Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Justinr on October 05, 2008, 02:36:01 pm
-
Anybody still labouring under the illusion that the UK is a land of liberty and democracy where no man is above the law etc etc may be a little disheartened by the following-
Guilty of photography (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm)
So here we have a women demanding her privacy and getting the state to back her up. The very same state BTW, which is planning its own little invasion of everybody's privacy-
The perfect knowledge (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3140207/Government-spies-could-scan-every-call-text-and-email.html)
This is in addition to the ID/NIR which will eventually track each person from cradle to grave (or so they foolishly think) with a total audit trail of their lives.
Sleep well.
Justin.
-
Repost....late by a week.
-
Anybody still labouring under the illusion that the UK is a land of liberty and democracy where no man is above the law etc etc may be a little disheartened by the following-
Guilty of photography (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm)
So here we have a women demanding her privacy and getting the state to back her up.
Justin.
That is a pretty disturbing piece of news. How can taking a photograph constitute a 'breach of the peace'? As for something being 'unchivalrous' and therefore subject to legal action - it sounds absurd.
-
Allow me the pleasure of playing Devil's advocate for a moment here.
If you're allowed to photograph me without permission are you also allowed to display the picture? or sell it? or use it to promote any personal beliefs you have that I might not share? After all its your picture.
I think privacy is an issue that is sometimes overlooked by many.
-
Allow me the pleasure of playing Devil's advocate for a moment here.
If you're allowed to photograph me without permission are you also allowed to display the picture? or sell it? or use it to promote any personal beliefs you have that I might not share? After all its your picture.
I think privacy is an issue that is sometimes overlooked by many.
Yes, your scenario raises important ethical and legal issues, and different countries seem to deal with them differently. What bothers me most is the terms of the legal action, as reported by the BBC. How is taking a photograph a breach of the peace? Did it have a terribly noisy shutter? Perhaps there's more to the story - or perhaps I just don't understand what a breach of the peace is.
-
This was discussed on the BJP site recently-
I was going to post a link to the thread concerned but apparently I'm not allowed to!
But anyway, here's an extract from Craig Zendals posting-
I think this incident perfectly illustrates the vagaries of a legal system.
2. Breach of the peace is the most common non-motoring offence brought before Scottish courts and is part of Scottish Common Law.
It has become a flexible charge, leading to criticism that it is a catch-all offence for police when none other is available. It was established before Acts of Parliament shaped Scotland's legal system.
Common law offences can be reinterpreted by judges' decisions as there is no statutory definition.
In 2004 a QC told five senior judges that an accused must cause fear and alarm to be guilty of breach of the peace.
Justin.
-
Allow me the pleasure of playing Devil's advocate for a moment here.
If you're allowed to photograph me without permission are you also allowed to display the picture? or sell it? or use it to promote any personal beliefs you have that I might not share? After all its your picture.
I think privacy is an issue that is sometimes overlooked by many.
Joe, In the United States at least, what matters is whether or not you're in a place where you have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." A restroom, hospital, dressing room would be that kind of place and I'd have no right to photograph you in such a place. Otherwise, as long as I'm in a public place, or a place such as, say, Epcot, that allows photography, I have every right to shoot a picture of you -- even if you aren't in a public place when I shoot the picture. In the U.S., the kind of "offense" described in the example would be laughed out of court.
Once I have the picture, I can display it and/or sell it for editorial purposes or as a work of art. But I don't have the right to sell it or use it for purposes such as advertising -- which probably would include trying to promote my personal beliefs. I also don't have the right to use the picture deliberately to make you look, say, ridiculous or criminal -- in other words, to misrepresent you.
There are specific exceptions to these general rules, of course, and I'm not trying to give legal advice. Regarding any specific case you'd have to consult an attorney. But this is the kind of common sense I wish I could find around the world. Even France, it seems, is beginning to depart from the easygoing toleration of photography that made a Cartier-Bresson possible. I'd count that a tragedy.
For more information on the subject, go here: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm) and download the .PDF file. This is a compact reference you can print and carry around with you.