Is this inappropriate ?

[TheLaird]

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/...st/7651107.stm

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

[Pete]

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]

Originally Posted by Pete

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

Seconded.

[HSK]

"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]

Originally Posted by Pete

...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]

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]

Originally Posted by gjl711

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]

Originally Posted by milorad

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]

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]

Originally Posted by gjl711

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]

Originally Posted by milorad

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]

Originally Posted by HSK

"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]

Originally Posted by Lester Wareham

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Pete

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]

Originally Posted by gjl711

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..."