- This topic is empty.
Irish Times Article on Photographers Rights.
-
Not sure if anyone else has posted this. Apologies if they have.
Just wonder what people think of this.
I think it is a bit sad the way things are going to be honest.Martin
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/0930/1224255501823.htmlYeah, too right…photographing in a public place…I mean, who do the public think they are.
And I hope the IFSC sued Google for their maps.
Like Alan Murphy of irishphotographers.ie it does become depressing. Thanks for the link Martin.
Alan
Mick451 wrote:
Maybe have it as a location for the next PI get together.
Maybe a joint get together with t’other forums.After all, how many jobsworths on segweys do they have?
A target area for the lo-fi day perhaps??
For God’s sake…is there no-one willing to ‘THINK OF THE CHILDREN’!
:cry:
Seoirse wrote:
For God’s sake…is there no-one willing to ‘THINK OF THE CHILDREN’!
:cry:
What do you mean Seoirse?
Seoirse wrote:
For God’s sake…is there no-one willing to ‘THINK OF THE CHILDREN’!
:cry:
I’m biting my tongue until I work out what this means as well.
shutterbug wrote:
Seoirse wrote:
For God’s sake…is there no-one willing to ‘THINK OF THE CHILDREN’!
:cry:
What do you mean Seoirse?
Taken from our friendly Wiki definitions:
The phrase “for the children”, or “think of the children,” is an often-used rhetorical phrase. As people generally value the welfare of the next generation of a society, it has been perceived as an argument to cast a position in a starkly positive or negative light, depending on whether the policy is perceived as beneficial or harmful to children. Traditionally the argument was seen in debates over matters such as education, culture, and crime, as children are impressionable and youth crime is thought to be particularly harmful, but more recently the rhetoric has been applied to many varied political agendas, sometimes with little or no relevance.
I used the phrase above to describe the increasing sense of near hysteria which pervades these islands now when anyone tries to do anything they haven’t been given official permission to do.
And so you’ve got damned photographers going around the place taking ‘unauthorised’ images of perfectly ordinary people doing perfectly ordinary things in perfectly ordinary places and the jobsworths arrive defending their shopping malls and their office precincts from the great evil that is the snapper.
It is the same rhetoric and hysteria which, when perpetuated by enough people, seems to become almost acceptable as fact.
You know… All men are potential rapists….all priests are paedophiles….all photographers are terrorists.
So, before we are set loose in the IFSC…which I thought was a public area the same as Smithfield or any other such place…will someone PLEASE, PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
:roll:
irishwonkafan wrote:
Mick451 wrote:
Maybe have it as a location for the next PI get together.
Maybe a joint get together with t’other forums.After all, how many jobsworths on segweys do they have?
A target area for the lo-fi day perhaps??
I can just see the headlines: “suspected terrorists detained after photographing the IFSC with toy cameras” :lol:
I wonder what the rights of artists are? If I decided to draw a picture of the area, would I also be moved on and told my pad & pencil will be confiscated? I think all of this hysteria is BVLLSH1t to be honest. Are they asking me for my permission everytime I am photographed in a public place or shopping mall, bank, shop etc.? CCTV is a form of photography which is used in all of these areas and I think if photography is to be banned or restricted, then the public has the right to refuse to be watched on CCTV, which would be far more damaging to the security in these places. Also almost all phones have cameras installed these days, Will we not be allowed to use our phones in public. I think it’s time people woke up and copped on, you don’t need a camera to be a terrorist or pervert. :evil: :evil:
Seoirse wrote:
shutterbug wrote:
Seoirse wrote:
For God’s sake…is there no-one willing to ‘THINK OF THE CHILDREN’!
:cry:
What do you mean Seoirse?
Taken from our friendly Wiki definitions:
The phrase “for the children”, or “think of the children,” is an often-used rhetorical phrase. As people generally value the welfare of the next generation of a society, it has been perceived as an argument to cast a position in a starkly positive or negative light, depending on whether the policy is perceived as beneficial or harmful to children. Traditionally the argument was seen in debates over matters such as education, culture, and crime, as children are impressionable and youth crime is thought to be particularly harmful, but more recently the rhetoric has been applied to many varied political agendas, sometimes with little or no relevance.
I used the phrase above to describe the increasing sense of near hysteria which pervades these islands now when anyone tries to do anything they haven’t been given official permission to do.
And so you’ve got damned photographers going around the place taking ‘unauthorised’ images of perfectly ordinary people doing perfectly ordinary things in perfectly ordinary places and the jobsworths arrive defending their shopping malls and their office precincts from the great evil that is the snapper.
It is the same rhetoric and hysteria which, when perpetuated by enough people, seems to become almost acceptable as fact.
You know… All men are potential rapists….all priests are paedophiles….all photographers are terrorists.
So, before we are set loose in the IFSC…which I thought was a public area the same as Smithfield or any other such place…will someone PLEASE, PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
:roll:
Oh :lol:
Right well IFSC is private property open to the public so isn’t it theirs to say what’s ok and not ok? If you cross the road and shoot from by the liffey then you can tell them to peeoff.
As for the LUAS, hmmm?… Don’t the public own it? Ambiguas. Anyway as above, stay off the lines and do what you want.
Irish Rail are endearing and down to earth as always. Fair play to them.
What I find dopey about the whole thing is that on more than one occasion I’ve been asked by the police for the pictures to assist in trying to identify who was were and with whom. Including a recent high profile murder case. So if I wasn’t there taking pics then there’d be no evidence.
Soooo… I say, be nice to the Guards coz I know they want us to be nice to them, even when they have to ask you to leave against your will perhaps in a situation like the IFSC. What I’m saying is, if a Guard asks you to move and you don’t like it, do it anyway and don’t grumble, even apologise for giving him work, he might have no choice by law but to make you do it. However I think photogs staying on good terms with them is the greater way to go. The more good vibes the Guards get from us then the more they’ll align themselves with us. And hopefully overtime all this photog=terrorist bush sh1te will fade away.
I think a problem that could occur is the law states a person can use ”reasonable force”to remove you from their property
So what are you supposed to do if a security guard is heavy handed while escorting you from the area using ”reasonable force”
If this should happen to me I know where my tripod is going………….miki g wrote:
If he touches you, you take up an assault case. Simple as that.
This would be my interpretation but …. how can reasonable force be used without touching someone?
This stuff drives me nuts as well. But, as someone said above, since the IFSC is private property (something I never knew), they have every right to restrict photography in the area. The weird thing is, I would never have thought of it as being private, my natural assumption is that any open air street or area that does not have gates or other obvious indications that it is a private area, is a public area. What exactly is the extent of the IFSC? I kind of think of it as those green buildings opposite Busaras but how far does it actually go?
Similarly there is a reference to the Dublin Docklands Authority, who to be fair seem to be more lenient in this regard than the management of the IFSC. Is there a whole swathe of the docklands area that is now private property owned by the DDA?
I’m really surprised at the LUAS thing. I can understand them not wanting people taking pictures on the Luas but the objection to taking pictures of the Luas seems bizarre.
To finish off, I had an experience of my own of this type of thing a few weeks ago. I was taking a picture of a window display outside River Island on Henry Street and this woman came out of the shop and told me that this was not allowed. I took the shot anyway and then tried to explain to her that it’s a public street etc etc. Really didn’t get anywhere and she just kept repeating that I was not allowed to take pictures of the window display. I gave up and told her I was finished anyway, at which point she walked off and I took another shot or two just to annoy her before leaving.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
