On Feb 22, 12:34*pm, Mizter T wrote:
All I
will say is that sometimes people don't want to be photographed when
they are out and about, and photographers/ those with cameras should
try to respect their wishes. Of course this is a difficult thing to do
in practice, but this issue is much more likely to arise when a
photographer is attempting to capture shots of people or indeed just
single individuals (e.g. 'portraits of strangers' type photography).

If you don't want your photo taken in public, don't go out in public.
It's that simple.

As for CCTV -- I have no problem with it. I doubt the residents of
Ipswich do either.


Dan

On 23 Feb, 00:12, Dan G wrote:
On Feb 22, 12:34 pm, Mizter T wrote:

All I
will say is that sometimes people don't want to be photographed when
they are out and about, and photographers/ those with cameras should
try to respect their wishes. Of course this is a difficult thing to do
in practice, but this issue is much more likely to arise when a
photographer is attempting to capture shots of people or indeed just
single individuals (e.g. 'portraits of strangers' type photography).

If you don't want your photo taken in public, don't go out in public.
It's that simple.

Thats a valid argument , but theres a difference between someone
taking a picture of general street/station/whatever scene and someone
specifically taking a picture of *you* without your permission. Ok ,
the latter might still be legal but I imagine it would annoy a lot of
people (including myself) simply because its rude if you don't ask
permission. Some people might get so angry we have the incident here
though its hard to tell if the photo was just of that guy or whether
thats a zoom in shot from a larger pic.

B2003

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:12:15 +0000, Dan G wrote
On Feb 22, 12:34*pm, Mizter T wrote:
All I
will say is that sometimes people don't want to be photographed when
they are out and about, and photographers/ those with cameras should
try to respect their wishes. Of course this is a difficult thing to do
in practice, but this issue is much more likely to arise when a
photographer is attempting to capture shots of people or indeed just
single individuals (e.g. 'portraits of strangers' type photography).

If you don't want your photo taken in public, don't go out in public.
It's that simple.

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.

In message k
Stimpy wrote:

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:12:15 +0000, Dan G wrote
On Feb 22, 12:34*pm, Mizter T wrote:
All I will say is that sometimes people don't want to be photographed
when they are out and about, and photographers/ those with cameras
should try to respect their wishes. Of course this is a difficult thing
to do in practice, but this issue is much more likely to arise when a
photographer is attempting to capture shots of people or indeed just
single individuals (e.g. 'portraits of strangers' type photography).

If you don't want your photo taken in public, don't go out in public.
It's that simple.

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.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

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.

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

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