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

"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

"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

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

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/

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

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.

All too common, I'm afraid. See e.g.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_n....asp?id=257755

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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

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.

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! ;-)

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.