Brixton news, rumour and general chat - July 2015

[Spymaster]

No, it's absolutely right because handing over those photography rights exclusively to the police and private security would not be beneficial to the public. Or would you like to live in a world where you're not allowed to film the police?

Well your second sentence doesn't follow your first.

I'd like to live in a world where we can film the police and be able to prevent total strangers from taking photographs of me and my family against my wishes and making them public.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm not really interested in your agenda-laden interpretation of the photo, thanks. Please keep such thoughts to yourself or try asking me first before trying to damn me from a position of ignorance and throwing around clueless doubts about my 'integrity.'

This personal stuff is stopping now, so proceed at your peril.

May I still ask the question as you suggest then, without getting banned?

 

[editor]

Well your second sentence doesn't follow your first.

I'd like to live in a world where we can film the police and be able to prevent total strangers from taking photographs of me and my family against my wishes and making them public.

Those two wishes are incompatible with reality. But you'd like all street photography without your express permission banned then? And crowd scenes too?

 

[editor]

May I still ask the question as you suggest then, without getting banned?

No. You've already shown your true colours here.

 

[Spymaster]

Those two wishes are incompatible with reality. But you'd like all street photography without your express permission banned then? And crowd scenes too?

No, not at all. People in public crowds can reasonably expect to be photographed.

Photographs where I am the specific subject, as in that one of yours of the geezer asleep in the pub, should absolutely require consent prior to publishing. At the very least the subject should be able to legally compel the publisher to remove such pictures with no more explanation than "I don't want it there".

 

[editor]

No, not at all. People in public crowds can reasonably expect to be photographed.

Photographs where I am the specific subject, as in that one of your of the geezer asleep in the pub, should absolutely require consent prior to publishing. At the very least the subject should be able to legally compel the publisher to remove such pictures with no more explanation than "I don't want it there".

Apart from being entirely impractical, that seems rather incompatible with your post #539 where you celebrate Lord Sewel's downfall courtesy of the very kind of photo that he would have been able to censor according to your proposals.

 

[Spymaster]

No. You've already shown your true colours here.

Ok. But in fairness, if I'd asked the question first you'd have said that I was getting at you anyway, so it's lose/lose isn't it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well your second sentence doesn't follow your first.

I'd like to live in a world where we can film the police and be able to prevent total strangers from taking photographs of me and my family against my wishes and making them public.

yeh hope springs eternal

 

[Pickman's model]

Ok. But in fairness, if I'd asked the question first you'd have said that I was getting at you anyway, so it's lose/lose isn't it.

very much so

next

 

[editor]

Ok. But in fairness, if I'd asked the question first you'd have said that I was getting at you anyway, so it's lose/lose isn't it.

You're only reaping what you've sown in this thread. Be sure to take your new found interest in photographic rights and civil liberties to the photography forum as it would be a shame to have your insights wasted in an inappropriately titled thread.

 

[Spymaster]

Apart from being entirely impractical, that seems rather incompatible with your post #539 where you celebrate Lord Sewel's downfall courtesy of the very kind of photo that he would have been able to censor according to your proposals.

Don't be daft, of course it isn't. I can quite compatibly argue for increased rights of privacy whilst happily admitting to a modicum of schardenfreude at a politician being busted for sniffing coke of a woman's tits.

 

[leanderman]

Apart from being entirely impractical, that seems rather incompatible with your post #539 where you celebrate Lord Sewel's downfall courtesy of the very kind of photo that he would have been able to censor according to your proposals.

Public interest defence

 

[editor]

Don't be daft, of course it isn't. I can quite compatibly argue for increased rights of privacy whilst happily admitting to a modicum of schardenfreude at a politician being busted for sniffing coke of a woman's tits!

So increased privacy* for all, but not for the people you don't like. Yeah, that's going to work.

 

[editor]

Public interest defence

Right, So there'll have to be a lengthy legal battle before publication can take place with the richest party most likely to be the one to succeed. Yep, that'll work too.

Meanwhile, private security firms can keep on filming everyone at will yes?

 

[Spymaster]

So increased privacy* for all, but not for the people you don't like.

Nope, for him as well. Doesn't mean I don't have very little sympathy with the situation he finds himself in because of who he is and what he's done.

I also don't think it should be legal to beat the shit out of someone in the street. But I'd laugh my tits off if someone gave a nazi a good kicking on a march.

Get it?

 

[Spymaster]

Right, So there'll have to be a lengthy legal battle before publication can take place with the richest party most likely to be the one to succeed. Yep, that'll work too.

Meanwhile, private security firms can keep on filming everyone at will yes?

Anyone should be able to film anyone else at will (with certain caveats).

It's the making public of those pictures, without consent, that should be restricted.

 

[editor]

Anyone should be able to film anyone else at will (with certain caveats).

It's the making public of those pictures, without consent, that should be restricted.

So please explain - in detail - the practical details of how you would propose that permission could be sought and granted in a matter timely enough as to not make the images meaningless as a new item.

Be sure to focus your solution on the thorny problem of big crowd scenes, gigs and crowded bars and busy protests.

 

[Rushy]

I'm not sure it is, tbh. There's very little recourse in law about photos that are taken in public places and then published online unless it can be shown to be defamatory (which would require a caption), obscene, or potentially harmful (usually photos involving children).

The usual advice is to always act in public as if everything you do may be photographed and shown to your mother, boss, spouse, best friend, and worst enemy!

It's wrong, but it's a relatively recent phenomenon since everyone now carries a camera. It'll change over time.

Campbell v MGN [2004] the European court recognises that a person who walks down a public street will inevitably be visible to any member of the public who is also present and, in the same way, to a security guard viewing the scene through CCTV. ... Private life considerations may arise one any systematic or permanent record comes into existence of such material from the public domain. In that case the publication of footage taken in a public place resulted in the action being viewed to an extent that far exceeded any exposure to a passer by or to a security observation which could have been foreseen in that street.

Of photographs, Lord Phillips found in a 2006 judgement that special considerations attach to photographs in the field of privacy. They are not just an alternative method of conveying information. They enable the viewer to act as a spectator or (his words) "in some circumstances a voyeur would be the more appropriate noun". As a means of invading privacy he described photos as "particularly intrusive".

 

[editor]

Photo forum -->

 

[Lucy Fur]

Editor has published hundreds of photos from the football, many of which find me in less than my usual eloquent state, hundreds of pictures from off-line and similar events, god only knows how many photos from Brixton life in general, and protests, and events, and most of these are 'liked' and positively commented on. But now it's out of order? And obviously not just an ill disguised personal dig, but rather a genuine concern nobodies felt the urge to raise before. All this is as tiresome as it is bollocks.

 

[editor]

Editor has published hundreds of photos from the football, many of which find me in less than my usual eloquent state, hundreds of pictures from off-line and similar events, god only knows how many photos from Brixton life in general, and protests, and events, and most of these are 'liked' and positively commented on. But now it's out of order? And obviously not just an ill disguised personal dig, but rather a genuine concern nobodies felt the urge to raise before. All this is as tiresome as it is bollocks.

Yes, yes and yes.

 

[Spymaster]

So please explain - in detail - the practical details of how you would propose that permission could be sought and granted in a matter timely enough as to not make the images meaningless as a new item.

First, a news item (which I assume you meant) should pass the public interest test (which itself needs scrutinising, imo) and not be published at the whim of a photographer/publisher with an agenda who then represents it as a news item. But we're specifically discussing unflattering pictures of identifiable individuals here that are published against their will (or without their consent). You should have to ask them first, and if that hampers your ability to publish it in a manner timely enough to suit your needs, tough shit.

Be sure to focus your solution on the thorny problem of big crowd scenes, gigs and crowded bars and busy protests

Why? I've already accepted that people in busy areas that are likely to be photographed should have a reasonable expectation of being filmed. Identifiable people asleep on chairs should not, particularly when those photos are captioned with the photographers perceived perception of what they are doing.

 

[Rushy]

Editor has published hundreds of photos from the football, many of which find me in less than my usual eloquent state, hundreds of pictures from off-line and similar events, god only knows how many photos from Brixton life in general, and protests, and events, and most of these are 'liked' and positively commented on. But now it's out of order? And obviously not just an ill disguised personal dig, but rather a genuine concern nobodies felt the urge to raise before. All this is as tiresome as it is bollocks.

I think what people object to is publishing of photos of recognisable individuals going about everyday life with the sole purpose of sneering at them where there is no public interest in doing so. Nothing more.

 

[Spymaster]

Editor has published hundreds of photos from the football, many of which find me in less than my usual eloquent state, hundreds of pictures from off-line and similar events, god only knows how many photos from Brixton life in general, and protests, and events, and most of these are 'liked' and positively commented on. But now it's out of order?

Nobody is arguing against the publication of event photos.

 

[Belushi]

The rights and wrongs of street photography definitely deserves a thread of its own rather than cluttering up this one.

And while I think the editor isn't always entirely innocent when it comes to this ongoing spat with some posters this really is just a thinly disguised excuse to have a pop at him.

 

[Lucy Fur]

I think what people object to is publishing of photos of recognisable individuals going about everyday life with the sole purpose of sneering at them where there is no public interest in doing so. Nothing more.

"Some punters struggling to contain the vibrancy, Eckovision. 2am."
This was the quote that accompanied the picture. Had the picture depicted a busy vibrant club with these three seemingly not so vibrant, I'd accept your point that the 'sneer' (and I don't accept that word, but we can go with it) was aimed at them personally.

As it is it's the club that is blatently not busy, and as such the sneer is at the venue, not the people.

You may well not agree with the Editor as to how he views it (the club that is), and thats fair enough. I'm sure that chestnut will continue to bounce back and forth for ever, but suggesting that he is sneering at the people in the picture is disingeniuous. And then introducing, as some have, a sudden moral outrage that people can be easily identifiable, whilst being sneered at is twisting the truth in my opinion.

 

[Mr Retro]

Don't wriggle out of it. Dakowicz in particular take far more 'damning' photos of drunk people in bars and pubs and in the street. Where's your criticism of his work?

Edit: can't be fucken arsed

 

[Rushy]

"Some punters struggling to contain the vibrancy, Eckovision. 2am."
This was the quote that accompanied the picture. Had the picture depicted a busy vibrant club with these three seemingly not so vibrant, I'd accept your point that the 'sneer' (and I don't accept that word, but we can go with it) was aimed at them personally.

As it is it's the club that is blatently not busy, and as such the sneer is at the venue, not the people.

You may well not agree with the Editor as to how he views it, and thats fair enough. I'm sure that chestnut will continue to bounce back and forth for ever, but suggesting that he is sneering at the people in the picture is disingeniuous. And then introducing, as some have, a sudden moral outrage that people can be easily identifiable, whilst being sneered at is twisting the truth in my opinion.

I'm not morally outraged. I just think it's a bit sad. I haven't written to my MP about it or anything.

As for looking in more depth at the points raised in the course of the discussion, I actually find it quite fascinating since it is all new developments since I studied for my law degree. In fact, I find the law far more interesting now than I did back then.

 

[Lucy Fur]

I'm not morally outraged. I just think it's a bit sad. I haven't written to my MP about it or anything.

As for looking in more depth at the points raised in the course of the discussion, I actually find it quite fascinating since it is all new developments since I studied for my law degree. In fact, I find the law far more interesting now than I did back then.

I was referring to others in regards to the moral outrage, and I agree it is an interesting subject, but it doesnt belong on this thread. Here, its just being used by some to obfuscate a much more interesting and relevant subject.

 

[teuchter]

Seeing as this is getting a bit boring and everyone (including the editor himself) is refusing to follow his instructions that this should be taken to the photo forum, I have taken the initiative and done it for you:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...hotos-of-strangers-when-theyre-asleep.337010/