If the question is, is it illegal to take a photograph, the answer is no.
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?You cannot, however, use anyone's image commercially without their permission.
The latter case doesn't sound like it applies here, though.
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?Why do you ask? Did the traffic warden object?
Thanks
I would have thought so too...As far as I know, if you are in a public place and so is subject, you can take photo's of said subject.
If the question is, is it illegal to take a photograph, the answer is no.
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?
Very good answer Ray thanks. Thanks to others tooIt'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.
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.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.
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?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!""
No, incorrectI think u are missing the point here . ........The photo was probably taken for legal reasons , and not commercial reasons.
Don't know, pic was not taken by car ownerI wonder is the summonsed car owner contesting the double yellow line fine ?