Serious. i thought this was a joke. Well it is a JOKE but not the funny sort. Read on....

The uk goverment are trying to make photography in public places a crime, in an attempt to stop peados and the pap.

If the bill is passed then you will have to apply for a special
lience to take photographs in public, no matter who you are and what you're taking pictures of!!

So sign the petition whether you take photos or not. It's a fucking stupid idea. It's a little tedious, you have to follow a link from an email they send you, but it's worth it!!

THERE NEEDS TO BE 750,00 SIGNTURES ON IT TO STOP IT GOING THOUGH!!

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Photography/

Yeah, I heard about this.

The petition is jumping the gun a bit, the outline of the proposal was put forward by some insane MP , it hasnt been approved for debate by the house yet, so it isnt even in the first stages of becoming a reality, its basically some crackpot idea of some do good MP.

As someone who sells a few photo's via Alamy and a couple of other photo libraries it would be a bit of a nightmare for me if it ever became a reality, currently Im not too worried though.

thats good to know mate for some reason it really annoyed me.

alot

It annoyed me too. I do understand the need to protect against the 'terrorist threat' and all , but really, if someone was going to take photos of a building/place or whatever to organise blowing it up , they arent going to bother whether they need a friggin license for it or not.

Its just another way to control the genral populous under that auspice of 'protection'.

Bit like the ID cards.

okay silly question then....wouldn't the government be breaking thier own laws by having a million cameras on every street corner in the UK?

or am i missing one the finer points of law

__________________
yeah like dark hoods and stuff..

Awesome, now if I see a crime being commited, I can't pull out my phone and take a picture as evidence for the police!

Huzzah for not considering the hypotheticals!

The MP that proposed this should DIAF, fascist bastard.

__________________
-=FarStaR=-
Haze

-=Spinebreaker=-
Littlun



-=Twisting Nether=-

Pwnjah

Pwnjoo
Pwnface
Nuk

its true isnt it mate althou i wouldn't mind if the law was just pastin wales =p

i'd be less angry and find it funny then.

Whilst I am all for the freedoms of this country, I do [BOOB] believe there needs to be some changes made to privacy laws. As is often the case with these crackpot idea's, the idea is to generate [PENIS] a discussion and then measured action will be taken. A complete ban is not called for, but measured change should be taken...

As it stands in this country, a person is only guaranteed any kind of privacy within the confines of their own home. Once they step outside, people can photograph them and sell those photographs for whatever sum they generate. This is in direct conflict with the Data Protection Act. It also encourages paparazzi hounding of certain public figures. I am of the opinion that people who court publicity should be photographed... going to a film opening? Look your best! I am also of the opinion that person is entitled to privacy and so if they are going about their day to day business, they do not need to do so in a myriad of flashlight bulbs.

The case that I think of here is that of Kate Middleton. She is Prince Williams girlfriend and will quite probably be the future Queen. When she is out and about with William, she is fair game... but she works... and she is prevented from working because from the moment she leaves her house, to the moment she gets indoors, she is followed and photographed. She has lost all of her freedom and yet has done nothing more than fall for a boy she went to Uni with...

If I am photographed by CCTV camera's, the information belongs to me. My picture can not be used for any commercial gain without my consent. A photograph or privately taken film footage can be used anyway the photographer sees fit regardless of if I would want them to or not.

Paedophiles are not going to be deterred by a ban on photography. The sentence for making indecent images of minors is much higher than any ban on photography... so that point is not even worth mentioning. If any such law was to come in place, I have a feeling that it would not be a blanket ban, nor a criminal offence... I rather feel it would be a civil violation and so the law would work as follows...

• You may not use a persons likeness for commercial gain without consent.
• Consent must be written or implied.

What does this mean? It means that the private photographer can take pictures in the street. He may sell them if all people in the photographs have given consent.

So... making a nice postcard picture? Hire models and make sure nobody is in the background. Buildings and landscapes are fair game.

There could be a direct detrimental affect on tourism... That is where 'implied' consent comes into play. Major landmark would have photographic priviledge implied. That means that if you are in the vicinity of the landmark, you are liekly to have your photograph taken. The law could be written so that a person loses all right to anonymity, or that the person must ask the photographer to not photograph them and that any taken photographs should be deleted or edited to make the subject unrecognisable before commercial sale.

The other option is for photograpers to be required to register an intent to take photographs and then post notices around their location... This means that for a film premier, the organisers will apply for a license to host a photographer event. They must then put up posters in the area explaining that there is a photography event and state the location. Make it clear that by entering the vicinity waives all right to your anonymity and so allowing professional photographers to do their job without having to worry about the consequences of a face in the crowd (or the latest prima-donna celeb) demanding that their pictures are not used.

Buildings such as parliament and buckingham palace would be automatically designated permanent zones of 'implied consent' and so the tourist would not be hurt.

There is a need to protect the privacy of individuals without hurting the collective. Tourism needs to be protected and legitimate photographers need to have their proffession protected. Regulation would be the welcome solution.

How would this be enforced? The offence would be a civil and not a criminal offence. The criminal offence would be wiltholding or providing false information. This means that a person could ask for a photogrpahers personal details and if they are not provided, the offence becomes criminal. This protects the individual and allows them to sue for damages. In the case of professional paparazzi, if they are found guilty of taking unlawful photographs then they can be banned from using photography equipment in public. Use the equipment after you are banned? This would be a criminal offence. Only worse case criminal offences would result in prison, but prison needs to be used as a deterrant or there would still be some people breaking civil law and calling any fine a business expense.

__________________

Pfft, that cant be used for evidence. Screenshots can be easily doctored.

__________________

PS. If the first paragraph doesnt contain the words penis or boob then I'm not gonna read the rest. No offence Buck :P

__________________

It does Jedel

I also meant to say in the post... taking pictures of a crime is a different case. If you break a law to prevent or deter a crime then you would be exonerated.

eg. Find a bloke punching your girlfriend... beat him up (or photograph him). The police come and laugh when the womanbeater complains about your. He takes you to civil court and you quote the complete circumstances of what happened and you use the public record of his court case for beating your woman and the civil court will laugh at him.

__________________

That is not strictly true.

One can only sell images of people without consent for 'fair use' news items.

IE , if an image is part of a news story.

If you take photos of people and sell them through an agency, or an image library as I do, for advertising etc, you have to get all people in the image to sign a model disclaimer form in which they agree to use of their image for your profit.

This also applies to both interior and exterior views of , what the law terms 'recognisable' buildings. That would mean mainly shop frontage with company names etc on them or similar, and certian historical landmarks.
It also includes many church buildings, but note this only applies when the objective is to sell the image.

You cannot sell those images in the UK, or anywhere in the world, without having the signed disclaimers accompanying the files.

So how will this affect my hobby of photographing ladies getting changed in their bedrooms?

__________________

Big brother is watching you.

To hell with that shit.

kate middleton didnt just 'fall for some boy at uni..' lol

she fell for the future king of england, and she did so knowing full well what that entails, paparazzi included.

imo if youre famous, for whatever reason, that comes with a cost; that cost being loss of a bug chunk of privacy.

dont like it? dont be famous

__________________

L2P Quotes of teh Year 2007
kitchens kitchens kitchens

I think it's a bit unfair to say that you lose your right to privacy because of who you fall in love with. Of course she could be a fame digger but on the other hand she might not be. They're just people like you and I. I don't like the whole "Famous people should accept having no privacy" argument.

__________________

It's hardly her fault though. She does nothing to court publicity, and perhaps most importantly, gets none of the benefits that usually come alongside such intrusion. She can't give interviews and has no way to use her fame to benefit herself... all she gets are the negative consequences. She does nothing to court the publicity and wants to be left in private to do as she pleases. Harry's missus has the right idea... she comes here, gets pissed, gets laid, then fucks off out of teh country so that people leave her alone.

Saying that people who are famous "for whatever reason" should just accept the consequences is a very unfair statement. If people are trying to promote themselves as a celebrity and so welcome the intrusion then that is fine... but what about the people who do nothing other than what they feel is the right thing, and ultimately find that they can't live with the consequences.

Losing a huge chunk of privacy may not seem like much... but do you remember Dr David Kelly?

__________________

With regard the paprazzi crap... just ask yourself how important the right to hound people is...

Does it have the possibility to cause distress or fear to another person?
Would losing the right cause any major impairment to your quality of life?

If you answer YES to both of those questions then it should be illegal!

__________________

All Paparazzi can go and diaf as far as I'm concerned.

__________________