Photographer fined for taking pic in street

[watchtherocks]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm

A man who took a photograph of an ill woman outside an Edinburgh bar has been fined £100 after being branded "unchivalrous" by a sheriff.

If a single photographer taking a picture in the street can be branded "exceptionally unchivalrous", then what about the 4, 200, 000-odd (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm) CCTV cameras in the U.K.?

The lady did not have an expectation of privacy (according to Australian law at least you dont even have that in your own home if you can be seen from the street), and the photographer most definitely should not have pleaded guilty.

[milorad]

I agree, the plea was what got him, and I bet it was after the cops laid that whole "oh, it'd be so easy to make this go away..." thing on him.

If being unchivalrous was illegal, "escape from new york" wouldn't be a sci-fi movie, it'd be a real prison for arseholes.

[ssim]

I agree that he should not have plead out but where is the point where common sense and good taste comes into play. Everything cannot be black and white and if we do not exercise some decency and common sense we will see more of this or, heaven forbid, the governments take it into their own hands. Like we need more laws. This of course is all IMO.

[TrollJester]

Flabbergasted with this one: This guy hadn't broken any law, if anyone had it was Rebecca Smith & friends: being uncontrollably drunk and puking in the street is a breach of the peace. Holding on to the guy against his will until the police got there constitutes an assault.
His lawyer is a Muppet; so much for legal representation?!?
The cost to the tax-payer of letting this case go to court will have been way in excess of £100 and really should have been dismissed.
At worst (and only if Mr Przygodzki was being a nuisance when the police arrived) should have been a police warning.
Isn't it pathetic that the Embra' polis saw fit to take this further?
I'm sure there would've been many more real B'sOP & Assaults going on that night! Being a foreigner and worried about possible consequences Mr Przygodzki was probably easily co-erced (bullied/intimidated perhaps?) into a guilty plea by the cops.
So, I expect that the BBC, ITV, SKY, Oh & The British Government will be facing a barrage of court actions raised by every drunkard caught on their cameras (they've all made numerous cheap TV progammes about late night shenanigans on Britains streets) for breach of privacy/the peace in the very near future???

[superstes]

Well said TrollJester.

[Lokster]

Sheesh, you'd think the Police would have better things to attend to on a Friday night during the Festival. Mind you, a police station is only across the road.

Only hope that this doesn't open up the gate for much less serious cases where they actually do think about passing a law to license street photography.

[milorad]

that would be a civil rights issue, which I *hope* would be better defended in the UK, than it would be in the US....

we don't have very many rights left, so it'd be nice to hang on to as many as we can... and there's no way *at all* that anyone can have an expectation of privacy when getting sh!t-faced in public.

[srsuser]

Wow that's ****ing retarded.

[adam LC]

If the guy pleaded guilty after advice from his lawyer, I'll make sure to avoid that lawyer. I thought it was just the police that were ill informed about photography. I'm sure the photographer was intimidated into his plea, as if he knew he didn't break any laws he wouldn't have pleaded guilty.

I'm going into London myself in a couple of nights with the POTN SE guys and girls, I'll be taking photos of whatever I see... cos thats my right. I know I'll be breaking no laws, if I get moved on for standing on public ground that is acually private property (i.e The London Eye area) so be it, I can accept that.

[neil_g]

rediculous. the girl put herself in that position, IN A PUBLIC PLACE, what the hell is the issue there???

[neil_g]

edit - ooh database error made a duplicate..

[TrollJester]

Hey, I've got an idea....
We should open a bebo or facebook page for every city and town in the UK entitled '***city name*** On the Piss! and get out there in small groups, take pix of suitable material eg. staggering drunks, fights/cat fights, spewers and defecators etc, post 'em up and test the legal system??
Or would that be inflamatory???

[TrollJester]

Here's some links giving an overview of the law concerning Photographers Rights in th UK:

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide

http://www.photographersrights.org.uk/

Unless there was some other unacceptable behaviour on the part of Mr Prydgodzi that hasn't been reported, it seems to me that Sherriff Kenneth Hogg is making it up as he goes along....

[TrollJester]

OK folks, instead of chewing the fat, spouting opinion and generally making assumptions, here's how I propose to deal with this properly:

WRITE TO YOU MP / MSP!

Below is a copy of an email I sent to both my MP & MSP

May I suggest as many of you copy it, reword if necessary, and do the same....... it's the only way to get this issue noticed and dealt with......

Hi (Enter MP/MSPs Name),

As a constituent I would like to raise a concern about, and would like your advice on the matter and implications arising from the conviction of Sebastian Przygodzki at Edinburgh Sherriff Court last week.

As a photographer who undertakes a range of work including public events or spontanious street photography I am at a loss as to what Mr Przygodzki has done wrong?

In particular, would it be possible to see or get a copy of a full transcript of this case's proceedings?

More specifically, can you give me clear guidance on when & what conditions when taking photographs in public, I would have broken the law and which laws in particular?

I am very worried about how this ruling may effect both myself and other photgraphers (professional or amateur) and believe that this case is a breach of civil/human rights.

Here are some links to press reports and reaction on Photography forums:

http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/39Unchivalrous39-postie-fined-100-for.4559185.jp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/713733/an/0/page/0#713733

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/714053/an/0/page/0#714053

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=bjp_forum&mbItem=37522#post37536

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.phpt=579889

My own reference for 'code of conduct' of photographing in public places/members of the public can be found online here:

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide

click on FREE DOWNLOAD to view/download a PDF document.

I would be very grateful for your help in this matter.

Regards
(Enter your name)

[andrew748]

Sent My email :)

http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm

the MP directory with a handy search by postcode feature

[neilwood32]

Sent an email to my MP.

This type of stupidity makes me ashamed to be Scottish - i should say the stupidity of the Sherriff and not the photographer. Other than the laws of good taste i cant see any that would prevent the taking of photographs like these!

[andrew748]

test

[andrew748]

Blimey that was quick

but remember to include your address :)






Dear Mr Dempster



Thank you for your message. If you would like to confirm your full postal address in Epsom and Ewell for me, I will contact ministers on your behalf and ask for their comments on the various points you have raised.



Best wishes



Chris Grayling


quick response

[TrollJester]

Here's the NUJs take on what can & can't be photographed.

http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0709pix.html

[ThomGascoigne]

No need to overreact people. I can't see a president being made by this stupid case. THe photographer sounds like a idiot so does his lawyer not to mention the "ill women"

[tonylong]

If all the photog did was to take a picture, I'd say he has grounds for an unlawful detainment lawsuit, and he should pursue it. "Unchivalrous behavior" is a crap excuse for arresting someone.

[tonylong]

No need to overreact people. I can't see a president being made by this stupid case. THe photographer sounds like a idiot so does his lawyer not to mention the "ill women"

Heh, I know you meant to say "precedent" rather than "president", but your mis-spelling reminded me of when a certain president was photographed vomiting on a Japanese prime minister -- I wonder if the photogs who got that shot were arrested and fined:)!

[ThomGascoigne]

LOL! damn American elections.

I didn't read anywhere that the man was detained by anyone? Just that the women called the police. But in all honestly without seeing the photo its hard to make a judgement. I could understand if the man was taking a upskirt photo but yeah by the sounds of it a stupid women, a over zealous cop hero and a photographer that doesn't realize you don't have to trust the police when they say "plead guilty and it will be better for you"

[bubbawillums]

I am not at all suprised by this as its the U.K and anything goes here now in my opinion!!

[watchtherocks]

LOL! damn American elections.

I didn't read anywhere that the man was detained by anyone? Just that the women called the police.

The womans friends made a citizens arrest on the photographer and held him until police arrived.
That is illegal detainment and the photographer is indeed very stupid not to pursue that case.

[Hermeto]

Nothing’s wrong with the photographer.
His lawyer however, needs a spine replacement..

[anonyymi]

Did anyone actually bother to check the facts before jumping to conclusions. I haven't read anywhere that the girl was ill because of excess alcohol. As I said in the other thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=579927) that deals with this issue, I would have thought that the photog would have been collected from the gutter by the police if the group were all the worse for drink. Druken crowds tend to attack first rather than call the police.

I also don't see anything about the friends detaining the photographer.

I'm sure the BBC hack would have said she was wasted if she was, he obvioulsy doesn't know that so has been careful not to suggest anything.

[ThomGascoigne]

The womans friends made a citizens arrest on the photographer and held him until police arrived.
That is illegal detainment and the photographer is indeed very stupid not to pursue that case.


Well no it's not illegal detainment as the man was then charged and prosecuted. If you place someone under arrest and they haven't done anything wrong. Then you can be charged with false imprisonment / detainment.

Also in Australia you can only place someone under arrest for certain crimes and you can only do so if you have witnessed them do the crime. You cannot place people under arrest on suspicion where as the police may.

[ThomGascoigne]

The womans friends made a citizens arrest on the photographer and held him until police arrived.
That is illegal detainment and the photographer is indeed very stupid not to pursue that case.

Where does it say there was a citizens arrest made?

[ThomGascoigne]

Did anyone actually bother to check the facts before jumping to conclusions. I haven't read anywhere that the girl was ill because of excess alcohol. As I said in the other thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=579927) that deals with this issue, I would have thought that the photog would have been collected from the gutter by the police if the group were all the worse for drink. Druken crowds tend to attack first rather than call the police.

I also don't see anything about the friends detaining the photographer.

I'm sure the BBC hack would have said she was wasted if she was, he obvioulsy doesn't know that so has been careful not to suggest anything.

1030 pm on a friday night drinking at a bar? Maybe she wasn't drunk maybe it was food poisoning, Maybe she wasn't intoxicated at all.. Yeah right!

The point is the photographer shouldn't have been prosecuted for this. The only time it should have come up as a legal issue is if he used the photograph for commercial purposes without a release form from the "model" :lol:

[ThomGascoigne]

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/07/eight-reasons-even-innocent-shouldnt.html

[anonyymi]

1030 pm on a friday night drinking at a bar? Maybe she wasn't drunk maybe it was food poisoning, Maybe she wasn't intoxicated at all.. Yeah right!

The point is the photographer shouldn't have been prosecuted for this. The only time it should have come up as a legal issue is if he used the photograph for commercial purposes without a release form from the "model" :lol:

so would you take the risk of photographing a group of drunks late at night? maybe the breach of the peace was caused by the togs inability to see that using a flash would wind up the girl's friends, maybe he was saved from the crowd by the police?

I know I wouldn't wander around taking pics in any city centre just as the pubs and clubs are emptying.

All of these things we don't know. I just see some people getting very wound up here when there are very few facts available.

I think there's more to this story that the sensational tabloid story that started this thread and we're very unlikely to know the truth.

I agree, if it's a simple case of a guy being fined for taking a pic of a drunk then it's outrageous. I just doubt its that simple.

[andrew748]

so would you take the risk of photographing a group of drunks late at night? maybe the breach of the peace was caused by the togs inability to see that using a flash would wind up the girl's friends, maybe he was saved from the crowd by the police?

I know I wouldn't wander around taking pics in any city centre just as the pubs and clubs are emptying.

All of these things we don't know. I just see some people getting very wound up here when there are very few facts available.

I think there's more to this story that the sensational tabloid story that started this thread and we're very unlikely to know the truth.

I agree, if it's a simple case of a guy being fined for taking a pic of a drunk then it's outrageous. I just doubt its that simple.

well if my mp comes through with some facts i'll post them

[TrollJester]

Which is why I suggested folks contact their MP or MSP.
See copy of the email I sent to mine, above.
By the way I've had an anwer from her office which says:

"Waiting for information from researchers in parliament but I am informed it is a grey area. Having looked at your links it seems he was ill advised by his lawyer."

Just got to wait to see the facts now.

[TrollJester]

And, yes I would photograph drunks in the street, why shouldn't I?
I'll just show my press card to who-ever wants to see it.
Where there are drunks the police aren't far away, and I'd expect them to protect my rights.
But I'd probably inform them about what I was going to do first.

[TrollJester]

Back to the main point though....
Justice is not only about punishing criminality. It's seeing that a case is handled justly - that the punishment really does fit the crime, that the standards of evidence handling are met, that coercion of witnesses has not happened, that the defendant really does understand what's happening, that the charge is not an unnecessarily severe one, that the Procurator Fiscal isn't using a case to make themselves appear 'tough on crime'.
Even when a defence lawyers client is guilty, true justice demands that they not be victimized by overzealous prosecution or unfair police work.
Justice is not justice unless defendants are well defended.

[ThomGascoigne]

so would you take the risk of photographing a group of drunks late at night? maybe the breach of the peace was caused by the togs inability to see that using a flash would wind up the girl's friends, maybe he was saved from the crowd by the police?

I know I wouldn't wander around taking pics in any city centre just as the pubs and clubs are emptying.

All of these things we don't know. I just see some people getting very wound up here when there are very few facts available.

I think there's more to this story that the sensational tabloid story that started this thread and we're very unlikely to know the truth.

I agree, if it's a simple case of a guy being fined for taking a pic of a drunk then it's outrageous. I just doubt its that simple.

No not really and I've thought about this before. As I've worked as a night club and pub bouncer for the last 8 years I've witnessed some excellent and revolting things to take photos of but I would be putting myself in a risky situation by snapping photos of people that may be fueled by drugs or grog.

Having said that I think there are ways of doing it incognito but you need to be really careful.

I do wander around by myself in the most dangerous parts of my city and other city's and I do take photos of people I shouldnt but I don't let them know it.

I take a few risks just like alot of good photographers do but I always think about the risk to reward pay off.

...And I carry self defense tools with me.

[ThomGascoigne]

And, yes I would photograph drunks in the street, why shouldn't I?
I'll just show my press card to who-ever wants to see it.
Where there are drunks the police aren't far away, and I'd expect them to protect my rights.
But I'd probably inform them about what I was going to do first.

Your press card wont stop you from being assaulted though man. Be smart with that ;)

[TeeJay]

... Also in Australia you can only place someone under arrest for certain crimes and you can only do so if you have witnessed them do the crime. You cannot place people under arrest on suspicion where as the police may.

I believe the same applies here - only IIRC for any crime.

Also, if the actions of the photographer (the taking of the photo) was likely to cause a "breach of the peace" he could be arrested under section 5 of the public order act. (i.e. they arrested him to prevent a breach of the peace by the crowd attacking him! - maybe?)

TJ

[TeeJay]

... Also in Australia you can only place someone under arrest for certain crimes and you can only do so if you have witnessed them do the crime. You cannot place people under arrest on suspicion where as the police may.

I believe the same applies here - only IIRC for any crime.

Also, if the actions of the photographer (the taking of the photo) was likely to cause a "breach of the peace" he could be arrested under section 5 of the public order act. (i.e. they arrested him to prevent a breach of the peace by the crowd attacking him! - maybe?)

TJ

[TeeJay]

... Also in Australia you can only place someone under arrest for certain crimes and you can only do so if you have witnessed them do the crime. You cannot place people under arrest on suspicion where as the police may.

I believe the same applies here - only IIRC for any crime.

Also, if the actions of the photographer (the taking of the photo) was likely to cause a "breach of the peace" he could be arrested under section 5 of the public order act. (i.e. they arrested him to prevent a breach of the peace by the crowd attacking him! - maybe?)

TJ

[TeeJay]

... Also in Australia you can only place someone under arrest for certain crimes and you can only do so if you have witnessed them do the crime. You cannot place people under arrest on suspicion where as the police may.

I believe the same applies here - only IIRC for any crime.

Also, if the actions of the photographer (the taking of the photo) was likely to cause a "breach of the peace" he could be arrested under section 5 of the public order act. (i.e. they arrested him to prevent a breach of the peace by the crowd attacking him! - maybe?)

TJ

[MODS: PLEASE REMOVE. SORRY FOR THE QUAD-POSTS, THE SERVER WAS HANGING, SO I CANCELLED AND JUST TRIED AGAIN]

[ThomGascoigne]

I believe the same applies here - only IIRC for any crime.

Also, if the actions of the photographer (the taking of the photo) was likely to cause a "breach of the peace" he could be arrested under section 5 of the public order act. (i.e. they arrested him to prevent a breach of the peace by the crowd attacking him! - maybe?)

TJ

[MODS: PLEASE REMOVE. SORRY FOR THE QUAD-POSTS, THE SERVER WAS HANGING, SO I CANCELLED AND JUST TRIED AGAIN]

Sorry, What do you mean by IIRC?

[BobOh]

Sorry, What do you mean by IIRC?

It means "if I remember correctly".

And if I might just add a slightly irrelevant opinion, the photographer might well have been within his rights, but his taste sure is wacko. I will look at just about anything, but the sight of someone puking, in still or video, makes me...well, sick!!

[TrollJester]

Ah well, we all better not take pix of kids with their skin hangin' off as they run out of their village that has just been bombed with napalm, record the aftermath of Mi Li, the killing fields of Sudan, or the starvation and oppression of the zimbabwean populace et al. 'Coz it might make Bubba (Oh, sorry, BobOh) feel queazy!?!
OTT I know! ;-)

[coalcliff]

Two things

beware of Scotts on the drink!!

Beware of Boss Hogg, didn't anyone see "Pukes of Hazard"

Just my light hearted contribution to a discussion about something that just came up.

I believe that if we were there at the time we could have a better judgement of the event, but the facts, as presented, are not good for photography.

[BobOh]

Ah well, we all better not take pix of kids with their skin hangin' off as they run out of their village that has just been bombed with napalm, record the aftermath of Mi Li, the killing fields of Sudan, or the starvation and oppression of the zimbabwean populace et al. 'Coz it might make Bubba (Oh, sorry, BobOh) feel queazy!?!
OTT I know! ;-)

That stuff you mentioned is certainly gross, but dramatic and newsworthy. There is nothing dramatic or newsworthy about someone puking IMO, unless it is in connection with a widespread epidemic or bio/chem attack. In fact stills and, more often video, of people vomiting are more often presented as being funny or entertaining, which I tried to indicate they are not, at least to me.

But hey, thanks for replying and taking the high road. Your sarcasm was definitely cutting:wink:

[ThomGascoigne]

Ah well, we all better not take pix of kids with their skin hangin' off as they run out of their village that has just been bombed with napalm, record the aftermath of Mi Li, the killing fields of Sudan, or the starvation and oppression of the zimbabwean populace et al. 'Coz it might make Bubba (Oh, sorry, BobOh) feel queazy!?!
OTT I know! ;-)

Yeah I pretty much agree with that. As if any "real" photographer would only take photos of the pretty things in life, Some of the best photos have been from wars etc