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)

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!

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

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.

[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

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

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

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

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

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)