advertisement


The Right to take Pictures in the Street in the UK

All the fuss about thee guy with a camera, then you go and have a play with google maps, street view. It just does not make sense
 
Martin D said:
From the Telegraph

Has our increasingly paranoid society declared war on the humble 'weekend snapper'?

Sam Delaney
Last Updated: 4:24AM GMT 12 Dec 2008
Comments 105 | Comment on this article
An amateur photographer ............................... anyone!'
Click to expand...

Hi there Martin, it may have helped to have broken this up into paragraphs, very difficult to read full on block text. However the article is of much interest and concern, may be we should be issued with identity cards that allow us to take photographs but that should not be needed. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

It is noted that when people photograph children / youths committing criminal damage and submitting the pictures as evidence the outburst from the parents is accusation of pedophilia of who ever took the pictures. Crazy, but we need to do something about this, not that I walk around the streets taking photographs, most of the work is in studio, but who is going to record social history? best wishes,
 
Can I ask a simple question ?

It appears to me that I am potentially forbidden to take images of public buildings in the City I live in yet apparently fund.

Yet, I can now see my house on Google Street View.

Now, I may own, or contribute to, a miniscule amount of the public building and it could be argued that I am entitled to take an image of the property I lay claim to. However, it appears that may not be the case..............

What right do Google have to take a picture of my house and car, create the image for the Internet and publish it without my consent ?

It's my property - not theirs.
 
Its an absolute bloody ridiculous minefield, you can get arrested for taking a picture of a copper, then the Google Earth thing drives around the same town capturing 100's of similar images? After all I've paid for the cop to be on duty - he / she works for me (or at least used to)

Martin
 
I have received an automated email acknowledgment from Virgin, followed, this morning, by another email advising me of the 'case number' of my email. I am still waiting for their response re: my actual complaint. I strongly suspect that I will get a 'no intention to cause offence but.. blah blah.. due regard to security and the rights of our customers...blah blah.. permission should be sought.... blah blah..'

I think we should seriously consider all writing to government about this, maybe setting up a petition on Directgov.com or somesuch. We should also all write to Google asking them for an explanation etc.
 
We were reminded recently of a London council contractor who was disturbing tenants in the area by working before 08.00hrs that I did not have permission to photograph them and that our behavior was unacceptable.

A council officer wrote, "I again do not believe that it is right to take other people's picture without their permission. I am sure if it has been the other way round, you would have been very appalled that your rights have been infringed".

In reply "It is clear that with regards to infringement of individual rights there is some ignorance in part,
we are all being photographed 24/7 on this estate by council security cameras, it is not recalled
the council requesting our permission to do so".

I have seen a few photographers taking photographs in London and have not been stopped myself or been given any grievance by anyone. best wishes,
 
Pinkfishcake said:
I have seen a few photographers taking photographs in London and have not been stopped myself or been given any grievance by anyone. best wishes,
Click to expand...

I saw a professional fashion photographer shooting on Clerkenwell Road yesterday, so I quickly got out of his frame of view and as I was passing he complimented me on my Fuji 6*9 which was hanging round my neck. Generally encounters between photographers and the public are like this. The problem comes with people in "Uniform" who think they are supposed to challenge "suspicious behaviour" whatever that might be on the streets of the 21st century.
 
Response from Virgin:

Dear Mr.... (Mull),



Thank you very much for your E-mail received on 20 March 2009.



I would like to assure you that there is no Virgin Trains ban on train spotters in fact we welcome them at our seventeen managed stations across the network. All we ask is that they report to the Duty Team Leader so that an appropriate safety brief can be given together with a request that they do not invade the privacy of our other customers.



Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your comments.



Yours sincerely



Sarah Brassington
Customer Relations


A real 'politician's' answer, in that it misses the main point I made..but hey...
 
The good thing about email is it's cheap and easy to respond to the above with specific questions about why this person was stopped and abused, and what steps are being taken to discipline and educate the member of staff, and what training is provided to all members of staff re their dealings with photographers and trains spotters.

I reckon, if you number the questions, it makes it more difficult for them to avoid responding to each of them.
 
Seems a perfectly reasonable response and policy to me. It's their property and they are entitled to ask users of it to be considerate.

Patrick, if I were Virgin, or any other private employer, I would give short shrift to anyone demanding answers to an incident he was not actually involved in.
 
Cav, you should read what happened rather than just the standard response.

As a member of the public and a Virgin customer, Mull is entitled to ask any questions he sees fit, and if he doesn't get answers he's happy with, to take his custom and goodwill elsewhere.

If you saw a Virgin employee beating a child on a railway platform, would you walk past because it was an incident you weren't actually involved in?
 
Patrick Dixon said:
Cav, you should read what happened rather than just the standard response.

As a member of the public and a Virgin customer, Mull is entitled to ask any questions he sees fit, and if he doesn't get answers he's happy with, to take his custom and goodwill elsewhere.

If you saw a Virgin employee beating a child on a railway platform, would you walk past because it was an incident you weren't actually involved in?
Click to expand...

Patrick, Mull can ask whatever he wants and if I were Virgin I would reply that this was an issue between Virgin and the person concerned and that any issues relating to discipline were an internal issue for Virgin. I would also say that if he were so incensed that he wanted to take his custom elsewhere we would regret that but respect his right to seek alternative travel arrangements.

Your last paragraph is fatuous beyond belief - no I would not walk past, I would probably join in...
 
I guess that might be one reason why Richard Branson is much richer than you then?

So you wouldn't walk past a kid being bullied, but a foreigner is OK? If it was a foreign woman? Just trying to ascertain where we draw the line here ...
 
Cav,

Politics and democracy are based on the idea of people with similar interests (vested or otherwise) joining together to question (or reinforce) the status quo. You, yourself, are being judgmental about a case (Mull vs Virgin) that you weren't involved in either. How many times disassociated can you get and still maintain the same attitude.

Beggars belief ffs

Patrick, agree with you 100%

cheers
Cliff

PS - I was harrassed yesterday by a bloke from the Gherkin security who looked most confused when I pointed out I was using 35mm film - what can't see what images have been recorded then eh eh eh????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top