Security taking pictures :(

Borderfox

Hi, I was wondering what sort of precautions people take when they are taking pictures out and about. I have started thinking of this subject after getting a Canon EOS 350d I mean its a lot of dosh to be hanging around your neck especially with all "the magpies" around these days. Do you have any tips garnered over you experiences taking pictures that you can share to keep safe?

Thanks
Keith

BrookieD

Borderfox wrote:

Hi, I was wondering what sort of precautions people take when they are taking pictures out and about. I have started thinking of this subject after getting a Canon EOS 350d I mean its a lot of dosh to be hanging around your neck especially with all "the magpies" around these days. Do you have any tips garnered over you experiences taking pictures that you can share to keep safe?

Thanks
Keith

I was out in dublin yesterday with a Nikon D70, The only thing i did was to wrap the strap around my wrist and keep it low and close to my body when not at eye level.

Though if i were challenged i wreckon i would hand it over rather than suffer a kicking or worse:rolleyes:

captain P

I've a 350d too and i dont go out alone with it mostly!! too scared!!
And then i do not let it out of my hand or off my neck!
If you're carrying it in a bag, put the opening inwards... i dunno what would help with rucksacks.
Turns out most house insurance covers stuff like that. Even out of the house.

randombassist

I've never had a problem with anything like that using my 350D all over the place (thank god!). As long as you're shooting in daylight there really shouldn't be a problem any greater than the usual risk of being mugged.

Yv

My camera's about 25 years old & while it works great it doesn't look flashy, so I'm safe enough :P Though I do feel kinda at risk when I've all my stuff in the camera bag - even though it's not as expensive someone could assume there's loads of fancy stuff in there & nick it (I'd be pretty easy to overpower!), & I couldn't afford to replace any of it

Has anyone here actually had any of their equipment stolen like that, while it's with them (rather than in a burglary or something)?

peckerhead

Camera bag grabbed off my shoulder while wandering around the 'Spanish quarter' in Naples, years ago. Served me bloody right...

Around your neck is not a good place to put the strap! :eek: Better to wrap it twice around the wrist of the hand you'll use to put a dent in the head of any 'magpie'. If they're going to get your camera, you might as well at least embed half of it in their skull first...

Bravado aside, the sensible thing is to keep it out of sight (e.g. inside your jacket) as far as possible, and check over your shoulder before you take it out to line up a shot. If I'm carrying camera gear in a 'dodgy' place, I leave the LowePro bag at home and carry what I need wrapped up in a teeshirt inside a Tesco bag.

Oriel

For a start, get it insured. I generally would wrap the strap around my wrist a few times and keep it as close to my body as I can.

Two things to think about though:
Always be alert. Look around you and make sure that nobody is lurking around, more importantly, make sure more than one or two people aren't lurking around.

Secondly, if you think you'll be at risk, don't bring your camera. It's better to miss a great shot than to miss a great camera...

S.

leinsterman

I think the basic rule when walking around is discretion not paranoia .... in addition if a place looks dodgy then it probably is ...

I'd agree you are mad wearing it around your neck ... I wrap it around my wrist also. The nice thing about my 20d is it is heavy ... this makes it a very effective weapon if necessery !! ... but only if you are in danger and you need to buy some precious second to run away ... (and yes I have seen someone actually do this in Bolivia ... it worked great but then the guy attacking was small) ...

I do a lot of adventure travel to some very far flung and often dodgy places including the favellas in Rio (believe it or not if you do a guided tour you are safe(ish)... the gangs won't touch you since they organise the tour... the only problem you may have is getting caught in crossfire during a poilce raid) ... and so far no real problems ... touch wood.

My most recent trip was through Jordan and Egypt ... never felt safer ... probably safer in Amman or Cairo than Dublin.

Simon

rymus

Insure it. I recently got a quote of €280 from PJT in Dublin for €4k's worth of coverage. Seems to cover pretty much everything too from loss/theft to accidental damage.

halenger

rymus wrote:

Insure it. I recently got a quote of €280 from PJT in Dublin for €4k's worth of coverage. Seems to cover pretty much everything too from loss/theft to accidental damage.

I stumbled across this lately... http://www.niksecure.com/ It's insurance set up for the nikonians.org group but they'll cover any equipment and anyone as long as you join nikonians.org (though I think it says you've to be a Nikon user to join *shrugs*). The cheapest nikonians.org membership is $25 and the insurance is €150 for upto €5,000 of gear.

I haven't looked further into it yet though but from reading it quickly it seems quite good.

qwertz

A monopod can be used to stabilize the camera but also for other things

JackKelly

it's funny, i was thinking this the other day. Before i had a dslr, i never realised how expensive they could be. Anytime i see a photographer with decent equipment i wonder the same thing though. And if i'm with someone, and i point out how much money that person is wearing, they are always completely taken back at how expensive cameras are.
Was at the match the other day, and some of the cameramen had X2/X3 1d's with L lens hanging out of them. We're talking tens of thousands of euros dangling around your waist.Madness.Plus the lappy's they are using to upload everything.

Shrimp

Well, I was in the heart of the riots the other day, with the camera on display, but i had my wits about me. I've never had any trouble with it or anything.

I would however like to know, what rights do people have who are the subject of a photo. For example, If i took a photo of a street, and you could see peoples faces, then hat right do they have? Or can I just snap away.

qwertz

AFAIK in Ireland you can just snap away for your personal amusement as long as you don't snap anything illegal. Different rules´/laws apply when you snap for commercial purposes.

Shrimp

ah ok, so if it's not for sale then you can have the photo, as long as u dont make money?

qwertz

Well, I believe (which means I don't know, just a guess) the photographee (manking up new words today )can always walk up to the photographer and request/demand the photo to be deleted, really depends on the situation. Also, editorial use is permitted (newspapers, media...) but I don't know if there is a limit.

Thirdfox

Also I think the photo has to be general... i.e. not a close up of someone's face... just like shooting the news/films etc... they can't give a contract to every passerby to sign if they just happen to walk on the street where they're filming.

BendiBus

Thirdfox wrote:

Also I think the photo has to be general... i.e. not a close up of someone's face... just like shooting the news/films etc... they can't give a contract to every passerby to sign if they just happen to walk on the street where they're filming.

That's interesting. My only negative experience was when I tried to photograph a certain busker in the vicinity of Grafton St. He stopped playing(!) and said I couldn't photograph him as he hadn't given me permission. He then refused permission when I asked.

If I'd claimed I'd been photographing the old building behind him and he just happened to be in the way, I'd have been OK?

Borderfox

Thanks for all the tips very informative. Too true about the mono-pod.

Thanks again

whyulittle

If I'm not mistaken, once they are in public then you can photo whoever you want.

Thirdfox

Anyone you want I'm pretty sure isn't right... if they are famous then yes perhaps but for example if you take pictures of little girls (or boys) without anyone's permission are you saying that's alright on a moral (never mind a legal basis)?

Bendibus: depends... are you willing to lie in court if the busker sues you?

Interesting questions... maybe you should ask on the legal discussion forum (see link in my signature)

whyulittle

Thirdfox wrote:

Anyone you want I'm pretty sure isn't right... if they are famous then yes perhaps but for example if you take pictures of little girls (or boys) without anyone's permission are you saying that's alright on a moral (never mind a legal basis)?

Not talking about moral issues.

So how famous do they have to be before you can legally take their photo? And what if the little boy or girl were famous? Couldn't possibly make any legal difference between them.

The exception would be as qwertz mentioned doing it for commerical reasons/image rights.

Thirdfox

How famous?... Princess of Monaco and the rest of the royal family - yes (came up in a legal case btw), pop/movie stars - yes...

average joe bloggs down the street (or in the sample case - a busker?) no - it all depends on the jury... If I ask you to think of someone famous would you imagine a busker? Would 12 people in a room think that you're right to take the picture without permission? So the moral issues are important too.

But I'm not 100% of the law on this maybe I'm completely off the mark... - ask on the legal discussion forum if you want (there are people much wiser than myself there! )

qwertz

You should have asked him if he had a permission to play on Grafton Street

BendiBus wrote:

That's interesting. My only negative experience was when I tried to photograph a certain busker in the vicinity of Grafton St. He stopped playing(!) and said I couldn't photograph him as he hadn't given me permission. He then refused permission when I asked.

If I'd claimed I'd been photographing the old building behind him and he just happened to be in the way, I'd have been OK?

whyulittle

Thirdfox wrote:

But I'm not 100% of the law on this maybe I'm completely off the mark... - ask on the legal discussion forum if you want (there are people much wiser than myself there! )

Not telling you you're off the mark, but there is something in my mind from a case a few years ago, which if I remember right said along the lines of you can only refuse your photo being taken if you are on your property.

If I took a pic of you on O'Connell street and put it on the web, I'd be well within my rights. You couldn't stop me. Unless I put a caption under it calling you a rioter or something. I am open to correction, but I think I'm right.

EireRoadUser

I use a bag called a micro trekker for around town ,it goes over my shoulder so i look like a student or a book reader.
I have a Nova 5 bag for more serious photos that carries a lot and hangs by my side.
The less time people know you have a camera the more time you have your camera i wreckon

Thirdfox

Your right to do what though? What article of the Constitution or Convention of Human Rights allows you to take photos of specific people without permission?

From acting in movies etc. you have to sign a contract stating that you will allow the use of your image... perhaps you can distinguish it on the fact that you're not trying to profit from it? But putting up photos of random people does seem a bit strange if you get no gain from the exercise...

Call me a rioter then I can sue you for libel not only would I stop you, I'd get you to publish an apology and demand compensation (don't you just hate lawyers?)...

gs39t

I've never actually brought my 20D anywhere except a specific event; im not sure how id go about bringing it into town or the like, without needing an obvious camera bag, or hanging it around my neck! Unless,i bring a backpack or the like, which seems pointless if all i want to do is take the cam with me incase i see anything interesting. Too big to stuff in a pocket...

alb

erm, I seriosuly doubt there's any law that treats people that are famous differently from people that are not, it's not the kind of distinction you get in law. Besides isn't the reason that anyone can take photos in public the reason that paparazzi don't get sued all the time? afaik it;sonly when you start takin pics in windows or say over fences into private property that it becomes illegal. THere's a such thing as freedom of the press - and that counts for freelance peopel too.

Also: http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/08/rights.html
and http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php/2004/11/19/uk_photographers_rights_guide

GilesKS

There aren't really any restrictions on photographing in a public place, unless you are taking pictures of sensitive government property like military bases. Other than that, you can photograph who or what you want, whenever you want - permission isn't needed. Buskers and children included. You can photograph onto private property as well provided you don't intruded excessively. Photos through someone's window are fine if you could see in off the street, but not if you had to stand on a wheelie bin and use a 600mm telephoto to see into somewhere they could reasonably consider private i.e. that isn't ordinarily visible.

You can sell people's images for editorial use without permission, e.g. in newspapers, books etc., but not for advertising. Plus, you can't publish misleading or defamatory information. I think pictures that would cause undue embarassment aren't allowed either.

Thirdfox

The reason why "famous" people get treated differently is that you could raise a defence that you had a duty to report when you are getting sued in court for an invasion of privacy (Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. - Art. 8 Section 1 of the ECHR). Only when you have a duty to report can you justify infringing someone's rights.

The paparazzi only take pictures of "famous" people i.e. politicians, movie stars, even rioters in Dublin would fall under this category. But when you start talking about a busker at the side of the street who does not wish for you to take his picture then it is a completely different scenario.

Freedom of the press ensures that the democratic values of society are preserved. The press are supposed to be the bloodhounds of society. What we are talking about here is not freelance work (or else you would most certainly need to sign a contract to waiver your rights in respect of the image being used commercially) We are talking about private, artistic use of the image - no one can argue that you are preserving the institutions of democracy by taking such photos.

By the way, the first link you had deals exclusively with the rights of the press, something that I've distinguished from that of the private individual already. The second link is much more interesting, it deals with another jurisdiction (albeit most likely to be quite similar to our own) but in the article it mentions the grey area in regards the European Convention of Human Rights... the question ultimately comes down to: would you be willing to go to court over a picture? Costs can be enormous if you lose the case (especially if they do decide to appeal to the ECHR) - the whole thing may take 5-7 years to complete (depending on the number of appeals)... isn't it just less hassle to get someone's permission to take a photo before doing so?

Thirdfox

If anyone wants to look for the Statute that decides this one way or the other you can find the list here:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

but for me there's more important things to do right now... constitutional essay comes to mind! (and lunch/breakfast )

GilesKS

You don't have a right to privacy when you are in the street. If you want to be private, go home. If you're in a public place then other people have the right to photograph you.

Thirdfox

I'd disagree and sue you... who wants that hassle?

Kobie

You're free to photograph anyone or anything in public. They may not like it, but you can. They can only argue that you're invading their privacy if they have an expectation of privacy. Somebody walking down O'Connell street cannot claim to have an expectation of privacy.

If you want to use a persons image for commercial purposes though, that's another story.

halenger

You're probably better asking for permission or, as I read once, if they're doing something that you really want to capture. Then take the shot and ask them after wards - explain that you didn't want a pose or similar, you just wanted to capture it as they already were. If they want it deleted just delete it. Why bother with the hassle as thirdfox said?

I'd probably be weary of it myself. Just in general. I'd feel weird walking up to someone random and asking if I could take their photograph but hopefully after some time and experience that'll be drilled out of me.

dalk

To the OP. My view about taking my camera out, is simply, what is the point of having a camera if i am afraid to take it with me? So i hope for the best and take it wherever i feel like. I use common sense but it has survived rain, been attached to a conspicuous tourist abroad (me), been taken into waist deep sea water (in fairness i was sh1ttin falling into the sea with the camera) and going to mucky festivals... It has a few dents now but still works perfect.

Also, i am still shooting film and what self respecting thief would want to steal a film camera these days? I probably wouldnt be able to give it away

dalk

As regards the law discussion, I think a lot of people here are talking about US law (model releases and all that) and their more litigous society. My understanding of taking photos of people in Ireland is similar to the points made by the earlier submitted link to UK laws, in that there are few specific laws prohibiting photography and none pertaining to taking pictures of people in public places, but that existing laws could be used against you (harrassment, obstruction, trespassing etc). This is as long as the subject is in a public place and, as mentioned earlier, has no expectation of privacy (ie no taking photos in public toilet, shooting through their kitchen window from a public place etc).

There is also a subjective distinction between talking a photograph for 'personal' use, for solely 'artistic' purposes, to be hung in a gallery etc, for newspaper editorial work and taking a photo for and/or allowing it to be used in a Diet Coke advertisement etc. I dont think any solicitor in Ireland would recommend a client to sue in the first three cases and reasonably expect any compensation.

Thirdfox wrote:

I'd disagree and sue you... who wants that hassle?

If i took a pic of you walking down O'Connell street, you'd be foolish to sue because no law would have been broken.

Thirdfox

Hmm... but what if I smash your camera on the grounds that you had no right to take my picture? You'd get me arrested for interfering with your property buy I'm sure the court would be lenient with any sentencing.

As I said before - it's much more polite and less hassle to ask for permission to use someone's image.

whyulittle

Thirdfox wrote:

Hmm... but what if I smash your camera on the grounds that you had no right to take my picture? You'd get me arrested for interfering with your property buy I'm sure the court would be lenient with any sentencing.

So you think, and think a judge would agree with you, that you have a right to smash some fella's camera just because he took a picture of you in a public place?? Good luck to ya!

I would imagine he would tell you that's not a reasonable reaction and do you for destruction of property.

Thirdfox

Thank you

dalk

Thirdfox wrote:

Hmm... but what if I smash your camera on the grounds that you had no right to take my picture?

But i was just about to politely ask permission to use your image

The point is, if you are in a public place, i have every right to take your picture, if i want to, whether you like it or not. And vice versa.

Granted, it is more polite to ask someone's permission. But i think it would be more hassle for me, to stop someone and explain that i took their pic (why?), could you sign this standard permission form please? (what are you going to do with it? or no you cant use it)... thank you etc. That is hassle.

Lately, I have gotten into the habit of pulling faces whenever i am aware of being in frame of someones camera/camcorder. Its fun. Not once has my permission been asked... Thankfully, I have even been able to restrain myself from attacking them and smashing their camera :rolleyes:

Borderfox

There is a good article in Digital Camera Magazine this month about the effect of the Anit-Terrorism bill in England and how it's curtailing some photographers in their work.
Very true Dalk, I suppose at the end of the day it's common sense that you use to stay safe..:)