Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Chris Tolley

writes

Jeremy Double wrote:

allan tracy wrote:

On Feb 21, 7:37 pm, somersetchris wrote:
Guy at Waterloo attacked for taking pictures

There's a photograph of the attacker in the post and police are
looking for people who can help identify him.

http://london-underground.blogspot.c...eeking-tube-ph...

Pretty dubious reason for taking pictures though the photographer
sounds like a complete t**t.

It is anyone's right to take photos in a public place...

"Light the blue touch paper and retire"

It's still basically true, though.

Similarly, some people get pleasure from taking pictures in public
places (probably hoping to be the next Cartier-Bresson). I don't see
that it's anyone else's business to approve or disapprove of it.

There are plenty of things that people do for pleasure that are frowned
on in public or when they involve others as unwilling participants.
Photography may sometimes be one of them. That's just how it is.

One problem is that people seem to increasingly think that there are
restrictions on photography that do not in fact exist.

I had a spectacular incident some time again with a Travel West Midlands
bus driver threatening me and swearing at me because I'd photographed a
bus he was driving. He claimed that it was now against the law to
photograph someone and - ignorant thug that he was - I'm sure he
sincerely believed that to be the case.

Someone on a bus website (Oxfordshire, maybe?) agreed to deliberately
obscure photos of drivers before publishing the photos to the website
after being challenged by a bus driver. The photographer was under no
obligation to do this but I bet the bus driver was sure in his mind that
he was within his rights.

There has arisen a belief in this country that new laws have come into
place protecting what I might term "the copyright of their face", which
simply isn't true.

Any photograph, postcard, news report or book will contain incidental
photos of people whose views on whether or not they appear cannot be
under their control.

The victim in this case won't be the first person to suffer for being in
the right.......
--
Ian Jelf, MITG


I would posit that there is a difference between incidental photos of
people, and portrait or close up photos of strangers - not a legal
difference of course, but certainly a difference with regards to the
outcome. I'm sure I'm not the only one (or maybe I am) who's not
always wildly keen to feature in the photographs or video recordings
of others - I'm talking here about being a subject, as opposed to an
incidental passer by. Perhaps there are more people of an artistic
leaning in the places I'm often around in London, some of whom seem to
think that holding a camera pointed towards you somehow makes them
invisible, and can then seem somewhat surprised when you don't want to
play along. (And no I don't expect to be able to walk across Trafalgar
Square or outside Buckingham Palace without being photographed - I'm
talking of more everyday locations than that.)

There are of course a lot more cameras out there these days, and
digital photography has meant that pressing the shutter button to take
a shot has no financial implications in itself - so there are lots
more people out there liberally taking photos of everything and
anything.

Sometimes when one just wishes to go about one's business undisturbed
the prevalence of people willing to very openly take a photo of you
(specifically, rather than the building behind you or you as part of a
crowd) can be a little perturbing/annoying.

However I do wish to stress that I absolutely *do not* approve of the
actions of the man who attacked the photographer.