LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Is this inappropriate ?

FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Urban Life & Travel Talk
Thread started 04 Oct 2008 (Saturday) 10:19   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
TheLaird
Goldmember
TheLaird's Avatar
Joined May 2008
1,896 posts
Inverness, Scotland
[MORE/SHARE]

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/76511​07.stmexternal link

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

Post #1, Oct 04, 2008 10:19:59


Illegitimi non carborundum --- Now with 5dII --- Full gear listing ---

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Pete
Cream of the Crop
Pete's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
38,607 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #2, Oct 04, 2008 10:24:37


Pete
UK SE Catch of the Day

LOG IN TO REPLY
joedlh
Goldmember
joedlh's Avatar
Joined Dec 2007
4,596 posts
Long Island, NY, North America, Sol III, Orion Spur of the Milky Way galaxy.
[MORE/SHARE]

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

Seconded.

Post #3, Oct 04, 2008 10:32:21


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
HSK
Goldmember
HSK's Avatar
Joined Aug 2008
1,124 posts
London, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

"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?

Post #4, Oct 04, 2008 10:39:39



LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
human (barely) and bribable
gjl711's Avatar
Joined Aug 2006
48,194 posts
Deep in the heart of Texas
[MORE/SHARE]

Pete wrote in post #6436015external 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.

Post #5, Oct 04, 2008 10:42:09


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger, then it hit me
.
::Flickr::external link
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
milorad
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2008
515 posts
Melbourne, AU
[MORE/SHARE]

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.

Post #6, Oct 04, 2008 10:44:52


Gear Listexternal link - Yeah baby.

LOG IN TO REPLY
milorad
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2008
515 posts
Melbourne, AU
[MORE/SHARE]

gjl711 wrote in post #6436080external 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')

Post #7, Oct 04, 2008 10:47:11


Gear Listexternal link - Yeah baby.

LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
human (barely) and bribable
gjl711's Avatar
Joined Aug 2006
48,194 posts
Deep in the heart of Texas
[MORE/SHARE]

milorad wrote in post #6436101external 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?

Post #8, Oct 04, 2008 10:59:43


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger, then it hit me
.
::Flickr::external link
::Gear::

LOG IN TO REPLY
nwa2
Goldmember
nwa2's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
1,130 posts
Manitoba
[MORE/SHARE]

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...

Post #9, Oct 04, 2008 11:13:44


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
19,873 posts
Hampshire, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

gjl711 wrote in post #6436080external 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?

Post #10, Oct 06, 2008 06:23:34


How to embed images from flickr so AMASS can retrieve the exif by Levina
My Photography Home Pageexternal link RSS Feedexternal link
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
19,873 posts
Hampshire, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

milorad wrote in post #6436101external 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.

Post #11, Oct 06, 2008 06:27:00


How to embed images from flickr so AMASS can retrieve the exif by Levina
My Photography Home Pageexternal link RSS Feedexternal link
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
anonyymi
Junior Member
Joined Sep 2008
24 posts
Northamptonshire, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

HSK wrote in post #6436072external 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.

Post #12, Oct 06, 2008 06:35:08




LOG IN TO REPLY
anonyymi
Junior Member
Joined Sep 2008
24 posts
Northamptonshire, UK
[MORE/SHARE]

Lester Wareham wrote in post #6445995external 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.

Post #13, Oct 06, 2008 06:38:02




LOG IN TO REPLY
mij
Senior Member
mij's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
500 posts
London (SW), UK
[MORE/SHARE]

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 #6436015external 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.

Post #14, Oct 07, 2008 07:32:41


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 16external link web site and rarely updated flickr streamexternal link...
...or you can check out my slightly more frequent London iPhone Twitter flickrexternal link. Sometimes in colour!

LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
FlyingPhotog's Avatar
Joined May 2007
57,560 posts
Probably Chasing Aircraft
[MORE/SHARE]

gjl711 wrote in post #6436080external 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..."

Post #15, Oct 07, 2008 07:35:56


Jay
Crosswind Imagesexternal link
Facebook Fan Pageexternal 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


LIST NEARBY THREADS
4,558 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is this inappropriate ?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Urban Life & Travel Talk



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00087 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.01s
720 guests, 506 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is sulina

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.