Edinburgh....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm

Is this the end of social commentary?

Good to hear that chivalry is not dead. 

OTOH, was this based on an actual law? 

--
Martin

It would have been chivalrous of the woman and her friends to not call the police and to just demand deletion of the concerning photograph(s) in presence of the concerning people only, IMHO...

Maybe chivalry is half dead after all... ;o)

Unbelievable. I wonder how much of the nights entertainment in the pub caused to woman to feel unwell?  Normally she would be under arrest for lying about outside a pub at that time of night.
If the guy had ran up, kicked her and stole her purse he would have got 10 hours community service!
One other point is remarks by the Judge, saying that when someone is in distress you should leave them too it!!
I wonder if he would be in the same opionion if he dropped down with a heart attack in the middle of the street? Ooooo ....I'd take a Memory card full!

...When in distress, leave them to it?   That is the totally sad part even if the photo may have been in poor judgment.

Not that I would photograph someone puking in the street myself. (Not my style at all)  But, Why can Paparazzi get away with stuff like this all the time?

If he was on a public street taking pics it should be ok (IMO).

Hey but I'm no lawyer.

J:blink:E

Quote - Not that I would photograph someone puking in the street myself. (Not my style at all)  But, Why can Paparazzi get away with stuff like this all the time?

If he was on a public street taking pics it should be ok (IMO).

Hey but I'm no lawyer.

J:blink:E

I've got a feeling that if it is someone famous it is "in public interest" to be able to publish that photo.  But yeah - i get your point.  And the chivalrous comment by the judge was really rather the opposite of what chivalry should be... princesses in distress locked up by evil fathers ring any bells?

About the Paparazzi getting pictures of celebrities ...

Here in the USA, public figures have a little less protection than the rest of us -- in order for them to sue they have to prove 'actual malace' on the part of the photographer. 

OTOH, it is my certain understanding that in public (i.e., on the street/sidewalk; or an automobile driver on a public right of way) there can be no presumption of privacy.  e.g., the photo could have been evidence of public drunkeness ... IOW, could the subject have suppressed that photo as evidence because it showed her in a bad light? 

... then again, I'm neither an attorney nor a judge. 

--
Martin

BTW, this is getting some  -- actually -- getting a great deal of play on many other sites ,,,

Newspaper report: "Man fined for taking photograph" [Flickr]

Photography is not a crime / Discuss [Flickr]
Remember to be chivalrous  [Flickr]

Man fined for taking photograph in the street  [dpreview]

Man fined for taking photograph in the street  [dpreview thread start]

'Unchivalrous' postie fined £100 for snap of ill woman [News.Scotsman.com]

Man fined for taking photograph [caithness.org]

Is it a crime to take a photo of a drunk? [cabalamat.wordpress.com]

Google found about 190,000 results with this search.  Check them out. 

Food for thought. 

Keep those comments coming. 

--
Martin

"The law is an ass"   -  Charles Dickens

He pleaded guilty though. I doubt any case could have been proven had he contested it. 

Although I don't agree that someone in distress should be left alone, I would feel I was invading this persons privacy in this situation if I took the photograph myself.

My own rule of thumb is, I wouldn't like my own privacy invaded in this situation.

Sometimes we have to see ourselves in the same situation before we can realise how much stress or trauma we are causing another person.

Photography is a wonderful art for recording experiences, as long as it causes no suffering to anyone else. After all, we wouldn't disturb a nesting bird for the art; would we?

What would have happened if the Polish guy complained to the police that the woman vomiting in the street outside the pub was causing a BOTP I wonder? 
The Judge is obviously in his own little cacoon. How does one be chivelrous to a drunk in the street? Politely step over the puke and pretend not to see?
To be fair, what the story doesn't say is what the guy actually did. He took a photo, but was it from a distance, or was he up in her face snapping away?
I got a hunch the woman was so pissed she just seen him as a target for a drunken rant.
Did she ask him to delete it?
I think she must have had something pretty big to hide, eh?

I remember at a funeral wake (in the widows house ) someone got a camera out and took a photo her. She was asked immediatly to put it away, which she did, rather shamefaced,  but that kind of bothered me, so I know it can cause offence sometimes.
Personally I would not dream of reporting someone for using a camera.  What an amazing waste of police resourses and court time, but certainly makes for a good read here!

aangus wondered,

I think she must have had something pretty big to hide, eh? 

That's my thinking ... either underage, took a night off from the convent,
or didn't wnat her husband/lover to know who she was drinking with. 

Just my 2 cents. 

--
Martin

Quote -
Personally I would not dream of reporting someone for using a camera.  What an amazing waste of police resourses and court time, but certainly makes for a good read here!

If it were you in this situation, how would you have reacted to someone taking a photo of you? Of course everyone is different, and would react differently to any given situation, however, I must say that I totally understand why she did what she did.

Some people need to realise that owning a camera doesn't give them the right to use it in every situation, and i'm rather puzzled why some of the good people here are automatically supporting the photographer. I personally think he was wrong to do what he did, and reading the news, he sounds like he regretted it afterwards anyway.... good for him.

Disclaimer: Please don't take my reply personally as some have done in the past on other forums, it's just my opinion. I always tend to say what I think.

IMO, it's not necessarily that we are entirely on the side of the photographer ... but, instead that we are opposed to the unreasonable charge of "Breach of Peace".

Please take a look at UK Photographers Rights ... and also read the downloadable PDF. 

--
Martin

How  would I react in that situation?
I've not been that drunk in a long long time, but I would hope that I had enough sense to ask him to delete the offending snap, and that would be that.
On the other hand, if I was the type that enjoyed being drunk and puking up on the pavement, I might just be tempted to have a go at a guy with a camera, an easy excuse for another drunken brawl. After all, the no win no fee guys will pick up the legal tabs and she might just have a compo claim to boot.
Closing time in the city centres in this country is becoming a national disgrace, the Polish arts and social science degree guy said he  wanted to show the other side of Edinburgh, (one where the street performers need the councils to shovel up their mess, the police to stop them fighting, and the hospitals to stitch up and care for their stab victims).  Perhaps its wrong to show that side of a city and it should be hushed up and brushed under the carpet?
The "Sherriff" fined him to remind him that chivelry is not dead....What utter utter nonscence, the only one breaking the law appears to me to be the drunken louts who think they can roll about the street puking etc. and be above the law "Coz wur pished man".
With all the terrible things that go on in the world, where is this guys "crime" in the grand scheme of things?
Of course theres a time and a place for everything, as I said before,  I objected to someone taking a picture at a funeral years ago, but to go to the police about it is just plain stupid. Perhaps a right good old vodka binge might change my mind though!
For the record I would not have taken the picture either....I might have nicked her mobile, and rifled her pockets....but not the picture. 
(Perhaps not,  the CCTV cameras  might catch me!)
The photographers biggest regret should be his choice of lawer.
I'm tempted now to go into Glasgow tonight and get arrested for photography, I would not plead guilty, and I would not use Andy Houston from LawersRUS.

From the Photographers rights in the UK:*
It is not always easy for a photographer to know whether taking or publishing a photograph might amount to an invasion of privacy

*I've always thought that laws were written as a guide that should be adapted for and in the confines of any given situation. The above line does strike me as odd however.
I guess for some, simply reversing the standpoint for any given situation, doesn't always work. This is dependant upon the character of such a person. But one should ask, whether the law is on your side or not, is it the moral thing to do.....
Should we only obey laws that suit us? Well sometimes, as Onslow pointed out, the law is an ass...well then all we can do is rely on our own moral understanding of any given situation.
What i'm saying is, if your own morality excepts that it is alright to photograph anyone in this situation, well who am I to ague.

From the Photographers rights in the UK:

It is not always easy for a photographer to know whether taking or publishing a photograph might amount to an invasion of privacy*

And then goes on to say,

Taking photographs of a person in a public place would not normally be regarded as an invasion of privacy ...

The Photographers rights in the UK PDF also says,

Taking photographs is unlikely to amount to a breach of the peace or to conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace ...

--
Martin

It does indeed say that, but does that make it moraly right?

dhama said...
***"I would feel I was invading this persons privacy in this situation if I took the photograph myself.

My own rule of thumb is, I wouldn't like my own privacy invaded in this situation.

Sometimes we have to see ourselves in the same situation before we can realise how much stress or trauma we are causing another person. "

***Words perhaps everyone should consider before posting photos of people (without a their explicit release) anywhere on the internet...

@MGD..."took a night off from the convent"....ROTFLMAO!!!! Perhaps there was a nunnery nearby?
@aangus....I guess it's OK for the CCTV's to capture such images...just not the average photog?

Regarding the photog's decision to plead guilty in this case...I suspect it was not because he regretted taking the photo...rather it was the far cheaper option...to fight this would have cost him much more than the fine.

Ummmmmmmmmm ... was this taken at a family gathering?  [grin]

--
Martin

Question is though aangus, how did you get a signed model release for this piccy?

A signed model release with Photo-ID is required for all photograph images..........

"I'm going to impose a fine to remind him chivalry is not dead and when somebody is in distress you leave them to it." ..erm?..Hello????

I'll remember that the next time someone who saw fit to get plastered to the point of stupidity Is on thier back vomiting to near **Asphixyation

I'll just walk on by!
And when the court asks why didn't you help, I'll quote this moron of a sherrif :)**

 In a public place  you are wide open to having your photo taken and used on the net  or published without your permisssion.  the press do it all the time, Sure someone can object but theres nothing they can do legally. Provided the caption is accurate. With the huge growth in the use of mobile phone cams its happening more often than you think. And of course you have to be sensible in how you frame the subject.  Like avoiding many pics of possible sexual content.

I am amused at how reaction varies from the public depending on what camera I am using. I am ignored  when using the phone cam, mild interest when a compact is seen , but a lot of questions when i use an SLR with big flash visible.  The press pros get similiar reactions when they go out to cover a parade on a public street, they have had police hassling them while Joe public is ignored even tho the public are using good resolution kit and just as likely to publish pics on line .
Life is full of double standards.

@Garlor;...You said;

**"In a public place  you are wide open to having your photo taken and used on the net  or published without your permission."

**That statement is simply NOT TRUE!

I urge you to specifically read the case law links contained within the following threads;

Canadian Law regarding photos of people;

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2689386

And the following French Law entitled   "Presumption of Innocence and Rights of Victims". 
This law prohibits the publication of any persons image without their consent.  Fines of up to 45,000 Euros may be levied.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2689396

Further, we had a discussion in this forum about this subject;

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2739499

Simply put...ANYONE taking and/or publishing ( that includes on the internet)  pictures of people without their permission may be asking for trouble.

Ooops I should have said I was referring to the UK.
Lots of photos are pub lished on the net and in TV documentaries every day of people who have no idea that they are in the photo. Often they are clearly shown. The whole idea that a film crew or individual phtographer could get permission slips(model releases) from everyone in a street scene is a farce and the law recognises this.

And in the uk it is very common for the press to pubish pics of people leaving or entering court , you can see that many of those in the pictures are trying to avoid having their photos taken. Photographers even push a camera up to the windows of cars/prison vans to grab pics. Note that they are on public roads not court property.

There is generally a distinction made between newsworthy/public interest events....and say, me taking your photo and posting it on the internet....unless of course you were just leaving court in the prison van...