grim news for photographers tourism and rights

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=856968

As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
appear that he did anything wrong.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:20:29 +0100, "nigel"
wrote:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=856968

As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
appear that he did anything wrong.

The father of the child thought so and lodged a complaint. The police
would have been obligated to follow-up on a complaint. It's not the
policeman's job to tell the parents that they have no right to be
concerned.

As a photographer, you might know the images were erased from the
camera. A non-photographer might not understand that the images were
actually erased.

I don't see that the photographer did anything wrong, but he was
intrusive. I don't think the parents were wrong to be alarmed.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:20:29 +0100, "nigel"
wrote:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=856968

As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
appear that he did anything wrong.

The father of the child thought so and lodged a complaint. The police
would have been obligated to follow-up on a complaint. It's not the
policeman's job to tell the parents that they have no right to be
concerned.

As a photographer, you might know the images were erased from the
camera. A non-photographer might not understand that the images were
actually erased.

They weren't... recovering them would be quite easy provided there are
now further write operations to the card.

--
Bertrand

In article , nigel wrote:
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=856968

As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
appear that he did anything wrong.

The train and stations, though open to the public (for a fee) are
private property[1], and, as such, there is no right to take
photographs. However, it is not, AFAIAA, forbidden either.

It's cases like this which may force TFL to change the rules and
actually say something specifically about photography, and you can bet
that if they say anything about it it will be that it is forbidden.

Justin.

1. Makes me really mad that anything that's state run can be considered
private property, who the f*** do they think owns it? .... London
Tansport (or TFL) hasn't been sold off has it?
--
Justin C, by the sea.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:08:20 -0000, Justin C
wrote:

In article , nigel wrote:
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=856968

As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
appear that he did anything wrong.

The train and stations, though open to the public (for a fee) are
private property[1], and, as such, there is no right to take
photographs. However, it is not, AFAIAA, forbidden either.

It's cases like this which may force TFL to change the rules and
actually say something specifically about photography, and you can bet
that if they say anything about it it will be that it is forbidden.

Justin.

1. Makes me really mad that anything that's state run can be considered
private property, who the f*** do they think owns it? .... London
Tansport (or TFL) hasn't been sold off has it?

The photographer wasn't arrested for taking photographs where it was
illegal to do so or legal to do so and someone thought it wasn't. It
wasn't *where* the photographs were taken that was the basis for the
arrest. The photographer was charged with public harassment and
causing alarm and distress based on the father's complaint.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote

The photographer was charged with public harassment and
causing alarm and distress based on the father's complaint.

They should also arrest the owners of the tabloid media for artificially
*creating* the alarm and distress that the father claimed he felt. Take
exactly the same shots in a run-down area of Bangkok and the kids and their
parents would be lining up to be in the frame - but then they don't read
alarmist junk in tabloids, too busy staying alive.

Paul

Paul Bartram wrote:
"tony cooper" wrote

The photographer was charged with public harassment and
causing alarm and distress based on the father's complaint.

They should also arrest the owners of the tabloid media for
artificially *creating* the alarm and distress that the father
claimed he felt. Take exactly the same shots in a run-down area of
Bangkok and the kids and their parents would be lining up to be in
the frame - but then they don't read alarmist junk in tabloids, too
busy staying alive.

Sometimes it makes me gag to hear about the extent to which citizens of the
so-called more advanced western countries have been spoilt.

eNo wrote:
On May 15, 1:50 pm, tony cooper
wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:20:29 +0100, "nigel"

wrote:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=856968

As far as this article and the international press goes it
does'nt
seem to appear that he did anything wrong.

The father of the child thought so and lodged a complaint. The
police
would have been obligated to follow-up on a complaint. It's
not the
policeman's job to tell the parents that they have no right to
be
concerned.

As a photographer, you might know the images were erased from
the
camera. A non-photographer might not understand that the
images were
actually erased.

And a technically savvy person knows the images, though erased,
can be
recovered fairly easily.

I don't see that the photographer did anything wrong, but he
was
intrusive. I don't think the parents were wrong to be alarmed.

I must say that if I were that father's girl, I would have
reacted
equally... know your boundaries and the laws of the countries
you're
visiting.

That's easy for you to say. But how does a visitor to an
unfamiliar place make sure he knows every quirk of local law (or
custom) that may affect him? Saying "ask first" is not the answer
because one wouldn't always know what needs to be asked.

On Sun, 17 May 2009 02:48:27 +0530, "pawihte"
wrote:

eNo wrote:
On May 15, 1:50 pm, tony cooper
wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:20:29 +0100, "nigel"

wrote:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=856968

As far as this article and the international press goes it
does'nt
seem to appear that he did anything wrong.

The father of the child thought so and lodged a complaint. The
police
would have been obligated to follow-up on a complaint. It's
not the
policeman's job to tell the parents that they have no right to
be
concerned.

As a photographer, you might know the images were erased from
the
camera. A non-photographer might not understand that the
images were
actually erased.

And a technically savvy person knows the images, though erased,
can be
recovered fairly easily.

I don't see that the photographer did anything wrong, but he
was
intrusive. I don't think the parents were wrong to be alarmed.

I must say that if I were that father's girl, I would have
reacted
equally... know your boundaries and the laws of the countries
you're
visiting.

That's easy for you to say. But how does a visitor to an
unfamiliar place make sure he knows every quirk of local law (or
custom) that may affect him? Saying "ask first" is not the answer
because one wouldn't always know what needs to be asked.

How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if you
show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and the parent
catches you, that there will be some law involved?

The parent doesn't know whether your interest is in capturing lights,
shadows, composition, and a beguiling expression or if your interest
is in recording faces that will be Photoshopped onto nude bodies and
slobbered over on the net.

The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 02:48:27 +0530, "pawihte"
wrote:

eNo wrote:
On May 15, 1:50 pm, tony cooper
wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:20:29 +0100, "nigel"

wrote:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=856968
As far as this article and the international press goes it
does'nt
seem to appear that he did anything wrong.
The father of the child thought so and lodged a complaint. The
police
would have been obligated to follow-up on a complaint. It's
not the
policeman's job to tell the parents that they have no right to
be
concerned.

As a photographer, you might know the images were erased from
the
camera. A non-photographer might not understand that the
images were
actually erased.
And a technically savvy person knows the images, though erased,
can be
recovered fairly easily.

I don't see that the photographer did anything wrong, but he
was
intrusive. I don't think the parents were wrong to be alarmed.
I must say that if I were that father's girl, I would have
reacted
equally... know your boundaries and the laws of the countries
you're
visiting.

That's easy for you to say. But how does a visitor to an
unfamiliar place make sure he knows every quirk of local law (or
custom) that may affect him? Saying "ask first" is not the answer
because one wouldn't always know what needs to be asked.

How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if you
show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and the parent
catches you, that there will be some law involved?

The parent doesn't know whether your interest is in capturing lights,
shadows, composition, and a beguiling expression or if your interest
is in recording faces that will be Photoshopped onto nude bodies and
slobbered over on the net.

The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".

Sure, that's common courtesy and just plain smart, but is it the law?

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam