# "I was disturbed to see one of your pictures...."



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Just got this email. Jeez.


> I like your pictures of Hebden Bridge, but was disturbed to see a picture of a neighbours house (B---- street with a broken window).  Can you explain why you thought it necessary to display this picture as part of a "tour  around Hebden Bridge" and did you ask permission to photgraph and publish it?
> 
> I look forward to hearing your response.


I replied saying that as a photographer I take pictures of what I see, not what is 'nice' and that I certainly don't need anyone's permission.

Have you ever had anything similar?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 2, 2008)

Worried about their property values maybe?


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

Is that the full email? Did they say whether it's their house?


----------



## ClassWar (Nov 2, 2008)

Cops can be peculiar about getting their pictures taken. I remember a demo some years ago outside parliament when a lad was taking pictures of the police. One portly plod came up to him and asked him to stop taking his picture because he had a wife and children and valued his privacy.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> Is that the full email? Did they say whether it's their house?


Ahem: "...but was disturbed to see a picture of a *neighbours house*"







There's no number on it anyway, not that it makes any difference to my right to photograph it.


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

ClassWar said:
			
		

> Cops can be peculiar about getting their pictures taken. I remember a demo some years ago outside parliament when a lad was taking pictures of the police. One portly plod came up to him and asked him to stop taking his picture because he had a wife and children and valued his privacy.


And there's the issue: personal privacy vs artistic integrity and public interest. Personally I think in this case I'd accede to a polite request to remove the photo, but think they've got off to a bad start on that with the email's accusatory tone.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> And there's the issue: personal privacy vs artistic integrity and public interest. Personally I think in this case I'd accede to a polite request to remove the photo, but think they've got off to a bad start on that with the email's accusatory tone.


Why? You think I should edit out photographs based on some random neighbours opinion that it doesn't paint the town in a nice enough light?

Fuck that.


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Ahem: "...but was disturbed to see a picture of a *neighbours house*"


Right. 


> There's no number on it anyway, not that it makes any difference to my right to photograph it.


Of course. But would you remove it if the owner wrote to you and politely asked you to do so?


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Why? You think I should edit out photographs based on some random neighbours opinion that it doesn't paint the town in a nice enough light?
> 
> Fuck that.


Not on a neighbour's opinion, no - I think I've clarified.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> Of course. But would you remove it if the owner wrote to you and politely asked you to do so?


No. It plays a part in  documenting how I saw the town. 

To remove it would present a dishonest view and, as a photographer, I capture what I see, not what neighbours would like to see. 

They can hire their own photographer for that.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2008)

I don't think I'd like a pic of my place looking shitty on the internet tbh. Isn't it like having a pic of a victim of a crime in a tabloid? Invasion of my privacy for no good reason.


I hesitate to get into this discussion but, as i say, I wouldn't like a pic of my house looking shit and easily indetifiable on the net as an example of what a shit house looks like in that manor.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

5t3IIa said:


> I don't think I'd like a pic of my place looking shitty on the internet tbh. Isn't it like having a pic of a victim of a crime in a tabloid? Invasion of my privacy for no good reason.
> 
> 
> I hesitate to get into this discussion but, as i say, I wouldn't like a pic of my house looking shit and easily indetifiable on the net as an example of what a shit house looks like in that manor.


How is it an invasion of privacy? It's a house. In a street. On a road. Everyone can see it.

But if you don't like it, what do you suggest - banning photographers from taking pictures of 'shitty houses' in case the owners object?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2008)

No, not banning. But perhaps the attitude that you can do exactly what you want and fuck them if they object isn't the most reasonable.


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 2, 2008)

I agree with you in this case, but if someone was visible through the broken glass window or something I think common courtesy would require you to remove it.


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> No. It plays a part in documenting how I saw the town.
> 
> To remove it would present a dishonest view and, as a photographer, I capture what I see, not what neighbours would like to see.
> 
> They can hire their own photographer for that.


Fair enough. As you say, you have a right to photograph what you want. Personally, as I said, I think I'd accede to a polite request to remove if I had no strong feelings on the issue, and didn't see the photo as vital in some way. Clearly you feel differently. It's not a criticism. These things have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.


5t3IIa said:


> I hesitate to get into this discussion but, as i say, I wouldn't like a pic of my house looking shit and easily indetifiable on the net as an example of what a shit house looks like in that manor.


Personally I think I'd be amused by it. Should your sense of deep personal shame be the ultimate arbiter in this?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> Personally I think I'd be amused by it. Should your sense of deep personal shame be the ultimate arbiter in this?



I might not be amused by it. Why should my gaff be, in effect, held up as an example of a shitty house in, by implication, a shitty manor?


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> How is it an invasion of privacy? It's a house. In a street. On a road. Everyone can see it.



I think if you take a picture from a public place (i.e. a sidewalk or park or whatever) then anything goes, so you're ok


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

5t3IIa said:


> No, not banning. But perhaps the attitude that you can do exactly what you want and fuck them if they object isn't the most reasonable.


I've had some random person - who doesn't even own the house - questioning my photography and my legal right to take a certain picture.

I have every right take the photograph and politely told them so.  I'm a documentary photographer, not an unpaid member of the Hebden Bridge Tourist Board (even if my photo collection is overwhelmingly positive about the town).


greedy banker said:


> I agree with you in this case, but if someone was visible through the broken glass window or something I think common courtesy would require you to remove it.


Apply that rule to everyone's photographs and there'd be a lot less great photos around.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Detroit City said:


> I think if you take a picture from a public place (i.e. a sidewalk or park or whatever) then anything goes, so you're ok


Covered in considerable depth here: http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html


----------



## Badgers (Nov 2, 2008)

I live in London and feel that my privacy has been invaded by the publishing of this photo


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 2, 2008)

Maybe they were a bit worried that someone might see the broken window and break in??

Possibly??


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> I've had some random person - who doesn't even own the house - questioning my photography and my legal right to take a certain picture.
> 
> I have every right take the photograph and politely told them so.  I'm a documentary photographer, not an unpaid member of the Hebden Bridge Tourist Board (even if my photo collection is overwhelmingly positive about the town).



Fair enough that it's legal and you have every right. And proably them asking if it's legal is a confused way of them saying their upset cuz, as I said I might not be amused by it. Why should gaffs near me be, in effect, held up as an example of a shitty house in, by implication, a shitty manor?


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Apply that rule to everyone's photographs and there'd be a lot less great photos around.



Yes. But you can consider each case on its merits, no? There doesn't have to be an absolute rule.


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

5t3IIa said:


> I might not be amused by it. Why should my gaff be, in effect, held up as an example of a shitty house in, by implication, a shitty manor?


Why not? Assuming that you own it and are looking to sell, it's unlikely that prospective buyers would ever see the photo. Are there other reasons why you might want it to vanish?


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 2, 2008)

Detroit City said:


> I think if you take a picture from a public place (i.e. a sidewalk or park or whatever) then anything goes, so you're ok



Yes that's right, though what the fark a 'sidewalk' is who knows?

However context is everything - the house is identifiable because its the one with the sign on. 

If my son accidentally kicked his football through a window, which I then got repaired the next day, but the picture appeared in some photojournal depicting the urban decay of, ahem, Herne Hill (Or on the cover of New Model Army's next album) - I'd let you know you were misrepresenting my crib dude.

Without having seen your work its hard to say - so what were you trying to get over by the pictures inclusion? - and don't say 'nothing its just a picture' or we'll all go apeshit.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

5t3IIa said:


> Fair enough that it's legal and you have every right. And proably them asking if it's legal is a confused way of them saying their upset cuz, as I said I might not be amused by it. Why should gaffs near me be, in effect, held up as an example of a shitty house in, by implication, a shitty manor?


But it's not even their house! I'll be fucked if I'm going to censor my photos just because some random neighbour thinks it's not doing a good enough PR job for their street.

If they're upset by the broken glass spoiling their view, they should be talking to the neighbour, not moaning to people who take pictures of it.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> Why not? Assuming that you own it and are looking to sell, it's unlikely that prospective buyers would ever see the photo. Are there other reasons why you might want it to vanish?



I might be ashamed and be upset that my house was being made an example of. 

But this is a neighbour we're talking about, not the owenr.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Mr Moose said:


> If my son accidentally kicked his football through a window, which I then got repaired the next day, but the picture appeared in some photojournal depicting the urban decay of, ahem, Herne Hill (Or on the cover of New Model Army's next album) - I'd let you know you were misrepresenting my crib dude.


Thing is, it's part of a fairly large photo study of the town, and as far as I'm concerned it's an integral part of how I saw the town.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> it's an integral part of how I saw the town.



Because?...

If its integral whazzit saying to you then?..


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

From the same street and nearby area:


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Mr Moose said:


> Because?...
> 
> If its integral whazzit saying to you then?..


Look at the series of photos and see if you can work it out.


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

5t3IIa said:


> I might be ashamed and be upset that my house was being made an example of.


But, as has been said, your sense of personal shame doesn't hold sway over the legal right to document what you want to, with due respect to privacy laws. It's an important right too - not one to be taken lightly.


> But this is a neighbour we're talking about, not the owenr.


I'd prefer it if we just assume that the owner complained. It'll make for a much bigger and better bunfight.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> I'd prefer it if we just assume that the owner complained. It'll make for a much bigger and better bunfight.


I'd offer to chip in 10p for a new window.


----------



## El Jefe (Nov 2, 2008)

i reckon the person complaining is the kid who kicked the ball through the window


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> But, as has been said, your sense of personal shame doesn't hold sway over the legal right to document what you want to, with due respect to privacy laws. It's an important right too - not one to be taken lightly.
> 
> I'd prefer it if we just assume that the owner complained. It'll make for a much bigger and better bunfight.




Possibly it _is_ the owner and he was too embarrassed to admit it!


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 2, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> i reckon the person complaining is the kid who kicked the ball through the window



probably, cause the damage is now documented


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

For the record, where I live has been shown on TV and photographed in the press several times, and always described in derogatory terms. Couldn't give a fuck.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> I'd prefer it if we just assume that the owner complained. It'll make for a much bigger and better bunfight.



This is why I am stepping out


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Look at the series of photos and see if you can work it out.


I'm getting 'run-down and ripe for redevelopment by an enterprising property tycoon'.

Am I in the right ballpark?


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Detroit City said:


> probably, cause the damage is now documented


Of course, because without that photo there's be no proof or evidence at all, would there?!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> For the record, where I live has been shown on TV and photographed in the press several times, and always described in derogatory terms. Couldn't give a fuck.



Not everyone is gritty and urban like you though, are they? Some people don't like pictures of their street looking shitty up for them arty Metroolitan snots on the internet to see and judge. They get upset and confused about why this should be allowed. I can se their point, as I am a reasonable person what can play devils advocate when I chose to.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

5t3IIa said:


> Not everyone is gritty and urban like you though, are they? Some people don't like pictures of their street looking shitty up for them arty Metroolitan snots on the internet to see and judge. They get upset and confused about why this should be allowed. I can se their point, as I am a reasonable person what can play devils advocate when I chose to.


Have you actually bothered to look at the rest of the photos in the series?


----------



## soulman (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Thing is, it's part of a fairly large photo study of the town, and as far as I'm concerned it's an integral part of how I saw the town.



I don't think there's anything wrong with the photo in the context of the others. Nice photo's by the way. I lived in Hebden for a while and they brought back some memories.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Have you actually bothered to look at the rest of the photos in the series?



No, why should I? I'm upset about the one on _my_ street and don't give a fig for your arty nonsense.


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> I'm getting 'run-down and ripe for redevelopment by an enterprising property tycoon'.
> 
> Am I in the right ballpark?


ok, maybe not. I've seen the rest of them now. Nice, and I can understand your objections. The broken window makes for a pleasing contrast to the serenity of most of the other shots.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

5t3IIa said:


> No, why should I? I'm upset about the one on _my_ street and don't give a fig for your arty nonsense.


I think you've got issues.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> I think you've got issues.



I'm playing devils advocate because I can imagine how someone might feel in the neighbours position. They felt strongly enough to email you and as I said 'Fuck you, I can do what I want' doesn't demonstrate much feeling for this particular fellow man, does it?


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> I think you've got issues.


She's the householder. Don't deny her her right to be upset.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 2, 2008)

it's a quite ridiculous request to make in the context of that set of photos, imo. the language is quite ott, '_disturbed_' ffs, its a picture of a broken window is all, next to a street sign. 

seeing as how they are asking why the photo was included, you could turn it around and ask them exactly what it is about the shot that disturbs them and what interest it is of theirs (as well as reminding them that neighbours has an apostrophe before the 's' - if they're this pedantic, it's worth throwing some back i reckon.)


----------



## isitme (Nov 2, 2008)

I think it was editor who broke the window


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

5t3IIa said:


> I'm playing devils advocate because I can imagine how someone might feel in the neighbours position. They felt strongly enough to email you and as I said 'Fuck you, I can do what I want' doesn't demonstrate much feeling for this particular fellow man, does it?


To be honest, I can't ever imagine ever getting worked up enough about one photo of my neighbours house in an overwhelmingly positive feature on my town.

She was the one barking the law at me. I politely told her the facts.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> it's a quite ridiculous request to make in the context of that set of photos, imo. the language is quite ott, '_disturbed_' ffs, its a picture of a broken window is all, next to a street sign.
> 
> seeing as how they are asking why the photo was included, you could turn it around and ask them exactly what it is about the shot that disturbs them and what interest it is of theirs (as well as reminding them that neighbours has an apostrophe before the 's' - if they're this pedantic, it's worth throwing some back i reckon.)


Here's my exact response:



> Hi
> 
> I'm a photographer. I take pictures of what I see.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Look at the series of photos and see if you can work it out.



No, I need you to do it!

For all I know it could just be that you hate people who litter the street with plants, with their embourgeiosing attitudes. Kuntz!!


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Mr Moose said:


> No, I need you to do it!
> 
> For all I know it could just be that you hate people who litter the street with plants, with their embourgeiosing attitudes. Kuntz!!


Tell you what: next time you buy a CD, I'll see if I can arrange for the band to pop around to your house and explain each track as it comes up.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Tell you what: next time you buy a CD, I'll see if I can arrange for the band to pop around to your house and explain each track as it comes up.



So you're an _artist_ now?


----------



## Madusa (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Tell you what: next time you buy a CD, I'll see if I can arrange for the band to pop around to your house and explain each track as it comes up.



That'll be awesome! 

*looks for the fittest band* 

/derail.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 2, 2008)

Is the idea?

..HB can look a bit grim, but it needn't

People think of grim when they think of HB, but that's not the whole story

A quick trip to the local garden centre could transform HB. Please stick £25 in the bucket

times is tough but the spirit of the place survives

er...

Why don't you say?...


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Mr Moose said:


> So you're an _artist_ now?


I am indeed. I were a beret and smoke Gauloises cigarettes. Love to chat, but I have to go out now and do some sketches on the Left Bank before retiring to my garret with a case of red wine.

*holds out upward pointing thumb at arms length and squints through one eye


----------



## scifisam (Nov 2, 2008)

If you were taking photos _only_ of the rundown places in Hebden Bridge, and putting them all together in a package to show how awful Hebden Bridge is, then there'd be grounds for complaint. Perhaps not legal grounds, but you could understand them getting narked. 

In the context of the whole set of photos, it's clearly just there to show that not every single part of Hebden Bridge is well-kept. It's so that you're not photographing through rose-tinted lenses, so to speak, as if you were working for the tourist board. 

Perhaps, if the person replies, you could politely direct them to view the rest of the photos.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> I am indeed.* I were a beret* and smoke Gauloises cigarettes. Love to chat, but I have to go out now and do some sketches on the Left Bank before retiring to my garret with a case of red wine.
> 
> *holds out upward pointing thumb at arms length



What a coincidence, I was once a Panama hat! Your dialect seems to have been infected by the Northerners of Hebden, though.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Perhaps, if the person replies, you could politely direct them to view the rest of the photos.


But she must have seen all those to find the one she dislikes!


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

So is Hebden Bridge regarded as a poor area? Affluent? It looks like the latter on the whole from the photos.


----------



## El Jefe (Nov 2, 2008)

it's the Lewes of the north.

Or is Lewes the Hebden Bridge of the south, I can never  remember


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> So is Hebden Bridge regarded as a poor area? Affluent? It looks like the latter on the whole from the photos.


It's mentioned in the feature:



> After the decline of Hebden's corduroy and worsted industries in the 1960s, an influx of hippies managed to help the town to reinvent itself first as a cosmopolitan, alternative centre, with a lively arts community ("The Totnes of the North" as one website described it. Another described it as the "*St Ives* of the North").


..and..





> Hebden has also been described as the 'Sapphic capital of Britain' due to its high lesbian population:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> I am indeed. I were a beret and smoke Gauloises cigarettes. Love to chat, but I have to go out now and do some sketches on the Left Bank before retiring to my garret with a case of red wine.
> 
> *holds out upward pointing thumb at arms length and squints through one eye



Qu'est ce que tu fais? Les Maisons de Paris avecs les fenetres cassé?


----------



## sheothebudworths (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> Why not? Assuming that you own it and are looking to sell, it's unlikely that prospective buyers would ever see the photo. Are there other reasons why you might want it to vanish?



It's hit number four in a Google of 'B---n Street Hebden'....so actually pretty fucking likely that prospective buyers would see it!


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 2, 2008)

sheothebudworths said:


> It's hit number four in a Google of 'Br---n Street Hebden'....so actually pretty fucking likely that prospective buyers would see it!




O RLY?(sic)


----------



## scifisam (Nov 2, 2008)

sheothebudworths said:


> It's hit number four in a Google of 'B---n Street Hebden'....so actually pretty fucking likely that prospective buyers would see it!



So the person complaining might not have seen the other pictures yet.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

You'd have to be a real sensitive chump to be putting off buying a house because someone once posted up a picture of a single broken window in that street.

Either way, the broken window was there and that's the truth of the matter.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Nov 2, 2008)

scifisam said:


> So the person complaining might not have seen the other pictures yet.



No sorry - not in Google images - it's the link to the whole set of photos on a general google search.


Yes ed, I agree, but I can well imagine someone living on the street worrying about the impact it might have on a proposed sale, or on their house value, iykwim.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> You'd have to be a real sensitive chump to be putting off buying a house because someone once posted up a picture of a single broken window in that street.
> 
> Either way, the broken window was there and that's the truth of the matter.



Some people totally will be out off by something like that! Considering neighbours get the hump with each other for relatively minor stuff (not mowing the lawn often enough, leaving wheelie bins out for one minute past collection day etc etc) a broken window is quite major in comparison.

Maybe the bloke emailing you is trying to sell his house at the moment? Maybe he is just a moaning Victor Meldrew, I dunno, but the fact is he found those pictures!


----------



## Pie 1 (Nov 2, 2008)

5t3IIa said:


> I don't think I'd like a pic of my place looking shitty on the internet tbh. Isn't it like having a pic of a victim of a crime in a tabloid? Invasion of my privacy for no good reason.



Christ's sake, don't be fucking thick.

aside from all the reasons why the editor is 150% within his rights to photograph & publish an image like this in the context that he has done, who the fuck would know it's your house? probably about 5 people FFS.

The internet's downside is the wildly exagerated sense of self importance people get themselves from it. (as in busy body neighbour who complained)


----------



## Pie 1 (Nov 2, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Some people totally will be out off by something like that! Considering neighbours get the hump with each other for relatively minor stuff (not mowing the lawn often enough, leaving wheelie bins out for one minute past collection day etc etc) a broken window is quite major in comparison.
> 
> Maybe the bloke emailing you is trying to sell his house at the moment? Maybe he is just a moaning Victor Meldrew, I dunno, but the fact is he found those pictures!



Who gives a fuck!


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Some people totally will be out off by something like that! Considering neighbours get the hump with each other for relatively minor stuff (not mowing the lawn often enough, leaving wheelie bins out for one minute past collection day etc etc) a broken window is quite major in comparison.
> 
> Maybe the bloke emailing you is trying to sell his house at the moment? Maybe he is just a moaning Victor Meldrew, I dunno, but *the fact is he found those pictures!*


I've highlighted the indisputable part of your post. The rest is down to speculation and the vagaries of the individual.

A window in the flat above mine is broken.

Apart from idly wondering why it hasn't been fixed yet - the flat is occupied, but the window's been that way for about six months - I really couldn't give a toss.


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

Pie 1 said:


> Who gives a fuck!


The person who complained.

Who died and put you in charge?


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 2, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Maybe the bloke emailing you




it was a woman according to the Editor....




			
				Editor said:
			
		

> She was the one barking the law at me. I politely told her the facts.



he even said it *twice* to get the message across.


----------



## Pie 1 (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> The person who complained.



Tough. They need to get over it.

It's fortunately nothing to do with them if the picture is taken from a public right of way and displayed in this context. _Nothing_.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> A window in the flat above mine is broken.
> 
> Apart from idly wondering why it hasn't been fixed yet - the flat is occupied, but the window's been that way for about six months - I really couldn't give a toss.



who gives a fuck...


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

sheothebudworths said:


> Yes ed, I agree, but I can well imagine someone living on the street worrying about the impact it might have on a proposed sale, or on their house value, iykwim.


If they're that bothered, perhaps they should have just fixed the window in the first place? Either way, it's not my problem. I'm a photographer and I'll be buggered if people expect me to delete documentary images based on whether it makes their street look nice or not.

Besides, there's no house number on the image. There could be several houses with a street name attached for all I know. 


_angel_ said:


> Some people totally will be out off by something like that!


Oh well. Fuck 'em. If someone is 'put off' buying a house because one (unspecified) house in the street once had a broken window, it's not my problem. I photograph what I see - and that's probably more honest and revealing to someone thinking of moving into the area than some airbrushed sanitised version of the town.

In fact, prospective buyers should be _thanking me_ for offering them a free and unbiased preview of the place


----------



## scifisam (Nov 2, 2008)

Somehow, if someone's thinking of buying a place, I think they might just _visit_ the street in person. Then they'd see the broken window anyway. Also, there are other pics of that street (in Ed's set) which look much nicer.


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

Pie 1 said:


> Tough. They need to get over it.
> 
> It's fortunately nothing to do with them if the picture is taken from a public right of way and displayed in this context. _Nothing_.


We should still be considerate towards others though, shouldn't we? The human touch. If _you_ received a polite email from the owner, would you take the offending photo down?


boskysquelch said:


> who gives a fuck...


About the fact that I don't? Just me, I suppose.

Thought I'd share, nevertheless.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> Thought I'd share, nevertheless.



_nonetheless_...otherwise you wouldn't have bothered even sharing even even....butcha did... thanks. : el guff_smiley:


----------



## obanite (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> We should still be considerate towards others though, shouldn't we? The human touch. If _you_ received a polite email from the owner, would you take the offending photo down?
> 
> About the fact that I don't? Just me, I suppose.
> 
> Thought I'd share, nevertheless.



I wouldn't.

It's not even their house. What if they'd emailed about a broken window in a street on the other side of town? Should we still 'be considerate' towards them?

I generally do try to be considerate, but some people are just too sensitive and need to grow thicker skins.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> We should still be considerate towards others though, shouldn't we? The human touch. If _you_ received a polite email from the owner, would you take the offending photo down?


But it's only 'offensive' to the delicate eyes of this one neighbour who apparently doesn't like reality being portrayed on the web.

There's no way on earth am I going to start taking photos down on such ridiculous and trivial grounds.


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

obanite said:


> It's not even their house.


Let's assume for current purposes that it's your mum's. 


editor said:


> There's no way on earth am I going to start taking photos down on such ridiculous and trivial grounds.


You've already made your case. I have some sympathy with it. I'm interested in what everyone else thinks - or, rather, why they think it. 


boskysquelch said:


> _nonetheless_


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonetheless


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> Let's assume for current purposes that it's your mum's.


Your mum's.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Just got this email. Jeez.
> I replied saying that as a photographer I take pictures of what I see, not what is 'nice' and that I certainly don't need anyone's permission.
> 
> Have you ever had anything similar?


actually I can see why the person might be upset - if you type in the name of the street and location into google, your photo montage is on the front page (as is this thread now)

ah bugger, shoe's made that point.

might it be possible to just remove the name os the street from the text on the web page so the photo would still be in the montage, but it'd not appear so high up in any web search for the street name?

can't see how that would be affecting the artistic integrity of the piece at all, but should placate the person complaining.

slight problem that this thread's now up on the first page as well, but hey ho at least you'd made an effort to acomodate them.


----------



## Pie 1 (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> We should still be considerate towards others though, shouldn't we? The human touch.



Please tell me you're trolling




> If _you_ received a polite email from the owner, would you take the offending photo down?



In this context, not a chance in hell.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nonetheless






> nevertheless (not comparable)





http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nevertheless


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Pie 1 said:


> In this context, not a chance in hell.


Absolutely.

The notion of editing/censoring a picture on the grounds of a neighbour not liking the look of it or a (frankly bizarre) suggestion that it might somehow knock a few quid off the selling price of another house is patently ridiculous.

I only captured what _anyone_ walking by would see.

*edit: I've taken the actual street name out of this thread


----------



## scifisam (Nov 2, 2008)

LOL at your Mum. I mean, LOLZ @ ur mum!!!11!!



boskysquelch said:


> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nevertheless



They are completely interchangeable words. The entry for 'nonetheless' even has 'nevertheless' as part of its definition.


----------



## neonwilderness (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> I only captured what _anyone_ walking by would see.



Have you had any further contact from the person who complained?

I remember a while back I found a couple of photos of my girlfriend's house on Geograph.  At first she was quite outraged that someone had gone out of their way to take a photo of her house which is quite literally in the middle of no where.  Then after I pointed out that it was taken from a public right of way and explained how Geograph worked she calmed down a bit


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Your mum's.


Well, that would personalise the issue for me. I was just extending a similar courtesy to obanite. And let's not pretend that, for the owner, it's anything but personal.


Pie 1 said:


> Please tell me you're trolling


Openly. Can we call it 'drawing out people's thoughts on the matter' instead? 


> In this context, not a chance in hell.


I'm listening. 


boskysquelch said:


> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nevertheless


You should have extended the quote.


> *Synonyms*
> 
> nonetheless


Stick to computers, bosky. Leave all the 'command of basic English' stuff to me.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 2, 2008)

scifisam said:


> Somehow, if someone's thinking of buying a place, I think they might just _visit_ the street in person. Then they'd see the broken window anyway. Also, there are other pics of that street (in Ed's set) which look much nicer.



Bloody hell, wouldn't you even do that if you were just thinking of renting? I walked all over this estate before coming here asking everyone I came across what the area was like.

But council dwellers don't tend to get to be too picky compared to houseowners!!


----------



## scifisam (Nov 2, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Bloody hell, wouldn't you even do that if you were just thinking of renting? I walked all over this estate before coming here asking everyone I came across what the area was like.
> 
> But council dwellers don't tend to get to be too picky compared to houseowners!!



Yup, I would, and I did. 

When it comes to buying a place, I doubt many people would really be put off by one pic of a broken window, when it could have any cause and just be temporary.


----------



## Herbsman. (Nov 2, 2008)

I really can't believe it.


----------



## Louloubelle (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> To be honest, I can't ever imagine ever getting worked up enough about one photo of my neighbours house in an overwhelmingly positive feature on my town.
> 
> She was the one barking the law at me. I politely told her the facts.



I can understand how it would upset someone even if you can't. 

Granted, the tone of her email was way off, but even so your reply might be factually correct but it's pretty curt IMO.

You can't imagine why she might be upset but that might just be a limit to your empathic abilities.  Other people can understand it, so the issue is, IMO, just because you can do it legally, should you dismiss the distress you cause to others by your actions?

She's legally entitled to take a photo of you looking hideous at 4am as you nip out down the road for a kebab in your slippers, or slyly picking your nose on the bus if she wants to and she can upload it for zillions of people to see and she can even make it so that when you google your name it's one of the first things that people see.  

Then when you email her to complain she can send you an equally curt email pointing out her legal rights as a photographer.

I suppose I'm just thinking that just because people are legally entitled to do something does not mean that those things are the right things to or that the feelings of others should be disregarded,  well IMO anyway.



editor said:


> The notion of editing/censoring a picture on the grounds of a neighbour not liking the look of it or a (frankly bizarre) suggestion that it might somehow knock a few quid off the selling price of another house is patently ridiculous.



Ridiculous?  Really?  Maybe, maybe not.  We're in a recession and many people are in negative equity and really struggling to sell their homes or risk facing eviction and homelessness.  If you photo is one the first page of a google search then of course it might adversely affect the prices of houses in that street. 

Even if it doesn't affect it but only causes more sleepless nights for some poor sod who's lost their job or cant pay the mortgage and who thinks it might affect any slim chance they have of selling their home then keeping it on line just seems to me to be a really selfish thing to do.  It's not even a great photo.

I wonder if the accusing tone of her initial email has got you to dig your heels in, whereas a more polite email might have been more accommodating?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 2, 2008)

If I'd gotten a snotty email like that there is no way I'd be taking down the picture. However, even if I'd gotten a polite email asking me to take it down, I probably still wouldn't either, unless there was some actual reason given.


----------



## Herbsman. (Nov 2, 2008)

Louloubelle said:


> She's legally entitled to take a photo of you looking hideous at 4am as you nip out down the road for a kebab in your slippers, or slyly picking your nose on the bus if she wants to and she can upload it for zillions of people to see and she can even make it so that when you google your name it's one of the first things that people see.


What a great analogy. Spot on.


----------



## Herbsman. (Nov 2, 2008)

Perhaps people should stop being selfish and just stop making any sort of art or documentary in case someone loses money as a result. It's only fair.


----------



## Louloubelle (Nov 2, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> If I'd gotten a snotty email like that there is no way I'd be taking down the picture. However, even if I'd gotten a polite email asking me to take it down, I probably still wouldn't either, unless there was some actual reason given.



The thing is, when people are really, really stressed about financial problems, a very common situation these days and one linked in all probability to the email send to the ed, they don't always express themselves as nicely and politely as they do when they are sleeping well, happy and not stressed. 

I'd remove  the photo if I's uploaded it, but then I've already got an imaginary mental image of the sender and their situation in my mind.

There again maybe I'm just a big softie.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 2, 2008)

Herbsman. said:


> Perhaps people should just stop making any sort of art or documentary in case someone loses money as a result. It's only fair.



I did take some pictures earlier on today which involved a contrast between run-down streets and corporate buildings in the background. Clearly I am thus contributory to the credit crunch and should be ashamed of myself.


----------



## Louloubelle (Nov 2, 2008)

Herbsman. said:


> What a great analogy. Spot on.



it's not meant to be an analogy

Just stating what she can do if she wants to


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Louloubelle said:


> You can't imagine why she might be upset but that might just be a limit to your empathic abilities.  Other people can understand it, so the issue is, IMO, just because you can do it legally, should you dismiss the distress you cause to others by your actions?


It's not her house. And there is no house number visible. 

Seeing as it's part of a series of photographs showing the street (and the town) in a very positive light, I'm having real trouble seeing how anyone could possibly be 'distressed' or 'disturbed' by seeing a photo of something that was visible to all and sundry, day and night.


Louloubelle said:


> She's legally entitled to take a photo of you looking hideous at 4am as you nip out down the road for a kebab in your slippers, or slyly picking your nose on the bus if she wants to and she can upload it for zillions of people to see and she can even make it so that when you google your name it's one of the first things that people see.


It's the picture of part of a house, not a person. No one knows who lives there, if anyone. In fact, it could be one of several houses in the street.


Louloubelle said:


> I suppose I'm just thinking that just because people are legally entitled to do something does not mean that those things are the right things to or that the feelings of others should be disregarded, well IMO anyway.


 So you think it's wrong that photographers can take pictures of buildings from the street?


Louloubelle said:


> If you photo is one the first page of a google search then of course it might adversely affect the prices of houses in that street.


Utter rubbish.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 2, 2008)

I think you do have to be a little bit careful when taking photographs of someone's home - yep.

That the person who complained wasn't the resident (or, we are assuming the owner). However I think it's best approached with some caution if it's going to be made public.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 2, 2008)

Louloubelle said:


> The thing is, when people are really, really stressed about financial problems, a very common situation these days and one linked in all probability to the email send to the ed, they don't always express themselves as nicely and politely as they do when they are sleeping well, happy and not stressed.
> 
> I'd remove  the photo if I's uploaded it, but then I've already got an imaginary mental image of the sender and their situation in my mind.
> 
> There again maybe I'm just a big softie.



Well, I don't see any real indication that the person concerned has financial stress regarding property or anything like that, though I may have missed that part. I would think it very unlikely that it had anything to do with that. And even if it were, the publishing of a photo of a broken window in a street isn't going to materially affect sales prices anyway, regardless of how stressed they are about it.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Louloubelle said:


> The thing is, when people are really, really stressed about financial problems, a very common situation these days and one linked in all probability to the email send to the ed, they don't always express themselves as nicely and politely as they do when they are sleeping well, happy and not stressed.
> 
> I'd remove  the photo if I's uploaded it, but then I've already got an imaginary mental image of the sender and their situation in my mind.


Congratulations! Your post is fuelled by 100% fact-free supposition and wild speculation, all of which is designed to put the beastly, selfish photographer (that's me) in a bad light.

Imagine the cheek of it! I took a picture of a house and didn't knock on all the doors of the street to check everyone's financial situation and house-selling plans first! Outrageous!

I'll do my best to ensure that all future photographs showing houses in less than pristine condition are immediately rejected.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I think you do have to be a little bit careful when taking photographs of someone's home - yep.


Really? Please elaborate, dear expert.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 2, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I think you do have to be a little bit careful when taking photographs of someone's home - yep.
> 
> That the person who complained wasn't the resident (or, we are assuming the owner). However I think it's best approached with some caution if it's going to be made public.



I don't think in this instance there's any call to be careful at all. It's a photo of a broken window, with a street sign. Fine, if you went to the area I suppose you could track down exactly which house it was and say "ooh you had a broken window in 2008", but I don't see how that level of possible harm really requires any particular care taken over it.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Really? Please elaborate.



I was thinking purely in terms of good manners.


----------



## internetstalker (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Imagine the cheek of it! I took a picture of the house and didn't knock on all the doors of the street to check everyone's financial situation and house-selling plans first!





can't beleive you didn't do that first Ed

You should be truly ashamed of yourself!!


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I was thinking purely in terms of good manners.


So it's bad manners to document housing architecture, yes?

What about shop fronts? Or untidy landscapes? Maybe the gardener might lose his job if I take a picture of a rose bush looking a bit tatty.


----------



## Louloubelle (Nov 2, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well, I don't see any real indication that the person concerned has financial stress regarding property or anything like that, though I may have missed that part. I would think it very unlikely that it had anything to do with that. And even if it were, the publishing of a photo of a broken window in a street isn't going to materially affect sales prices anyway, regardless of how stressed they are about it.



I'm not saying it's 100% definitely the case but someone is very upset about the photo, obviously, and this is my admittedly speculative hypothesis as to why.  Of course the ed could ask the person who emailed him why she is so upset then we would know wouldn't we?


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Fucking hell. Look at how dirty the pavement is and there's chalk all over the wall. And that kid looks like he's begging.

Now, that's going to put the house price down. And the bastard photographer even published the street name too.

What a selfish wanker.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Louloubelle said:


> Of course the ed could ask the person who emailed him why she is so upset then we would know wouldn't we?


Hello? Try reading the thread.


----------



## Pie 1 (Nov 2, 2008)

Lou, I respect you & your posts normally, but you're way off on this one. Leave it.

Why _angel_ is wading in with more utter toss? oh, hang on....


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> So it's bad manners to document housing architecture, yes?
> 
> What about shop fronts? Or untidy landscapes? Maybe the gardener might lose his job if I take a picture of a rose bush looking a bit tatty.



People don't live there, do they?

Cos I'm in a council house anyone can do anything... they sent snoops around to photo my front garden without any warning!! I'm sure that's legal but it's not very nice (especially if I or anyone else for that matter had been in the picture). If it was going to be published somewhere, it would have been even nastier.

I'm not saying what you did was wrong, necessarily, but people may well have the right to be upset about it if it was their house, their street.

Quite possibly the person was over reacting, who knows? It might be prudent to leave out the street name in future, if it's going to be published without consent..


----------



## Louloubelle (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Seeing as it's part of a series of photographs showing the street (and the town) in a very positive light, I'm having real trouble seeing how anyone could possibly be 'distressed' or 'disturbed' by seeing a photo of something that was visible to all and sundry, day and night.


















why yes!  Now I look that are all really positive 



editor said:


> It's the picture of part of a house, not a person. No one knows who lives there, if anyone. In fact, it could be one of several houses in the street.



My point about someone taking a photograph of you was not to say that you are a house or equivalent to a house, just to point out that the argument that you can do what you want because you are legally entitled is an argument that others can use too, in a situation that you might not feel so great about. 

anyway, I'm not really that bothered, if it was a really great photo I could understand why the ed might feel reluctant to remove it but it's just an average photo, very far from one of his best so why get so stubborn about someone else's obvious distress? 

I'm not up for wasting more time on here tonight so I'll say adieu


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Louloubelle said:


> why yes!  Now I look that are all really positive


Oh dear. I expected better from you that to pull out the three negative pics from such a big collection.

 As well you know, the remainder of the photos are almost entirely positive.





Louloubelle said:


> anyway, I'm not really that bothered, if it was a really great photo I could understand why the ed might feel reluctant to remove it but it's just an average photo, very far from one of his best so why get so stubborn about someone else's obvious distress?


It's part of a series of photos that tells a story and no half-decent documentary photographer is going to start self-censoring images because some random person doesn't happen to like the way their neighbour's house looks.

I like the photo by the way, and it plays an important part of the collection. I don't really care what you think of it.


----------



## fubert (Nov 2, 2008)

The person who wrote the letter is a neighbour - doesn't even own or live in the house so the busybody can fuck right off.

It would be a bit like me contacting whoever takes the photos that go on the postcards of the town we live in and moaning at them over some crap.

Mail them back, offer to Photoshop the pic so the window isn't broken and see what reaction you get.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 2, 2008)

Or there's always the potential to allow them the opportunity of buying the entire set of pictures, at full rate obviously, if they wish to exercise some sort of editorial control.

There's an increasing tendency, I think, for people to assume they have some sort of right to have other people's pictures taken down when they're clearly not being used in any sort of offensive way, to invade privacy, or, you know, for anything _bad_. It's not like it's stalking, or some sort of data-gathering exercise, it's a picture of a broken window as part of a series about an area, one which has a broken window in it.

I may be a little bitter about this as I've had pictures frivolously DMCAed on Flickr, who took them down without even notifying me, but as far as I'm concerned if there's not actually a decent reason given at all, no way would I remove anything. "I don't like the way it makes my area look" isn't decent as far as I'm concerned. Your area _does_ look like that, hence the photographs.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> "I don't like the way it makes my area look" isn't decent as far as I'm concerned. Your area _does_ look like that, hence the photographs.


Absolutely. 

I have taken down a handful of pics in the past after being contacted by concerned parties offering a good reason, but this person can fuck right off.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 2, 2008)

scifisam said:


> They are completely interchangeable words. The entry for 'nonetheless' even has 'nevertheless' as part of its definition.



nevertheless it still makes Hi-ASL sound like an arse hole...but I guess he wants to go through his life thought as being one, nonetheless.

adds to derail

I knew Martin Parr when he lived in Hebden Bridge...he tried to get me the sack from a voluntary job I was doing at the time in Impressions, York...coz he caught me having a couple of conversations I had with Ansel Adams & Angus McBean while he was waiting for me to make him a coffee....which I had already told him to make himself three times already already already....before they rang ME! 

I clearly remember saying "Oh fuck off back to Hebden Bridge you fucking hippy..." before being dragged down to the darkroom by a kewl Japanese photographer I forget the name of....

/adds to derail


----------



## oryx (Nov 2, 2008)

Louloubelle said:


> even so your reply might be factually correct but it's pretty curt IMO.



It's pretty polite compared to what I'd have said.

I used to do bits of photography in a previous job and was astonished about how prissy, precious and uptight people are about photos being taken of themselves, their children and their surrounding area. 

The argument about house prices is a ludicrous one. Unless tampered with, a photo is a factual record. If a place has a broken window, it has a broken window, and if you're thinking of buying in the surrounding area you're going to find out sooner or later. 

There is nothing wrong with recording the truth and if all people thought like the writer of the email and some of the people on this thread, we would have been denied thousands, perhaps millions, of photographs of historical and artistic merit.


----------



## northeastoipunk (Nov 2, 2008)

i agree with you its your right to photograph what you want .im an amateur photographer i take photos of local countryside etc if i take a picture of some nice village scene do they have the right to ask me to remove it cos people live there ??hmm no , i took a lot of photos of people in the crowd at this years rebellion fest in blackpool cos i like to take people when they arent posing but i approached everyone i shot and asked them if it was ok showed them the shot id took and said id delete it if they objected not one person did object , i think taking photos of people without permission is different to bricks and mortar tho , ps i didnt ask permission from the copper i photographed after he pinched my can of cider off me outside the venue cheers porky


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

louloubelle said:
			
		

> I suppose I'm just thinking that just because people are legally entitled to do something does not mean that those things are the right things to or that the feelings of others should be disregarded, well IMO anyway.


And this is my concern really: that the legal provisions don't adequately express all the possible ethical considerations. I agree _in this case_ that the photo is aesthetically pleasing enough in context, and the potential harm sufficiently minimal, even to the householder, that its continued online presence can be justified, but I do wonder what the boundaries should be in cases like this. At what point should aesthetic or journalistic considerations yield to concerns for individual privacy?


fubert said:


> Mail them back, offer to Photoshop the pic so the window isn't broken and see what reaction you get.


What would be the difference between that and removing the photo - which he said he doesn't intend to do?


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

boskysquelch said:


> nevertheless it still makes Hi-ASL sound like an arse hole...but I guess he wants to go through his life thought as being one, nonetheless.


What does - you pulling me up on the use of a word wrongly, irrelevantly and repeatedly, even after I've helpfully pointed out your mistake?


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> And this is my concern really: that the legal provisions don't adequately express all the possible ethical considerations. I agree _in this case_ that the photo is aesthetically pleasing enough in context, and the potential harm sufficiently minimal, even to the householder, that its continued online presence can be justified, but I do wonder what the boundaries should be in cases like this.


Could you give me some examples of the 'potential harm' rendered to a householder from a photographer legally taking photos from a public right of way, please?

What 'legal provisions' would you like to see introduced?


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 2, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> What does - you pulling me up on the use of a word wrongly, irrelevantly and repeatedly, even after I've helpfully pointed out your mistake?



jus playing *your* game...wazzock.

have some more >>>> you are right, nevertheless it sounds stupid.

Nonetheless, if you insist on taking the piss what do you expect?


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Could you give me some examples of the 'potential harm' rendered to a householder from a photographer legally taking photos from a public right of way, please?












e2a:::and http://www.stockportexpress.co.uk/news/s/1021291_neighbours_slam_bbc__for_horror_house_celebrity


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2008)

That's all about a *TV show*, _moran._


----------



## Jonti (Nov 2, 2008)

sheothebudworths said:


> No sorry - not in Google images - it's the link to the whole set of photos on a general google search.
> 
> 
> Yes ed, I agree, but I can well imagine someone living on the street worrying about the impact it might have on a proposed sale, or on their house value, iykwim.


Of course it's your right, and theirs, to imagine what you like, and feel a way about things.

And it's everyone else's right not to give a toss.


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> Could you give me some examples of the 'potential harm' rendered to a householder from a photographer legally taking photos from a public right of way, please?


Two-timing partner caught on camera? Erm... struggling for other concrete examples, to be honest. No matter. It's the general sense of invasiveness -  which I know _I'd_ feel if people were taking photos of me and mine without permission - that I'm not comfortable with. And where that sense of personal discomfort exists there's an ethical issue that clearly _isn't_ addressed by the legal provisions (otherwise I'd be fine with it), and to which a response of 'oh well - tough shit' doesn't seem to be a very cogent counter-argument.

I should say at this point that I think you have _far_ more right to display the photo than some random neighbour of the house you photographed has to request it's removal, so my problem isn't with that issue in particular, but with the wider considerations.

Suppose you were walking down the road, camera at the ready, and you came across a gang of men armed with crowbars smashing up a car. Where would your documentary instincts lead you in a situation like that? It would, after all, make a _great_ photo. Would you follow your photographer's instincts or would you respect their wish for a little privacy? It seems to me that there's a certain arrogance and duplicity in all this talk of documentary primacy that ultimately comes down to what you think you can get away with (newspaper editors have to address the same concerns). Maybe that's just natural and human but it doesn't necessarily make it ethically right.


> What 'legal provisions' would you like to see introduced?


I'm not a lawyer, nor a moral philosopher, _nor_ someone arrogant enough to pretend he has all the answers (novel, I know).

I just see some ethical tensions that I think raise a few questions. I certainly _don't _think it's a clear-cut, black and white issue. To be honest, I'm more interested in clarifying what _I_ think about it all than in anything else (I wish I had other people's moral certainty but, sadly, usually find myself plagued by more questions than answers. ).


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 2, 2008)

editor said:


> That's all about a *TV show*, _moran._



same principle...dickwud.

Public highway blahblahblah

http://tinythingsihate.blogspot.com/2007/11/0058-people-who-live-next-door-to.html


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 3, 2008)

boskysquelch said:


> jus playing *your* game...wazzock.
> 
> have some more >>>> you are right, nevertheless it sounds stupid.
> 
> Nonetheless, if you insist on taking the piss what do you expect?


I'm not, bosky. Friends?


----------



## Dhimmi (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> From the same street and nearby area:



My mother regularly travels to Wales and is shocked and offended by such a blatant copyright abuse in using a photograph featuring daffodils without requesting the permission of either the daffodils, the Welsh nor Alan Titchmarsh.

If there's one thing I've learned from the 76 complaints I made about that dreadful radio show I've never listened to it's that my banal arse-holing should be respected and responded to, especially with a large cheque to cover the pain and suffering I've endured as a result of your blatant disregard for the human rights of flowers. 

And another thing...


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> That's all about a *TV show*, _moran._


It raises similar questions though, albeit on an entirely different scale.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 3, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> I just see some ethical tensions that I think raise a few questions. I certainly _don't _think it's a clear-cut, black and white issue. To be honest, I'm more interested in clarifying what _I_ think about it all than in anything else (I wish I had other people's moral certainty but, sadly, usually find myself plagued by more questions than answers. ).


No you're not, you're on a wind-up imo. Anyhow, i think motions to desist are rubbish but I'm not bothered to tell you why.

Moral certainty arises from the knowledge that you're correct, not the belief, so maybe we need more of the former perhaps?


----------



## Dhimmi (Nov 3, 2008)

...I don't like the sinister association made by the publishing of this picture on your so-called forum. It wrongfully suggest some form of association between our wonderful boys in blue and a serial killer, where no association exists in fact.

Fred West never met nor knew any policemen, and no policeman ever actually stood either outside his house nor went in side ever, that's a fact. I think it's high-time we had another law from our great government to prevent this sort of charade being publically paraded for cheap entertainment, unless it's on the pages of the sole bastion of truth the Daily Mail. 



boskysquelch said:


>


----------



## soulman (Nov 3, 2008)

Thinking about it I'm just happy to have seen that photo montage of Hebden and the surrounding area. Lots of nice memories.


----------



## soulman (Nov 3, 2008)

That email is probably some fucking letting agent moaning because they can't rent the floor with the broken window.


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 3, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> No you're not, you're on a wind-up imo.


No, I think I made several contributions early on that were maybe a bit tongue-in-cheek, but which were nevertheless aimed at opening up the debate a bit and maybe hinting that it isn't an entirely black and white issue but, believe me, I wouldn't have typed everything I just did unless I was expressing genuine concerns as well as I could.


> Anyhow, i think motions to desist are rubbish but I'm not bothered to tell you why.


I've said several times that I don't have any real problem with this particular photo (except maybe some niggling concerns that tie into everything I've just said).


> Moral certainty arises from the knowledge that you're correct, not the belief, so maybe we need more of the former perhaps?


It would be nice, yes - but how can we _know_ we're right in matters of morality?


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> Could you give me some examples of the 'potential harm' rendered to a householder from a photographer legally taking photos from a public right of way, please?



Witness protection programme or someone hiding from their abusive former partner. Fourteen year old girl flashing tits.

Or maybe this guy.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 3, 2008)

greedy banker said:


> Witness protection programme or someone hiding from their abusive former partner. Fourteen year old girl flashing tits.
> 
> Or maybe this guy.



That's people, though, not buildings.


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 3, 2008)

scifisam said:


> That's people, though, not buildings.



Yup, but they might have been visible in the building.

I don't think any reasonable person can have a problem with this image unless there's something we're not being told. The only point is that it's not an absolute principle and it's best to evaluate each instance on a case by case basis.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> Two-timing partner caught on camera? Erm... struggling for other concrete examples, to be honest. No matter. It's the general sense of invasiveness -  which I know _I'd_ feel if people were taking photos of me and mine without permission - that I'm not comfortable with.


Um, the question was about taking pictures of _*buildings,*_ not about exposing two timing lovers (unless they're shagging on the rooftops or performing oral sex clinging to the wall), rampaging hordes with crowbars smashing up cars or any of the other off topic nonsense.

But to make one thing clear: I don't need your _permission_ to take your photograph in a public space.





boskysquelch said:


> same principle...dickwud.


No, it's not. I'm not going around photographing the buildings used by serial killers. Your argument is ludicrous.





greedy banker said:


> Yup, but they might have been visible in the building


Any chance of a remotely intelligent and relevant argument from you here?


----------



## Detroit City (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> But to make one thing clear: I don't need your _permission_ to take your photograph in a public space.



you don't need anyones permission.

thats how the paparazzi get away with it, otherwise they'd all be in jail and we would all be getting professional photo equipment for almost nothing.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2008)

greedy banker said:


> The only point is that it's not an absolute principle and it's best to evaluate each instance on a case by case basis.


Yes it is. If I'm in a public place I am free to take pictures of what I want*. And that's a valuable right worth fighting for.

(*subject to other laws)


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> Um, the question was about taking pictures of _*buildings,*_ not about exposing two timing lovers (unless they're shagging on the rooftops or performing oral sex clinging to the wall), rampaging hordes with crowbars smashing up cars or any of the other off topic nonsense.


You're Welsh aren't you, ed?

How's your grasp of English?

Kidding. No offence.

I don't have a (huge) problem with your picture. It's a nice picture. I like it.

It's especially nice, and I especially like it, and it makes by far the most aesthetic sense, in context with all it's siblings, which are also nice and which I also like.

My concern, really, is with the 'off-topic nonsense' that stems from this issue of taking pictures of stuff, or videoing stuff, without the subject's permission.

Sorry for briefly hijacking your thread.

(You were right to tell her to mind her own business.)


> But to make one thing clear: I don't need your _permission_ to take your photograph in a public space.


Then you are fully legally protected to take any picture that the law permits.

On that we can agree 100%.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 3, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> You're Welsh aren't you, ed?
> 
> How's your grasp of English?
> 
> ...




This is just a single aside, but when I see your moniker, it looks to me like 'Hi, Asshole', said quickly, with a bit of a slur.

As you were...


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 3, 2008)

Yeah, I know, I *HATE* it. But editor won't let me change it. 

I concede that I haven't actually asked.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 3, 2008)

I believe in 'freedom of picture', sort of like freedom of speech, absent a reasonable expectation of privacy. As in, it's reasonable to expect people not to take pictures through your window, but the outside of your house, available visually to any passerby, is totally fair game.


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> Yes it is. If I'm in a public place I am free to take pictures of what I want*. And that's a valuable right worth fighting for.
> 
> (*subject to other laws)



I think we agree with each other you know. So long as "fighting for it" doesn't mean exercising it without due consideration to others' feelings.

Some ninny complaining about house prices should be ignored, my one and only request is that you don't blindly fight everyone that requests a picture be taken down without evaluating their claim


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> Yes it is. If I'm in a public place I am free to take pictures of what I want*. And that's a valuable right worth fighting for.
> 
> (*subject to other laws)



Seconded.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> You're Welsh aren't you, ed?
> 
> How's your grasp of English?
> 
> Kidding. No offence.


Good to see you're firmly back on topic again.  

If you want to discuss privacy, paparazzi, street photography and similar concerns, it might be an idea to start a new thread about it. Except there's already  a long and detailed thread on that very topic here: 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=247084


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2008)

greedy banker said:


> I think we agree with each other you know. So long as "fighting for it" doesn't mean exercising it without due consideration to others' feelings.


What 'feelings' should I be looking out for when I'm photographing buildings?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 3, 2008)

I thought one of the best things ever, was the guy with the megaphone, reaming out the security guards who tried to stop him from taking photos in the town high street.


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> What 'feelings' should I be looking out for when I'm photographing buildings?



Honestly I don't know. But life is strange


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> Good to see you're firmly back on topic again.
> 
> If you want to discuss privacy, paparazzi, street photography and similar concerns, it might be an idea to start a new thread about it. Except there's already  a long and detailed thread on that very topic here:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=247084


I love the way you keep quoting the least relevant, most offhand parts of my posts above your responses. It's hilarious.

Thankyou, Number 1, I shall give it a read.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> I love the way you keep quoting the least relevant, most offhand parts of my posts above your responses. It's hilarious..


You clearly thought it was 'hilarious' to start banging on about my Welsh nationality and continuing to fill this thread up with your off topic rambles.

Like video filming. And taking pictures of people. And men with crowbars smashing up cars. And TV shows. And two timing lovers. And all the other irrelevant stuff you keep dredging up which has nothing to do with _taking pictures of buildings._


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2008)

greedy banker said:


> Honestly I don't know. But life is strange


What is the point of you contributing to this this thread?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 3, 2008)

There are a couple of signs of the slide into totalitarianism. Restriction on speech is one, restriction on the right to record visual images is another, basically because one is a species of the other.


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> There are a couple of signs of the slide into totalitarianism. Restriction on speech is one, restriction on the right to record visual images is another, basically because one is a species of the other.


Indeed. That's why I spent so long compiling that piece on Photographers' Rights. People need to know that they _can_ take that picture, even if some jobsworth (or neighbour) doesn't like the fact.


----------



## Hi-ASL (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> You clearly thought it was 'hilarious' to start banging on about my Welsh nationality and continuing to fill this thread up with your off topic rambles.
> 
> Like video filming. And taking pictures of people. And men with crowbars smashing up cars. And TV shows. And two timing lovers. And all the other irrelevant stuff you keep dredging up which has nothing to do with _taking pictures of buildings._


Oh for fuck's sake. Just when I think I can escape I get portrayed in my near-absence as some rambling, xenophobic lunatic!

It was the _gentlest_ of jibes. Are you really so sensitive? I'd like to think not.

_I'm sorry if you were offended._ ok?

As for the rest, I've said all along that I don't have a problem with the bastard photo!

I don't have a problem with the bastard photo!!!

Does that mean that, on a discussion site, I can't raise questions about related issues _in the interests of discussion_ without you or someone else getting all arsey about it, or portraying me as some kind of dribbling moron!??

I don't even want to hear the reply, I am done!

I like your bloody photos. Can I go now!???

[Gone.]


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2008)

Hi-ASL said:


> Oh for fuck's sake. Just when I think I can escape I get portrayed in my near-absence as some rambling, xenophobic lunatic!


"..in my near absence". What a delightful piece of invented drama and pathos. LOL.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Nov 3, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Of course it's your right, and theirs, to imagine what you like, and feel a way about things.
> 
> And it's everyone else's right not to give a toss.





I don't know what's given you the impression that _I_ give a flying fuck either - I never said I did (cos I don't)! 

I was just saying that I can imagine it worrying someone who WAS in the process of selling a house on that street or whatever. 

Some people _do_ worry about that sort of thing, apparently.

I wouldn't know myself, not currently being a home owner and not intending to be one at a later date either.

Agree with your general point though (its much the same as my own original point, after all  ).


----------



## editor (Nov 3, 2008)

sheothebudworths said:


> I was just saying that I can imagine it worrying someone who WAS in the process of selling a house on that street or whatever.


If that was the case - and there's absolutely _nothing_ to support that supposition - then the seller can hardly complain about the truth being represented, and I'm sure the buyer would appreciate an honest representation of the street.

Not that I think the photo would have the slightest, remotest influence on anyone's decision to buy a house there or not. That decision would be made when they've visited the property, not by looking at an 8 month old photo of a single broken window. And if they were that  fascinated by looking up the area on the web, they'd see all my other, more positive photos.


----------



## Badgers (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> then the seller can hardly complain about the truth being represented, and I'm sure the buyer would appreciate an honest representation of the street.



If the seller wants truth then an estate agent will be close at hand


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 3, 2008)

It's a valid point: why is the seller's desire to hide the truth, more important than a buyer's desire to know the truth?


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> What is the point of you contributing to this this thread?



To clarify and probe your position.


----------



## untethered (Nov 3, 2008)

editor said:


> Not that I think the photo would have the slightest, remotest influence on anyone's decision to buy a house there or not. That decision would be made when they've visited the property, not by looking at an 8 month old photo of a single broken window. And if they were that  fascinated by looking up the area on the web, they'd see all my other, more positive photos.



More's the point, you could produce an entirely biased and negative documentary of the area and be well within your rights. Ethics should restrain you from doing so but the law certainly doesn't. It's just the flip side of PR, which paints everything in the most conceivably positive light.


----------



## untethered (Nov 3, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It's a valid point: why is the seller's desire to hide the truth, more important than a buyer's desire to know the truth?



Given there's no objective measure of the truth in a case like this and buildings can't be libelled, I fail to see the problem.


----------

