Taking photos in public

[hard2miss]

is your husband a big bloke Lolli?

 

If Andy assaulted you and stole your camera what would his reaction be?

 

My dads bigger than your dad

 

I don't think we are talking about women here, they tend to be a bit more polite about it, but I doubt the size of someone comes into it if you feel the need to protect your family or property.

 

I have always been of the belief that no matter how 'hard' you are there is always someone 'harder', so its inevitable that a kicking is what you are going to come up against at some stage, no matter who you are.

Its a matter of principle for me, I would sooner have a kicking for protecting the kids than taking pictures of them.

[hard2miss]

Andy

 

Suppose your kids were in a school play, or did well at sport and the school wanted to take some photos for their newsletter. Would you refuse?

This is the difference for me so that you people that have stuck the label of someone mentally unstable on me can easily understand.

 

If its my Property then I don't want you photographing it, unless you ask and show me your interest and intentions. Its been mentioned that Google took pictures of peoples homes, well to that I say that I have access to that picture and can see what is contained in it, and if I have objection to it then I can put across my objection and get it pulled or more commonly smeared out. If someone takes pictures and I cannot see the pictures then that is different.

 

Same as the kids, if they are just a part of over all public life, in a public place, and are not the focal point of the pictures then that's fine. If they are to be the focal point then I want the courtesy of being asked first or I would see it as a violation, no matter how the law views it.

If someone wanted pictures, or use pictures of my kids in say something promotional as Andy says, then I want the opportunity to see the pictures and have a say on if they are used or kept.

 

Its not being mental, its just not wanting to be taken advantage of and wanting to be shown consideration.

What rights do people think they have just for purchasing a camera, to go around snapping what ever they wish ?

 

If you don't show me consideration then you should not be shouting and balling about it if I got the huff on with you about it.

If the law is not on my side then I would have to take the consequences of the law or even run the risk of getting beaten up, but I sure would not be deterred by either.

[hard2miss]

Why do you do this ?

 

Because they can. You can bring up your kids how you want.

 

Anyone wanting to photograph kids should get permission off have kids parents or have kids of their own.

[hard2miss]

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/comment-page-18/#comment-4067

 

Much thanks

[treadol]

My dads bigger than your dad

 

I don't think we are talking about women here, they tend to be a bit more polite about it, but I doubt the size of someone comes into it if you feel the need to protect your family or property.

 

I have always been of the belief that no matter how 'hard' you are there is always someone 'harder', so its inevitable that a kicking is what you are going to come up against at some stage, no matter who you are.

Its a matter of principle for me, I would sooner have a kicking for protecting the kids than taking pictures of them.

 

I doubt very much that I could give you a kicking. You, on the other hand, seem - going by your posts here - to be prepared to beat up a woman.

[treadol]

Because they can. You can bring up your kids how you want.

 

Anyone wanting to photograph kids should get permission off have kids parents or have kids of their own.

 

How do you know photographers don't have children of their own?

 

I do hope you're trolling.

 

Do you honestly think that someone having their own kids magically prevents them being paedos? You may want to have a look at the NSPCC site and get the facts about sexual abuse - your kids are statistically in far more danger from you than they are from a stranger taking a photo of them.

[waldershelf]

I used to have a full size lion in my front garden made of fibreglass (don't ask), and one day I looked out of the window to see some bloke with a real expensive camera taking pictures of it, he said he was from the University taking pictures of community life or some rubbish.

Anyhow I told him he was not welcome to take pictures of my house and I promptly chased him down the road with all intentions of ripping the camera from his neck and taking the film out. I did not catch the guy but I feel he got the point, or thought I liked is camera.

The thing that matters is he must have learnt something, as he was screaming some stuff running down the road with me not far behind even though I was in bare feet.

 

The point I am trying to make is I did not have kids back then, but now I do I consider them far more valuable than that lion, so I doubt I would be as slow if I was bare footed or not.

 

If I don't give you permission then I consider it a violation, and so should others.

 

It's a good job you didn't catch him, either you would have got the stuffing kicked out of you or you would have been arrested for assault. Ether way you were so far in the wrong you would have had no defence.

[waldershelf]

This is the difference for me so that you people that have stuck the label of someone mentally unstable on me can easily understand.

 

If its my Property then I don't want you photographing it, unless you ask and show me your interest and intentions. Its been mentioned that Google took pictures of peoples homes, well to that I say that I have access to that picture and can see what is contained in it, and if I have objection to it then I can put across my objection and get it pulled or more commonly smeared out. If someone takes pictures and I cannot see the pictures then that is different.

 

Same as the kids, if they are just a part of over all public life, in a public place, and are not the focal point of the pictures then that's fine. If they are to be the focal point then I want the courtesy of being asked first or I would see it as a violation, no matter how the law views it.

If someone wanted pictures, or use pictures of my kids in say something promotional as Andy says, then I want the opportunity to see the pictures and have a say on if they are used or kept.

 

Its not being mental, its just not wanting to be taken advantage of and wanting to be shown consideration.

What rights do people think they have just for purchasing a camera, to go around snapping what ever they wish ?

 

If you don't show me consideration then you should not be shouting and balling about it if I got the huff on with you about it.

If the law is not on my side then I would have to take the consequences of the law or even run the risk of getting beaten up, but I sure would not be deterred by either.

 

Remarkably you are still at liberty, if you actually carry on in real life like you say you do on here its some thing of a wonder you haven't been locked up.

[Swampster]

What rights do people think they have just for purchasing a camera, to go around snapping what ever they wish ?

 

If they're not on private property, that is exactly what they can do..

 

If the law is not on my side

 

which it isn't

 

then I would have to take the consequences of the law or even run the risk of getting beaten up, but I sure would not be deterred by either.

 

So to 'protect' your property/kids.. from the dangers of a street photographer you'd go and attack somebody in public because you don't agree with their right to take pictures.. ok fine we get that much..

 

Said photographer, kicks your arse.. still has the pictures of whatever he was snapping, and phones the police because he's been attacked.

 

Police arrive, photographer explains to police he was actually taking photo's of the 'thing' 500 yards behind your kids with his zoom lens, explains you rocked up ranting, trying to steal his camera and you got violent. So he acted in self defence.

 

So after taking a beating, you get arrested for common assault, disturbing the peace, and attempted theft...

 

You're later found guilty of said charges in court.. and get sent down for 6 months... meanwhile social services have heard you're a violent person, and pay your family & kids a visit. Speaking to neighbours they hear you chased some other guy down the road in bare feet while ranting and screaming for taking pictures of a life sized lion you had in the front garden. Social Service take kids into care for their protection from a potentially violent father.

 

All this of course is being reported and family photographed by the press reporting the story... their pictures all over the paper and internet.

 

All while somebody's leaked CCTV footage (which helped in your prosecution) is on youtube showing you as coming on the hardman and getting your ass kicked..

 

But you stick to those principles...

Edited March 4, 2012 by Swampster

[hard2miss]

He doesn't need permission. It isn't illegal to take photos of buildings*.

 

* Except in unique circumstances.

 

Are you sure. Having just read the pdf on photographers rights I would argue that you are wrong.

 

If it would let me copy and paste it I would show you where I believe I was in my right.