Re: Campbell Live tonight

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Donchano, Nov 12, 2010.

  1. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:21:58 +1300, Gib Bogle
    <> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >On 13/11/2010 11:18 a.m., hellicopter wrote:
    >> Gib Bogle wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 12/11/2010 7:33 p.m., Tony wrote:
    >>>> So, a father who did not know that it was not allowed to take photographs
    >>>> of his 9 year old daughter playing netball is approached by someone who
    >>>> appears to be judge, jury and potential executioner.
    >>>> Jeez, talk about PC gone mad.

    <snip>
    >
    >"A sensible reason for the man taking photos"? WTF? What is a "sensible
    >reason" for taking photos? Should we be permitted to take photos only for
    >"sensible reasons"? You've lost me totally. As far as I'm concerned, anybody
    >should be free to take photos of anything. You can see that I don't believe
    >that a photo captures a person's soul (whatever that might be).


    Back when we lived on the beachfront at a popular holiday destination
    I took photos of a small group of people who were renting out jetskis
    to townies, day-trippers and aging adolecents.

    The poeple didn't have a license or permit to rent out these noisy,
    obnoxious, fume belching boy-toys and I wanted show the photos to the
    local council so they could see opportunistic parasites were doing
    behind their backs. After all, the guy in charge of the operation
    actually worked for council and knew what he was doing.

    It turned out that one of the people (his wife) was pregnant and her
    father went ballistic about the photos, demanding that I turn over the
    film to him before I could get them printed..

    Why? Because, according to him, "there are people out there who are
    strange."

    Obviously ...
     
    Donchano, Nov 12, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Donchano

    Gib Bogle Guest

    On 13/11/2010 12:42 p.m., Donchano wrote:
    >
    > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:21:58 +1300, Gib Bogle
    > <> shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >
    >> On 13/11/2010 11:18 a.m., hellicopter wrote:
    >>> Gib Bogle wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 12/11/2010 7:33 p.m., Tony wrote:
    >>>>> So, a father who did not know that it was not allowed to take photographs
    >>>>> of his 9 year old daughter playing netball is approached by someone who
    >>>>> appears to be judge, jury and potential executioner.
    >>>>> Jeez, talk about PC gone mad.

    > <snip>
    >>
    >> "A sensible reason for the man taking photos"? WTF? What is a "sensible
    >> reason" for taking photos? Should we be permitted to take photos only for
    >> "sensible reasons"? You've lost me totally. As far as I'm concerned, anybody
    >> should be free to take photos of anything. You can see that I don't believe
    >> that a photo captures a person's soul (whatever that might be).

    >
    > Back when we lived on the beachfront at a popular holiday destination
    > I took photos of a small group of people who were renting out jetskis
    > to townies, day-trippers and aging adolecents.
    >
    > The poeple didn't have a license or permit to rent out these noisy,
    > obnoxious, fume belching boy-toys and I wanted show the photos to the
    > local council so they could see opportunistic parasites were doing
    > behind their backs. After all, the guy in charge of the operation
    > actually worked for council and knew what he was doing.
    >
    > It turned out that one of the people (his wife) was pregnant and her
    > father went ballistic about the photos, demanding that I turn over the
    > film to him before I could get them printed..
    >
    > Why? Because, according to him, "there are people out there who are
    > strange."
    >
    > Obviously ...
    >


    Heh heh. I'm with you on that one. You could have said "It takes one to know
    one", but I guess that might have been dangerous.

    I'm really puzzled by the mentality of this kind of weirdo, who's apparently
    upset about other sad types who like to look at pictures of other people. Sure
    there are such people (isn't that what TV, movies and magazines are all about?).
    But so what? They are still going to be there, with or without photos.
    What's the issue with a photo of someone who's pregnant? I remember a guy once
    got very angry with me because I didn't agree with his attitude that I should be
    very upset about someone (hypothetically) taking pictures of my daughter. I
    told him I didn't give damn if someone used pictures of her (or me, for that
    matter) to get his rocks off. It wouldn't impinge on me, or on her. Chalk it
    up as one more commonly held idea that baffles me.
     
    Gib Bogle, Nov 13, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Donchano

    Matty F Guest

    On Nov 13, 12:21 pm, Gib Bogle <> wrote:

    > "A sensible reason for the man taking photos"? WTF? What is a "sensible
    > reason" for taking photos? Should we be permitted to take photos only for
    > "sensible reasons"? You've lost me totally. As far as I'm concerned, anybody
    > should be free to take photos of anything. You can see that I don't believe
    > that a photo captures a person's soul (whatever that might be).


    I've been told, by a security guard that I had called, that I should
    not be taking photos of vandals in the neighbourhood. A policewoman
    agreed with him. I think I'll give up helping the police.
     
    Matty F, Nov 13, 2010
    #3
  4. Donchano

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 13, 6:17 pm, Matty F <> wrote:
    >
    > I've been told, by a security guard that I had called, that I should
    > not be taking photos of vandals in the neighbourhood. A policewoman
    > agreed with him. I think I'll give up helping the police.

    Sounds like the UK! Anti terrorism laws allow the cops to stop people
    taking photos in public places - and they do just about all the time.

    IMO the security guard and policewoman (in the NZ context) are both
    wrong if they think it applies to any or all photography in public
    places. Several years ago a TV personality failed to get an injunction
    to stop photos of his children on the street being published and this
    would help draw the line. There are various public order and other
    offences which could apply to taking photos in a public place, but the
    circumstances envisaged by the legislation would need to apply.

    It would also seem to me that no one (except a court) has the
    authority to direct anyone to destroy or delete an image. If anyone
    trying this on is warned that the image may be used as evidence then
    any destruction of the image would be a serious crime - obstructing
    the course of justice.
     
    peterwn, Nov 13, 2010
    #4
  5. Donchano

    Matty F Guest

    On Nov 13, 9:05 pm, peterwn <> wrote:
    > On Nov 13, 6:17 pm, Matty F <> wrote:
    >
    > > I've been told, by a security guard that I had called, that I should
    > > not be taking photos of vandals in the neighbourhood. A policewoman
    > > agreed with him. I think I'll give up helping the police.

    >
    > Sounds like the UK! Anti terrorism laws allow the cops to stop people
    > taking photos in public places - and they do just about all the time.
    >
    > IMO the security guard and policewoman (in the NZ context) are both
    > wrong if they think it applies to any or all photography in public
    > places. Several years ago a TV personality failed to get an injunction
    > to stop photos of his children on the street being published and this
    > would help draw the line. There are various public order and other
    > offences which could apply to taking photos in a public place, but the
    > circumstances envisaged by the legislation would need to apply.
    >
    > It would also seem to me that no one (except a court) has the
    > authority to direct anyone to destroy or delete an image. If anyone
    > trying this on is warned that the image may be used as evidence then
    > any destruction of the image would be a serious crime - obstructing
    > the course of justice.


    Well I'm currently very pissed off about this, but I hesitate to make
    an enemy at the local police station.

    The owner of the neighbouring building site had many intruders and
    taggers and thieves stealing building materials and tools.

    Knowing my interest in computers the owner gave me some video cameras,
    and I made many experiments and learned how to use them to record
    video andI learned how to take pictures of rego numbers (which is
    harder than you'd think at night when they are driving fast).
    I installed three CCTV warning signs.

    For some years I managed to identify most of the offenders and sent
    the photos and video to a useful policeman, who tracked the offenders
    down and basically stopped them offending again (via curfews, family
    conferences, prosecutions etc). Crime around here has reduced from
    three events per week to about three per year.

    Recently the neighbour has contracted a security firm to monitor his
    property (at a cost). He asked me to call this security company if I
    see intruders, rather than the police (who seldom come at all if I
    call them).

    Last week I was awoken by shouts and banging noises next door. On the
    CCTV cameras I could see intruders in the next door property. I phoned
    the security company who came in 10 minutes. The security guard spoke
    to the three alleged offenders and believed their story that they had
    not been intruding. The guard did not want to hear my story. I took a
    photo of the rego plate and of the driver whom I recognised from the
    video footage. I showed the guard a photo from the CCTV footage. The
    guard asked me to stop taking photos.He did not get any details from
    the alleged offenders or even the rego plate. I have recommended to
    the owner that he sack the security company.

    Next day I discovered items from inside another house, in my
    neighbour's property, indicating that the alleged offenders had been
    inside that house also.

    I phoned Central Police who asked me to take any photos and video to
    the nearest police station. This I did, but a policewoman there told
    me that I should not have been taking those photos or have CCTV. Later
    I discovered that police had checked with my neighbours to see if they
    had given me permission to point CCTV in their direction, which of
    course they had.

    I have already supplied hundreds of photos and over 1000 hours of
    video to various police stations who requested it. Every time I have
    asked if what I was doing was OK those police have said that yes it is
    OK. In a recent large operation the police came around and I showed
    them the cameras and I gave them the video for the dates they
    requested.

    Before I had the CCTV I've had a car vandalised while an attempt was
    made to steal it. My fence and letterbox vandalised. Things stolen
    from my carport. Eggs thrown at my house. Nobody seems to dare to do
    that anymore. One CCTV camera with big red lights is rather visible
    and intimidating.
    Two fake cameras have been stolen and I have video of the guy doing
    that.

    So do I keep helping to fight crime or just let it happen?
     
    Matty F, Nov 13, 2010
    #5
  6. Donchano

    Matty F Guest

    On Nov 13, 11:04 pm, EMB <> wrote:
    > On 13/11/2010 10:20 p.m., Matty F wrote:
    >
    > > Last week I was awoken by shouts and banging noises next door. On the
    > > CCTV cameras I could see intruders in the next door property. I phoned
    > > the security company who came in 10 minutes. The security guard spoke
    > > to the three alleged offenders and believed their story that they had
    > > not been intruding. The guard did not want to hear my story. I took a
    > > photo of the rego plate and of the driver whom I recognised from the
    > > video footage. I showed the guard a photo from the CCTV footage. The
    > > guard asked me to stop taking photos.He did not get any details from
    > > the alleged offenders or even the rego plate. I have recommended to
    > > the owner that he sack the security company.

    >
    > From that reaction I'm cynical enough to believe that the intruders
    > were mates of the security guard.


    The security guard and driver were "of similar ethnic appearance".
    I've recommended that security company to people for years, and to my
    neighbour, but no longer.
     
    Matty F, Nov 13, 2010
    #6
  7. Donchano

    Matty F Guest

    On Nov 13, 11:04 pm, EMB <> wrote:
    > On 13/11/2010 10:20 p.m., Matty F wrote:
    >
    > > I phoned Central Police who asked me to take any photos and video to
    > > the nearest police station. This I did, but a policewoman there told
    > > me that I should not have been taking those photos or have CCTV. Later
    > > I discovered that police had checked with my neighbours to see if they
    > > had given me permission to point CCTV in their direction, which of
    > > course they had.

    >
    > AFAIK that reaction is legally correct.


    The same police station has photos and video of the same house that I
    have given them. I was phoned and told that the video is good enough
    to have a charge of wilful damage made against the culprits.
    Clearly that station has no way of tying events together from the same
    locality.
    As I type this I have just discovered that two youths have overturned
    road cones and stolen a cone. But not worth reporting.
     
    Matty F, Nov 13, 2010
    #7
  8. Donchano

    Gib Bogle Guest

    On 13/11/2010 10:20 p.m., Matty F wrote:

    > Well I'm currently very pissed off about this, but I hesitate to make
    > an enemy at the local police station.

    <snip>
    > So do I keep helping to fight crime or just let it happen?


    You have to wonder who's side they're on.
     
    Gib Bogle, Nov 14, 2010
    #8
  9. Donchano

    Gib Bogle Guest

    On 15/11/2010 10:19 a.m., greybeard wrote:

    > | There are always going to be some f*cked-up people around. It's a
    > worry when
    > | the law encourages them.
    >
    >
    > It's Christchurch. The place is full of f**ked up people.
    > Try reading Linley Hoods' book on Ellis for proof.


    I don't think I can face it.
     
    Gib Bogle, Nov 14, 2010
    #9
  10. In article <>, Matty F <> wrote:
    >On Nov 13, 12:21 pm, Gib Bogle <> wrote:
    >
    >> "A sensible reason for the man taking photos"? WTF? What is a "sensible
    >> reason" for taking photos? Should we be permitted to take photos only for
    >> "sensible reasons"? You've lost me totally. As far as I'm concerned,

    > anybody
    >> should be free to take photos of anything. You can see that I don't believe
    >> that a photo captures a person's soul (whatever that might be).

    >
    >I've been told, by a security guard that I had called, that I should
    >not be taking photos of vandals in the neighbourhood. A policewoman
    >agreed with him. I think I'll give up helping the police.


    While not really suited to nz.comp ( :) ), surely if people are in a public
    place, they have only limited rights over what others do ? I suggest having
    their photo taken is an area where they have no rights at all. If this is
    not true, we get into the murky waters of 'intention'. :)
    There are rules for using piccies for profit without consent (yet paparazzi
    seem to ignore these ?) ... and many put their own photos on line so they
    can share them (I admit I've never understood that :) ).

    Of course, if the vandals see you taking their piccies, there could be a
    reaction ... but that's a different thing. Did the police say why they
    agreed ?

    As others have said to the photo complainers, lighten up ! :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Nov 15, 2010
    #10
  11. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:22:02 GMT,
    z (Bruce Sinclair)
    shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >In article <>, Matty F <> wrote:
    >>On Nov 13, 12:21 pm, Gib Bogle <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "A sensible reason for the man taking photos"? WTF? What is a "sensible
    >>> reason" for taking photos? Should we be permitted to take photos only for
    >>> "sensible reasons"? You've lost me totally. As far as I'm concerned,

    >> anybody
    >>> should be free to take photos of anything. You can see that I don't believe
    >>> that a photo captures a person's soul (whatever that might be).

    >>
    >>I've been told, by a security guard that I had called, that I should
    >>not be taking photos of vandals in the neighbourhood. A policewoman
    >>agreed with him. I think I'll give up helping the police.

    >
    >While not really suited to nz.comp ( :) ), surely if people are in a public
    >place, they have only limited rights over what others do ? I suggest having
    >their photo taken is an area where they have no rights at all. If this is
    >not true, we get into the murky waters of 'intention'. :)
    >There are rules for using piccies for profit without consent (yet paparazzi
    >seem to ignore these ?) ... and many put their own photos on line so they
    >can share them (I admit I've never understood that :) ).
    >
    >Of course, if the vandals see you taking their piccies, there could be a
    >reaction ... but that's a different thing. Did the police say why they
    >agreed ?


    Years ago, when I worked for a US published surfing magazine, the rule
    was simple: photos taken of individuals involved in a sporting
    activity in a public place (eg: surfing) didn't need to give their
    permission or sign a release before their photos could be used in the
    magazine.***

    But any photos taken of a specific individual or individuals not
    involved in a public activity (eg: private activities such as sitting
    in their cars, sitting on the beach, picking their noses, etc)
    technically did. ***

    Standards and definitions have changed a lot since then and if TVNZ
    takes a shot of people walking down Queen Street - for example - TVNZ
    doesn't need to get the pedestrians' permission for that group shot to
    be used on television. Same with photos or video taken of surfers
    riding waves, with this proviso: any photos/videos intended for
    *commercial* use require either a standard or model release to be
    signed by the subject/s, regardless of where they were shot.

    http://www.betterphoto.com/article.asp?id=37

    What I can't figure out is how TV shows like Boarder Patrol are able
    to document and broadcast the smugglers and travellers who behave like
    idiots. I can't imagine any of them giving their permission for their
    footage to be used.

    *** I can't think of any surfer in my early career who wasn't happy as
    a clam to see his or her photo appear in a surfing magazine ... even
    if it was s shot of him or her picking their nose.
     
    Donchano, Nov 15, 2010
    #11
  12. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:01:18 +1300, Donchano
    <> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >But any photos taken of a specific individual or individuals not
    >involved in a public activity (eg: private activities such as sitting
    >in their cars, sitting on the beach, picking their noses, etc)
    >technically did. ***


    By "specific" individuals, I mean people who were already well known
    and easily recognised by the public. If it was a shot that happened to
    show individuals as *part* of the photo rather than the subject of the
    photo, then the subject/s permission wasn't required.
     
    Donchano, Nov 15, 2010
    #12
  13. Donchano

    JohnO Guest

    On Nov 15, 2:01 pm, Donchano <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:22:02 GMT,
    > (Bruce Sinclair)
    > shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >In article <>, Matty F <> wrote:
    > >>On Nov 13, 12:21 pm, Gib Bogle <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> "A sensible reason for the man taking photos"?  WTF?  What is a "sensible
    > >>> reason" for taking photos?  Should we be permitted to take photos only for
    > >>> "sensible reasons"?  You've lost me totally.  As far as I'm concerned,
    > >> anybody
    > >>> should be free to take photos of anything.  You can see that I don't believe
    > >>> that a photo captures a person's soul (whatever that might be).

    >
    > >>I've been told, by a security guard that I had called, that I should
    > >>not be taking photos of vandals in the neighbourhood. A policewoman
    > >>agreed with him. I think I'll give up helping the police.

    >
    > >While not really suited to nz.comp ( :) ), surely if people are in a public
    > >place, they have only limited rights over what others do ? I suggest having
    > >their photo taken is an area where they have no rights at all. If this is
    > >not true, we get into the murky waters of 'intention'. :)
    > >There are rules for using piccies for profit without consent (yet paparazzi
    > >seem to ignore these ?) ... and many put their own photos on line so they
    > >can share them (I admit I've never understood that :) ).

    >
    > >Of course, if the vandals see you taking their piccies, there could be a
    > >reaction ... but that's a different thing. Did the police say why they
    > >agreed ?

    >
    > Years ago, when I worked for a US published surfing magazine, the rule
    > was simple: photos taken of individuals involved in a sporting
    > activity in a public place (eg: surfing) didn't need to give their
    > permission or sign a release before their photos could be used in the
    > magazine.***
    >
    > But any photos taken of a specific individual or individuals not
    > involved in a public activity (eg: private activities such as sitting
    > in their cars, sitting on the beach, picking their noses, etc)
    > technically did. ***
    >
    > Standards and definitions have changed a lot since then and if TVNZ
    > takes a shot of people walking down Queen Street - for example - TVNZ
    > doesn't need to get the pedestrians' permission for that group shot to
    > be used on television. Same with photos or video taken of surfers
    > riding waves, with this proviso:  any photos/videos intended for
    > *commercial* use  require either a standard or model release to be
    > signed by the subject/s, regardless of where they were shot.
    >
    > http://www.betterphoto.com/article.asp?id=37
    >
    > What I can't figure out is how TV shows like Boarder Patrol are able
    > to document and broadcast the smugglers and travellers who behave like
    > idiots. I can't imagine any of them giving their permission for their
    > footage to be used.
    >
    > *** I can't think of any surfer in my early career who wasn't happy as
    > a clam to see his or her photo appear in a surfing magazine ... even
    > if it was s shot of him or her picking their nose.


    Last time I came flew brtween Melbourne and Akl there was a sign up
    stating that the TV show was filming, and anyone who did not want to
    be filmed had to notify somebody. Can't remember the specifics but it
    was definitely possible to avoid.

    But I agree, why the hell would anyone want their humiliation at being
    detained, caught out lying etc to be doubled by being filmed and
    replayed on TV? Maybe there is a financial inducement.
     
    JohnO, Nov 15, 2010
    #13
  14. Donchano

    Richard Guest

    On 15/11/2010 2:47 p.m., JohnO wrote:
    > Last time I came flew brtween Melbourne and Akl there was a sign up
    > stating that the TV show was filming, and anyone who did not want to
    > be filmed had to notify somebody. Can't remember the specifics but it
    > was definitely possible to avoid.
    >
    > But I agree, why the hell would anyone want their humiliation at being
    > detained, caught out lying etc to be doubled by being filmed and
    > replayed on TV? Maybe there is a financial inducement.


    Most of them seem to be ESL types, so probably did not understand.
     
    Richard, Nov 15, 2010
    #14
  15. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:56:27 +1300, Richard <> shouted
    from the highest rooftop:

    >On 15/11/2010 2:47 p.m., JohnO wrote:
    >> Last time I came flew brtween Melbourne and Akl there was a sign up
    >> stating that the TV show was filming, and anyone who did not want to
    >> be filmed had to notify somebody. Can't remember the specifics but it
    >> was definitely possible to avoid.
    >>
    >> But I agree, why the hell would anyone want their humiliation at being
    >> detained, caught out lying etc to be doubled by being filmed and
    >> replayed on TV? Maybe there is a financial inducement.

    >
    >Most of them seem to be ESL types, so probably did not understand.


    Especially the Yanks ;-)
     
    Donchano, Nov 15, 2010
    #15
  16. Donchano

    Donchano Guest

    On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 15:47 +1300, JohnO shouted from the highest
    rooftop:

    > Last time I came flew brtween Melbourne and Akl there was a sign up
    > stating that the TV show was filming, and anyone who did not want to
    > be filmed had to notify somebody. Can't remember the specifics but it
    > was definitely possible to avoid.


    Putting the responsibility on the public to notify somebody if they
    don't want to be filmed is sort of like having to opt *out* of
    receiving promotional emails instead of having to opt in. But the
    sheer amount of people traffic at an airport would make asking
    everyone individually a bit of a mission - so I can see the reasoning.

    > But I agree, why the hell would anyone want their humiliation at being
    > detained, caught out lying etc to be doubled by being filmed and
    > replayed on TV? Maybe there is a financial inducement.


    Never thought of that. Sounds logical ...
     
    Donchano, Nov 15, 2010
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joseph A. Gervasi \(Diabolik DVD/Exhumed Films\)

    Exhumed Films Presents: BRUCE CAMPBELL Live!

    Joseph A. Gervasi \(Diabolik DVD/Exhumed Films\), Mar 10, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    478
    Joseph A. Gervasi \(Diabolik DVD/Exhumed Films\)
    Mar 10, 2005
  2. PAM.

    Campbell Live - Revenge of the Sith

    PAM., May 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    397
    Kerry Ferrand
    May 17, 2005
  3. Craig Shore

    Watch Campbell Live - Wed 22nd

    Craig Shore, Feb 21, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    55
    Views:
    1,112
    Don Hills
    Feb 24, 2006
  4. Jamie Kahn Genet
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    376
    Bruce Sinclair
    Apr 27, 2006
  5. GraB
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    350
Loading...

Share This Page