Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Urban Life & Travel Talk 
Thread started 04 Oct 2008 (Saturday) 10:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is this inappropriate ?

 
TheLaird
Goldmember
Avatar
2,150 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 155
Joined May 2008
Location: Inverness, Highlands of Scotland
     
Oct 04, 2008 10:19 |  #1

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 …urgh_and_east/7​651107.stm (external link)

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


Illegitimi non carborundum --- as they said in Roman times ---

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Pete
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
38,607 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2006
     
Oct 04, 2008 10:24 |  #2

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.


Pete
UK SE Catch of the Day

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,223 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 373
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Long Island, NY, N. America, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Cluster, Laniakea.
     
Oct 04, 2008 10:32 |  #3

Pete wrote in post #6436015 (external link)
Having a camera doesn't give you the moral right to photograph everything you see.

Seconded.


Joe
Gear: Kodak Instamatic, Polaroid Swinger. Oh you meant gear now. :rolleyes:
http://photo.joedlh.ne​t (external link)
Editing ok

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HSK
Goldmember
Avatar
1,124 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: London, UK
     
Oct 04, 2008 10:39 |  #4

"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?



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
Avatar
53,851 posts
Likes: 1478
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Oct 04, 2008 10:42 |  #5

Pete wrote in post #6436015 (external link)
...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.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
milorad
Senior Member
515 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Melbourne, AU
     
Oct 04, 2008 10:44 |  #6

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.


Gear List (external link) - Yeah baby.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
milorad
Senior Member
515 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Melbourne, AU
     
Oct 04, 2008 10:47 |  #7

gjl711 wrote in post #6436080 (external link)
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')


Gear List (external link) - Yeah baby.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
Avatar
53,851 posts
Likes: 1478
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Oct 04, 2008 10:59 |  #8

milorad wrote in post #6436101 (external link)
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?


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nwa2
Goldmember
Avatar
1,131 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Manitoba
     
Oct 04, 2008 11:13 |  #9

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...


Canon 6D; 7D; 40D:
There are many tomorrows', but only one today!!
[SIZE=1][COLOR=Black]http://www.Abercrombie​.me.Uk (external link)
http://imagesix.wordpr​ess.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Avatar
26,330 posts
Gallery: 2171 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 7584
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
     
Oct 06, 2008 06:23 |  #10

gjl711 wrote in post #6436080 (external link)
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?


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Avatar
26,330 posts
Gallery: 2171 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 7584
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
     
Oct 06, 2008 06:27 |  #11

milorad wrote in post #6436101 (external link)
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.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
anonyymi
Junior Member
24 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Northamptonshire, UK
     
Oct 06, 2008 06:35 |  #12

HSK wrote in post #6436072 (external link)
"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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
anonyymi
Junior Member
24 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Northamptonshire, UK
     
Oct 06, 2008 06:38 |  #13

Lester Wareham wrote in post #6445995 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mij
Senior Member
Avatar
503 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2006
Location: London (SW), UK
     
Oct 07, 2008 07:32 |  #14

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.

Pete wrote in post #6436015 (external link)
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.


Comments, bribes, criticism, bribes, irrelevant anecdotes, and bribes always welcome.
EXIF is available inside all my photos, though bribes are still recommended anyway.
You could visit my sparse South West 16 (external link) web site and rarely updated flickr stream (external link)...
...or you can check out my slightly more frequent London iPhone Twitter flickr (external link). Sometimes in colour!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 120
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Oct 07, 2008 07:35 |  #15

gjl711 wrote in post #6436080 (external link)
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..."


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,159 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is this inappropriate ?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Urban Life & Travel Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Gibby391
712 guests, 388 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.