Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Roberto,
So sue me in Italy. Like I care.
I avoid Italy even more than I avoid the UK.
Cheers,
R.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
You fight back by not giving in when you're right...
If I get stopped on the street and am told I cannot photograph where I am, I will ask to see in writing the law that forbids what I'm doing...not verbally but in writing SHOW IT TO ME!!!
If I get stopped on the street and am told I cannot photograph where I am, I will ask to see in writing the law that forbids what I'm doing...not verbally but in writing SHOW IT TO ME!!!
mich8261
Well-known
This has been posted on RFF before. It is a documentary about photographers' rights (or lack thereof) in France and Quebec (where French civil law is also in effect). They contrast what goes on in those two jurisdictions with protections in place in the US. Anyway, I think it's a fascinating little film, but it only seems to be available in French. Well worth the watch, also includes interviews with Elliott Erwitt and Willy Ronis.
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-8055791195744484552
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-8055791195744484552
Oh Two
Established
Victorian Society Redux
Victorian Society Redux
The interesting thing about Victorian society was it was prudish and positively polite at one extreme while fashionable private men's clubs, such as the Wig Club, were downright vulgar. The Wigs required new members to add to the Club's wig which was kissed by the members at the convening of the club's monthly meeting. The hitch? The hair added to the wig had to be 'pubic hair from a Royal Cortesan'.
Leave it to the Brits to suggest a new privacy law in a computerized world where privacy is now a thing of the past. Victorian? You betcha.
Victorian Society Redux
The interesting thing about Victorian society was it was prudish and positively polite at one extreme while fashionable private men's clubs, such as the Wig Club, were downright vulgar. The Wigs required new members to add to the Club's wig which was kissed by the members at the convening of the club's monthly meeting. The hitch? The hair added to the wig had to be 'pubic hair from a Royal Cortesan'.
Leave it to the Brits to suggest a new privacy law in a computerized world where privacy is now a thing of the past. Victorian? You betcha.
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
Banning public photography in the UK or elsewhere won't work. It would be like trying to ban walking or breathing in public. Groups of school children and seniors travel to England every year and there's no way the system is going to stop them from taking travel pictures.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
"Tough. It is no concern of a vender of alleged hamburgers if I take pictures in a public place." - Roger Hicks
That's the best line in this thread so far.
~Joe
That's the best line in this thread so far.
~Joe
Fez Parker
Member
I will accept a Blanket ban of producing pictures on the street if it is a proper Blanket ban i.e. speed cameras, government owned surveillance, press and tv news etc.
If such a ban were to become law effectively I would be committing a criminal act by taking my clients to a scenic location for shots in their Wedding portfolio.
wouldn't a more sensible and common sense law be along the lines of.....It would be an offense to KNOWINGLY produce an image to the detriment or harm of another person or persons
www.andyparkerphotography.co.uk
If such a ban were to become law effectively I would be committing a criminal act by taking my clients to a scenic location for shots in their Wedding portfolio.
wouldn't a more sensible and common sense law be along the lines of.....It would be an offense to KNOWINGLY produce an image to the detriment or harm of another person or persons
www.andyparkerphotography.co.uk
R
Roberto
Guest
I was not trying to say whether it's a good or a bad law.. it was more like an head-up for RFF friends traveling to Italy..
Personally I would really like to be free to publish pictures of people that I took in the street without any risk..
wgerrard
Veteran
Here's a question that requires a lawyer:
If you are arrested or detained on suspicion of being a terrorist taking pictures, would the police be required to show what evidence other than seeing you take pictures led to their action? After all, during the hour when that BBC photographer was taking pictures of St Paul's surely other, perhaps many other, people took very similar pictures. What else about his behavior compelled the volunteer police employee to single him out? It cannot have been the photography because he was far from unique in that regard.
If you are arrested or detained on suspicion of being a terrorist taking pictures, would the police be required to show what evidence other than seeing you take pictures led to their action? After all, during the hour when that BBC photographer was taking pictures of St Paul's surely other, perhaps many other, people took very similar pictures. What else about his behavior compelled the volunteer police employee to single him out? It cannot have been the photography because he was far from unique in that regard.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No. At least, not on my reading. The most recent case, for which I have unfortunately lost the reference, says that the Human Rights Act trumps previous French case law. The law is admittedly very unclear but I think that the high-water mark has been passed.
Cheers,
R.
chrishayton
Well-known
They could never ban 'street' photography. Its silly to even consider doing so. It would destroy the camera companys and prevent tourists recording trips as surely any photography in a public place would come under this ban (British prisons would be packed full of japanese tourists!)
Unless the police hunt down the photographer who has a Leica rangefinder and billingham bags only
Common sense wouldnt allow this, even in this PC world.
I cannot either see it being made illegal to publish the images, as surely newspapers which are private companys do this everyday without model releases.
The police can now stop and search for no reason which is fine but they wont get a polite response if they question me photographing on the street, Having a bit of experience with police in the past, its best to stick up for ones self than to agree to their ill informed politics, what can they do realistically, Surely its impossible to prosecute something that isnt law?
Martin Parr is doing a talk at my university in the new year, Im looking forward to a discussion over this as he is one of my favorite photographers and someone whose approach is incredibly forward and creates some of the best surreal documentry images of all time.
Unless the police hunt down the photographer who has a Leica rangefinder and billingham bags only
Common sense wouldnt allow this, even in this PC world.
I cannot either see it being made illegal to publish the images, as surely newspapers which are private companys do this everyday without model releases.
The police can now stop and search for no reason which is fine but they wont get a polite response if they question me photographing on the street, Having a bit of experience with police in the past, its best to stick up for ones self than to agree to their ill informed politics, what can they do realistically, Surely its impossible to prosecute something that isnt law?
Martin Parr is doing a talk at my university in the new year, Im looking forward to a discussion over this as he is one of my favorite photographers and someone whose approach is incredibly forward and creates some of the best surreal documentry images of all time.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry, Roberto. I didn't mean to be rude. It just came out that way, because as soon as a picture is published outside national borders, it shows how worthless parochial laws really are. I detest such rules, no matter who pretends they exist. By 'pretend', here, I refer to the Italian government, not you.
But of course, Silvio Berlusconi has no reason whatsoever to object to anyone taking his picture, in any company he may care to keep. THIS is why I object to photograhy controls. There is almost always a politician, oligarch or newspaper proprietor (sometimes all three), using others' 'privacy' as a shield for his own activities and those of his chums. I've just finished (and sent) a magazine piece on this very topic.
Cheers,
R.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Tomorrow - if this awful weather improves a little, I shall spend my usual one day a week wandering around York. Like many other of our towns, the streets are narrow, ancient, quaint and fascinating, and even at this time of year - lots of visitors from all over the world are wandering around photographing everything from shop windows, to buskers, to street markets, to policemen (yes! two of 'em once posed for my wife!). I can't really imagine this sort of thing changing soon, at least not in the time I have left. Too many places like this are a 'national treasure' here! BTW - am I making anyone jealous yet? 
Dave.
Dave.
chrishayton
Well-known
Look forward to reading it Roger (amateur photography?)
To me photography is innocent, It is a documentation of fact, it about as pure a representation as possible. The problem (if their is one) is with the original event.
Photographs especially in the last 3 years since studying it in detail as changed and educated my views of the world. Seeing different cultures and characters has opened my eyes to the world. Im far more aware of the worlds social issue purely due to photography and I feel im a better member of society because of this. If photography wasnt so demonised and was more widely appreciated and viewed then I think the public and government opinion of it would change.
To me photography is innocent, It is a documentation of fact, it about as pure a representation as possible. The problem (if their is one) is with the original event.
Photographs especially in the last 3 years since studying it in detail as changed and educated my views of the world. Seeing different cultures and characters has opened my eyes to the world. Im far more aware of the worlds social issue purely due to photography and I feel im a better member of society because of this. If photography wasnt so demonised and was more widely appreciated and viewed then I think the public and government opinion of it would change.
kully
Happy Snapper
The 'street' is what it is,t is not a Disneyland laid out for photo-geeks (of which I count myself as one).
Ok, so the Police are going to get it wrong. Also, people you point a camera at will get annoyed and shout at you and perhaps hit you.
So?
I do wonder how many of these 'situations' that get reported with in AP or wotnot would be adverted by the photographer being calm and polite and... humble. Why make a crack about some burger? Or take a photo of a burger place that you didn't want to?
I say take photos on the street, but leave your fecking ego at home.
Ok, so the Police are going to get it wrong. Also, people you point a camera at will get annoyed and shout at you and perhaps hit you.
So?
I do wonder how many of these 'situations' that get reported with in AP or wotnot would be adverted by the photographer being calm and polite and... humble. Why make a crack about some burger? Or take a photo of a burger place that you didn't want to?
I say take photos on the street, but leave your fecking ego at home.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear George,
As I said, the law is confused at the moment. Some people are unfamiliar with (relatively) recent case law. The droit de l'image is not statute law, and as in many jurisdictions there are plenty of people who make empty threats and others with deep pockets who are prepared to launch nuisance suits.
The case to which I referred is reported in Le Figaro: http://www.lefigaro.fr/culture/2007...ro_saint_droit_a_l_image_battu_en_breche.html
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
I'm always disappointed at some peoples reluctance to allow a little humour or lighthearted 'banter' into these oh-so-serious discussions!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kully,
I WAS polite. A lot depends on how you say something. I smiled at the policewoman. She was polite too. In fact she laughed, and agreed (not out of mere politeness -- she knew the law too) that it was no concern of McDo's. She then asked -- politely, as a fellow human being -- why I was shooting. I explained that I had some new lenses to try (the Summarits). She had no problem with any of it. But, like me, she did have a problem with McDo's wasting her time and mine.
Why take a pic of McDo? To remind the pompous twerp in charge -- who almost certainly saw me talking to the policewoman, because we were maybe 5m from their plate-glass windows -- that McDo isn't the law, and that anyone can take pictures in public.
Leave my ego at home? How? And indeed, why? Do you mean I should submit to the whim of every purveyor of fast foods, who thinks they can dictate what I can and can't photograph in a public place?
Rather than leaving one's 'fecking ego' at home, I'd suggest leaving one's cowardice at hone.
Cheers,
R.
I WAS polite. A lot depends on how you say something. I smiled at the policewoman. She was polite too. In fact she laughed, and agreed (not out of mere politeness -- she knew the law too) that it was no concern of McDo's. She then asked -- politely, as a fellow human being -- why I was shooting. I explained that I had some new lenses to try (the Summarits). She had no problem with any of it. But, like me, she did have a problem with McDo's wasting her time and mine.
Why take a pic of McDo? To remind the pompous twerp in charge -- who almost certainly saw me talking to the policewoman, because we were maybe 5m from their plate-glass windows -- that McDo isn't the law, and that anyone can take pictures in public.
Leave my ego at home? How? And indeed, why? Do you mean I should submit to the whim of every purveyor of fast foods, who thinks they can dictate what I can and can't photograph in a public place?
Rather than leaving one's 'fecking ego' at home, I'd suggest leaving one's cowardice at hone.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Roger, does this mean the aforementioned establishment has been removed from your list of cordon bleu dining venues?
Dave.
Dave.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Yes indeed! - they should 'grab' every middle-aged couple - seen strolling around the streets with a camera! - especially if they happen to pause near strategically important buildings like big MacMaybe the pompous twerp was just doing her civic duty.
IF YOU SUSPECT IT - REPORT IT
Thank god for the Metropolitan Police.