Comments on: No. 1 – An introduction, and a brief guide to copyright

By: | New Beltane

| New Beltane — Wed, 06 May 2009 12:05:46 +0000

[...] their site here. Of course, if you intend to be a regular subscriber, you can also subscribe via iTunes or [...]

By: Darren Hector

Darren Hector — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:06:24 +0000

Thanks Cerpintor. We didn’t continue that discussion on #1 as it would have opened up a whole new subject which we already had plans to cover on #2. We’re recording that this week and privacy/model releases is covered, but please feel free to submit your question on the questions section (link on the right) and we’ll do our best to answer.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

By: cerpintor

cerpintor — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:58:23 +0000

Thanks for this podcast. I have a point/question to raise re: photography in public places.

Immediately before the 24 minute mark James (I think) says: “as a general rule if you’re in a public place taking photos of a famous building [...] there shouldn’t really be a problem with that. Obviously, you’re gonna have to take care that you’re not taking photos of people, because they have rights in the same way that you might not want to be photographed.”

Not sure what James means here. I have no legal training but as far as I am aware there is no right to not be photographed in a public place, even if one does not want to be photographed. The exception being if such photography is conducted in a way that constitutes harassment. The general phrase I seem to have seen bandied about is that “one can not reasonably have an expectation of privacy when in a public place”, meaning that when you put yourself in the field of others vision in a public place, you can not expect privacy from being seen (by eyes or lenses).

Certainly, someone walking into a shot when you’re photographing a building could not reasonably be described as harassment. Indeed, deliberately taking a photograph of that person is not harassment either, unless you do it repeatedly and it presumably somehow causes them distress.

To my understanding, there’s more likelihood that you would be breaking the law taking a photo of a building than of a person, since there are a few proscribed sites (e.g. some power stations) for photography but no proscribed people (section 76 notwithstanding).

Could we get some clarification on this? If James didn’t mean to infer this it might be useful to explain that. It could certainly be inferred as discouragement of taking photos of people in public, which according to the many articles I’ve read on this subject recently is entirely legal, and it would be a shame for the gradual “criminalisation” (in practice if not in law) of public photography, and paranoia towards photographers, to be enhanced by a discussion which was clearly meant to do the opposite.

cheers.

By: Nigel Bewley

Nigel Bewley — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:09:50 +0000

Thanks for taking the trouble to put this (and future) podcasts up. I found it most informative. I’m involved on a day-to-day basis with audio and audio-visual rights issues and have directed colleagues to your podcasts.

By: Darren Hector

Darren Hector — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:23:12 +0000

Hi Ed – thanks. We’ve also created a 30 second promo for the guys over at http://www.PhotoNetCast.com (another good photography podcast) – I’ll paste the file on the site so you can download if you want it.

By: Ed Wenn

Ed Wenn — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:01:47 +0000

Hi there. I’ve just downloaded the podcast & will listen to it on my way home. Really looking forward to it. I help host an informal photo-based podcast over at http://filmwasters.com/podcast and will give you a plug next week as we’re due to record one with photo journalist, Colin Summers. I’m sure the issue of photographers’ rights will crop up at some point.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:14:36 +0000

Awesome. Thanks, Phill!

+1 subscriber.

By: Phill Price

Phill Price — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:36:54 +0000

Hey Paul;

I’ve changed the subscribe button to give both options too.

Sorry for the confusion!

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:23:11 +0000

I know you have an itunes feed but not everyone wants to use iTunes (for a variety of reasons). Would it be possible to have a regular RSS podcast feed (like the BBC podcast website) as well?

By: E Jones

E Jones — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:52:29 +0000

Had no idea about the Facebook terms and conditions. Thank you! Hope future podcasts are just as informative. Keep up the good works guys. This is a great site.