What do you think that the photograph submission guidelines should be (and why)?

[bcfczuluarmy]

Most people are normally intrigued at having their picture taken outside a pub and will present an obscenity to ruin your picture. Sure they are happy to be posted on the internet having gone to the effort of raising a finger or two or shaking a wrist repeatedly.

The previous post I think is rubbish, how do you make factual tv program without the general public being in the way. Do you watch day time tv or any tv? Most police based tv programs have people saying you can't film me with police saying anyone can film on the street.

Got bugger all to do with this thread though but spurious link imho.

[Aqualung]

Most people are normally intrigued at having their picture taken outside a pub and will present an obscenity to ruin your picture. Sure they are happy to be posted on the internet having gone to the effort of raising a finger or two or shaking a wrist repeatedly.

When I was a teenager I took a photo with a telephoto lens of a vagrant woman sitting on a park bench in Hyde Park (it was supposed to be a socially conscious artistic study). She spotted me and promptly raised her upper garment to flash her knockers at me. I ran away in sheer terror!

Re pictures of pubs, I try and wait until people have passed by. In the unlikely event that any people in a picture saw them here, presumably they could contact the site and ask for them to be removed. It wouldn't bother me if they did that with one of my pics.

[NickDavies]

That's for factual TV to decide. And anyway, iplayer notwithstanding, factual TV is lot more evaporative than a static web site. News programmes dissapear after a week or so.

I quite like Pubs Galore, and, whether the law is rubbish or not, or you have a different interpretation of it than m'learned friends, it's best to stay on the right side of it by obeying one or two simple guidelines for the publication of pictures. All it takes someone to cause a fuss about a pic of him enjoying a convivial evening with his boss's wife and to to dump a load of legal fees on the site and that's the end of that.

[bcfczuluarmy]

I find moving cars more of an annoyance, people I'll wait for to move but smokers get in the way. Not sure how long I'd have to wait for knockers, probably longer than drinking the pint I've took the picture of said pub.

Or just go to Blackpool maybe?

[sheffield hatter]

If you are going to take a picture of someone for publication you must obtain consent.[/url]

If I accidentally get someone in the picture, I usually either crop them out or pixellate their features. In cases where this has not been done and anyone complains about their picture being on the site, surely deleting the picture is sufficient to deflect any possible legal ramifications? Presumably there are thousands of photos on this site where people are depicted without their permission - how many complaints have there been so far?

[sheffield hatter]

I find moving cars more of an annoyance

It's cars parking right in front of the pub, just as I'm about to press the shutter, that really get my goat.

[oldboots]

A former data protection officer writes:

The account in the link below is reasonable. An image of someone is personal data. If you are going to take a picture of someone for publication you must obtain consent.

http://www.longmores-solicitors.co.u...-photographers

Absolutely correct see the official document here, however page 3 says get permission or if that is impractical (as it usually will be for us) blur the faces.

[Tris39]

A former data protection officer writes:

The account in the link below is reasonable. An image of someone is personal data. If you are going to take a picture of someone for publication you must obtain consent.

http://www.longmores-solicitors.co.u...-photographers

I think that permission rather relates to something more akin to a portrait photo. The exemptions listed make mention of consent not being required where a person is in a location or at an event where they may expect to appear in a photo; many selfies/group photos are taken in a pub where bystanders will inevitably be included. And look at the paparazzi - if these rules could be enforced, they'd be out of business. The other exemption relates to a person and context which could cause harm to their reputation, e.g. a photo which shows a CAMRA member drinking Fosters in The Wenlock.

[rpadam]

Absolutely correct see the official document here, however page 3 says get permission or if that is impractical (as it usually will be for us) blur the faces.

That document comes from Malta!

[rpadam]

If anybody asks you about taking photographs in a public place, refer them to Schedule 2 Part 5 paragraph 26(1)(c) of the Data Protection Act 2018, the UK implementation of the Article 85 "artistic expression" exemption in the General Data Protection Regulation. That should shut them up!