photographing traffic warden

J

Jane Doe

Registered User
Messages
380
An incident happened with a parked car which was on double yellow lines. when my friend took a pic the traffic warden was there. Is it illegal to picture them? pic was taken from quite a distance
 
If the question is, is it illegal to take a photograph, the answer is no. You cannot, however, use anyone's image commercially without their permission. The latter case doesn't sound like it applies here, though.

Why do you ask? Did the traffic warden object?
 
extopia said:
If the question is, is it illegal to take a photograph, the answer is no.

You cannot, however, use anyone's image commercially without their permission.
Click to expand...
what about press photographers and celebs? If the issue re the car becomes a media issue then then wardens photo cannot be published without thier permission?

The latter case doesn't sound like it applies here, though.

Why do you ask? Did the traffic warden object?
Click to expand...
to know what the situation is. I nave a book which saysd it may come under the non fatal offences against the person act section 10 (1) if it were a harrassment but would be taking a picture of some at their work be harrassment if taken from a distance and they just happened to be there?

Thanks
Click to expand...
 
As far as I know, if you are in a public place and so is subject, you can take photo's of said subject.
 
Jane Doe said:
extopia said:
If the question is, is it illegal to take a photograph, the answer is no.
Click to expand...

what about press photographers and celebs? If the issue re the car becomes a media issue then then wardens photo cannot be published without thier permission?
Click to expand...

It's a big ol' ball of string this one...


If the warden is in a public place doing public duty then it is ok to take the picture. To contrast that statement; same person not wearing work clothes sitting in a cafe having a chat with a mate i.e. "private time" then you should not take the picture.
However (the dance continues), if any person civilian or celebrity commits an act worthy of making the news then you may take and print the picture in the press.

So if I Joe Civilian run the marathon and win they can print it in the paper, if I run in a funny costume they can print it in the paper. If you take a picture of me in my own garden at home, you shoudn't and I could sue.

Back to the traffic warden. If it's "A Traffic Warden" beside "A Car" then the photo could be deemed as a street scene and not a picture of the warden, even though the street scene includes the warden. Further more the uniform is to represent a government body (or so) and not an individual. The uniform is intended to remove the individual's identity, when (s)he speaks it's as a representative of the Traffic Dept and not his personal opinion or reason.
If there were to be any recourse it should come in the channel of the Dept of Transport.

Now publishing civilians in a public place is very contrary. However if your street scene has more than say about 10 people in the picture, this could be considered a crowd and you as photographer are not required to collect release form signatures. Even if the warden is in the fore you could claim an artistic impression of the old lady 100 meters back and address how the world goes on around the old lady or some such point of view.

Running up to strangers in the street and firing off a few shots won't generally do you any good. An extra note though, you still own the photo's and are not required to give in to any demands to delete them.
This happened unwittingly to a foreign friend of mine when he took a photo of adorable twins dressed alike in a shopping mall (forget the private grounds bit for a mo). He took the picture with his tiny camera just because he was smitten by how well they looked and wanted to show his sister but the mother stormed over all defensive and demanded he delete the photos immediately. He did, it was the right thing to do to keep a bit of harmony in the world but he didn't have to do it according to law.

Is a big ol' convoluted thin line.

Does that give the general idea?

All that said - You shouldn't take this as hard fact and the end all of the conversation because the laws change or are interpreted differently ever so subtly over time. But I say "Do take the picture and un-do later if you have to - i.e. "Get the Shot!""

Ray.
 
If push comes to shove, and the warden is not necessary to the photograph, you could always pixilate or generally photoshop 'out' his/her face.

Could you explain the scenario a little more? Seems a kinda weird question to ask! If you don't need the warden, I would get rid of him/her, or at least their face.
 
I completely missed the point of the original question and answered it as though from my own point of view. If it's an incident then yes you can take the picture especially if it involves the warden.
 
nossie said:
It's a big ol' ball of string this one...


If the warden is in a public place doing public duty then it is ok to take the picture. To contrast that statement; same person not wearing work clothes sitting in a cafe having a chat with a mate i.e. "private time" then you should not take the picture.
However (the dance continues), if any person civilian or celebrity commits an act worthy of making the news then you may take and print the picture in the press.

So if I Joe Civilian run the marathon and win they can print it in the paper, if I run in a funny costume they can print it in the paper. If you take a picture of me in my own garden at home, you shoudn't and I could sue.

Back to the traffic warden. If it's "A Traffic Warden" beside "A Car" then the photo could be deemed as a street scene and not a picture of the warden, even though the street scene includes the warden. Further more the uniform is to represent a government body (or so) and not an individual. The uniform is intended to remove the individual's identity, when (s)he speaks it's as a representative of the Traffic Dept and not his personal opinion or reason.
If there were to be any recourse it should come in the channel of the Dept of Transport.

Now publishing civilians in a public place is very contrary. However if your street scene has more than say about 10 people in the picture, this could be considered a crowd and you as photographer are not required to collect release form signatures. Even if the warden is in the fore you could claim an artistic impression of the old lady 100 meters back and address how the world goes on around the old lady or some such point of view.

Running up to strangers in the street and firing off a few shots won't generally do you any good. An extra note though, you still own the photo's and are not required to give in to any demands to delete them.
This happened unwittingly to a foreign friend of mine when he took a photo of adorable twins dressed alike in a shopping mall (forget the private grounds bit for a mo). He took the picture with his tiny camera just because he was smitten by how well they looked and wanted to show his sister but the mother stormed over all defensive and demanded he delete the photos immediately. He did, it was the right thing to do to keep a bit of harmony in the world but he didn't have to do it according to law.

Is a big ol' convoluted thin line.

Does that give the general idea?

All that said - You shouldn't take this as hard fact and the end all of the conversation because the laws change or are interpreted differently ever so subtly over time. But I say "Do take the picture and un-do later if you have to - i.e. "Get the Shot!""

Ray.
Click to expand...
Very good answer Ray thanks. Thanks to others too
 
nossie said:
I completely missed the point of the original question and answered it as though from my own point of view. If it's an incident then yes you can take the picture especially if it involves the warden.
Click to expand...
Yes there was an incident involving a car that was also on double yellow lines. It was the car really that was photographed in case it became worth anything if the incident made the papers. When the photo was taken the traffic warden and 2 others, who presumably owned the car, were in shot. There waas no rushing up it was taken from a fair distance.

Incidentally you say if the warden was on private time having coffee you could not picture but if during the coffee the warden dressed in civilian clothing got annoyed withnthe srvice and then decked the waiter it could be taken as woule then be news worthy, is that what you mean? And if so could you refer to to the person as a traffic warden in any caption even though they were in civilian clothes ie. 'traffic warden decks waiter.'

I see what you mean about the ball of string.;)


Thanks again
 
nossie said:
If the warden is in a public place doing public duty then it is ok to take the picture. To contrast that statement; same person not wearing work clothes sitting in a cafe having a chat with a mate i.e. "private time" then you should not take the picture.
However (the dance continues), if any person civilian or celebrity commits an act worthy of making the news then you may take and print the picture in the press.

So if I Joe Civilian run the marathon and win they can print it in the paper, if I run in a funny costume they can print it in the paper. If you take a picture of me in my own garden at home, you shoudn't and I could sue.

Back to the traffic warden. If it's "A Traffic Warden" beside "A Car" then the photo could be deemed as a street scene and not a picture of the warden, even though the street scene includes the warden. Further more the uniform is to represent a government body (or so) and not an individual. The uniform is intended to remove the individual's identity, when (s)he speaks it's as a representative of the Traffic Dept and not his personal opinion or reason.
If there were to be any recourse it should come in the channel of the Dept of Transport.

Now publishing civilians in a public place is very contrary. However if your street scene has more than say about 10 people in the picture, this could be considered a crowd and you as photographer are not required to collect release form signatures. Even if the warden is in the fore you could claim an artistic impression of the old lady 100 meters back and address how the world goes on around the old lady or some such point of view.

Running up to strangers in the street and firing off a few shots won't generally do you any good. An extra note though, you still own the photo's and are not required to give in to any demands to delete them.
This happened unwittingly to a foreign friend of mine when he took a photo of adorable twins dressed alike in a shopping mall (forget the private grounds bit for a mo). He took the picture with his tiny camera just because he was smitten by how well they looked and wanted to show his sister but the mother stormed over all defensive and demanded he delete the photos immediately. He did, it was the right thing to do to keep a bit of harmony in the world but he didn't have to do it according to law.

Is a big ol' convoluted thin line.

Does that give the general idea?

All that said - You shouldn't take this as hard fact and the end all of the conversation because the laws change or are interpreted differently ever so subtly over time. But I say "Do take the picture and un-do later if you have to - i.e. "Get the Shot!""
Click to expand...
While I wouldn't disagree with much if this, I'm wondering if there is any legislative basis for this? Where is this specified in law?
 
I think u are missing the point here . ........The photo was probably taken for legal reasons , and not commercial reasons.

I wonder is the summonsed car owner contesting the double yellow line fine ?
 
Actually, it's the photographer who has to be in the public place - not the subject.
If you can be seen from the 'public highway' you can be legally photographed and published. The moral rights only come into play in commissioned photography - where you have asked to be photographed. In that case the photographer still owns copyright (being the creator of the image like an author or songwriter) so each party needs permission to publish.
As long as the photographer is not trespassing and/or on private property (like inside a theatre or concert venue) and any caption of the image on publication is not defamatory, your photograph can be taken and published.
International exceptions are in place for public figures like princess Caroline of Monaco who took an action as she was being pursued every day.
Also, children may be protected but not 100% on that.

Flower Girl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top