Cashmores Match 13 2010 - Hanchurch Model Canal

#21

BUT WHERE ARE THE PICTURES

Come on Sprucey pull your finger out

probably still being sensored

Sprucey · #22

sorry but no piccies

after a certain member took great offence at having his piccy took

apparently you have to ask for permission in a public place now

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

Geoff_E · #23

apparently you have to ask for permission in a public place now

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

No you don't, unless they're children or vulnerable adults or they thump you one

#24

after a certain member took great offence at having his piccy took

Only one option then.......... ::)

'em

#25

Besides I'm sure Drynet wouldnt object to his match winning catch being displayed on here for all to applaud

Drynet · #26

Na i could do with a photo for the dating agency

Sprucey · #27

ok just for drynet.....................................................

but i don't know what sort of dating agency this will help with.........ay oo

Drynet · #28

Sorry i have to object to this picture

Geoff_E · #29

I'm a little teapot

#30

Come on Sprucey - stop mucking about and get them pickies posted up

Drynet · #31

I'm a little teapot

Good un

Sprucey · #32

as discussed with t.k. here are the pic's obviously missing the person who took exception

my peg

lovely venue

nice............

that's a big un yamo

phil broadstock

drynet's catch

zorro's catch

the man himself

cotti struggling with his bag

i think there surposed to go in the net for weighing

juan chub or is it one fish ?????????

big baz with his catch

and this is how mark spitz won seven golds

my hero mr t.cooper

off for a walk

our eyes met over a crowded net ...and the rest is history...........

brambles with what times the next bus

i promised kod i wouldn't show piccies of his belly ...so just imagine him with a six pack please

kod's catch

piccy of who took exception of me taking piccies

me trying to help haha have a wash

hello samaritans do you know anything about fishing

try and remember piccies and comment are only light hearted so don't take offence

till the next time somebody takes offence ta raa

#33

apparently you have to ask for permission in a public place now

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

No you don't, unless they're children or vulnerable adults or they thump you one

True Geoff

And I quote............

Is it legal to take photos of people without asking?

In public places where there is no right to privacy, yes you can. The same applies in private places where you have the permission of the landowner or the landowner has stated no restrictions on photography.

If someone does not want to be photographed it is best to respect their wishes unless there is an overriding reason not to. Most people in most circumstances respond well to friendly explanation, especially if you show them the photo. Nevertheless some will object that you have violated their rights in some interesting way, and it's best to have the explanations ready.

• 'You can't take my photo without permission'. Oh yes you can, usually. Point to the CCTV cameras and wave, they never asked either. Of course it is perfectly understandable that individuals may feel singled out and perhaps intimidated, frightened or angry not to be in control, but it's not a legal point.

• 'You have violated my copyright'. This is in no sense true. There is no copyright in the human face or form, and copying would anyway mean cloning them, not creating an image. An image of a person is copyright of the photographer.

• 'You have violated my privacy'. Legally this is unlikely to be true. There is no right to privacy in public places as a rule. There is a right to privacy in private places and in public places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (eg public toilets), but how extensive this is depends on circumstances.

• 'You have violated my human rights'. Police seem to sometimes object to being photographed on the grounds that their 'Human Rights' are being violated. This really means the same thing as 'privacy' and there is none in the street as the presence of CCTV and police photographers shows.
The Human Rights Act 1998 recognises a human right to expect privacy wherever privacy is normal, eg in the home. So photographs taken where privacy may be expected require permission of the subject. EG photographs taken from public places that depict someone within their home in a situation where they expect privacy, for instance through a window using a telephoto lens, will be actionable.

• 'You are harassing me'. Photography can indeed constitute harassment, but for an act to constitute harassment requires deliberate acts of harassment on at least 2 separate occasions. The complainant may then seek a restraining order from the court.

(The standard definition for harassment is unwanted conduct on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability or age which has the purpose or effect of either violating the claimant's dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them)

Whilst you can legally snap away Sprucey, from a personal perspective all I'd add is that if a Cashmores member objects, well so be it - if they dont want to enter into the spirit and camaraderie of what club fishing should be all about and want to allienate themselves in the process that's upto them - just don't let em ever moan in the future that their 'moment of glory' wasn't captured for prosperity, or they feel excluded etc etc ........

So sad - but doesnt surprise me...........

#34

Is this a serious topic or is it all tongue in cheek? Am I missing something here?
I have an album full of photos taken of CAC members taken over 35 years.
Why would anyone object?
Will someone enlighten me.

#35

MGB - you'll probably recognise from my earlier posts in this topic that my initial reaction was that this was a 'wind up'

Being on jollies and missing this one, obviously I'm ignorant as to what 'exchange' actually went on.........but I think it was 'serious'

Why would anyone object?

Beats me

Will someone enlighten me.

Suspect you wont be enlightened on here..........but I'm sure someone, somewhere will have something to say about it ::)

#36

Top Piccies Sprucey and comments

Just in case..... Taking pictures of me is fine, unless I'm wearing a dress and high heel's. Then its banned

Geoff_E · #37

Top Piccies Sprucey and comments

Just in case..... Taking pictures of me is fine, unless I'm wearing a dress and high heel's. Then its banned

Only Gem is allowed to take his picture when he's dressed like that

Drynet · #38

Top Piccies Sprucey and comments

Just in case..... Taking pictures of me is fine, unless I'm wearing a dress and high heel's. Then its banned

everyone has a price

#39

Sprucey first of all brill pictures and witty comments as ever. Great stuff, ur pics are the only reason i really log in here now, really enjoy seeing them and they always make me chuckle.

I did hear a comment by the member however knowing the man as i do i do not think there was any malice or ill feeling. It's unfortunate it came across in the wrong way.

#40

apparently you have to ask for permission in a public place now

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

No you don't, unless they're children or vulnerable adults or they thump you one

True Geoff

And I quote............

Is it legal to take photos of people without asking?

In public places where there is no right to privacy, yes you can. The same applies in private places where you have the permission of the landowner or the landowner has stated no restrictions on photography.

If someone does not want to be photographed it is best to respect their wishes unless there is an overriding reason not to. Most people in most circumstances respond well to friendly explanation, especially if you show them the photo. Nevertheless some will object that you have violated their rights in some interesting way, and it's best to have the explanations ready.

• 'You can't take my photo without permission'. Oh yes you can, usually. Point to the CCTV cameras and wave, they never asked either. Of course it is perfectly understandable that individuals may feel singled out and perhaps intimidated, frightened or angry not to be in control, but it's not a legal point.

• 'You have violated my copyright'. This is in no sense true. There is no copyright in the human face or form, and copying would anyway mean cloning them, not creating an image. An image of a person is copyright of the photographer.

• 'You have violated my privacy'. Legally this is unlikely to be true. There is no right to privacy in public places as a rule. There is a right to privacy in private places and in public places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (eg public toilets), but how extensive this is depends on circumstances.

• 'You have violated my human rights'. Police seem to sometimes object to being photographed on the grounds that their 'Human Rights' are being violated. This really means the same thing as 'privacy' and there is none in the street as the presence of CCTV and police photographers shows.
The Human Rights Act 1998 recognises a human right to expect privacy wherever privacy is normal, eg in the home. So photographs taken where privacy may be expected require permission of the subject. EG photographs taken from public places that depict someone within their home in a situation where they expect privacy, for instance through a window using a telephoto lens, will be actionable.

• 'You are harassing me'. Photography can indeed constitute harassment, but for an act to constitute harassment requires deliberate acts of harassment on at least 2 separate occasions. The complainant may then seek a restraining order from the court.

(The standard definition for harassment is unwanted conduct on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability or age which has the purpose or effect of either violating the claimant's dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them)

Whilst you can legally snap away Sprucey, from a personal perspective all I'd add is that if a Cashmores member objects, well so be it - if they dont want to enter into the spirit and camaraderie of what club fishing should be all about and want to allienate themselves in the process that's upto them - just don't let em ever moan in the future that their 'moment of glory' wasn't captured for prosperity, or they feel excluded etc etc ........

So sad - but doesnt surprise me...........

What's the point in posting all this ?