BCSS - Forum

Chris L wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:42 pm

RogerF wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:31 pm Try taking a picture in the middle of London Bridge and see how many people stop to allow an unencumbered view!

This reminds me of a thread I read on the old defunt Panoramio forum. That photo site was for sharing geo-located images - they used to show up as little blue squares on Google Earth - and one of the requirements for acceptance was NO people.

Anyway this particular photographers method for taking busy street scenes without people was to use a tripod, a tiny aperture (and probably filters too) and a very long exposure. The result was an empty street because all the passers-by had blurred themselves out of existence.

I've never been able to try it as my camera aperture only goes to f8 and I think he was using something like f22.

Buy a "stopper" filter which can grab you 10 stops extra .... the Lee ones are the best but can set you back a few hundred pounds.

What Chez2 said.
It is awkward for photographers. However, with the technological opportunities today and the wide distribution of images on the web, there are responsibilities on a photographer who takes images where the subject is potentially identifyable.
If they are not ifentifyable I understamd you are OK but, as said above, if someone objects politely the photographer should do what you did and readily comply☺

Cheers
David Lambie
Bristol

What Tony said is completely right. In a public place you can take pictures of people (including children) and there is no legal issue.

In the case in question the library is not public area and you need to understand what the position is of the council (or whoever owns the venue). Generally they are fairly relaxed but as many have said common sense should prevail. I would never delete an image unless I wanted to and no one can make you.

However, one needs to be reasonable and try and take peoples feelings into consideration. For example when I was photographing at Chelsea I had a lovely image of a couple walking hand in hand and smiling and it would have been a great image for my client but the lady saw me photograph her and asked very nicely if I would mind deleting the image as the man was not her husband.

Ian Thwaites wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:48 am ................... asked very nicely if I would mind deleting the image as the man was not her husband.

I was having a bad morning until I read this ----- thanks Ian --- that has made me chuckle -- made my morning!

I think the previous correspondents have made valuable comments. We do live in a highly CCTV'd and Cellphoned society. We are under constant observation and images can appear almost anywhere at any time on any platform. I try not to incorporate people in my images which may be used in publication, in fact, one of my employers (non-UK company) requires a forest of paper to be completed should any image contain a likeness of any person "which is likely to be recognizable". We also live in a society in which images can be computer manipulated readily and for malicious or illegal purposes. (I'll not comment further on that). We also forget that litigation is now big business. Should you upset someone by obtaining their likeness, they may find some way of claiming "foul play", merely for the cash value. Visitors to some non-UK tourist sites have fallen foul of local legislation regarding buildings and property which may be subject to Copyright. So you may think you are in a public space, photographing a public building or object, but it may be a registered "work of art", or private land (think some areas in the City of London square mile and similar). It's not just people but objects too, which could be "protected". I'm a member of a large photographic organisation - advice given to us is to check first, not after the event.

el48tel is absolutely right.

I would treat advice given by the police with caution. They may have in this instance given advice reasonable regarding the state of the UK law as they see it. But they do not cover issues which may be raised in court under the European Convention on Human Rights, for example. Nor does police advice concern broader matters of privacy which are a civil issue. Nor can they issue advice on commercial use of images as opposed to private and personal use. A professional photographer would have to apply different standards regarding consent before selling an image to clients.

As a full time photographer I do need to know my facts. As quite rightly stated above different countries (within EU) have different laws.

I was talking about images taken in the UK and if you are in a public space you can photograph almost whatever you like and certainly people are fair game. What you cannot do is to change their identity or make associations etc etc.

For example I could take a picture of my son (without permission) in the street and I can sell that as an image of a man in the street, it can also be sold as Mr Thwaites in the street but it cannot be sold as a Conservative / labour voter in the street. Images that define a real fact are referred to in the industry as 'Editorial'. This is why the BBC can film in the street or when invited on private property. However, I cannot take the image in a shopping centre, restaurant etc without the consent of the property owner. If I need to photograph someone as say a customer of a garden centre I would engage a model and they would need to sign a model release and that means I can use images of the person and that they would be representing a fictional character.

Works of art are a completely different ball game and I would need pages to talk about that.

Issues around taking images of children can be based around whether they are a Looked After Child (or previously were). In this instance, the child's anonymity is important as it could lead to birth parents tracking down the child using the internet (if they know the rough vicinity in which they live). I would be sensitive to this request, for the child's sake.

On the other hand, some parents can just be sensitive to strangers taking pictures of their children as they can be suspicious as to their intended use i.e. marketing or otherwise...