Competition 433 :: Railway Enthusiasts

[Jordy]

Photo must contain at least one railway enthusiast

http://www.railforums.co.uk/gallery

Entries by 1900 next Sunday please

Cheers

 

[Ivo]

Plenty of scope for controversy here. What would happen if a picture was uploaded of one of us without our prior knowledge?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

That's not a problem - it's not illegal. Newspapers publish pictures of people without there permission.

 

[Aictos]

I was wondering when this subject would come up!!!

 

[Sun Chariot]

When I get back to Heathrow I have a picture in mind. But this week's theme reminds me of the scenes on the last day of the Deltics... now THAT'S what I call a group of rail enthusiasts!

 

[Oswyntail]

That's not a problem - it's not illegal. Newspapers publish pictures of people without there permission.

A minefield! I believe that, amongst other things, if anyone in the picture objects to its use or publication it must be pulled.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

A minefield! I believe that, amongst other things, if anyone in the picture objects to its use or publication it must be pulled.

Not so.

But photographers have to be very careful that their photos would not be considered a breach of privacy.

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm#3.

 

[Lampshade]

I could just upload a picture of me on a night out, it doesn't specifically say it has to be at a railway station

 

[Crossover]

In typical fashion I seem to have numerous pictures of trains but no enthusiasts anywhere near them! (well, enthusiasts for moaning that their train was late, maybe, but not the type were after here!!!)

Really should have got a picture of the numerous people stood at the end of Piccadilly station the other week I think it was!!!

I think I have found a possible though

 

[Lampshade]

Really should have got a picture of the numerous people stood at the end of Piccadilly station the other week I think it was!!!

There was someone sat there in a deckchair on platform 9 earlier, wish I'd have got a picture hock:

 

[moonrakerz]

Not so.

But photographers have to be very careful that their photos would not be considered a breach of privacy.

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/documents/ip_photography.htm#3.

Sorry, but this is NOT correct - there are NO Laws of privacy in the UK.

To actually quote from the Link posted:-
"Photographers may be liable for violating the privacy rights of others when they intentionally intrude in an offensive way upon someone’s private domain"
"Private Domain" usually refers to private property - in the case of photography, this means photos taken ON private property not OF private property.

This is vastly different to the statement in the post - photographers do not have to be "very" careful !

In general, photos taken in public, of anyone, are quite acceptable.
Photographers, be they amateur or professional, have enough problems without even more erroneous information on this subject being broadcast.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Best actually read the information

Disclosing a matter concerning someone’s private life to the public could also raise issues of privacy rights. Unless you have permission, you should refrain from publishing or distributing any photo that reveals private affairs of a person, especially if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive, and (b) is not of concern to the public. Photographs revealing sexual affairs, private debts, criminal records, certain diseases, psychological problems, etc. are likely to violate privacy rights.

Example: Suppose a beer brewery is selling a calendar that depicts an unknown person driving a car with a refreshing pint in his hand. This could raise issues of privacy because it discloses private or sensitive matters about the person.

Photographs can place someone in a false light or defame someone.xvii It can occur, for example, when a picture is airbrushed or altered in a way that exposes the subject to hatred or ridicule. It can also occur when a photo is used to illustrate text in a way that it creates a false impression. This often happens when significant information about someone is either omitted from or added to a story such that the person is portrayed in a false light.xviii

Example: A photo depicts a man who is incidentally walking in front of a brothel. Publishing that photo to illustrate an article on child prostitution could lead to a lawsuit.

The best way to protect oneself against lawsuits - when feasible and appropriate - is probably to get a prior written permission from the subject of the picture, or the (copyright) owner of any object or property to be photographed. Remember, however, that the extent of what may be legally used will be governed by the terms and context of that consent. Even when it is lawful to photograph without any authorization, it may still be advisable to get a permission. In fact, many advertisers and other potential clients demand releases before they will buy the rights to use a picture.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think you ought to read this as well - just so you don't give out erroneous information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_in_English_law
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Photographers need to know about legal restrictions concerning taking of photographs that include any copyright material, trademark, identifiable person or private affairs. Each time, they need to evaluate whether they should obtain prior written permission, or whether they should warn their client of the potential legal issues.

And another quote from the same site

 

[GB]

In general, photos taken in public, of anyone, are quite acceptable.
Photographers, be they amateur or professional, have enough problems without even more erroneous information on this subject being broadcast

While this maybe the case for the actual act of taking the photograph, the goal posts soon change when it comes to publishing them in the public domain....particularly if the person is the main focus of the photograph. The Data Protection Act does have a say in this scenario according to the various sites from Google.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

there are NO Laws of privacy in the UK

Um, I think you will find there is!

 

[mumrar]

I think maybe this competition should be cancelled as there is just as much froth as if Class 60 gets replaced by a Class 66.

 

[Lampshade]

I think we should add a condition that the picture has to include a train, then the person isn't the main focus of the picture and is therefore just another enthusiast looking at the same train.

 

[mumrar]

I think we should add a condition that the picture has to include a train, then the person isn't the main focus of the picture and is therefore just another enthusiast looking at the same train.

I'm not sure that will work, whilst the enthusiast(s) is the main focus of the competition, if they aren't the main focus of the image then it won't really fit the bill. It will then be in danger of becoming another traction vote fest :P

 

[Sun Chariot]

I think there are far more sensitive types out there, than our fraternity. I can't envisage any of us getting riled coz we're in someone's photo - normally it's they who get riled coz we ARE in the picture (open days, front-coach bellowers on railtours; that sort of thing).
Besides, the inclusion of a few rail enthusiasts in a photo can sometimes enhance it. As long as they've got their clothes on, let's keep 'em in!

 

[GB]

I can only speak for myself, but I would be pretty peeved to see my ugly mug uploaded to the internet without my permission...not so much if I was in the background somewhere but certainly if I was the main focus.

 

[Ivo]

This competition just isn't going to work. I would propose a free-for-all in which everyone has until Sunday to upload whatever they can find.

 

[theblackwatch]

This competition just isn't going to work. I would propose a free-for-all in which everyone has until Sunday to upload whatever they can find.

Were proposals asked for? A subject has already been chosen so there is no need for a for a 'free-for-all' - if you don't like it, don't enter!

 

[curly42]

This competition just isn't going to work. I would propose a free-for-all in which everyone has until Sunday to upload whatever they can find.

And could you explain just why this competition isn't going to work ?

 

[Ivo]

Some will complain about appearing in the album, others will be careful to avoid submitting certain images. It's just the whole privacy issue. But we have something nearly every week like this, so what does it matter? Roll on the voting.

 

[mumrar]

I can only speak for myself, but I would be pretty peeved to see my ugly mug uploaded to the internet without my permission...not so much if I was in the background somewhere but certainly if I was the main focus.

You may not be happy, doesn't mean there's anything you can do about it. Do you think the photographer got permission to take and then publish these picture before or after? Wayne Rooney is in public, on a stag do which doesn't concern his employment, so why should it be any different??

If you had a photo of you taken in a public place there is little you can do, the camera is making public what was already public in the first place by virtue of you being there. It is a different scenario when dealing with private land however, and that's where things get thorny

 

[Jordy]

Deary me, what a load of waffle in this thread. Mumrar has pretty much covered the situation above, so lets stop all this silly bickering. I'm not exactly expecting a load of photos which just show one person as the main subject of the shot anyway!

 

[GB]

This sums things up I think...

http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/stillimages/advice/data-protection/

Anyway...on with the comp....

 

[Sun Chariot]

Oh for Pete's sake (assuming I'm allowed to take Pete's name in vain, without infringing upon his personal rights...). When did the sense of good humour and tongue firmly in cheek get lost in this forum? It was the key reason that kept me coming back here. I treat this in the spirit it deserves - good pictures, taken by good people, enjoyed by all. "Simples."

 

[curly42]

I'll second that - let's get back to common sense.

 

[Swiss Toni]

and if there are any photos of me I'll sue!

 

[Matt Taylor]

I'm just glad that we have a theme that has provoked some debate! I really don't get why some people on the forum and people in general have such an issue with being in somebody else's photograph. If you want to avoid that kind of exposure perhaps living in a cave is an option, it seems to have worked for Osama.:roll:

 

[GB]

Funny!:roll: