Why do folk fear cameras nowadays?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

weevil

Active Member
Location
Cambridgehsire
summerdays said:
If you work with school kids you have to follow the basic guideline of getting permission.

Even if permission isn't required (and I bow to others' knowledge regarding photography in public places), surely it's common sense, or common courtesy, to pop into the school office beforehand and let them know what you're doing.

It would save a lot of hassle. Worried parents could be calmed by the secretary, rather than the secretary getting wound up and angry.

To the OP: Does "in the locality" mean ouside the school you'll be visiting? If so, then don't be too surprised if the welcome is less than cordial. I've spent a lot of time in the staff room at my wife's primary school and found that teachers have long memories and can be utterly unforgiving. Good luck!
 
It’s a wonder she didn’t call the police, and you could have been shot in the head nine times.
Mountains and mole hills comes to mind
 

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
weevil said:
Even if permission isn't required (and I bow to others' knowledge regarding photography in public places), surely it's common sense, or common courtesy, to pop into the school office beforehand and let them know what you're doing.

It would save a lot of hassle. Worried parents could be calmed by the secretary, rather than the secretary getting wound up and angry.

To the OP: Does "in the locality" mean ouside the school you'll be visiting? If so, then don't be too surprised if the welcome is less than cordial. I've spent a lot of time in the staff room at my wife's primary school and found that teachers have long memories and can be utterly unforgiving. Good luck!

Why should he need to, he's on public land.

This goes far deeper than simply permissions, this is about national paranoia in part stirred up by the media's constant coverage (which I think sometimes tempts and educates those of a like mind) and police response to cameras on the street.

People see a man stopped by police and think "Oooo..? I wonder what he's done wrong..?"

We have had tourists stopped (and we dont get that many so christ knows what they go back home and tell others) for photo'ing historic buildings here.

What next..? Banning lycra shorts because they're a bit too tight on my buns when I ride past a school area? Or banning men near schools?

Comedy Pilot is right, and stats also show that your more at risk from family too than strangers. Peodophiles are repeately shown to like to build up a repour and relationship.
 

Noodley

Guest
I was told by the Deputy Head teacher of my younger daughter's primary school that I could not take photos of the school sports due to 'safety'.

I ignored her. She told me again. I ignored her again.

I also wrote to her asking what 'safety' was. She didn't reply, so I asked her next time I saw her. She had not a clue what she was on about and waffled about 'safety'.

The fact the next time I saw her was at a seminar on 'risk' where I was making a presentation seemed to have been lost on her. :laugh::laugh:
 

Fixedwheelnut

Senior Member
summerdays said:
Was it in or outside the school grounds... I think parents reporting a strange man, to the school secretary, hanging around the school gates taking photos of kids would be OK. I think her reaction was over the top - she should just have asked what you were doing and asked to see ID if necessary. I know when a person from the Safe Routes to School was taking photos at the school gate - it was done after informing the school.

Equally in schools parents have to sign to say whether photo's of their children can be used in school publications etc. Some parents do object on quite valid grounds, some just because they are paranoid.

If you work with school kids you have to follow the basic guideline of getting permission.


I know it isn't required by law but I wouldn't have thought it unreasonable to just pop in and let them know what you were doing just to avoid the situation that occurred or take the photos at a weekend when the kids were not around.
Sometimes it is worth doing something to make your life easier even though you are not required to.
:smile:

There is a good piece here on photographers rights;
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/
 

ComedyPilot

Secret Lemonade Drinker
On a similar vein, can anyone explain the difference between a photographer shooting pictures up girls skirts as they get out a car at a nightclub to sell to a newspaper, and a photographer taking the same photo for 'private purposes' to print out and mount on their dingy basement wall?
 

Fixedwheelnut

Senior Member
ComedyPilot said:
On a similar vein, can anyone explain the difference between a photographer shooting pictures up girls skirts as they get out a car at a nightclub to sell to a newspaper, and a photographer taking the same photo for 'private purposes' to print out and mount on their dingy basement wall?

Yeah one gets paid for it :smile:
 

ComedyPilot

Secret Lemonade Drinker
IMO they are both bad, but why is it a 'professional' photographer can try to take a photo of a woman's genital area in public, and shout that it's ok because it's for a newspaper, yet someone doing the same thing for their own entertainment is a voyeur or has outraged public decency?
 

Fixedwheelnut

Senior Member
ComedyPilot said:
IMO they are both bad, but why is it a 'professional' photographer can try to take a photo of a woman's genital area in public, and shout that it's ok because it's for a newspaper, yet someone doing the same thing for their own entertainment is a voyeur or has outraged public decency?

An unfortunate byproduct of the tabloid world, joking aside I agree they are both bad it seems the press in this country have become a law unto themselves on some occaisions [think trial by tabloid]
 

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
ComedyPilot said:
On a similar vein, can anyone explain the difference between a photographer shooting pictures up girls skirts as they get out a car at a nightclub to sell to a newspaper, and a photographer taking the same photo for 'private purposes' to print out and mount on their dingy basement wall?

Those kind of photos are largely sold abroad (Asia, parts of Europe). Even the paps here in the UK will not resort to that (heckling and general abuse yes, sexual asssault no). If someone does it in a group of paps they will usually "turn" and it can get very nasty as they're losing the ability to get the bread and butter shots, celebs phone each other and go to another club and the chase has to start all over again.

Also the majority of togs you see at events arent even paps. I once made the mistake of referring to one as a pap and my god how he turned on me (online thankfully!)
 

ianrauk

Tattooed Beat Messiah
Location
Rides Ti2
Especially these ones


xpc316e said:
I am a Road Safety Officer who goes into schools and works with children. In one of my presentations I use photographs of the locality of the school I am visiting to show dangers, illustrate safe behaviour, etc. Today I went out to take a few shots for a visit I am planning to do next week. I was wearing my ID badge, had a large SLR around my neck, and was going about my business when an irate school secretary burst out of the building and demanded to know what I was doing as some parents had mentioned to her that a 'strange man was taking photos of children'. I explained to her what I was doing and she proceeded to tell me that I could not take photos of the children as some of the parents had refused permission. I started to tell her that I could take whatever pictures I liked as I was in a public place, photographing other people in a public place. With that she turned on her heels and stormed off.

If I was a paedophile, as some parents must have suspected, why would I be taking shots of children dressed up in virtually every article of clothing they own on a dull December day? Would I not sneek a small camera into a swimming pool, or similar. These parents who are so 'concerned' about the safety of their little ones are the same parents who drive around in cars with their children not in child seats, park half on the footway to let children out of the 'wrong' side of the car, drive them to school when the walk would do them a power of good, fill them with junk food, etc. Why can they not get some sort of common sense perspective on life and its hazards? Do they stop people from taking photos when they are on a holiday beach? If they really do not want their children photographed, why don't they cover them in veils like Michael Jackson did (there's a superb role model for any parent)?

The Police seem to think that anybody with a camera in public these days is a terrorist, and the parents think we are all paedophiles. When will common sense prevail? Rant over now, and blood pressure returning to normal.
 

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
ianrauk said:
Especially these ones

That was in 2000. Last year a Grandfather was attacked on Southampton common for filming his grandaughter on a slide. The Police were called, failed to properly break up the disturbance and had to escort the man and his grandkid away from the area as an angry crowd had formed.

Then last winter an elderly lady of 86 was threatened with arrest (by a park guard ffs, as if they have the authoritah!) for taking a photo in a park down here.
 

ComedyPilot

Secret Lemonade Drinker
I find a strange irony in the fact a vigilante crowd can be whipped into a frenzy to attack someone innocent but, when there is someone breeding dogs that can rip a 4 year old's face off, or there's someone stubbing cigarettes out on a toddler after breaking his back, then they are NOWHERE to be seen???
 
Top Bottom