photography is not a crime


snappychappy

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 09:55
Arrested under the "Aviation Act" watch out all you plane spotters. Shocking
My piccies.

Smeggypants

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 09:56
I can't see anything close to libel in this thread, and given the issue is right at the core of affecting us as photographers in this country it's surely the best place to discuss it?
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

Smeggypants

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 09:58
snappychappy wrote:
Arrested under the "Aviation Act" watch out all you plane spotters. Shocking

Well here's the aviation act. I'm off to bed soon so haven't got the time or energy to read it all, but is there anything preventing photography of planes in it?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/16
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

greynolds999

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 09:59
I think accusing a company of being "corrupt" could be considered libellous. I assume you have some evidence of this?
My Photobucket

snappychappy

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 10:01
Unfortunately this will increase during the Olympics.
My piccies.

johnriley

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 10:22
Greynolds999 is quite right, posters should be very careful to avoid being libellous on the web, be it on Twitter, here or anywhere else. They are not immune from prosecution, as some find out to their cost.

Please stick to the relevance to Pentax photographers.

The moral is usually behave properly and problems should be rare. I haven't looked at this video but there are plenty where photographers taunt and provoke security and it's very counter-productive.
Best regards, John

Frogherder

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 10:45
Farnborough Air Show

Aeroplanes queuing up to be seen by the public
Public "allowed in" with cameras (irrespective of type)
Public take photographs

Surely under such circumstances the Aviation Act would be impossible to enforce.

Bernard

Why did photographing children creep into the discussion?

Oso

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 11:28
Please refer to recent AP news about photographing of children as well.

Oso

snappychappy

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 12:35
Quote:
this is the most immoral behaviour of this corrupt company.

You need to insert, "what appears to be", between "this" and "corrupt"
My piccies.
Last Edited by snappychappy on 18/07/2012 - 12:35

JohnX

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 12:53
In the guy's own words '..they assumed I was 'lasering' the pilots during the display..'.

A laser would look like a small torch, not a camera, so what was he carrying?

More to this than meets the eye.

Frogherder

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 12:54
Alas there is a gulf between what is :-
legal - photographing people (children are people) in a public place for, say historical record

and moral - photographing children in a public place for nefarious purposes.

Sadly there are too many people who assume that a photographer fits into the latter and equally sadly there are those who commit crimes against children. Regretably the connection between the two is being blurred by emotions and photographers are being used as a scapegoat.

regards
Bernard

snappychappy

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 13:27
Well said Bernard.
My piccies.

Don

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 13:55
Frogherder wrote:
Alas there is a gulf between what is :-
legal - photographing people (children are people) in a public place for, say historical record

and moral - photographing children in a public place for nefarious purposes.

Sadly there are too many people who assume that a photographer fits into the latter and equally sadly there are those who commit crimes against children. Regretably the connection between the two is being blurred by emotions and photographers are being used as a scapegoat.

regards
Bernard

one time when badgered by an obnoxious lady while filming my own kids at a park, I loudy shouted out at her "NO LADY I WILL NOT PAY YOU FOR SEX!!! SOMEBODY CALL A COP THIS PROSTITUTE IS HARRASSING ME!!!" and proceeded to tell her "just because you're in a park, approaching men you don't know doesn't make you a hooker any more than me being in a park photographing my kids makes me a pedophile, so Frick (not the word I used) off!"
you can't be polite with some of these people....
and the police want to treat you like a criminal when you film them breaking the law or violating peoples rights, yet when the riots happen and the police want help identifying suspects, they ask you for your footage!

the right to bear cameras should be specifically spelled out in the constitution because it is the best and least violent means of defending yours or somebody else's rights!
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.

Blythman

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 14:00
All photographers are liable to suffer because of a small minority who cannot conduct themselves in a professional manner. In the example above, in a park in front of kids too
Alan


PPG
Flickr

ChrisA

Link Posted 18/07/2012 - 14:07
JohnX wrote:
In the guy's own words '..they assumed I was 'lasering' the pilots during the display..'.

A laser would look like a small torch, not a camera, so what was he carrying?

More to this than meets the eye.

I think so too. Almost everyone I saw at Farnborough the other day was carrying a camera of some description, so you do wonder what he was doing that appeared dodgy.

The other thing in that video was the bit where he goes "please don't press that button", and then refuses to answer the perfectly reasonable question "what does that button do". Not all that surprising that they suspected it was something other than what it was.

I imagine it was the 'record' button, and if they pressed it, his recording would stop. So he prevaricates with 'I don't want you touching my property' or some such, which just added fuel to the fire.

Without knowing what was really going on, I don't know whether they were right to arrest him or not, but I can't find all that much sympathy for him given the string of obscenities he was screaming. No matter how unreasonable the police behave, screaming at them like that will just make it worse.
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.