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.
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.
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.
When I was working for the m.o.d. in a place only known to me and my family in a street not far from James Street, I couldn,t have my picture taken in the street. I had to go around with my diplomatic bag with a brown checked paper bag over my head with only one hole to see through...government regulations
i cant see the point of this post really, i mean out in public is just that "in public", now if a photo was taken and somebody made comment as to who was actually in the photo then that could be a different matter. I can understand perhaps well known people being touchy because they are well known, but your average joe? naah its just another face in a million in a picture.
Take the picture below for example, taken by the Echo and in a recent book (as well as past publications)
Do you think the owners would have taken the trouble to omit it if they'd have received a complaint of 'my knickers are showing', I'm sat next to my fancy woman and my wife might see it', A clock is showing the time and I should have been back at my desk by then'.
Getting back on topic, I was rather shocked when I passed The Lamb yesterday, but if it fell down, theres nothing you could have done about it really. Was there a building next door that was demolished? A similar event happened to a terraced house in Bolton where the end house was demolished but no wall strengthening was carried out on the exterior wall of the neighboring property. The end result was that a poor single mum was left homeless.
I do hope they will be able to save whats left of The Lamb!
UPDATED 14JUN09 20 images added to Dovecot
Last updated 26ARP09 (Aigburth)
Apologies for the durge in updates!
Hey Gedrick, didn,t know you had a fancy woman and her knickers were showing? I,ve got segs on my magnifying glass looking for them (the knickers that is) but can,t see them anywhere. You little tinker you
If we're talking of that ugly yellow thing......
Get rid.Waste of space and money.What a load of (insert explietive here).
A flower bed,a fountain or anything else but not that stupid bloody yellow thing
I think it's rather cute
someone once said to me that it looked like a cat lifting it's tail for a wee !!