Near Miss of the Day 76: Cyclist is squeezed by close-passing bus driver (includes strong language)

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

My position is the same, I have the right to demand that any image of me can be withdrawn from publication and that demand must be responded to.
Do I have this right? Yes or no?

Just for clarification this is your original position:

don simon wrote:

If I can be identified in the photo and I don't want it published I can ask for it to be removed and it should be removed.

You have no legal right to a response unless you can prove breach of privacy.

The burden of proof lies with you.

It was a simple yes/no question. You can't even do that without misinterpeting.

don simon wrote:

It was a simple yes/no question. You can't even do that without misinterpeting.

Which I answered.

You have no legal right to a response unless you can prove breach of privacy.

Your original position was wrong.

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

It was a simple yes/no question. You can't even do that without misinterpeting.

Which I answered. You have no legal right to a response unless you can prove breach of privacy. Your original position was wrong.

don simon wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

You'll have to explain the difference between can and could to me, as I'm totally lost. FKoT is right, we can indeed demand anything we want. Now bugger off and find the supporting law that will let you do this.

I thought the law was all about making things equal for all.

I've already provided the supporting law. The UK is a common law country. Your original position was that you could make a demand and there had to be a response to your demand. Your new position is just that you can make the demand. Those two positions are very different.

My position is the same, I have the right to demand that any image of me can be withdrawn from publication and that demand must be responded to. Do I have this right? Yes or no?

You certainly do have a right to demand anything you want and other people have the right to ignore that demand. AFAIK (I'm not a lawyer), you don't have any particular right to control an image of you taken in a public place (there's no expectation of privacy in public spaces). If you take the image yourself, then you have the usual copyright protections, but as a subject, you wouldn't have any inherent rights to the image.

You can take people to court if you can prove that your privacy has been violated - this might work if you are not a public figure and there is undue attention given to your image e.g. if someone took a photo of you and used it in a national advertising campaign then you'd have a strong case. Otherwise, you'd be hard pressed to show any damages for a typical photo.

don simon]

[quote=don simon

wrote:

My position is the same, I have the right to demand that any image of me can be withdrawn from publication and that demand must be responded to. Do I have this right? Yes or no?

Don, I'm making the generous assumption that you are still unsober after some protracted new year festivities, but it's going to be a very long year unless you start reading what has been said to you and you don't stop posting the same questions which have already been answered a dozen times.

madcarew wrote:

"I think you'll find that you are actually agreeing with me.   [yes]"

No, Don he's not.  

Benborp was saying Anyone can take your picture (or video) in a public place and use it however they wish. They don't have to take it down if you object in any way. You have to demonstrate through the courts that they have breached a reasonable expectation of privacy, which you don't have in a public space. This is diametrically oppposed to what you were asserting. 

So they can take and publish photos, except the ones I want removing and I'm saying that they can publish the ones I allow.

Pretty much the same to me from different points of view.

don simon wrote:

So they can take and publish photos, except the ones I want removing and I'm saying that they can publish the ones I allow.

Pretty much the same to me from different points of view.

 

It's not the "ones you allow".

The default is for the photographer to be allowed to publish any picture taken of any adult in any place where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In order to stop publication you have to prove that the publication of said photograph would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person".

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

So they can take and publish photos, except the ones I want removing and I'm saying that they can publish the ones I allow.

Pretty much the same to me from different points of view.

 

It's not the "ones you allow". The default is for the photographer to be allowed to publish any picture taken of any adult in any place where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy. In order to stop publication you have to prove that the publication of said photograph would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person".

You must be itching to put the link up for this bit of legislation.

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

So they can take and publish photos, except the ones I want removing and I'm saying that they can publish the ones I allow.

Pretty much the same to me from different points of view.

 

It's not the "ones you allow". The default is for the photographer to be allowed to publish any picture taken of any adult in any place where there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy. In order to stop publication you have to prove that the publication of said photograph would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person".

You must be itching to put the link up for this bit of legislation.

don simon wrote:

You must be itching to put the link up for this bit of legislation.

Not legislation, legal precedent based on interpretation of human rights law.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/campbe-...

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

You must be itching to put the link up for this bit of legislation.

Not legislation, legal precedent based on interpretation of human rights law. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd040506/campbe-...

So you make a quote of something that's not really a quote of legislation (which was obvious) and include an irrelevant case involving a famous person and a newspaper, which has no relationship with average Joe being photographed.

Another one who doesn't realise that they agree with what I've said.

don simon wrote:

So you make a quote of something that's not really a quote of legislation (which was obvious) and include an irrelevant case involving a famous person and a newspaper, which has no relationship with average Joe being photographed.

Another one who doesn't realise that they agree with what I've said.

No. I completely disagree with you.

Law isn't all legislation, it's also precedent.

The link discussed privacy law in detail as it applies to both the famous and not so famous.

I can take a picture of you walking down the street and publish it and there is nothing you can do about it unless you can prove that said photograph would be"highly offensive to a reasonable person".

I do not require your consent in any way.

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

So you make a quote of something that's not really a quote of legislation (which was obvious) and include an irrelevant case involving a famous person and a newspaper, which has no relationship with average Joe being photographed.

Another one who doesn't realise that they agree with what I've said.

No. I completely disagree with you. Law isn't all legislation, it's also precedent. The link discussed privacy law in detail as it applies to both the famous and not so famous. I can take a picture of you walking down the street and publish it and there is nothing you can do about it unless you can prove that said photograph would be"highly offensive to a reasonable person". I do not require your consent in any way.

No, you don't directly need my consent, but I can expect you to remove all photographs that you publish of me at my request, as your article states.

And I quote:

Quote:

74.  But the fact that we cannot avoid being photographed does not mean that anyone who takes or obtains such photographs can publish them to the world at large.

So in essence, you do need my permission.

Can you stop using this highly offensive to a reasonable bollocks, please? It makes you look stupid. The article you used only used the word "embarrassing" to be sufficient to be considered an invasion of privacy.

don simon]
<p>No, you don't directly need my consent, but I can expect you to remove all photographs that you publish of me at my request, as your article states.</p>

<p>And I quote:</p>

<p>[quote wrote:

74.  But the fact that we cannot avoid being photographed does not mean that anyone who takes or obtains such photographs can publish them to the world at large.

So in essence, you do need my permission.

Can you stop using this highly offensive to a reasonable bollocks, please? It makes you look stupid. The article you used only used the word "embarrassing" to be sufficient to be considered an invasion of privacy.

That's a direct quote from the link.

"The requirement that disclosure or observation of information or conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities is in many circumstances a useful practical test of what is private"

I don't legally have to remove any photos at your request.

You have to get a court order requiring me to do so.

You would have to prove that the photo was an invasion of your privacy.

The quote I included above is a test applied to decide whether private activity had been photographed. If I had merely photographed ordinary activity in a public place you would have absolutely no legal right to get me to remove the photos.

Can we get back to what the thread was about?

By way of an update Mr Fearnley has read the e-mail I sent. How about some more doing the same?

freespirit1 wrote:

1st working day of year tomorrow. I suggeat that people phone, e-mail, tweet and anything else.

 

Here's their contact page.

 

https://www.firstgroup.com/essex/about-us/help/customer-care

 

Give them a shit start to the year!

 

I'll be hassling from about 09:30, the more that do the more likely they'll pay attention.

 

You could also e-mail the link to this guy:

 

Giles.Fearnley [at] FirstGroup.com

 

 

freespirit1 wrote:

Can we get back to what the thread was about?

By way of an update Mr Fearnley has read the e-mail I sent. How about some more doing the same?

freespirit1 wrote:

1st working day of year tomorrow. I suggeat that people phone, e-mail, tweet and anything else.

Here's their contact page. https://www.firstgroup.com/essex/about-us/help/customer-care

Give them a shit start to the year! I'll be hassling from about 09:30, the more that do the more likely they'll pay attention. You could also e-mail the link to this guy: Giles.Fearnley [at] FirstGroup.com

Amen to that! I received the usual 'thank you for contacting us email", let's wait and see.

benborp wrote:

Tabloids and paparazzi have pushed the moral boundaries by exploiting what the law allows the general public to do reasonably.

That's a whole different argument of being in the public interest, and has been proven to be not in the public interest at times and the newspapers fined, and a moral boundary is not a legal boundary either.

We have a right to privacy, even in the public domain, and it's our acceptance that's wrong and that doesn't mean that you can use a dashcam or bikecam and publish the results without recourse.

don simon wrote:

That's a whole different argument of being in the public interest, and has been proven to be not in the public interest at times and the newspapers fined, and a moral boundary is not a legal boundary either.

Which is what my statement was illustrating. Public interest, moral and legal boundaries are not aligned.

Quote:

We have a right to privacy, even in the public domain, and it's our acceptance that's wrong and that doesn't mean that you can use a dashcam or bikecam and publish the results without recourse.

In the UK there is no absolute right to privacy. Any individual's right to privacy is balanced against others' freedom of expression, reasonable use and public interest. Demands for compensation or image rights would be futile. Proving harassment is a far more likely way to prevent publication, but that would require the photographer to transgress reasonableness by a huge margin.

Without reasonable use and freedom of expression clauses it would be very easy to make nearly all non-commercial photography illegal. Close-up nature photography would probably be ok.

benborp wrote:

don simon wrote:

That's a whole different argument of being in the public interest, and has been proven to be not in the public interest at times and the newspapers fined, and a moral boundary is not a legal boundary either.

Which is what my statement was illustrating. Public interest, moral and legal boundaries are not aligned.

Quote:

We have a right to privacy, even in the public domain, and it's our acceptance that's wrong and that doesn't mean that you can use a dashcam or bikecam and publish the results without recourse.

In the UK there is no absolute right to privacy. Any individual's right to privacy is balanced against others' freedom of expression, reasonable use and public interest. Demands for compensation or image rights would be futile. Proving harassment is a far more likely way to prevent publication, but that would require the photographer to transgress reasonableness by a huge margin.

Without reasonable use and freedom of expression clauses it would be very easy to make nearly all non-commercial photography illegal. Close-up nature photography would probably be ok.

Bearing in mind that the point is in relation to cctv and moving images, there has to be protection from stills too. Also taking into account the difference between taking an image and publishing, I can simply ask a photographer to remove an image, and then they must remove it from publication, unless they can demonstrate a just cause for it staying published.

It has to be so, you cannot take a photo of me and use it as you see fit with me having recourse. Whether the law can be arsed to move, is another question, but the public MUST have protection.

don simon wrote:

benborp wrote:

don simon wrote:

That's a whole different argument of being in the public interest, and has been proven to be not in the public interest at times and the newspapers fined, and a moral boundary is not a legal boundary either.

Which is what my statement was illustrating. Public interest, moral and legal boundaries are not aligned.

Quote:

We have a right to privacy, even in the public domain, and it's our acceptance that's wrong and that doesn't mean that you can use a dashcam or bikecam and publish the results without recourse.

In the UK there is no absolute right to privacy. Any individual's right to privacy is balanced against others' freedom of expression, reasonable use and public interest. Demands for compensation or image rights would be futile. Proving harassment is a far more likely way to prevent publication, but that would require the photographer to transgress reasonableness by a huge margin.

Without reasonable use and freedom of expression clauses it would be very easy to make nearly all non-commercial photography illegal. Close-up nature photography would probably be ok.

Bearing in mind that the point is in relation to cctv and moving images, there has to be protection from stills too. Also taking into account the difference between taking an image and publishing, I can simply ask a photographer to remove an image, and then they must remove it from publication, unless they can demonstrate a just cause for it staying published.

It has to be so, you cannot take a photo of me and use it as you see fit with me having recourse. Whether the law can be arsed to move, is another question, but the public MUST have protection.

Don - I'm really not sure that's right, assuming that the picture is taken in a public place. It all depends on the circumstances, but I don't think you have the absolute right to stop other people taking and using photos of you in the way you think.

The ICO webpage you originally linked to is headed "When is CCTV covered by the Data Protection Act?". Anyone, especially a business with multiple cameras etc..., would be seen as a "Data Controller" under the DPA 1988. NB - this is Data Protection law, not (directly) any individual's general right to privacy, let alone control of their personal "image" in any sort of copyright sense (copyright always rests with the person taking the image, not the subject). 

I think the DPA is far less likely to apply to an individual either taking still photos or using dash/bike cam, so guidance about CCTV is probably not that applicable. Legally, I think dash/bike cam use is still pretty new and specific case law hasn't really happened yet, let alone specific legislation. 

gw42 wrote:

don simon wrote:

benborp wrote:

don simon wrote:

That's a whole different argument of being in the public interest, and has been proven to be not in the public interest at times and the newspapers fined, and a moral boundary is not a legal boundary either.

Which is what my statement was illustrating. Public interest, moral and legal boundaries are not aligned.

Quote:

We have a right to privacy, even in the public domain, and it's our acceptance that's wrong and that doesn't mean that you can use a dashcam or bikecam and publish the results without recourse.

In the UK there is no absolute right to privacy. Any individual's right to privacy is balanced against others' freedom of expression, reasonable use and public interest. Demands for compensation or image rights would be futile. Proving harassment is a far more likely way to prevent publication, but that would require the photographer to transgress reasonableness by a huge margin.

Without reasonable use and freedom of expression clauses it would be very easy to make nearly all non-commercial photography illegal. Close-up nature photography would probably be ok.

Bearing in mind that the point is in relation to cctv and moving images, there has to be protection from stills too. Also taking into account the difference between taking an image and publishing, I can simply ask a photographer to remove an image, and then they must remove it from publication, unless they can demonstrate a just cause for it staying published.

It has to be so, you cannot take a photo of me and use it as you see fit with me having recourse. Whether the law can be arsed to move, is another question, but the public MUST have protection.

Don - I'm really not sure that's right, assuming that the picture is taken in a public place. It all depends on the circumstances, but I don't think you have the absolute right to stop other people taking and using photos of you in the way you think.

Of course it doesif I can be identified in the photo and I don't want it published I can ask for it to be removed and it should be removed.

The ICO webpage you originally linked to is headed "When is CCTV covered by the Data Protection Act?". Anyone, especially a business with multiple cameras etc..., would be seen as a "Data Controller" under the DPA 1988. NB - this is Data Protection law, not (directly) any individual's general right to privacy, let alone control of their personal "image" in any sort of copyright sense (copyright always rests with the person taking the image, not the subject). 

Did you read the bit where it talks about individual rights, business obligations and how it crosses over into personal privacy in the public domain?

I think the DPA is far less likely to apply to an individual either taking still photos or using dash/bike cam, so guidance about CCTV is probably not that applicable. Legally, I think dash/bike cam use is still pretty new and specific case law hasn't really happened yet, let alone specific legislation. 

Quite possible, but we're crossing over from moving images to stills again. I would still counter that I could use DPA for stills, cctv and dash cams. That's one of the beauties of UK law is that I can take it and argue my position. This may resault in a win, a loss or a change in the law. But I will always have a right to privacy and you cannot use a recognisable image of me for your own purposes, the same as libel protects my identity in the written word and slander with the spoken word. It has to. Again, of course, there always going to be counter arguments to try and justify an alternative position.

don simon wrote:

Of course it doesif I can be identified in the photo and I don't want it published I can ask for it to be removed and it should be removed.

I'm sorry don, but that is just not how the law is applied in the UK. You may be able to argue that someone has a moral duty to respect your wishes in how an image is used but legally you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Quote:

Quite possible, but we're crossing over from moving images to stills again. I would still counter that I could use DPA for stills, cctv and dash cams.

The DPA only really begins to affect the actions of photo/videographers once the image is tied to personal, identifying information. Different safeguards have to be taken depending on the type of information held, the environment in which the images were captured, the vulnerability of the subject and the intended use of the image. The DPA is unlikely to offer much recourse to a subject objecting to the publication of a simple image or video segment of themselves.

Quote:

That'sone of the beauties of UK law is that I can take it and argue my position. This may resault in a win, a loss or a change in the law. But I will always have a right to privacy and you cannot use a recognisable image of me for your own purposes, 

I'm sorry don, but I can. The law provides a fairly wide latitude to the manner in which I can do so.

Quote:

thesame as libel protects my identity in the written word and slander with the spoken word. It has to. Again, of course, there always going to be counter arguments to try and justify an alternative position.

The counter arguments being that the libel and slander laws do not protect your identity or the revelation of such. The exact opposite I would say. And the DPA does not prevent the use of images of individuals in the public realm. The alternative position to yours is incredibly well supported.

As a photographer that has been commissioned by charities to take images of vulnerable people for wider publication I know what to do to stay within the law. Guidance notes, codes of conduct, best practice, terms of employment - all provide far more stringent control over a professional photographer. As the law stands, day to day use of recording equipment in public, by an amateur, for their own purposes, is well protected.

I've also been arrested for taken photos in a public place. I was collecting stock images of street furniture for the graphics team of a Channel 4 documentary. A magistrate performed a citizen's arrest. Of course, I hadn't committed any offence, however by arresting me in the manner that he did...

I didn't press charges but I believe stern words were said. People get funny ideas about cameras and what they can do.

benborp wrote:

don simon wrote:

Of course it doesif I can be identified in the photo and I don't want it published I can ask for it to be removed and it should be removed.

I'm sorry don, but that is just not how the law is applied in the UK. You may be able to argue that someone has a moral duty to respect your wishes in how an image is used but legally you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Quote:

Quite possible, but we're crossing over from moving images to stills again. I would still counter that I could use DPA for stills, cctv and dash cams.

The DPA only really begins to affect the actions of photo/videographers once the image is tied to personal, identifying information. Different safeguards have to be taken depending on the type of information held, the environment in which the images were captured, the vulnerability of the subject and the intended use of the image. The DPA is unlikely to offer much recourse to a subject objecting to the publication of a simple image or video segment of themselves.

Quote:

That'sone of the beauties of UK law is that I can take it and argue my position. This may resault in a win, a loss or a change in the law. But I will always have a right to privacy and you cannot use a recognisable image of me for your own purposes, 

I'm sorry don, but I can. The law provides a fairly wide latitude to the manner in which I can do so.

Quote:

thesame as libel protects my identity in the written word and slander with the spoken word. It has to. Again, of course, there always going to be counter arguments to try and justify an alternative position.

The counter arguments being that the libel and slander laws do not protect your identity or the revelation of such. The exact opposite I would say. And the DPA does not prevent the use of images of individuals in the public realm. The alternative position to yours is incredibly well supported.

As a photographer that has been commissioned by charities to take images of vulnerable people for wider publication I know what to do to stay within the law. Guidance notes, codes of conduct, best practice, terms of employment - all provide far more stringent control over a professional photographer. As the law stands, day to day use of recording equipment in public, by an amateur, for their own purposes, is well protected.

I've also been arrested for taken photos in a public place. I was collecting stock images of street furniture for the graphics team of a Channel 4 documentary. A magistrate performed a citizen's arrest. Of course, I hadn't committed any offence, however by arresting me in the manner that he did...

I didn't press charges but I believe stern words were said. People get funny ideas about cameras and what they can do.

I think you'll find that you are actually agreeing with me. 

You're a pro, are you? Interesting....