"Photos I Took" Thread

[Slartibartfast]

Photographers Rights - Street shooting, people, privacy & children

Some of the greatest photographs ever taken fall into the 'street shooter' category'.

Legendary photographers like Cartier Bresson and Andre Kertesz created their striking shots by walking the streets and looking for 'decisive moments,' interesting juxtapositions or just being in the right place at the right time.

So it's vital for the art of photography that photographers should be able to go about their business without hassle from the cops - and by law that's exactly what they're entitled to do.

If you're on a public right of way - such as a public pavement, footpath or public highway - you're free to take photographs for personal and commercial use so long as you're not causing an obstruction to other users or falling foul of anti-Terrorism laws or even the Official Secrets Act (frankly, this one is unlikely).

DPP -v- Jones (1999): The Court recognised that the public may enjoy a public highway for any reasonable purpose, provided it does not amount to public or private nuisance or obstruct the highway "by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and re-pass: within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway."

There's nothing stopping you taking pictures of people in public places within reason, but if you start shoving your zoom lens up their nostrils or taking action shots of their every step, there's a chance you might get a clip around the ear from your aggrieved subject or possibly face a legal charge of harassment or breach of the peace.

Harassment is defined as a 'course of conduct' (so it has to happen at least twice) that causes another person 'alarm or distress', but we have to say that the bullying and aggressive antics of the paparazzi would suggest that prosecutions are few and far between.

Photographers are free to use their photographs of people taken in public places as they wish - including for commercial gain.

Note: Professional photography is banned in London's Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square as well as the Royal Parks.

If you start breaking out the tripods, glampussy models, make up crew, Winnebagos and huge lights and reflectors, expect a parkie to turn up on the scene pronto demanding a hefty fee. However, be a little more low key with your shooting and you should have no problems.

People and Privacy

UK laws are fairly vague when it comes to defining what constitutes an invasion of privacy, but while street shots should cause no problem, you might get in hot water if you're strapping on colossal telephoto lens and zooming in on folks stripping off in their bathrooms - even if you are snapping from a public place.

The key seems to be whether the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy - a statement that seems vague enough to keep a team of lawyers gainfully employed for some time.

With some countries having stronger privacy laws, UK snappers looking to commercially exploit images of recognisable people snapped without their consent may find international clients unenthusiastic unless a model release has been obtained.

There's also a remote chance that photographs of people in public places may be subject to the Data Protection Act, but that's pretty unlikely if there's no other identifying information accompanying the image.

I don't think all that stuff apllies in th Uk under terror rules.
You think you have rights? I challenge you to provide me with
( on the interwebs) 5 pictures of the police at work( not walking the beat , actually arresting people) and 5 pictures of Briitish Air Force Sites

[Nemes1s]

So as I said technically u should have there permission
And this is what photographers are told when they are
Doing degree courses like my wife has a degree
Yes it is vaige like most things it comes down to the individual u are using
As Ur subject that is why it is advisable to seek
Consent even if it is after the fact

[Redddraggon]

I think you are thinking of "courtesy" as no permission is technically required.

[Nemes1s]

From what I read there if u take someones photo without there permission they can take action against u as it says at one piont u could get in trouble if u focus on an individual

[Redddraggon]

From what I read there if u take someones photo without there permission they can take action against u as it says at one piont u could get in trouble if u focus on an individual

That is correct if the image is seen as libelous or harassment. Neither of which really apply in what I have shot.

[Nemes1s]

That all depends on the persons feelings if someone don't want there picture taken the mere fact of taking it can be considered harassment
Hence why it is always advisable to hav consent

[Redddraggon]

That all depends on the persons feelings if someone don't want there picture taken the mere fact of taking it can be considered harassment
Hence why it is always advisable to hav consent

It's not Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual, as it's just One photograph, and so is not harassment.

[Nemes1s]

Lol I'm not saying u harassed him lol
To be fair Iv read some more about it and yeah
Dose seem u only need permission if Ur planing on selling them or using them
For anything other than portfolio peaceses
But I was bored so thought I would troll Ur thread lol

[Redddraggon]

To be honest street and "people" photography is not my kettle of fish, I'm more into landscapes, architectural or aeroplanes.

[LK3da]

summer2010

[Redddraggon]

Sunset on Windermere, Lake District by redddraggon, on Flickr

[MudShark]

Clover goes Walkies


By MudShark (probably taken by Mrs. MudShark) on google earth and panoramio

[MudShark]

Tertulia


By MudShark on google earth and panoramio (Mrs. MudShark - inside left)

[Nemes1s]

florida tops that i belive lol

[MudShark]

Ha! You want sunsets?



Sunset from Ao Nang by MudShark on google earth and panoramio