The Child Protection Act was quoted to me, and it was obvious the Stewards in St John's Gardens were under instructions, because I was challenged a number of times.
However, the point I was making in this thread was that somebody's image doesn't belong to them.
That is obvious when you see reporters in crowded streets, and you can see the faces of all the other people.
If I was taking a photo of the Steble fountain on a lovely summers day (ok, I know that's hardly likely for a start) and kids were playing in it cos it was on, then i'd see that as an action shot which would enhance it (rather like one that appeared on the photo of the day of a kid running through the Williamson square water feature) Unless one of their parents or guardians objected then i'd tell anyone else to take a running jump, it's not as if you're illegally venturing into the swimming baths or changing rooms with one is it - you're out in broad daylight in the fresh air on a public street for goodness sake.
I think the question here is : Would you like some stranger coming up to your child and taking a photo?
It's a funny old world and its getting worse. When I was in the Boys Brigade, there was hundreds of people taking pictures as we walked past, now camera's are banned there!!
I can sympathise with that. If it's a bang on 'Here kiddy, stand there while I take a photo of you' then I see what people mean but then again Bernard Fallon didn't have those worries back in the 60s and one of his most iconic pictures that he used for his long way home exhibition poster was of 3 kids stood outside a Scottie road pub. Innocent times back then when I bet there was just as many paedos but just not the media glare.
I remember when Boots kicked off at someone and called the police purely because the PARENTS took a picture of their kids in their own bath.
We've lots of pictures of us kids running around the garden without a stitch or the first time in the bath!!
This was taken in April.
When the world of photography seemed not so fraught with dangers.
I see nothing wrong with the above picture. Anyway some people only need the simplest of excuses to control people.
Currently Ignoring:
The Door Bell
The voices in my head
Crazy... 99% of the time it is inevitable that you get a person in
any pic,s you take. I have said it before what about TV and press
photog,s ?, their pic,s are seen by millions. It is also the fact that
men are treated different to women when taking pic,s, discrimination
or what... I try not to include any people in my shots but sometimes
like the 800th parade you have no choice.
If police or children are in a public place and not a private place and are not the focal subject - then yes.
Heres Info on Photographers rights.
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf
Gididi Gididi Goo.
Of course, there are occasions when you can't avoid taking pictures of people, ie; parades or busy public places.
Some people can be very touchy though and not want their face to be on the internet.
It depends on the circumstances I suppose.
Some time ago on a holiday forum, I posted a link to my Webshots of some holiday snaps; the pics included one of a fellow forum member who we'd met up with at the time. He pm'd me to ask me to remove the one of him.
His reason being that he was a policeman and didn't want his picture being on the internet. (Webshots being too public).
It was ok though to post the pics on the forum which was private to members only.
I hadn't given it a thought then about Webshots being open to the world - but I am more careful now.
I just Ignore touchy people as much as I can now, unless their a police person.
I hate communication.
Gididi Gididi Goo.
Bookmarks