PDA

View Full Version : Is this inappropriate ?


TheLaird
4th of October 2008 (Sat), 11:19
I do not know the whole story, only what is seen here. Was he fairly convicted or not? I suppose it depends on what state (condition) she was in and how obvious he was. Asking her permission may have "ruined" the shot.

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

I am perhaps more wary now of pointing my camera at somebody.

Pete
4th of October 2008 (Sat), 11:24
I think it's pretty clear about what's appropriate and what's not. If you see someone in the street who's obviously in distress, then it's just not on to stand there and photograph them in that state.

Having a camera doesn't give you the moral right to photograph everything you see.

joedlh
4th of October 2008 (Sat), 11:32
Having a camera doesn't give you the moral right to photograph everything you see.

Seconded.

HSK
4th of October 2008 (Sat), 11:39
"The woman had been drinking with friends in an Omni Centre bar when she felt unwell and went outside for air." "taking a photo of another view of Edinburgh"

- let me guess, she was drunk & wasted, and went outside to vomit?

gjl711
4th of October 2008 (Sat), 11:42
...Having a camera doesn't give you the moral right to photograph everything you see. There is a big difference between moral right and legal right. I cant see how the guy got fined. Taking a picture of someone on the street shouldn't be against the law. She gets drunk, staggers out into the street to throw up and expects the right to privacy? Makes no sense.

milorad
4th of October 2008 (Sat), 11:44
so what, now we can only shoot people who aren't in distress? and then what? only smiling people?... only if we catch their good side?

come on, lets be realistic for a minute, people in distress are the most interesting kind. If her arm had fallen off you'd help her first (then shoot her), but if she's just a lush throwing up her liquid dinner, then I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

Wanna make a spectacle of yourself in public? Expect attention.

milorad
4th of October 2008 (Sat), 11:47
I cant see how the guy got fined.

he was dumb enough to plead guilty (probably under the promise that pleading guilty would 'make it all go away')

gjl711
4th of October 2008 (Sat), 11:59
he was dumb enough to plead guilty (probably under the promise that pleading guilty would 'make it all go away') That could be it. Is it really against the law to be un-chivalrous? What if you had stuck your tongue out. Thats not chivalrous. Is that a fineable offense?

nwa2
4th of October 2008 (Sat), 12:13
Was the woman charged for drunk & disorderly!!!!

People have to take responsibility for themselves, and if she got herself in a state she was ashamed off she should not take it out on the passer-by.. camera or not...

Lester Wareham
6th of October 2008 (Mon), 07:23
There is a big difference between moral right and legal right. I cant see how the guy got fined. Taking a picture of someone on the street shouldn't be against the law. She gets drunk, staggers out into the street to throw up and expects the right to privacy? Makes no sense.

He was prosecuted under the law of "behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace".

This is one of many UK laws that are, to put it kindly, very broadly defined, as such they can be used and abused to cover many situations based on the judgement of the officer on the ground.

So although this woman was in a public place, because she was "ill" the court judged based on the principle of "a reasonable expectation of privacy", this clearly creates case law where this principle overrides the principle of "freedom of vista" in some situations.

There have been other such cases such as journalists doorstepping celebrates leaving drink/drug abuse clinics.

So to the ethics. I think I agree with the court that in this case the photographer was being unchivalrous. I base this on the assumption there is a reasonable doubt that the woman had been overindulging in some way.

So what about the bunch of tanagers that have gone out on a bender and are being sick in the gutter (one could say have sought this state deliberately). Do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy or are they fair social comment?

Lester Wareham
6th of October 2008 (Mon), 07:27
he was dumb enough to plead guilty (probably under the promise that pleading guilty would 'make it all go away')

I suspect the fact he was a foreign national may have had some effect, perhapse his visa was at risk.

anonyymi
6th of October 2008 (Mon), 07:35
"The woman had been drinking with friends in an Omni Centre bar when she felt unwell and went outside for air." "taking a photo of another view of Edinburgh"

- let me guess, she was drunk & wasted, and went outside to vomit?

Just because it's 11.30pm doesn't mean she was "drunk & wasted", and I suggest that if she and her friends were, then the photographer was lucky to escape without a beating and smashed equipment.

More likely that was was ill and her friends were sober(ish) which is why the poilce were called. I'm sure if she was wasted the police wouldn't have taken it as far as the courts.

anonyymi
6th of October 2008 (Mon), 07:38
I suspect the fact he was a foreign national may have had some effect, perhapse his visa was at risk.

As a Polish passport holder he doesn't need a visa. His country is a member of the EU and he has every right to live and work in the UK.

mij
7th of October 2008 (Tue), 08:32
Sheriff Hogg!

Technically it is a correct application of the law, behaviour which would be considered immoral and that causes distress constitutes a breach of the peace. It all comes down to the attitude of the judge though, in this case Sheriff Hogg seemed to be on a bit of a crusade.

At the same time, I am fairly sure the statement that "the lady concerned was entitled to her privacy" has no legal standing, and in my opinion would probably have made for good grounds for an appeal had he not pleaded guilty. The crime here was his actions which were considered detrimental to the state, not that her rights were being violated.

I think it's pretty clear about what's appropriate and what's not. If you see someone in the street who's obviously in distress, then it's just not on to stand there and photograph them in that state.

What if he was a photojournalist? What of those who report on accidents or wars shooting people in distress? Surely it depends on what you do with the photos, does moral right differs if you are going for art or documentary rather than something more youtube-esque?

I am not saying that those necessarily apply here, only that it is not such a black and white issue.

And what even constitutes distress anyway? According to the story she only went out for air, is that distress? How do you tell that from someone just leaning back against a wall waiting for someone? There really is not enough information in that story for any of us to be able to make a judgement on the situation.

But still, Sheriff Hogg!

Michael.

FlyingPhotog
7th of October 2008 (Tue), 08:35
There is a big difference between moral right and legal right. I cant see how the guy got fined. Taking a picture of someone on the street shouldn't be against the law. She gets drunk, staggers out into the street to throw up and expects the right to privacy? Makes no sense.

Exactly.

Anything less and we'd never have had "Girls Gone Wild..."

BillsBayou
10th of October 2008 (Fri), 14:21
According to the article:
" ' It's been a matter of severe regret for him. He's extremely anxious and very contrite about the affair.' "

I guess that means he's not going to be sharing the photo with anyone. If it were me, I'd be making it into postcards. "Visit Lovely Edinburgh!"

After all, the photo cost him 100. He may as well try to get his money's worth. I don't see how he owes the people of Edinburgh any good will.

Yes. I'm serious.

LowriderS10
29th of October 2008 (Wed), 01:08
There is a big difference between moral right and legal right. I cant see how the guy got fined. Taking a picture of someone on the street shouldn't be against the law. She gets drunk, staggers out into the street to throw up and expects the right to privacy? Makes no sense.

BINGO...legally you can shoot whatever the hell you want in a public space...the fact that he got fined is a serious violation of his basic rights. I can't believe he apologized and pleaded guilty to it (if the story is even true). As a reporter/photographer, I get threatened with crap like that all the time...it's BS, but at least the law is on my side ;)

dogfood
30th of October 2008 (Thu), 21:03
Reminds me of the last episodes of Seinfeld, where they all went to jail for laughing at the guy being carjacked. Unchivalrous indeed!

Miyagi-san
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 12:27
It's really hard to say without being there/seeing how it all really went down. This story makes me want to go do my 2 favorite things though...have a few drinks and take pictures or strangers. Weird...

thekid24
2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 12:31
Seeing as how it is in another country with different standards, laws etc etc.

"U break the law of the land U get punished by man."

mrbojangles13
11th of December 2008 (Thu), 20:24
i agree this is bs... i want to see the picture tho lol

cryforashadow
19th of December 2008 (Fri), 04:19
I wouldn't want anyone to take a picture of me while I'm throwing up. Would you?

adrian5127
19th of December 2008 (Fri), 04:52
I don't see how taking a picture of someone throwing up amount to a breach of the peace in England anyway. If the woman and her friends were getting out of hand then they my be liable to being arrested. I have included both the English and Scottish definitions, the Scottish one is very broad. For those who don't know the law is the same in England and Wales but different in Scotland.

English one
Definition of breach of the peace "Where: (1) a breach of the peace is committed in the presence of a person making the arrest or (2) the arrestor believes that such a breach will be committed in the immediate future by the person arrested although he has not yet committed any breach or (3) where a breach has been committed and it is reasonably believed that a renewal of it is threatened"
http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2001/issue2/stone2.html#Heading64

Scottish one

Breach of the Peace

Source: Common Law
Offence: "When one or more persons conduct themselves in a riotous, or disorderly manner, anywhere, which alarms, annoys or disturbs the lieges (other people).

Arrest: Common law powers of arrest.

Notes:
This offence can take place anywhere i.e. a house, a public street or a private office.

Riotous:
There is normally an element of noise, or 'rowdiness' or 'brawling' which is clearly causing concern to other members of the public e.g. swearing, challenging people to fight.

Disorderly:
There is a more subtle element. The behaviour doesn't have to be noisy but still of a nature that would cause concern to other people. Examples include: 'Peeping Tom' type behaviour, persistently following someone, delivering 'threatening' letters and 'streaking' or 'mooning'.

To prove a Breach of the Peace the most important things to prove is that someone was Alarmed, Annoyed or Disturbed by the incident.


Breach of the Peace

Source: Common Law

Offence: "When one or more persons conduct themselves in a riotous, or disorderly manner, anywhere, which alarms, annoys or disturbs the lieges (other people).

Arrest: Common law powers of arrest.

Notes:
This offence can take place anywhere i.e. a house, a public street or a private office.

Riotous:
There is normally an element of noise, or 'rowdiness' or 'brawling' which is clearly causing concern to other members of the public e.g. swearing, challenging people to fight.

Disorderly:
There is a more subtle element. The behaviour doesn't have to be noisy but still of a nature that would cause concern to other people. Examples include: 'Peeping Tom' type behaviour, persistently following someone, delivering 'threatening' letters and 'streaking' or 'mooning'.

To prove a Breach of the Peace the most important things to prove is that someone was Alarmed, Annoyed or Disturbed by the incident

http://www.police-information.co.uk/legislation/legislationindexsco.html#Breach

So under the Scottish version you can see how it could be included but then so could almost anything !!!!!

Regards

Just realised it is my 100th post and it is definitely my longest

neil_r
19th of December 2008 (Fri), 04:58
I suspect the fact he was a foreign national may have had some effect, perhapse his visa was at risk.

You don't need a Visa if you are from a country that is within the EEC, which Poland is.

If people were fined for lack of chivalry every time it occurred in the UK, a large chunk of the population would be short of cash and the government could afford to scrap the duty on petrol (gas).

aebrown
19th of December 2008 (Fri), 05:03
I do see some right in the law. Personally, as human beings, I think it is proper for us to ask if someone needs some help, a ride, if we see them in that condition--not take a photograph.

Just like those who take accident scene photographs, I don't think they're out there trying to get a good shot in before they call 911 just because it looks better. Albeit, gjl711 you are right: the woman did choose to get drunk, at least ask if she needs help first, if she says no,take the shot and remind her not to drive anywhere :)

I know the article says she had friend with her, but sometimes friends don't know the difference (especially with consumption of alcohol) between a little drunk, and blackout alcohol poisoning drunk...

That's my 2 cents worth

Karl Johnston
22nd of December 2008 (Mon), 00:28
He was stupid to plead guilty...then again I don't know the law over there, but really that is a crock of ****e fine.

neil_r
22nd of December 2008 (Mon), 04:36
Look at this, it makes me proud to be a photographer. (That is ironic for those that don't do Irony)

Photographers take pictures of an injured man during clashes believed to be linked to recent anti-foreigner violence in Reiger Park informal settlement in South Africa on May 20, 2008. South African police fired rubber bullets at hundreds of shantytown residents on Tuesday in a crackdown on violence against foreigners which ended up killing over 60 people and injuring hundreds more. (REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko) #

Not my photograph so linked..

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/2008_pt2/21_17229065.jpg

nuffi
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 22:26
Surely paparazzi would be outta business pretty quick if it was illegal to photograph people on a public street...?

LWK
27th of December 2008 (Sat), 22:43
If a scene presents itself in public, I believe the first order of business ought to be to assist where assistance is called for. If noone is in distress, then shoot away.

AustinRoepke
31st of December 2008 (Wed), 00:48
I think it's pretty clear about what's appropriate and what's not. If you see someone in the street who's obviously in distress, then it's just not on to stand there and photograph them in that state.

Having a camera doesn't give you the moral right to photograph everything you see.

Has anyone here ever seen the movie 'Paparazzi'?? lol

Deerio
31st of December 2008 (Wed), 01:18
Here next to the north pole we are quite strict about our privacy. At least in Finland the law would also be on the womans side.

As far as I know the law here states that if a person can be clearly identified as the subject of the photo a permission must be obtained.
There is a small exception here if the person can be considered as a public figure.

Then again, sometimes it feels there are too many laws and requlations here.

bluefox9er
1st of January 2009 (Thu), 09:03
this photographer was deal with very severley and unfairly.

drinking, especially binge drinking is an important part of british culture and that woman who went out for ''air'' ( that means being violently sick that someone else will clean up after HER) is one of milllions up and down the country.

i don't see how that woman he photographed could possibly feel violated. she was vomiting in the street after excessive drinking..this was, and i will wager my mortgage on it...her intention to do so at the start of the night.

neil_r
1st of January 2009 (Thu), 09:09
drinking, especially binge drinking is an important part of british culture and that woman who went out for ''air'' ( that means being violently sick that someone else will clean up after HER) is one of milllions up and down the country.

i don't see how that woman he photographed could possibly feel violated. she was vomiting in the street after excessive drinking..this was, and i will wager my mortgage on it...her intention to do so at the start of the night.

Given the number of CCTV, TV shows on Satellite TV, all of which seem to depict drunk people either, driving, fighting, stealing or simply being drunk. I really don't see where Mr Plod thought the problem was. Unless he was protecting the "Police, Camera, Action" market :-)

bluefox9er
1st of January 2009 (Thu), 09:18
Given the number of CCTV, TV shows on Satellite TV, all of which seem to depict drunk people either, driving, fighting, stealing or simply being drunk. I really don't see where Mr Plod thought the problem was. Unless he was protecting the "Police, Camera, Action" market :-)

you make an interesting point..police policy is to not show show up at a scene of crime until at least 72 hours after the request to do so and usually give a crime number over the phone.

I still think this photographer was shafted and forced to admit his guilt, but some one stronger minded could have successfully challenged the law on thios.

Like you said, if being un-chivallrous was a crime then most of great britain ould have a criminal record.

but bloody hell, it is becoming more embarassing by the day to be british :-(

FLphotoguy
5th of January 2009 (Mon), 15:24
he was dumb enough to plead guilty (probably under the promise that pleading guilty would 'make it all go away')

The fine was small, probably because the act was not illegal at all, even if it was "ill-judged". They did not want the matter appealed, where it probably would have been thrown out.

andrew748
5th of January 2009 (Mon), 15:31
this resurfacing now is highly annoying
i posted my mp's reply and got shouted down

time to move on

un-subscribing

Shinigami052
5th of January 2009 (Mon), 15:35
If a scene presents itself in public, I believe the first order of business ought to be to assist where assistance is called for. If noone is in distress, then shoot away.

Getting raped, mugged or robbed is being in "distress". Over indulging yourself to the point where you make yourself sick is not distress it's stupid and irresponsible.

I don't know the laws in the UK but in the states it's perfectly legal for him to take a picture. She's in public. She has friends around who are there to assist her should the need arise (calling an ambulance or what not) so "Good Samaritan" laws wouldn't apply.

Either the story is B.S. or the guy just didn't know his rights. It's sad the government can just browbeat people like this. I say next time snap away. In fact, call a few friends over too and they can capture her stupidity too. After that call the cops for her being drunk and disorderly or drunk in public.

Sorry I just really hate drunk people. Learn to control yourselves people!

Lester Wareham
11th of January 2009 (Sun), 10:13
Getting raped, mugged or robbed is being in "distress". Over indulging yourself to the point where you make yourself sick is not distress it's stupid and irresponsible.


The woman had been drinking with friends in an Omni Centre bar when she felt unwell and went outside for air.

Are you not making a lot of assumptions here?

It does not say she was physically sick, just unwell and went out for air. This "unwell" may not even have been related to alcohol.

The point is we don't know, and if a photo was taken, we still wouldn't "know" either. But people will jump to conclusions just like you have.

The conclusions may be right or wrong, one case could be fair comment and the other a degrading misrepresentation.

As noted earlier there are a lot of vague and wide ranging laws in the UK people run into, this is just one of them.

Bunny
14th of January 2009 (Wed), 04:29
Here next to the north pole we are quite strict about our privacy. At least in Finland the law would also be on the womans side.

As far as I know the law here states that if a person can be clearly identified as the subject of the photo a permission must be obtained.
There is a small exception here if the person can be considered as a public figure.

Then again, sometimes it feels there are too many laws and requlations here.

Actually as long as you (and the person you are taking a photo of) are in a public place there are no laws stopping you from taking pictures. But if you are planning commercial use with the photo you have to get a permission. Also the law states that photos displayind the subject in a rude manner should not be put on public display(without permission).

So in this case the woman had no privacy as she was in a public place and you could have taken all the photos you want with no consequences, but showing the pictures would be more complicated (define public display).
Same thing applies if she would've been feeling sick in the bar.
But if you would've been on the sidewalk taking pictures of her throwing up on her own yard you would be prosecuted.

dinny66
14th of January 2009 (Wed), 16:23
He was in Scotland. What do you expect? They're all as mad as hatters up there! :lol::lol:

Seriously though, it's a joke. Bloke should ahve pleaded not guilty from the off.
It's a public place, you can take pictures. Simple. The rest of is a load of hogwash and as somebody else said has got no legal standing at all.

Mike

Josephine
14th of January 2009 (Wed), 20:26
humm.... not fair... come on... it was a public place...you should be able to take pictures in public... its not like he followed her home and took pics through her window

dino8031
15th of January 2009 (Thu), 13:00
Inappropriate, un-chivalrous, maybe.

A violation of the law and subject to a stiff fine, no way.