’ fall foul.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naughty Nigel
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    Originally posted by RobEW View Post
    The way cars are used is very heavily regulated: driver training and licencing, age restrictions, car condition and roadworthiness, speed limits, traffic lights etc. I for one don't want that level of regulation around cameras, which are comparatively harmless devices.
    The use of motor vehicles is indeed very heavily regulated, but that doesn't stop law abiding drivers from being seen as public enemy number one for doing something that is still perfectly legal, and for which governments are very happy to collect all manner of taxes. The way things are going anyone using a proper camera in public will also be seen as any enemy of right minded people. Conforming to the irrational demands of jobsworth security guards and clueless coppers will do nothing to help.

    Leave a comment:


  • shotokan101
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    Yes but if every photographer accepts this sort of treatmen then it only confirms (to them) that their behaviour is acceptable and justified....

    Leave a comment:


  • Keith-369
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    Again, and I have to say, If she had been using a phone camera to do the same thing, I bet they would have just walked on by.

    So wrong the discrimination between cameras and phones. Both doing exactly the same thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham_of_Rainham
    replied
    https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreute...ge=true&bhcp=1

    Leave a comment:


  • shotokan101
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    https://youtu.be/y-6DijNE3Z0

    Leave a comment:


  • RobEW
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    Originally posted by Naughty Nigel View Post
    So then please answer my first question?

    Are you suggesting that the sale of cameras and motor vehicles should be banned outright to protect 'vulnerable' individuals? That would certainly avoid any ambiguity.

    Talk about the lowest common denominator.
    The way cars are used is very heavily regulated: driver training and licencing, age restrictions, car condition and roadworthiness, speed limits, traffic lights etc. I for one don't want that level of regulation around cameras, which are comparatively harmless devices. Few people if any are hurt or killed by photography (though I do realise someone might know of a scenario where a murderer found a victim by way of a photo innocently taken and shared by an innocent party).

    Leave a comment:


  • DerekW
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    Interesting comparison to the discussion last fall

    https://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49445

    Leave a comment:


  • Naughty Nigel
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    Originally posted by Keith-369 View Post
    Surely anyone wanting to take pictures which could be 'used' wouldn't be so daft as to use a camera.
    They would use a phone which is perfectly fine for any use, application, area, near schools, at private places, etc. etc. etc. you name it.
    Indeed. You could even pretend to be making a call whilst recording video. The quality of phone images and videos these days is pretty good too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Keith-369
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    Surely anyone wanting to take pictures which could be 'used' wouldn't be so daft as to use a camera.
    They would use a phone which is perfectly fine for any use, application, area, near schools, at private places, etc. etc. etc. you name it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naughty Nigel
    replied
    Re: Photography in Public Places

    Originally posted by Jax View Post
    You seem to be suggesting we should not take photos which contain any human images in case someone's tender sensitive feelings or mental health may be compromised. That being the case, this also means all TV outside broadcasts, news and public interest programs should be banned on the off chance someone is offended by being pictured in the background. Maybe this should also include landscape photography just in case a farmer has a mental breakdown having been pictured driving his tractor or tending his flock.

    Sorry but your statement has to be one of the most ridiculous I've had the misfortune to read on here in a very long time. I would suggest if someone is so traumatised by having a camera or indeed a phone aimed in their direction within a public place then the problem lies directly with them and not with the person holding the camera.

    Jax
    This is rather like some of the ancient tribes living in what remains of the Amazon Rain Forest, who fear their souls will be stolen if their photographs are taken; although I am told that many are happy to pose if payment is made.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X