Sadly needed

You’ve always needed permission to take someone’s picture, especially in public places like London.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-street-shooting.html

There’s nothing stopping you taking pictures of people in public places within reason, but if you start shoving your zoom lens up their nostrils or taking action shots of their every step, there’s a chance you might get a clip around the ear from your aggrieved subject or possibly face a legal charge of harassment or breach of the peace.

aka PUA videos must be fake or the subject would sue.

Harassment is defined as a ‘course of conduct’ (so it has to happen at least twice) that causes another person ‘alarm or distress’, but we have to say that the bullying and aggressive antics of the paparazzi would suggest that prosecutions are few and far between.

The press have police protection. Normies do not.

With some countries having stronger privacy laws, UK snappers looking to commercially exploit images of recognisable people snapped without their consent may find international clients unenthusiastic unless a model release has been obtained.

For porn, which it isn’t.

Especially bad since they target little girls. Even targeting an adult is weird and unconsenting.

There’s also a remote chance that photographs of people in public places may be subject to the Data Protection Act,

and legal right to privacy

right to the use of their likeness

reputation damages

but that’s pretty unlikely if there’s no other identifying information accompanying the image.

You can normally identify people, actually. Again, one law for them… another for everyone else.

That MP knows nothing.

http://www.photographers-resource.co.uk/photography/Legal/Access_Rights.htm

Some places that we think of as being public do have photo restrictions, and there are bylaws governing the requirement of getting written permission from the relevant authority/owner and paying a hefty fee and this includes Trafalgar Square, Parliament Square and the Royal Parks.

Photos of celebrites on the Tube weirds me out. Leave them alone. For a while Tom Hiddleston had some dedicated stalkers there.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/15/upskirting-to-become-a-criminal-offence-punishable-by-two-years-in-jail

We didn’t need this in the 20s or hell, the 19th Century, when women were nearly popping out of their tops with bare shoulders and arms.

People didn’t randomly try and rope strangers into making fetish porn.

Part of the fetish is the unconsenting part.

In the most serious cases, those convicted of secretly photographing underneath someone’s clothing without their consent in England and Wales will be placed on the sex offender register. 

Without their consent. Operative words.

You need a signed model release (signed after they’ve approved of the images) if it’s going to be spread from one device to another and especially published online.

Such invasive behaviour is currently prosecuted under either the offence of outraging public decency or as a crime of voyeurism under the Sexual Offences Act. 

That Emma Watson photo was sick.

1. Be civil. 2. Be logical or fair. 3. Do not bore me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s