"Taking photographs in public" thread in "General Mayhem"
Originally Posted by go_slow Its probably low blood sugar bought on by the excitement and expectation of his new toy arriving at some point today. ...

You know it.

I just wish it would turn up before it bloody well rains.

---

MC024 - Mandlebars are in!


Boris for Prime Minister!

Corrected for accuracy

---

If I ever get this boring shoot me:

just watched the vid.

that fella rajesh is a prat. WTF was he thinking? standing in a london street, big beard, obviously of asian descent, dark clothing, dark baseball cap, filming in the street and then panning quite obviously on the copper walking past. fuck, i´d have been suspicious myself!

looks like he did it to get a reaction for the camera, got one, then cries victim.

under the circumstances he was lucky that he didn´t get lifted.

---

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a2...1602/erizo.jpg
N II motos guadalajara
if yer passing, drop in!
0034 949 203859

bikes are like blowjobs and pizza…..none are really bad, but some are so much better than others.

Street View operatives object to being snapped ? The Register

^ amusing article on the google street view car operatives who were more than happy to take photographs of random people in the street and yet thought they had a right to not be photographed themselves.

Not quite as shocking a fuckup as the clowns in Muz's video though.

Which is now available on DVD...

But the power of those photographs are at times quite stunning.

---

I wil try and clear up my personal POV before it gets misrepresented..

I have no problem with photographers taking photos discreetly in public, although I do question why they should want to take photos of dismembered bodies etc.as I do think publishing them is a problem .

I do have a problem with them wading into a secure crime scene in their pursuit of their god given right to freedom. I also have a problem when they start to take photos of dead bodies in full view of grieving family members /shocked onlookers etc.

It is my personal view that in some circumstances this can lead to family members getting irate and perhaps lashing out and in those circumstances I believe that the photographer may be likely to cause a breach of the peace. ( I also think that doing so callously can be abusive and insulting although I never tested this in court).

Everything else is fair game, especially when press photographers display a little common courtesy and clear what they intend to do. At the end of the day an accident scene is a potential crime scene (especially fatals)and the police have a legal obligation to preserve the evidence there, and also to prevent the evidence becoming contaminated ( for example by having certain aspects splashed all over the papers..which might compromise any fair trial).

As regards other photos such as war reporters, I personally think some of them are tasteless and offensive especialy when the relatives are still alive ( although I recognise the historical benefits of having some photos of major events/wars etc). Those that have consented ( eg military units that allow them to go along) get what they deserve..the population at large should have some say before their deceased images are then broadcast.

---

Es mejor morir de pies que vivir en las rodillas

MC 004

Seems to me that it is justified as war is a public event whereas a photograph of an individual who has died in an accident is considered more personal. Then again it might just be because a lot of people think it's okay to show the bad guys suffering.

---

I'm Stig and so's yer mum! 99% fact free!

So, if you do not want your picture taken, then you have no rights to stop anyone doing so?

Gedge

That post is littered with the word 'personally'.

I would hope the police could leave their prejudices at home when on the job.

Personally shouldn't come into it at all.

---

If I ever get this boring shoot me:

But he was in Oxford circus you could'nt walk 10 feet without getting pestered by some tourist wanting a picture .I found it was never a problem just strange someone would want a picture of me .The pcso was being stupid and officious as the blokes doing no harm at all and theres no law against it.power mad some people are when they get put in a uniform .
besides the cctv there would have everything on much better quality film

---

http://www.therevcounter.com/touring...do-france.html

You do know he is a person, don't you

---

I'm Stig and so's yer mum! 99% fact free!

Nope

---

Incorrect. It's also news, regardless of whether you agree that it should be or not.

1. Agreed.
2. Yes. But if I'm arrested for obstructing free passage, that's different to being arrested for taking a photograph - which is legal.
3. Agreed. And you still haven't committed a crime by taking a picture.

For what? Creating video images while being of Asian appearance?

---

or loitering with intent to use public facilities...

---

MC024 - Mandlebars are in!


Boris for Prime Minister!

Nope I think you've hit the nail on the head. This subject comes up regularly on photography forums and it's always peoples morales which are the deciding factor. Nearly everyone wouldn't take the pic, or at worse an overview without showing the victim/injured party. You've got to be a little weird to want snuff pics?

---