I second that, Cooty, John. Remember, that even though you may photograph, you may not automtically be allowed to publish the photographs as well.
Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 15. august 2005 10:35 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: The Photographer's Rights A very sensible post, Cotty. One is reminded of the quote that "War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means". As we don't need reminding, the exercise of diplomacy by conventional means is usually the best policy. Of course, I am sure that Frank judged his busybody's possible reactions perfectly, and his more confrontational approach might have dissuaded the old harridan from further interference in other people's business. John On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:52:14 +0100, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 14/8/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> I can only remember one incident when anyone made a comment. There's >> a fountain in a square downtown that spurts up from ground level. In >> summer, kids are often seen playing in the spray. I was photographing >> a couple of children frolicking in the water, and a lady came up to me >> and asked, "Did you get the parents' permission to take their photos?" >> To which I answered, "I don't need their permission, this is a public >> space and I have the right to take anyone's photo I want. In any >> event, the parents are over there, they've seen me taking photos, and >> they didn't say anything, so I suppose they're all right with it." >> >> She scowled and left. > > I have a couple of observations which may be if interest. > > One is that, next time you might consider a slightly less adversarial > reply, even if the questioner is obviously ignorant of the law. > Sometimes, a friendly and reassuring chat can allay fears and suspicions, > even if not totally satisfying the inquisitor. For instance, if the old > lady had taken your retort badly, she may have called the police, and > that could have been both embarrassing and unnecessary, not to mention a > big inconvenience for you. There are plenty of places in the world where > undercover police are watching for just such activity and will readily > arrest and detain for several hours while film is processed and checked, > memory cards perused, and computers and hard drives confiscated and > examined in detail, with property being returned after some days or > weeks. (q.v. Trafalgar Square, London). > > The other is that if I am in a similar situation, and I am overtly > photographing a scene which may include children with their parents in > proximity, I would approach the parents and have a quick chat just to > reassure them that I am a genuine person, and not some nutter - I usually > say that I am a mature photography student (which is not a direct lie - I > am 45, and always learning about photography). A laugh and a joke, and > even the offer of prints, and I have yet to be refused. If I was, i would > move on - sure i could take the picture anyway, but I like my pics to > have *good karma* :-) > > When working, if I am filming in the street, I often get do-gooders > accosting me about whether I have this permission or that permission for > anything from filming a house, to filming people, to filming the sunset. > I always say yes (which is a lie). Just saves time. > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com > _____________________________ > > > > > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 14/08/2005
