Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by editor, Feb 10, 2007.
Have you checked yourself for signs of terrorism recently?
there's no need to parade your ignorance and undermine your claim to know quite a lot about boats
I now have a little thing like a business card in my wallet saying that I am a member of a camera club. Not had to use it yet but I hope it may give me credibility if I need it.
A photographer has complained to his local council after a ‘Santa assistant’ stopped him taking pictures at a publicly-accessible Christmas lights switch-on event.
I don't recognise the authority of santa's assistants !!
You don't want to end up on the naughty list do you?
I like the idea of someone dressed as an elf trying to tell me what I can and can't photograph.
Regarding the law and how to cope with a security guard or police officer.
Someone I know has printed out various legal advices and keeps them in his rucksack in case he is accosted. What do people think of that? I am not sure I would want to produce printed materials and start quoting law at people, might make me sound like a smartarse, nobody likes a smartarse!
I wouldn't bring out sheafs of paper to justify myself - I would (politely and calmly) say that what I was doing was legal, and ask whoever it was to say why it wasn't. It's more important to know the law and be confident that what you're doing is legal than have it printed out in your bag.
There are some wallet-sized "cheat sheets" around - I think some are linked to on this thread - which are good for reminding yourself of the details.
By the way, there's a follow-up on the "don't take pictures of Santa" thing that has the council saying that they can question anybody and require any photographer of council events at all to have pre-approval - http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...l-we-have-right-to-question-all-photographers
Not quite sure how they could justify this for events taking place in public areas.
They can't justify it or enforce it. They are just trying it on. They need to be challenged, just as lots of other attempts at stopping photography have been challenged.
A little digging suggests that the original Santa event was on Council-owned land and not very visible at all from the highway, unless the ceremony took place on that famous Welsh thoroughfare l'Avenue de Clichy.
The legitimacy of the edict would therefore depend on the distinction between public land and places accessible to the public...
Marvel at the Thatcherite-architectural-hegemony desolation of the Civic Centre forecourt: http://bit.ly/TuTlMc
I signed into this forum because it finally gives me an opportunity to complain about an incident in London last year. I live in the Netherlands, but travel to London a few times a year due to my work. I am not a professional photographer, but I am an enthusiastic amateur. The equipment I had up until recently was pretty average (now I shoot with a D800 and either a Zeiss 15mm Distagon or 100mm Makro-planar). At the time this incident occurred, I had a Nikon D5100 with a 18-105 zoom on it. The most threatening thing about this camera was the lens hood. Apart from that, it wasn't particularly interesting to look at.
So I get to London and as usual, I take my camera everywhere I go. I happen to like taking photographs of infrastructure. This is partly because of an interest in architecture and civil engineering, but also because I happen to teach architecture and civil engineering to CG art students. On top of that, I have also written a book with chapters on the subject. With all this in mind, I head down into one of the tube stations. I think it was Waterloo, but I'm not sure. Whichever one it was, it was about four to five levels deep. In some sections it had portions of the support structure clearly visible. This was fascinating visually, so I took out my D5100 and started taking shots.
As I said, I'm not a pro, and at that time the camera was in the neighborhood of a couple days old. I still hadn't figured out how to set it up for shooting in low light, so I was taking a number of black frames without realizing it. As I am doing this, a person in a uniform accosts me.
"What are you taking pictures of then?"
"These beams here"
"And why would ya be doin' that?"
"Because it's interesting"
"Why is it so interesting then?"
"I happen to have an interest in architecture and this sort of..."
"Look that's not something I could care less about. Let's see what pictures you've got in there."
At this point, my lack of familiarity with the camera and the black frames convince the uniformed person that I am purposely trying to annoy him. The reason is that I try to display the pictures, but see nothing (because they are black). I keep pushing buttons, and get absolutely nothing (I think) and my friend is getting more annoyed by the moment.
'Look, you're gonna have to delete all those pictures"
"Whatever ye got on there then, delete 'em"
"I don't know how to delete them! I just bought this camera."
"I'm not interested in that. I'm tellin' ya what ye're gonna do, now do it."
At this point I stumble upon a shot from the previous day and realize that none of the shots underground were properly exposed. I tell the costumed person this, and manage to convince him, though it doesn't improve his attitude at all. He then complains that I'm causing an obstruction, though there is no tripod and I'm out of the way. If anything, he is causing an obstruction by stopping to talk to me.
Anyway, after that I decided not to take a camera to the UK again, and I haven't been back for a year, despite opportunities. As far as I was concerned, if the locals couldn't handle tourists taking photos, then they could live without tourists (or in my case, business that doesn't always have to be conducted in person).
After seeing this site though, I'm inclined to give it another try.
Technically speaking it is prohibited to take pictures on the tube network without applying (and paying) for a permit - but this is a bit of a joke, tourists do it all the time and so do bored people waiting on platforms with their phones. I probably have hundreds of pictures, including of Waterloo, and even when I've been fairly obvious about it nobody has ever hassled me - it's more a question of bad luck that you encountered a bullying jobsworth, I'm afraid. (Even the police don't have the power to order you to delete your pictures, let alone some LU employee, but some people like to pretend they do.) Usually the only time you would have issues is if you were actively getting in people's way, or you were using a flash - they really don't like people using flashes, for obvious safety reasons.
I did once set up a miniature tripod at the end of a platform and start taking long exposures, but that was a bit extreme.
slightly long animation and some clips about Atkinson case
re knowing the law etc
You are allowed to take photos on the tube, but not using a flash or tripod, although the wording is rather vague:
Better get watermarking those photos fellas
Another reason to keep your work off Facebook/Instagram etc.
That is outrageous, I had not heard anything about that, registering individual photographs is unusable and this just allows the wholesale theft of private works.
How on earth did that get through?
I don't think watermarking is going to be enough ...
after all, this new law is pisstaking.
Wonder what these people have to say about it?
Pickman's are you saying that it is not real (a spoof)? or that it is taking the piss?
er the latter of course. you haven't been drinking at the stupid pool with articul8 have you?
Urgh. Horrible piece. The new law does not, in fact, do what Orlowski says there, at all. He's been drinking at the fountain of alarmism that is Paul Ellis.
What you do want to watch out for are the T&Cs on Instagram sites, etc.
As for what the law does do: watch out for any proposal by the photographers' "collecting society" DACS to seek authorisation to issue a so-called "extended collective licence".
If DACS were stupid enough to apply to the Government to be authorised to issue any "extended collective licence" that would allow commercial use, then make your objection loudly known.
laptop you are the voice of reason and I will get back down off my high horse which I had just mounted as a result of that article
So just websites for sharing photos, keep an eye on their terms and conditions, indeed that has been the case for a while.
Also, keep doing searches on tineye.com (or, FWIW, google images) for a random sample of your pics - including the more nickable ones.
If someone does gone through the rigmarole of trying and failing to find you and getting a licence to use a pic as an "orphan", there will be cash waiting for you.
If they nick it without the above rigmarole, take them to small claims court and say you want damages for a "flagrant" breach, on top of what you'd have charged if they asked nicely.
None of this kicks in before 2015 at the earliest.
When I last had images on a website online I made an effort not to be on google images at all.
However I was not trying to sell my images, if I were I suppose I would want people to be able to find them as easily as possible.
Separate names with a comma.