|
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Jeremy Double wrote:
Chris Tolley wrote: Ian Jelf wrote: 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. Not as such, no. I wonder if anyone has trademarked their face. I'm not sure that would change much... there are plenty of photos published with shop signs incorporating trademarks included within the image. That's neither here nor there. The trademarks you mention are (in the situation I believe you are talking about) incidental. I believe that Harland Sanders got a bit shirty about the way that the Kentucky Fried Chicken chain was using his image some years after he had sold the franchise. But I don't know if this was pursued under trademark law. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683783.html (150 149 at Manchester Piccadilly, 3 Nov 2000) |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:05:42 -0000, "Dave" wrote:
"Jeremy Double" wrote in message ... It is anyone's right to take photos in a public place... I may think that it's dangerous to climb precipitous rock faces, and the treatment of people who fall off is a potential burden on the NHS. I wouldn't do it myself, but many people get enjoyment from the hobby of rock climbing, so I wouldn't condemn people for doing it. 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. If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you agree otherwise with the photographer. No you do not. Therefore the subject was within his rights to ask for it to be deleted - or sue to have it subsequently removed from any websites/magazines etc that it might appear in. No, he was not. Neither was he "within his rights" to punch the photographer in the face. Something needs to be done to resolve the utter nonsense that seems all too prevalent these days concerning photography, "security" and the perception of rights to privacy in public places. I strongly dislike being photographed but I would not thump anyone who did it just because I was walking down the road and happened to get snapped. Working in Central London near many tourist sites it is inevitable you'll get snapped some time. The only time I have been asked to be photographed by a photographer in the street was in Walthamstow where there was a project to photograph several thousand people to represent the diverse nature of Waltham Forest's population. I politely declined the request. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 23 Feb, 16:55, Paul Corfield wrote:
Therefore the subject was within his rights to ask for it to be deleted - or sue to have it subsequently removed from any websites/magazines etc that it might appear in. No, he was not. He may not have had a legal right to /demand/ that it be deleted, but surely he has every right to /request/ that it be deleted. I can think of lots of reasons why someone might not wish to be photographed. Neither was he "within his rights" to punch the photographer in the face. True. Though I would love to know what exactly they said to each other. Something needs to be done to resolve the utter nonsense that seems all too prevalent these days concerning photography, "security" and the perception of rights to privacy in public places. A little more courtesy on the part of photographers would go a long way. Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:08:06 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote
As for CCTV -- I have no problem with it. I doubt the residents of Ipswich do either. But it's unlikely that specific, recognisable images of an individual person will be released by the CCTV operators, especially if those images might then end up in a magazine without the subject having signed a release first. Happens all the time, just watch Crimewatch. Given the millions of frames of CCTV footage shot every day, 20 seconds of footage on Crimewatch once a month is hardly 'all the time' :-) The key difference is, of course, that CCTV footage showed on Crimewatch has been released to the police - exactly the reason the cameras were installed in the first place. |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
[Paul Corfield]
Something needs to be done to resolve the utter nonsense that seems all too prevalent these days concerning photography, "security" and the perception of rights to privacy in public places. [The Real Doctor] A little more courtesy on the part of photographers would go a long way. A little more courtesy would be nice, but I doubt it would have any effect on resolving the utter nonsense referred to above. -- Michael Hoffman |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message , Chris Tolley
writes Human rights legislation may be close to conferring some nearby rights. This is the problem thought. Such legislation may be in the pipeline or maybe not (I don't know). But that is important is that it *isn't* there yet and this is what people believe gives them certain rights which they do not in fact have. I can see circumstances where he may have been right. Certainly I sometimes obscure people's faces when posting my train pictures. You may choose to do that. It might even be worthy to do so. But that's your (moral, respectful, considerate) choice. Not a requirement. Not as such, no. I wonder if anyone has trademarked their face. And if so, what they do about the ravages of time. Interesting question! Mebbe it's a minority view, but I can't help feeling that there's something potentially undesirable or seedy about people just taking random photos of passers-by. There might be. But that's not the same as someone being prohibited from doing so. The law and what is "right" are not always analogous! :-) Some years ago, I was a bit surprised when someone approached me at Paddington and actually asked if he could take my picture (I was wearing mirrored sunglasses, and he wanted to capture the reflection of the roof) but I'm aware from time to time that there are people taking photos of me, some of whom seem to be doing openly, while others seem to be trying to pretend they aren't. As a matter of fact, if I'd been asked under such circumstances, I'd have politely declined. But I'm not sure how far any of us can go in England to prevent photos being taken which include us. And enforcing such things is impossible. Think of all the photos taken every day ion Central London (or Bath, Stratford-upon-Avon, Oxford, York, etc.) And how many people appear in them. Legislating for this is just impossible. I realise there's a difference between being a "subject" of a photo and being incidental within it. But actually defining the difference in law would be very difficult, wouldn't it? As for me, I'm much happier photographing trains. As am I with buses and interesting buildings. But people do get in the way! -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 23 Feb, 16:55, Paul Corfield wrote:
Therefore the subject was within his rights to ask for it to be deleted - or sue to have it subsequently removed from any websites/magazines etc that it might appear in. No, he was not. I think he was, otherwise you could turn the argument around and say people have no right to refuse to be photographed. I strongly dislike being photographed but I would not thump anyone who did it just because I was walking down the road and happened to get snapped. Working in Central London near many tourist sites it is inevitable you'll get snapped some time. Yes but the tourists won't be specifically photographing you will they. If you end up in one of their pictures thats just the luck of the draw , not a deliberate act on their part. B2003 |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 23 Feb, 18:02, Michael Hoffman wrote:
[Paul Corfield] Something needs to be done to resolve the utter nonsense that seems all too prevalent these days concerning photography, "security" and the perception of rights to privacy in public places. [The Real Doctor] A little more courtesy on the part of photographers would go a long way. A little more courtesy would be nice, but I doubt it would have any effect on resolving the utter nonsense referred to above. What exactly do you and Paul mean by the "utter nonsense" in this case? I think it is quite reasonable to expect privacy - in the sense of "being left alone" in a public place. One very good argument against ID cards is that one should be free to go anonymously where one likes, and that, it seems to me, also implies that one should be free from unwanted photography and other forms of tracking. The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message
, at 13:03:01 on Sat, 23 Feb 2008, The Real Doctor remarked: The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them have a reasonable expectation of privacy? There's CCTV in the toilets at KX. Euston too? -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Chris Tolley writes Human rights legislation may be close to conferring some nearby rights. This is the problem thought. Such legislation may be in the pipeline or maybe not (I don't know). But that is important is that it *isn't* there yet and this is what people believe gives them certain rights which they do not in fact have. The legislation is there, but the case law isn't. People have a right to privacy under human rights law. At present that right extends effectively to situations in which information about them may not be made public without their consent. So, it isn't right to say that people can't take pictures, but it is right to say that there are certain things they might then do with those pictures that might give rise to complaints from the people featured in them, and some of those complaints might be pursued under law. Some years ago, I was a bit surprised when someone approached me at Paddington and actually asked if he could take my picture (I was wearing mirrored sunglasses, and he wanted to capture the reflection of the roof) but I'm aware from time to time that there are people taking photos of me, some of whom seem to be doing it openly, while others seem to be trying to pretend they aren't. As a matter of fact, if I'd been asked under such circumstances, I'd have politely declined. But I'm not sure how far any of us can go in England to prevent photos being taken which include us. And enforcing such things is impossible. Think of all the photos taken every day ion Central London (or Bath, Stratford-upon-Avon, Oxford, York, etc.) And how many people appear in them. Legislating for this is just impossible. I realise there's a difference between being a "subject" of a photo and being incidental within it. But actually defining the difference in law would be very difficult, wouldn't it? Well, since as noted there is not a general right not to be photographed, the question doesn't immediately arise in that vanilla case. However, suppose you take a picture of Warwick Castle, and there are some people in the foreground, one of whom is wearing a green jacket and whose features may be recognisable, You might publish the picture with a caption "Warwick Castle" and be okay. But if you published the picture with a caption saying "here is X.... Y..... (wearing the green jacket), the well-known paedophile, stalking children at Warwick Castle", then you can expect X.... Y.....'s legal representatives to be in touch in short order. As for me, I'm much happier photographing trains. As am I with buses and interesting buildings. But people do get in the way! Indeed. Sometimes deliberately. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632855.html (33 054 at Reading, 17 Jan 1981) |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Chris Tolley wrote:
Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Chris Tolley writes Human rights legislation may be close to conferring some nearby rights. This is the problem thought. Such legislation may be in the pipeline or maybe not (I don't know). But that is important is that it *isn't* there yet and this is what people believe gives them certain rights which they do not in fact have. The legislation is there, but the case law isn't. That may give the wrong impression. What I meant to indicate was that the principle of protection of privacy is there, but no case law has yet said (AFAIK) that the law should be interpreted to mean that someone can't be photographed (IANAL etc.) -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633026.html (47 170 on the "East Anglian" at Norwich, 24 Jun 1980) |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message
, The Real Doctor writes On 23 Feb, 18:02, Michael Hoffman wrote: [Paul Corfield] Something needs to be done to resolve the utter nonsense that seems all too prevalent these days concerning photography, "security" and the perception of rights to privacy in public places. [The Real Doctor] A little more courtesy on the part of photographers would go a long way. A little more courtesy would be nice, but I doubt it would have any effect on resolving the utter nonsense referred to above. What exactly do you and Paul mean by the "utter nonsense" in this case? I think it is quite reasonable to expect privacy - in the sense of "being left alone" in a public place. I don't think it is. By definition "in a public place" and "left alone" can be incompatible. One very good argument against ID cards is that one should be free to go anonymously where one likes, and that, it seems to me, also implies that one should be free from unwanted photography and other forms of tracking. The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I suspect in this case they're *not* a "public place" insofar as they are private land and the owners can allow entry on condition of not participating in certain activities. This is the rule used by - for example - the National Trust to "prohibit" photography inside their properties. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message k
Stimpy wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:08:06 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote As for CCTV -- I have no problem with it. I doubt the residents of Ipswich do either. But it's unlikely that specific, recognisable images of an individual person will be released by the CCTV operators, especially if those images might then end up in a magazine without the subject having signed a release first. Happens all the time, just watch Crimewatch. Given the millions of frames of CCTV footage shot every day, 20 seconds of footage on Crimewatch once a month is hardly 'all the time' :-) Plus all the other news programmes, Alastair Stewart's police video crap and so on. The key difference is, of course, that CCTV footage showed on Crimewatch has been released to the police - exactly the reason the cameras were installed in the first place. But they are 'specific, recognisable images of an individual person' which was the criteria, nit whether the police had them first. Try putting 'security cam' into a web browser and see the amount of material that I'm sure doesn't have model releases. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message , Chris Tolley
writes Well, since as noted there is not a general right not to be photographed, the question doesn't immediately arise in that vanilla case. However, suppose you take a picture of Warwick Castle, and there are some people in the foreground, one of whom is wearing a green jacket and whose features may be recognisable, You might publish the picture with a caption "Warwick Castle" and be okay. This gives rise to a particular issue, that is to say what you *do* with a picture after it's been taken. If you keep it for your own use, then I suspect that there really is *nothing* that someone featured in it can do (?), whereas publishing it *might* give rise to other issues. However uncomfortable this might make some people feel, it might therefore be legal (or at any rate not illegal) for someone to go out, take photographs of strangers' children in the street and then keep them on your own computer at home. Now I for one don't feel comfortable about *that* scenario but I would find it difficult to actually draft any legislation to prohibit it. At what point does someone cease to appear in a photograph and become the subject of that photograph. It's (no pun intended, really!) all rather subjective. But if you published the picture with a caption saying "here is X.... Y..... (wearing the green jacket), the well-known paedophile, stalking children at Warwick Castle", then you can expect X.... Y.....'s legal representatives to be in touch in short order. I'm playing Devil's advocate here but would this situation be affected by whether or not the said allegation was true or not? -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 23 Feb, 22:57, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , The Real Doctor writes The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I suspect in this case they're *not* a "public place" insofar as they are private land and the owners can allow entry on condition of not participating in certain activities. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. We can't have degenerated to this already? Summary: just because somewhere is private property does not rule it out from being a public place. This arises about 86 times per year in discussion of photography at stations ... Why do you think all those pretty young policemen get sent into public toilets ... ? Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:07:44 +0000, Bill Borland
wrote: In article , Chris Tolley writes I'd be more comfortable if it were expressed as a double negative: in a public place, there is generally no right for others to stop people taking photographs. I don't believe there *is* a right to take photographs, and can't imagine which legislation I would have to look at to find it, but I think the statement above is pretty much on the mark. As I understand it, you don't need a "right" to do anything under British law. You can do anything you like, provided that neither - (a) there is a law specifically forbidding it, in which case you may be prosecuted, nor (b) it may cause damage to another person, in which case he may bring a civil action for damages. You have missed the fundamental human rights confirmed by the Human Rights Act; these in turn lead to other derived rights but apart from those everything else that is done without general interference is better described as enjoyed as a liberty (as in not something necessary for enjoyment of life but generally accepted as having no reason to stop most people doing it). Some rights not covered by the above are endowed by law such as the right to kill yourself as long as you are mentally capable and don't involve anyone else. |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:15:35 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote: Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Chris Tolley writes Human rights legislation may be close to conferring some nearby rights. This is the problem thought. Such legislation may be in the pipeline or maybe not (I don't know). But that is important is that it *isn't* there yet and this is what people believe gives them certain rights which they do not in fact have. The legislation is there, but the case law isn't. People have a right to privacy under human rights law. Not so simple. AFAIR the right is actually not to have undue interference to a person's private and family life; this is rather different from a mere unqualified "right to privacy" as e.g. some newspapers seem to be applying to offenders found guilty in court. At present that right extends effectively to situations in which information about them may not be made public without their consent. So, it isn't right to say that people can't take pictures, but it is right to say that there are certain things they might then do with those pictures that might give rise to complaints from the people featured in them, and some of those complaints might be pursued under law. Some years ago, I was a bit surprised when someone approached me at Paddington and actually asked if he could take my picture (I was wearing mirrored sunglasses, and he wanted to capture the reflection of the roof) but I'm aware from time to time that there are people taking photos of me, some of whom seem to be doing it openly, while others seem to be trying to pretend they aren't. As a matter of fact, if I'd been asked under such circumstances, I'd have politely declined. But I'm not sure how far any of us can go in England to prevent photos being taken which include us. And enforcing such things is impossible. Think of all the photos taken every day ion Central London (or Bath, Stratford-upon-Avon, Oxford, York, etc.) And how many people appear in them. Legislating for this is just impossible. I realise there's a difference between being a "subject" of a photo and being incidental within it. But actually defining the difference in law would be very difficult, wouldn't it? Well, since as noted there is not a general right not to be photographed, the question doesn't immediately arise in that vanilla case. However, suppose you take a picture of Warwick Castle, and there are some people in the foreground, one of whom is wearing a green jacket and whose features may be recognisable, You might publish the picture with a caption "Warwick Castle" and be okay. But if you published the picture with a caption saying "here is X.... Y..... (wearing the green jacket), the well-known paedophile, stalking children at Warwick Castle", then you can expect X.... Y.....'s legal representatives to be in touch in short order. As for me, I'm much happier photographing trains. As am I with buses and interesting buildings. But people do get in the way! Indeed. Sometimes deliberately. |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:50:31 -0800 (PST), Boltar
wrote: On 23 Feb, 16:55, Paul Corfield wrote: Therefore the subject was within his rights to ask for it to be deleted - or sue to have it subsequently removed from any websites/magazines etc that it might appear in. No, he was not. I think he was, otherwise you could turn the argument around and say people have no right to refuse to be photographed. ITYF that in general they do not. OTOH they might have a number of rights available to them WRT publication of any such photographs, depending on the manner and purpose of such publication. I strongly dislike being photographed but I would not thump anyone who did it just because I was walking down the road and happened to get snapped. Working in Central London near many tourist sites it is inevitable you'll get snapped some time. Yes but the tourists won't be specifically photographing you will they. If you end up in one of their pictures thats just the luck of the draw , not a deliberate act on their part. B2003 |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message
, The Real Doctor writes On 23 Feb, 22:57, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , The Real Doctor writes The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I suspect in this case they're *not* a "public place" insofar as they are private land and the owners can allow entry on condition of not participating in certain activities. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. We can't have degenerated to this already? No, we haven't. I think you've just misunderstood what I meant or else I put it badly. I fully understand that private property can be a public place. That - for example - is how non-smoking legislation can be extended to privately owned premises, even if the owner would be willing to permit it. What I meant here was that places like the toilets at Euston could have restrictions placed on them by their owners which are independent of any legislation or lack of it prohibiting photography in the street. As it happens, I wonder vaguely about taking photographs in public parks now, too, since they;re public places but private property and the owners (local authorities) could restrict what goes on there. Summary: just because somewhere is private property does not rule it out from being a public place. This arises about 86 times per year in discussion of photography at stations ... Why do you think all those pretty young policemen get sent into public toilets ... ? I have no idea! ;-) -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Ian Jelf wrote:
As it happens, I wonder vaguely about taking photographs in public parks now, too, since they;re public places but private property and the owners (local authorities) could restrict what goes on there. If there is a no photography rule, there will be a notice about it on your way into the park. No notice, no rule. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857144.html ("Thames " nameplate on 47 511 at Oxford, Aug 1982) |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Graeme Wall wrote:
Try putting 'security cam' into a web browser and see the amount of material that I'm sure doesn't have model releases. SurveillanceSaver random surveillance cam screensaver: http://i.document.m05.de/?p=418 The Windows version only works for me in preview mode--it crashes when it is triggered by inactivity. -- Michael Hoffman |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 24 Feb, 00:09, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:50:31 -0800 (PST), Boltar I think he was, otherwise you could turn the argument around and say people have no right to refuse to be photographed. ITYF that in general they do not. OTOH they might have a number of rights available to them WRT publication of any such photographs, depending on the manner and purpose of such publication. OK, you two, take out your cameras, go for a stroll round your local town and insist on your right to take photographs of people form a distance of, say, three feet. Be sure to point out to them that they have no right to refuse to be photographed. I'll bring you some grapes. Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
"The Real Doctor" wrote in message ... On 24 Feb, 00:09, Charles Ellson wrote: On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:50:31 -0800 (PST), Boltar I think he was, otherwise you could turn the argument around and say people have no right to refuse to be photographed. ITYF that in general they do not. OTOH they might have a number of rights available to them WRT publication of any such photographs, depending on the manner and purpose of such publication. OK, you two, take out your cameras, go for a stroll round your local town and insist on your right to take photographs of people form a distance of, say, three feet. Be sure to point out to them that they have no right to refuse to be photographed. I'll bring you some grapes. Ian Surely intrusive surgery will be needed to recover their cameras. |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
"Ian Jelf" wrote What I meant here was that places like the toilets at Euston could have restrictions placed on them by their owners which are independent of any legislation or lack of it prohibiting photography in the street. As it happens, I wonder vaguely about taking photographs in public parks now, too, since they;re public places but private property and the owners (local authorities) could restrict what goes on there. A public place is one to which the public are admitted, whether on payment or otherwise. The 'or otherwise' can encompass restrictions on what the public can do there (the stands on the Centre Court at Wimbledon are a public place, but the public are admitted subject to restrictions on flash photography and mobile phones; a cinema may be a public place, but have restrictions on taking in your own refreshments). In the case of a public park owned by a local authority any restrictions have to be spelt out in byelaws approved by the Home Office. However, the Public Order Act creates the offence of 'in a public place using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned' and someone taking photographs of children so that their parents took exception could well fall foul of this. Peter |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
"The Real Doctor" wrote OK, you two, take out your cameras, go for a stroll round your local town and insist on your right to take photographs of people form a distance of, say, three feet. Be sure to point out to them that they have no right to refuse to be photographed. See my other post. The photographer's behaviour may well constitute a Public Order Act offence. Peter |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Chris Tolley writes Well, since as noted there is not a general right not to be photographed, the question doesn't immediately arise in that vanilla case. However, suppose you take a picture of Warwick Castle, and there are some people in the foreground, one of whom is wearing a green jacket and whose features may be recognisable, You might publish the picture with a caption "Warwick Castle" and be okay. This gives rise to a particular issue, that is to say what you *do* with a picture after it's been taken. If you keep it for your own use, then I suspect that there really is *nothing* that someone featured in it can do (?), whereas publishing it *might* give rise to other issues. Precisely. In the general case, that is. The only cases where you might get into trouble for simply taking a picture (which might mean, to be technical, not even having something visible but merely a latent image on film) is if there is a prohibition on taking pictures in a particular place or circumstance. If you see a sign, for instance, that says, "This is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Act", then... However uncomfortable this might make some people feel, it might therefore be legal (or at any rate not illegal) for someone to go out, take photographs of strangers' children in the street and then keep them on your own computer at home. ITYM "his computer". I'm not making mine available for any of that sort of thing. ;-) Now I for one don't feel comfortable about *that* scenario but I would find it difficult to actually draft any legislation to prohibit it. At what point does someone cease to appear in a photograph and become the subject of that photograph. It's (no pun intended, really!) all rather subjective. It may be context- or caption- dependent, as indicated in my example. But if you published the picture with a caption saying "here is X.... Y..... (wearing the green jacket), the well-known paedophile, stalking children at Warwick Castle", then you can expect X.... Y.....'s legal representatives to be in touch in short order. I'm playing Devil's advocate here but would this situation be affected by whether or not the said allegation was true or not? There are several bits to the allegation, and each one of them could be regarded as the kind of thing which interfered with XY's human rights, whether true or not. See http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html, which is the fons et origo, specifically article 12. Even if XY has previously been convicted of a relevant offence against a minor, he might nevertheless not regard himself as, or might not actually *be* a paedophile, so that bit is potentially dodgy, and the suggestion that he is captured in the act of stalking children might easily be completely untrue, even if the person taking the picture genuinely suspected that was what he was doing. And even if those statements are true, XY might be able to argue that the publication of a statement that identifies him to people who would otherwise not have known who he was is "an arbitrary interference with his privacy". -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p11938603.html (47 511 at Reading, 3 Mar 1980) |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:15:35 GMT, Chris Tolley wrote: Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Chris Tolley writes Human rights legislation may be close to conferring some nearby rights. This is the problem thought. Such legislation may be in the pipeline or maybe not (I don't know). But that is important is that it *isn't* there yet and this is what people believe gives them certain rights which they do not in fact have. The legislation is there, but the case law isn't. People have a right to privacy under human rights law. Not so simple. AFAIR the right is actually not to have undue interference to a person's private and family life; this is rather different from a mere unqualified "right to privacy" as e.g. some newspapers seem to be applying to offenders found guilty in court. Agreed. As soon as I sent that statement out into the aether, I knew it was an inadequate explanation. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589940.html (20 141 at Buxton, Jun 1985) |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message , at 13:05:51 on
Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Chris Tolley remarked: If you see a sign, for instance, that says, "This is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Act" I wish signs like that would say *which* Act. -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message , at 12:45:29 on Sun, 24 Feb
2008, Peter Masson remarked: However, the Public Order Act creates the offence of 'in a public place using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned' and someone taking photographs of children so that their parents took exception could well fall foul of this. Which of those activities would be, just the "threatening", or some of the others? And why isn't a parent's reaction equally threatening and/or abusive? -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message , at 12:48:38 on
Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Peter Masson remarked: OK, you two, take out your cameras, go for a stroll round your local town and insist on your right to take photographs of people form a distance of, say, three feet. Be sure to point out to them that they have no right to refuse to be photographed. See my other post. The photographer's behaviour may well constitute a Public Order Act offence. So if the mob doesn't like you, it's an offence for you to do something the mob objects to? Mob rule in England, circa 2008. -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On 24 Feb, 11:39, "8sub" wrote:
"The Real Doctor" wrote in ... OK, you two, take out your cameras, go for a stroll round your local town and insist on your right to take photographs of people form a distance of, say, three feet. Be sure to point out to them that they have no right to refuse to be photographed. Surely intrusive surgery will be needed to recover their cameras. The dentist and proctologist can have a race - whoever reaches the camera first gets to keep it ... Ian |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 12:45:29 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Peter Masson remarked: However, the Public Order Act creates the offence of 'in a public place using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned' and someone taking photographs of children so that their parents took exception could well fall foul of this. Which of those activities would be, just the "threatening", or some of the others? And why isn't a parent's reaction equally threatening and/or abusive? That would be up to the police officer or magistrate who had to deal with the situation. Peter |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... 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. If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you agree otherwise with the photographer. No you do not. This contradicts what I was told by a lawyer speaking on an intellectual property training course, given by a well known national chain of shops where I was working at the time - unless the law has changed in the last 6 years or so. D |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In message , at 17:25:56 on
Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Peter Masson remarked: However, the Public Order Act creates the offence of 'in a public place using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned' and someone taking photographs of children so that their parents took exception could well fall foul of this. Which of those activities would be, just the "threatening", or some of the others? And why isn't a parent's reaction equally threatening and/or abusive? That would be up to the police officer or magistrate who had to deal with the situation. It doesn't seem to me that taking a photo will often be "threatening" within the meaning of this law. Whereas expressing a desire to thump the photographer, is. -- Roland Perry |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
Dave wrote:
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... 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. If you are photographed, you own the copyright to that image unless you agree otherwise with the photographer. No you do not. This contradicts what I was told by a lawyer speaking on an intellectual property training course, given by a well known national chain of shops where I was working at the time - unless the law has changed in the last 6 years or so. I suggest you (and anyone else intending to post on this subject) look at http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php and the follow-up discussion before posting further... -- Jeremy Double jmd.nospam@btinternet {real email address, include the nospam!} Steam and transport photos at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/ |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
In article , Ian Jelf
writes picture with a caption saying "here is X.... Y..... (wearing the green jacket), the well-known paedophile, stalking children at Warwick Castle", then you can expect X.... Y.....'s legal representatives to be in touch in short order. I'm playing Devil's advocate here but would this situation be affected by whether or not the said allegation was true or not? Of course, if the publisher of the alleged libel can *prove* that it is true. Truth is always a defence to a civil action for defamation. -- Bill Borland |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:09:46 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 13:05:51 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Chris Tolley remarked: If you see a sign, for instance, that says, "This is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Act" I wish signs like that would say *which* Act. IME they are usually "headlined" with the Act's name if worded as above. |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:16:36 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote: In message , The Real Doctor writes On 23 Feb, 22:57, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , The Real Doctor writes The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I suspect in this case they're *not* a "public place" insofar as they are private land and the owners can allow entry on condition of not participating in certain activities. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. We can't have degenerated to this already? No, we haven't. I think you've just misunderstood what I meant or else I put it badly. I fully understand that private property can be a public place. That - for example - is how non-smoking legislation can be extended to privately owned premises, even if the owner would be willing to permit it. Incorrect. The legislation can apply to a private place which is a workplace, as applies to most offices. What I meant here was that places like the toilets at Euston could have restrictions placed on them by their owners which are independent of any legislation or lack of it prohibiting photography in the street. As it happens, I wonder vaguely about taking photographs in public parks now, too, since they;re public places but private property and the owners (local authorities) could restrict what goes on there. Summary: just because somewhere is private property does not rule it out from being a public place. This arises about 86 times per year in discussion of photography at stations ... Why do you think all those pretty young policemen get sent into public toilets ... ? I have no idea! ;-) |
BTP seeking Tube photographer attacker
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:46:21 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 17:25:56 on Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Peter Masson remarked: However, the Public Order Act creates the offence of 'in a public place using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned' and someone taking photographs of children so that their parents took exception could well fall foul of this. Which of those activities would be, just the "threatening", or some of the others? And why isn't a parent's reaction equally threatening and/or abusive? That would be up to the police officer or magistrate who had to deal with the situation. It doesn't seem to me that taking a photo will often be "threatening" within the meaning of this law. Whereas expressing a desire to thump the photographer, is. AFAIR where anticipation of a simple breach of the peace is concerned (without resorting to the POA) then any party taking part is liable to arrest if necessary to prevent the anticipated breach. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk