Saw this on The Guardian Website
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/police-arrest-photographer
Saw this a few weeks ago, What an idiot why didn't he just give his name, he had nothing to hide, so why put himself through the mill, would have saved a whole lot of trouble, he knew exactly what he was doing, gives us togs a bad name, people who actively go out of their way to waste the Police and tax payer time should all be fined, or was it just a publicity stunt by making himself look hard done by. Think I would much rather have Police trying to keep our country safe, than have some news crew filming the aftermath of an event with someone saying, "Why didn't the Police do more to protect the public". well that's my thoughts on it anyway
He really (really) goes out of his way to try and get arrested.
No, the police shouldn't be harassing photographers under anti terrorism laws. But if a police officer wants to walk up to me and ask my name, address and what I'm doing then I'll tell them. 2 mins later they will be back "fighting crime". Seems to make sense to me.
Strikes me as one of those "Jobsworth" types (the photographer that is).
Just answer the questions with a smile and once their happy, offer a handshake so the onlookers can see your not a threat.
Graham.
I think the issue here is that they tried to stop him under Section 44, when that didn't work they tried another tactic. I'mm 50/50 on this one. Yes he should have given his name and address to make life easy, but another side of says I'm not doing anything wrong I should I give my name? If this had gone to court, surely the police would have to get the witnessess to confirm that he was behaving in a suspicious manner. The fact they let him go probably means no one complained.
Nick
I often feel like getting a cob on over frequent questioning - especially form the plastic plods and jobsworth minders giving it large over using a camera 'here which is private property'
When dealing with real plods - you never really win and is easier to just deal with it and put your protest in later by writing. But often or not the real plods never bother togs because they have the experience and intelligence to assess the situation fully.
Plastic Minders are nothing more than licensed bullies and they're worth challenging because often or not they can be found working outside their remit - good example being one of the guys working at London Eye who has actually walked onto the road to say you can't use tripods to photograph the Eye. When he was reminded that we were on public footpath and highway and outside his jurisdiction. When he then stood in front of the cameras we pointed them at him and pretended to take his picture. He tried to complain but was challenged to call the police and let them deal with it. He slouched off and left us alone.
Plastic Plods - what can you say? They've as yet to invent a plastic that contains intelligence! ::)
Hewwo from Spring like Sheffy,,
Now then,,,,,interesting stuff this,,,,,the Tog was a pain in that there were plenty of ways to avoid all of the fuss,,,,,,8 hours in a cell,,,,,,like being a youth again !!!
Ive been hassled loads,,,escorted off Sheffy train station,,,,,threatened with violence,,,had Paedo screamed at me in public,,,,,kicked off multi storey car parks,,,,all sorts of escapades,,,,
to be honest i find the well meaning "off duty" togs more annoying,,,,what lens you got on,,why you using that,,,,, etc etc
Ive said this before,,just join the BFP and carry the blue card,,,,%99 of the boys in Blue are dead sound with us,,,,,lets try and keep it that way.
Shine On
While I was at Lancaster waiting for the "Oliver Cromwell" to pass through a guy in a orange Day glow came up to me and said "Hope your not going to use that Here" I was holding a Monopod with a D90 24-120 ??? I said yes whats the problem.
He asked if I had permission I said yes see the Platform manager and if you want to arrest me you had better arrest all the other 50+ guys with Sir's and vid cameras.
He looked around and walked off. When I went to Carlisle I had no hassle at all the platform guys there are great and are more concerned with young kids running up and down the platform than with togs.
One would think, after all the bad press they been getting, that these clowns would wise up. >:(
Even student togs are in trouble...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262516/Boots-refuses-print-photography-students-snaps--GOOD.html
Boots might have been stupid in not accepting the proof offered once challenged but in a way it is good to see them attempting to protect the copyright of images.
Well I supose it's a complement of sorts and as a photo student she's got a stack of publicity out of it, and I hope a stack of cash as well as it looks as though she's handed over the copyright.
I would be interested to know how she was going to "Develop" them herself in the "Darkroom" though. ???
Graham. :)
Something rather strange about all this she used a Canon 5D (stated in an early version of this story) and quote
'I could have developed the pictures myself in the darkroom. But I needed them done quickly and I couldn't see what right it was of theirs to say I couldn't have copies of my own work. Should I start taking bad photos to get them printed?'
haha yeah I though that too, she does spend a lot of time in the comp room scanning negs so I think she meant if she used film camera to do them I don't actually know, might ask when we go back...
Yes it is good to see some places are dealing with copyright...
Quote from: Graham on April 01, 2010, 04:56:47 PM
I would be interested to know how she was going to "Develop" them herself in the "Darkroom" though. ???
Apparently you can put them on negative some how, might have stopped it... (The lecturers have a thing about Fiber based paper)
Quote from: hssutton on April 01, 2010, 07:57:50 PM
Something rather strange about all this she used a Canon 5D (stated in an early version of this story) and quote
'I could have developed the pictures myself in the darkroom. But I needed them done quickly and I couldn't see what right it was of theirs to say I couldn't have copies of my own work. Should I start taking bad photos to get them printed?'
Publicity Stunt me thinks same as the gut in Accrington LOL
what ever it takes LOL
Quote from: Graham on April 01, 2010, 04:56:47 PM
I would be interested to know how she was going to "Develop" them herself in the "Darkroom" though. ???
Of course English isn't her first language....
In all this I think we're missing the main point. Anybody think those pictures are actually that good? I mean they look OK but if that's what Boots think is the general standard of professional portrait photography then we're all in trouble.
Quote from: Jonathan on April 02, 2010, 07:40:29 AM
Of course English isn't her first language....
In all this I think we're missing the main point. Anybody think those pictures are actually that good? I mean they look OK but if that's what Boots think is the general standard of professional portrait photography then we're all in trouble.
I had that thought. They're not bad pictures, but there's room for improvement on lighting in particular. They're of a standard with some professional photographers (we all know that professional doesn't always mean first rate). But not the standard of professional I would hire.
Quote from: Jonathan on April 02, 2010, 07:40:29 AM
Anybody think those pictures are actually that good? I mean they look OK but if that's what Boots think is the general standard of professional portrait photography then we're all in trouble.
As Eileen says, being a pro does not always involve producing top notch work. I've seen much better from people on this site alone who are committed hobbyists.
Jonathan would probably assign them a reject flag in Lightroom :tup:
I did note the absence of the simplest way of proving who took the pictures - take the camera down.
The exif data on a Canon camera includes the serial number of the camera taking the picture and if configured correctly the authors details - even Boots can't argue with that!
But my final point would be this - if Boots do not expect to be printing 'professional quality' pictures, what does it say about the quality of pictures from their intended market?
Quote from: Eileen on April 02, 2010, 08:08:13 AM
I had that thought. They're not bad pictures, but there's room for improvement on lighting in particular. They're of a standard with some professional photographers (we all know that professional doesn't always mean first rate). But not the standard of professional I would hire.
Yeah I didn't mean "nobody charging money would do work that bad" :) I meant "well they are clean and sharp but it's not like taking a knocked off Avedon down there - I'm surprised the staff were spooked" :D
Quote from: picsfor on April 02, 2010, 08:30:18 AM
Jonathan would probably assign them a reject flag in Lightroom :tup:
You think I'd take them in the first place......? :D
Never seen a picture in more need of a backlight.
It must be a thorn in the side of any quality professional that anyone can claim to be a professional whatever standard of photography they produce, since there is no body to police or apply standards.
A bit like Gordon Ramsey claiming that in a former life he was a professional footballer. ::)
Quote from: Jonathan on April 02, 2010, 08:33:14 AM
You think I'd take them in the first place......? :D
Not now you're a 'trusted photographer' :2funny: :tup:
Quote from: picsfor on April 02, 2010, 08:30:18 AM
I did note the absence of the simplest way of proving who took the pictures - take the camera down.
The exif data on a Canon camera includes the serial number of the camera taking the picture and if configured correctly the authors details - even Boots can't argue with that!
Its rented from the loan shop so depending when she took it they prob would have been wiped off...
TBH, despite trying to take advice off these second years on the upcoming studio work, I thought the pics were average and just your normal studio work type shoot thing...
Quote from: CML-1591 on April 02, 2010, 06:47:44 PM
Its rented from the loan shop so depending when she took it they prob would have been wiped off...
TBH, despite trying to take advice off these second years on the upcoming studio work, I thought the pics were average and just your normal studio work type shoot thing...
Thats probably why they thought they were from a Pro then. (No offence to JR intended!)
A lot of pro work that I've seen is average and run of the mill - which is what sells probably.
I've seen some shots of a recent wedding - and they were very average overall - a lot taken/cropped to a 30' angle - with, to be fair, some very nice ones thrown in the mix. Don't know why the angle - but in most cases seemed to result in hands/heads cut off and, for me, did nothing for the shots.
I'm not sure if the bride likes them - she asked in the email with the link for any pictures that anyone ese had taken of the day too.