Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

An issue that is growing unfortunately is where the group is becoming better known it is attracting trolls who just want to attack and the main editor/organiser especially gets flack not so much for the incident he is covering but just for the whole photojournalism thing.

If this is the FB group that is local to me, i think they came in for a bit of grief when some working pro photographers inquired if the page paid for the images it used. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lynchpics said:

If this is the FB group that is local to me, i think they came in for a bit of grief when some working pro photographers inquired if the page paid for the images it used. 

Its the county of Wiltshire.  Its a dedicated website - and it does not sound like an enquiry that would be made because it was established by a pro photographer using his own work.  There is now a group of photographers who go out when stuff is reported (generally by members of the public fed up of a local news service that is er crap and fails to cover significant amounts of local news).  We are free to pass the photos on to national news services if/when stuff is of national interest.  The problem of images used tends to be the other way as said local news service (owned by Newsquest) has a history of nicking other peoples work and has faced court action from our editor, the county council, and a firebrigade (among others) for doing so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

Its the county of Wiltshire.  Its a dedicated website - and it does not sound like an enquiry that would be made because it was established by a pro photographer using his own work.  There is now a group of photographers who go out when stuff is reported (generally by members of the public fed up of a local news service that is er crap and fails to cover significant amounts of local news).  We are free to pass the photos on to national news services if/when stuff is of national interest.  The problem of images used tends to be the other way as said local news service (owned by Newsquest) has a history of nicking other peoples work and has faced court action from our editor, the county council, and a firebrigade (among others) for doing so.

Yeah it's the same site, i saw the comments regarding it on a 'stop working for free' FB page. I see that the site you mention can according to it's Contributor terms "use and distribute your content without credit or remuneration". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Lynchpics said:

Yeah it's the same site, i saw the comments regarding it on a 'stop working for free' FB page. I see that the site you mention can according to it's Contributor terms "use and distribute your content without credit or remuneration". 

That is not the terms I work under - and I am pretty sure its not the terms of anyone else either

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the website in question is Wiltshire 999's you might want to read their Contributor terms page. This conversation is going away from the op's original question so i will finish now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Starsphinx said:

I agree it makes a difference when you are known.  When I first started the services, especially the police, would be quite spikey - I was not known and while legally anyone can shoot what is visible in public areas the police do worry about what can happen when Joe Bloggs puts stuff on social media.  As the one with the "proper" camera I was more obvious than the mobile phones.  I am now better known, and the group as a whole is accepted as using professional standards.   An issue that is growing unfortunately is where the group is becoming better known it is attracting trolls who just want to attack and the main editor/organiser especially gets flack not so much for the incident he is covering but just for the whole photojournalism thing.

I try and have minimal dealings with PC plod. Fortunate to have only had one tell me to stop photographing, CG chopper coming into land, despite explinations of who i was, why I was there and knowing RNLI & CG use my images he wanted me to stop, Yet to my left and right was joe public videoing on their mobiles etc but they were ok, it was me he had a beef with, I just put it down till he walked out of view. Complaint to the local PCC by the end of the day with assurances she will ensure her officers are better trained when dealing with photographers, yeah right waiting for round 2!

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading that photographers are hiding in bushes and leaping out to grab pics of Meghan Markle at their new home in Canada.

 

Seems awful way to behave to me even if there is demand. 

 

As Harry has said the same photographers that chased his mother into that tunnel were the ones photographing her death on the back seat of the car.

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Reading that photographers are hiding in bushes and leaping out to grab pics of Meghan Markle at their new home in Canada.

 

Seems awful way to behave to me even if there is demand. 

 

 

 

Busted! 😝

 

I have to admit that I've never gotten over the feeling of being something of a voyeur when taking pictures in public. Switching to smaller, mirrorless cameras has helped somewhat. However, I still find it difficult not to feel like a sneak. I think that one just has to accept that this is the way it is and carry on.

 

P.S. I've yet to stoop so low as to hide in the bushes or stalk the Royals. I'd say that would be very un-Canadian, but maybe it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Pete Snelling said:

I try and have minimal dealings with PC plod. Fortunate to have only had one tell me to stop photographing, CG chopper coming into land, despite explinations of who i was, why I was there and knowing RNLI & CG use my images he wanted me to stop, Yet to my left and right was joe public videoing on their mobiles etc but they were ok, it was me he had a beef with, I just put it down till he walked out of view. Complaint to the local PCC by the end of the day with assurances she will ensure her officers are better trained when dealing with photographers, yeah right waiting for round 2!

 

 

I think to an extent it depends on both the force and their knowledge of you and/or any organisation you are with.  Having said that it is useful to carry a copy on your photo of the legal position - something similar to https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/guidanceposition_on_photography

 

Respect is necessary on both sides - I think one reason police can get a little tense with "free lancers" they do not know is because some do not fully appreciate where the police are coming from on things like identification.  If an officer has ever requested a certain part of an image be pixelated and been greeted with the "you cant MAKE me" or worse the "What are you covering up" the next photographer they meet may be dealt with brusquely (or yes worse - it should not happen but does).  The police usually have reasons for asking for pixellation - including families not having been notified.  If you politely ask the why you can decide if it is a legimate request.  If the police know you are respecting their job they are more likely to respect yours.  Of course you do get total asshole coppers - but I am sure there are asshole photographers out there too lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

I'd say that would be very un-Canadian, but maybe it isn't.

Surely not Canadian Paparazzi! Probably the foreign press, I heard a 'Royal Commentator' saying that they'd be better off over here because our papers don't publish the Paparazzi stuff. I'm always quite shocked when I see what the French papers reveal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Surely not Canadian Paparazzi! Probably the foreign press, I heard a 'Royal Commentator' saying that they'd be better off over here because our papers don't publish the Paparazzi stuff. I'm always quite shocked when I see what the French papers reveal.

 

Who knows? Fortunately, Canada doesn't have nearly as robust a tabloid press as the UK and some other countries have. However, the article I linked to doesn't identify who the bush-leapers were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Who knows? Fortunately, Canada doesn't have nearly as robust a tabloid press as the UK and some other countries have. However, the article I linked to doesn't identify who the bush-leapers were.

 

Québec does still have some, but they only care about home base.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, meanderingemu said:

 

Québec does still have some, but they only care about home base.  

 

Allô Police 😊

 

I'd say that Quebec always has been the tabloid capital of Canada, but you're right. They only care about local stuff.

Edited by John Mitchell
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Busted! 😝

 

I have to admit that I've never gotten over the feeling of being something of a voyeur when taking pictures in public. Switching to smaller, mirrorless cameras has helped somewhat. However, I still find it difficult not to feel like a sneak. I think that one just has to accept that this is the way it is and carry on.

 

P.S. I've yet to stoop so low as to hide in the bushes or stalk the Royals. I'd say that would be very un-Canadian, but maybe it isn't.

 

I don't know if it's the Canadian press who are the stalkers.  I was staying on Vancouver island for a few days over the holidays and learned from a friend who works in a hotel in Victoria that a couple of reporters who worked for a UK newspaper  had come to town and were staying there because they wanted to get a story and photos of H & M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Reading that photographers are hiding in bushes and leaping out to grab pics of Meghan Markle at their new home in Canada.

 

Seems awful way to behave to me even if there is demand.

I agree! Once people are no longer seen as human beings and are just commodities, this really isn't ok. It's definitely a case of intruder rather than observer. Harry didn't ask to be born a royal and then receive all the attention that goes along with that. I don't blame he and Megan wanting to protect their son and family life. I imagine things might be a bit better in Canada than in the UK, but unfortunate they still have to deal with those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Reading that photographers are hiding in bushes and leaping out to grab pics of Meghan Markle at their new home in Canada.

 

Seems awful way to behave to me even if there is demand. 

 

As Harry has said the same photographers that chased his mother into that tunnel were the ones photographing her death on the back seat of the car.

Or it is possible that the press are being made out to be the bad guys for just doing their job.
As in Meghan has shown she is more than capable of using her security detail to stop or try and stop people taking photos when in a situation that photography would almost be considered acceptable and yet in a situation that is being framed as photography is totally unacceptable the security detail are not reacting at all.   How does the security detail know that it is only photographers hiding - if they are hiding and totally unexpected?

Yes some paparazzi photographers do get totally out of order BUT not every photo is taken by paparazzi and is an invasion of privacy.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MariaJ said:

 

I don't know if it's the Canadian press who are the stalkers.  I was staying on Vancouver island for a few days over the holidays and learned from a friend who works in a hotel in Victoria that a couple of reporters who worked for a UK newspaper  had come to town and were staying there because they wanted to get a story and photos of H & M.

 

That makes sense (not that Canadians aren't just as sneaky as everyone else 😶).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just imagine...we can go to a shop and buy something. Unbothered, unnoticed. No headlines shouting BETTY SHOPS THE BARGAIN RACKS! With an unflattering photo of me peering at a price tag splashed across papers.

 

Think of how you live your daily, weekly life. How your vacations go. Then think how it would be if you were famous. Not of your own making, like a movie star or athlete, but born into it through no choice of your own.

Many of the simple pleasures in life like walking peacefully on a beach while watching the sun come up, is denied to you.

 

I'm sorry the royals have to put up with it. They lead lives of pomp, rigid manners, rules and expectations, cloistered within their castles and homes with so many servants they have little privacy there.  Some manage it and accept it, some may not. I can’t ever blame Harry and Meghan and I almost feel panic at what they have to put up with.

Betty

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/01/2020 at 09:07, geogphotos said:

 

 

Same here but that is what the press pack often do.

 

Actually - A lot less than you think they do or are portrayed they do (unless there is a proper "relevant" news story).

 

As  is mentioned above - there are many cases where study of the image plus image metadata can show/prove that the subject I as complicit in the image as the photographer. I am personally of the opinion that there is a recent case like this.

 

This is not me defending all press photographers (in fact - I should clarify "so-called") . Some ARE unscrupulous but they are in the minority, no matter how it is portrayed elsewhere. A huge %age of the professionals in the UK are members of one of a number of professional and adhere to ethics and code.

 

More often than not, the picture does not lie and it is possible to see/work-out/understand if an image breached ethical , moral or privacy guidelines when studied.... Words less so... (including these words if you so choose)...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/01/2020 at 20:34, Betty LaRue said:

Just imagine...we can go to a shop and buy something. Unbothered, unnoticed. No headlines shouting BETTY SHOPS THE BARGAIN RACKS! With an unflattering photo of me peering at a price tag splashed across papers.

 

 

"Most" celebrity person goes shopping in "xyzzy" are tip-offs or pre-arranged, either by said celebrities pr or by the shop... Do you really think photographers have enough time to risk hanging about in shopping centres on the off chance?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/01/2020 at 20:37, geogphotos said:

 

As Harry has said the same photographers that chased his mother into that tunnel were the ones photographing her death on the back seat of the car.

 

For the record.... (and this is quoting someone who was working as a press photographer at the time...)

 

The press scooters were quite some way behind the car when it crashed (reports say over 5-10 minutes ). Not defending the chasing, but Di's security team were used to dealing with it day in , day out (and here again, there were tip-offs on where she would be)... What her security team did not ever do is drink and drive ... 

You seem to forget her drunk driver who was driving in excess of 120mph, the lack of seatbelts. The scooters where travelling at 50mph max. They knew where she was going (his flat). I have skipped some other known info. 

 

I am not supporting the photographers actions in general but try to get some basic facts right.

Edited by Julie Edwards
spelling
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Julie Edwards said:

 

For the record.... (and this is quoting someone who was working as a press photographer at the time...)

 

The press scooters were quite some way behind the car when it crashed (reports say over 5-10 minutes ). Not defending the chasing, but Di's security team were used to dealing with it day in , day out (and here again, there were tip-offs on where she would be)... What her security team did not ever do is drink and drive ... 

You seem to forget her drunk driver who was driving in excess of 120mph, the lack of seatbelts. The scooters where travelling at 50mph max. They knew where she was going (his flat). I have skipped some other known info. 

 

I am not supporting the photographers actions in general but try to get some basic facts right.

 

 

not defending, and i agree with what you wrote, but the statement was not about the photographers, but what Harry said, and probably the now ingrained perception of a 12 year old that lost his mother.  So i think it is possible the two basic facts are right, what actually happen, and what Harry feels happened.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Julie, I’m not only talking about the usual celebrity photographers. Everybody these days has a mobile phone. So a housewife spots a celebrity shopping, takes xx # of photos, then starts contacting sources to sell them. Wow, she might be able to finance a small vacation. You don’t think there would be takers? Lol.

 

I can go shopping anywhere, unnoticed. The only threat would be someone like me, surreptitiously shooting a few stock photos of shoppers and merchandise for an agency, not the tabloids.

As far as the usual run of celebrity stalkers, no, they aren’t going to stake out the mall. They are going to hang around the celebrity’s home, follow them, and get the shots. We’ve all seen pictures of topless sunbathing when the celebrity was on their own property with all the expectations of privacy.  You’ve got the tree-climbers, the long-lens shooters. 
If you don’t think that’s going on, I’ve got some ocean-front property in Kansas......

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Betty LaRue said:

Julie, I’m not only talking about the usual celebrity photographers. Everybody these days has a mobile phone. So a housewife spots a celebrity shopping, takes xx # of photos, then starts contacting sources to sell them. Wow, she might be able to finance a small vacation. You don’t think there would be takers? Lol.

 

I can go shopping anywhere, unnoticed. The only threat would be someone like me, surreptitiously shooting a few stock photos of shoppers and merchandise for an agency, not the tabloids.

As far as the usual run of celebrity stalkers, no, they aren’t going to stake out the mall. They are going to hang around the celebrity’s home, follow them, and get the shots. We’ve all seen pictures of topless sunbathing when the celebrity was on their own property with all the expectations of privacy.  You’ve got the tree-climbers, the long-lens shooters. 
If you don’t think that’s going on, I’ve got some ocean-front property in Kansas......

It may be different in the US but I know parts of the UK almost pride themselves on "not noticing" celebs and treating them like "ordinary" people.   Quite a few of the royals do actually do "normal" shops quite often - and it does not get reported, people do not take snaps - or if they do it is for their own timeline and they would never dream of being so uncouth as to try and sell them and make themselves look "star struck".   Over the new year a very famous film start stopped in at a local club to see it in.  It made the local papers - because he bought a round for everyone in the bar.  Anyone buying a drink for everyone would make the local paper - his fame was besides the point.
There seem to a distinct lack of stalkers here as well.  There are well known homes in my area (yes including a major royal or 2) and I have never seen them staked out - even when one was being hung drawn and quartered on social media (that was a celeb not a royal).

The description you give does not fit with what I see happening here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's too many Harrys in this post, it's getting confusing. Thanks to Jean-François (meanderingemu) for pointing out that I was simply alluding to the effect on Prince Harry of the circumstances surrounding the death of his mother, suggesting that it had been 'skewed', in other words not necessarily borne out by the actual facts. It has to be said though that the UK inquest did find the photographers partially to blame but they were all 'foreign' and so beyond the reach of UK Law. Harry (the other one) accepted this verdict, as did his brother of course. As we all know, he also had to follow the coffin on foot through the streets of London at the age of 12.

 

Going back to the original post, John Morrison asked:

"How do we feel about our fellow photographers? Do we identify with the ‘press pack’, or with the people they’re photographing? Are we comfortable walking around with a ‘professional’ camera (rather than, say, a camera phone)? Or do we feel disliked, distrusted, while doing our job, like bailiffs and traffic wardens? Are we fulfilling a valuable role, chronicling what life is like in 2020? Or are we just voyeurs?…"

 

For me, if we do feel disliked and distrusted it will be partly because of the publicity surrounding tragic events such as this, and it's very disturbing to hear that the right picture of Harry & Meghan might be worth $250,000 in worldwide sales. That is likely to attract the unscrupulous.

 

I have a great respect for the press photographers and the job they have to do will not be pleasant at times. I believe that the Magnum photographer David Hurn was one of the first on the scene at the Aberfan disaster, and of course he had to take pictures. I can't begin to imagine what that would have been like.

 

 

Edited by Harry Harrison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.