Photography rules in the space?

[Charles Yarnold]

Hello all,

So I made the mistake of doing something I thought would cause no drama, always the worst thing to think!

In the past I had always understood photos in the space were by the permission of anyone appearing in them, but it seems there are many interpretations.

So what, if any, rules should we have on photography in the space?

I think we should have a rule no matter what it is, so that people can know what to expect when taking, or not wanting to be in photos.

Personally I would rather everyone was free to take snaps whenever with whoever in them while at the space. But I know there are people who would rather not be in them.

I see these main options of dealing with photos in the space

1. All photos allowed.
2. Photos allowed but photographer must seek permission from those appearing in them.
3. Photos allowed but any objectors must make them self known to the photographer.
   
4. No photos allowed.

Personally I would go with either 1, 2 or 3. 3 does have the draw back that anyone objecting to photos needs to be constantly checking to see if anyone is taking photos to object to them, where as the photographer always knows when they are about to be taking photos to ask permission.

Thoughts?

Sol

[Morris]

Dont point a camera at someone without permission is a simple rule to
follow I think. :)

Hey can I photo your project.

Now obviously there is the issue with cams and screenshots etc, but it
feels at least less invasive and a necessary evil if one wishes to
attend the hackspace since they aren't optional.

Personally I rarely mind being photographed, but there are times when
I've had a camera pointed in my face and I've made a mess. There's a
time and a place I feel for that kind of thing.

> --
>
>



--
>
++++++++++[>+>+++>++
+++++>++++++++++<<<<
-]>>>+++++++.>++++++
+++++.+++..---------
.++++++++++.<<+++.<.

[SamLR]

Hey

Since chatting about this on IRC I think I see one of the big sources of confusion/problems, the two types of photography at the space,

1) is the photography of the space itself, projects and small groups of people

2) is photography of social evenings, parties etc. 

These 2 situations present very different conditions, in the first you can easily control who and what is seen in your photo. I don't think this presents many problems: the photography checks that people don't mind being photographed, those that do are framed out and/or move photo's taken happiness and cake ensues.

The problem seems to be with the second where you can easily have 20+ people in frame who you may or may not have had a chance to ask yet; who you may or may not remember the response of and who may or may not suddenly move from behind someone else and into shot. In this situation what ever rule is in place needs to be treated a little more sensibly (always tricky with booze). If you manage to snap someone you know doesn't want to be photographed, delete it. Equally if you are snapped and you don't want to be be polite and ask the photographer. 

The other option might be something similar to what some conferences do: some sort of lanyard with a 'no photo' logo on it or perhaps a hat. 

I think the sign helps clarify things in the first case. I think in the second people have to climb out of their own arses a bit and relax: photographers should try to be obvious when taking a photo so others can seek cover, others should try to let photographers know who they are.

S

On 26 January 2013 22:33, Charles Yarnold <charles...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
 
 

[Morris]

when ive made a fuss* rather

[SamLR]

On 26 January 2013 23:40, Morris <a.turn...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dont point a camera at someone without permission is a simple rule to
follow I think. :)

As I said about when the space is busy about the only place you can point the camera and not photograph people is the wall. If you want to get photos of the space as a social area this doesn't really work

So you try not to point the camera at people you know don't want to be photographed that happen to be in the crowd but then as you click the shutter one steps out from behind the person they were talking to.... 

S 

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

I would say "ask when reasonably possible".

On 26/01/2013 22:33, Charles Yarnold wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> So I made the mistake of doing something I thought would cause no drama,
> always the worst thing to think!
>
> In the past I had always understood photos in the space were by the
> permission of anyone appearing in them, but it seems there are
> many interpretations.
>
> So what, if any, rules should we have on photography in the space?
>
> I think we should have a rule no matter what it is, so that people can
> know what to expect when taking, or not wanting to be in photos.
>
> Personally I would rather everyone was free to take snaps whenever with
> whoever in them while at the space. But I know there are people who
> would rather not be in them.
>
> I see these main options of dealing with photos in the space
>

> 1. All photos allowed.
> 2. Photos allowed but photographer must seek permission from those
> appearing in them.
> 3. Photos allowed but any objectors must make them self known to the
> photographer.
> 4. No photos allowed.

>
> Personally I would go with either 1, 2 or 3. 3 does have the draw back
> that anyone objecting to photos needs to be constantly checking to see
> if anyone is taking photos to object to them, where as the photographer
> always knows when they are about to be taking photos to ask permission.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Sol
>

> --
>
>

[Mark Steward]

I don't see what's hard about asking.

Photographers should make themselves known to people, be willing to show the photo in question to demonstrate whether someone was caught in it, and be tolerant of the fact that some people really don't like their souls being stolen.  In return, anyone who's in the way of something ought to move if someone wants to photograph it, shouldn't hound the photographer simply for what they're doing, and shouldn't overreact if they find that a photo has been taken of them against their wishes.

I think this is something that should be put on the wiki as a guideline (not a rule) and the existence of this mentioned on the sign.  It's too complicated to summarise in black and white: cameras catch people by accident, and a lot of people don't need explicit permission to be photographed.

Mark

--
 
 

[Akki]

So basically we gotta come in with a giant red bullseye target on us saying PHOTOGRAPHER?

[jt]

2 rules?

Photographers: ask before taking photos of people where possible
Everyone: if you see someone with a camera and don't want to be in a photo, let them know.

Assume you may end up in a photo, and always be polite.

[Graham Rounce]

Is this all referring to some kind of porn evening that I don't know
about? What's the problem? If you're taking pictures OF particular
people, then of course you should ask, but otherwise... you're just
part of the background. Get over it!

[Mark Steward]

No, that's absurd, and not helping the discussion. I didn't suggest that at all.

Just ask before taking a photo of someone, unless you're pretty sure they won't mind. Surely you'd do that out of courtesy anyway?

Mark

--
 
 

[Philip McGaw]

I didn't think that “some people really don't like their souls being stolen” was to be taken seriously. 

People end up on film, tape, digital media all the time. 

Unless they are the subject of the photo. I think they would be best off just to get on with life. 

Philip McGaw

-- 

Philip McGaw

07969 502 077 | Phi...@JustVigilantes.co.uk | http://philipmcgaw.com | http://JustVigilantes.co.uk

Twitter: http://twitter.com/JustVigilantes | LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/philipmcgaw

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this email, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

--
 
 

[SamLR]

My understanding is that the problem seems to arise when people are caught in the background of photos. If you want a snap of a busy social evening asking everyone who might conceivably be in shot is not an easy task, equally you may not be able to see clearly who was in shot on a camera screen. 

I agree that photographers should be asking out of courtesy but sometimes this is not feasible and I think in that case people just have to accept that if they're in the back of the photo only a small portion of their soul will be stolen

S

--
 
 

[Adrian Godwin]

How about splitting the responsibility ?

Photographer worries about what's intentionally in shot, including
asking subjects.

People who don't want to be photographed worry about being in the
background, since that's their unique concern.

Then everyone's only thinking about the things that are important to
them, and nobody has to second-guess someone they don't know.

> --
>
>

[Mike Harrison]

How about this - before taking a genaral photo that may include random people, you should first fire
the flash - this will alert anyone who is camera-shy to raise an objection.

[SamLR]

Adrian, thank you for expressing what I've been so ham-fistedly attempting to say for the past 18 hours.

Mike good idea possibly coupled with a cry of 'fire in the hole'?

S

--

[Billy]

I always thought that this had already been covered in the last
conversation about this.

http://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Guides/Filming_in_the_space

On 27 Jan, 11:42, SamLR <sam.lindenrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Adrian, thank you for expressing what I've been so ham-fistedly attempting
> to say for the past 18 hours.
>
> Mike good idea possibly coupled with a cry of 'fire in the hole'?
>
> S
>

[Adrian Godwin]

That's filming. It involves a lot more disruption to the space than
snapshots. It shouldn't be allowed to create a new policy about less
intrusive forms of photography by default.

> --
>
>

[Aden]

Free tinfoil masks distributed to anyone that cares about being in photos.

> --
>
>

[Ian Henderson]

I'm amazed at the time people are spending on this discussion...

I assume EVERYONE knows that most of the space is covered 24/7 by CCTV available to members via a web link?

If people are seriously worried about being captured by a camera they probably need to stay in bed... 

[Geekinesis]

speaking as a photographer and filmmaker. my understanding is it is always tye photographers responsibility to make sure that people are aware tat photos are being taken. in a public space people are free to take whatever photos they like but it is common courtesy to tell people if they are being photographed. if someone is the main subject of a photo they have to be told. full stop. otherwise the photo cant be used or shown in any public place including facebook. obviously in the world of mobile phones these rules are pretty much ignored. but in any case it should never be the subjects responsibility to guess if there is a camera on them or not. so it seems logical to just have a sign up saykng photos may be taken so at leasast people are aware. 

ps google groups on my android phone seems to be suddenly impossible to navigate properly so excuse typos

[Mark Steward]

"Slippery slope" arguments are the cause of the upset in the space, and justify people being worried about whether the photos will be managed sensibly. We end up with our personal details spread over various computer systems, but that doesn't mean it has the same impact each time.

After *much* debate, we agreed that the webcams (which have fixed positions and are low quality) would only shared with members. A roaming camera, on the other hand, has no contract - how do I know whether a photo will be kept private, put on Facebook, or published in an article on hackerspaces? Contrast the webcams with our filming policy.

Treat it like doing something noisy or noxious - ask as you walk into the room if anyone minds, and if someone complains, reassess at that point. We don't ban all noises and cooking, tell people they have to get written permission in advance, or smother people who complain.  We also don't need a rule about it.

Mark

--
 
 

[David Murphy]

I'm no photographer but do the people who are upset about being in photos aware that they're being photographed constantly every moment they're in the space by the cams and said streams are available online?
It seems like getting concerned over a water pistol while sitting under a waterfall.

[chrisbob12]

I'm on the committee of a large choir, and we've had to deal with this question, and continue to struggle with it. The balance of responsibility is slightly different because we're constituted as charity and we have committee. Obviously, we want to have photos for publicity material, website and so forth, but some people don't want to be in shot for whatever reason. The first-line approach is to let people know in advance when we will have either posed shots or a roving photographer and deal with the one or two worries that arise beforehand. We struggle with smart phone photos and facebook, and simply ask members to respect each others requirements for privacy.

I think Sol's initial take on this is sensible: photographer ensures consent of all in photo. I would say that photographer makes themselves known, if there's likely to be people who they don't know, who are likely to be background.

Some people are making a point that not wanting to be in a photo is somehow unreasonable: well, I'm not the only one using a pseudonym here, and given the direction of travel of face identification tech, I don't particularly want FB auto-tagging me in stranger's photos.

Others make the point that people are on web-cam: this is a different case. The web-cams are owned and operated by Hackspace and there are clear rules and expectations regarding how that is used. Individual photographers are not acting as Hackspace.

Executive summary: play nice, and be thankful we don't have to deal with child protection.

[Akki]

Yes, if I thought I was taking their picture. But many times I don't give a monkey's that they're in the background because my camera has such a short depth of field(focus) they'd be more blurry than they are on the webcams. This isn't good enough for some.

I realise we're not a public space but we are opened to the public on Tuesday evenings. I recently read that in some places in the world, that'd then consider the hackspace to be a public space. UK laws state you can use photos taken on public property however you wish and you don't need consent forms for it. You can do what you like with it. Morally some may have issues about that but the law isn't that fussy. http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

I still think this is basically the end of any reportage photography that shows us as a community. If that's how it goes, that's how it goes.

I won't be taking any pictures in the Space any more due to various previous personal experiences in the Space. It's not worth the hassle.

~Akki

[Adrian Godwin]

Please can we have a specification of the problem we're trying to solve here ?

Vague speculation such as 'some people don't like to have their photo
taken' doesn't allow us to come up with a workable solution.

We need some input from someone who would object, with explanations of
the problem so we can solve the right part. It's not reasonable to
base a formal guideline or rule on hearsay.

-adrian

[Chris Brasted]

@Adrian: I think the specification depends on how you frame it. It looks broadly like it's about standards of behaviour, and some people want to frame it as governable by rules, others think common sense and consensus, whilst others don't perceive any behavioural problem.
As far as I can see, the rule-based approach is difficult to apply in LHS, because such governance as there is, doesn't offer sufficient nuance to implement anything other than fairly black/white policies.
In my opinion, it illustrates the conflict between individual freedom and liberty within society: you have to accept some curtailment of individual freedoms in order to have liberty in society. In a more modern context, privacy is increasingly a luxury, afforded to the elite, and free photography within the space could be seen by some as an unwarranted compromise.
Akki's comment about reportage photography was poignant and has some resonance: Cartier Bresson would probably not be able to operate as he did in modern society.

[David Murphy]

>Some people are making a point that not wanting to be in a photo is somehow unreasonable: well, I'm not the only one using a pseudonym here, and given the direction of travel of face identification tech, I don't particularly want FB auto-tagging me in stranger's photos.

 

>The web-cams are owned and operated by Hackspace and there are clear rules and expectations regarding how that is used. Individual photographers are not acting as Hackspace.

and you see no contradiction between these statements?

if you're worried about being tagged in photos, identified, listed, scanned, whatever then there's no functional difference between turning up on the feed of a cam which can be monitored and recorded from anywhere in the world and being caught in the background of someone elses photo.

Hell the former is probably a much bigger deal since for the latter the algorithm has to identify the location of the random photo.

 

If it ever comes to some kind of authority like the police or , the government , interpol or the american FBI trying to figure out who's a member your pseudoname isn't much good when the hackspaces bank records show monthly payments from your real name.

 

I mean this would make sense if you were objecting to *both* the public cam  feed and the photography.

That I could understand.
But objecting to just one because you have, for no obvious reason, decided that it doesn't count when it comes to privacy just seems strange.

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Adrian Godwin]

Chris,

Yes, this is part of the problem. We haven't decided how to modify the
behaviour.
But there's a more fundamental problem : what exactly is the
behaviour, and why is it a problem ?

I agree that understanding this would be critical to the black and
white rules approach (because rules need to address something
specific), but in some senses it's even more important to the attiudes
approach, since we can't sympathise with a viewpoint that hasn't been
explained.

It would be lovely if we could say 'this upsets x, so we won't do it'.
But when not doing it upsets a number of other people and arguably
hurts the community, a more targeted solution is needed.

There are plenty of things that upset me. I don't expect them to get
fixed, because all the solutions I can think of have worse results
than putting up with them. Is this the same ? I can't tell, I don't
have enough information.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "London Hackspace" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

[Chris Brasted]

@David Murphy:

"and you see no contradiction between these statements?"

I cheerfully accept that they define an ambiguous position :)

I signed up to LHS and its webcams, but the signed-upness to
individual photographs may or may not be negotiable, dependendant on
LHS' positon on this.

I'm quite aware that government authorities can trace me if they want
to make the effort. I'm more interested in maintaining some semblance
of control over details of my life being routinely harvested by
corporate interests. Maybe google already stuffs the webcam feeds
through an algorithm, who knows?

Generally, I'm quite happy for people to go snapping away, it's the
subsequent sharing that I'm interested in: different people have
different boundaries, and it's a case of etiquette rather than policy.

[Adrian Godwin]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Chris Brasted <chrisb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm quite aware that government authorities can trace me if they want
> to make the effort. I'm more interested in maintaining some semblance
> of control over details of my life being routinely harvested by
> corporate interests.

Good, here's an example of an actual concern, and one I find it easy
to sympathise with.

My take on that (and I'm more than willing to hear another view) is
that by restricting photos of me in the space I'm not going to
significantly affect the ability of those interests to harvest my
picture for whatever purposes they think will turn a profit.

I would like to deny them the opportunity, but the number of instances
where I might control it (the space, conferences, private meetings) is
swamped by those where I can't (public events, the street) and
furthermore I really appreciate the photos that do exist of the
activities in the space, so there's a net loss in limiting them.

-adrian

[930913]

As one of the paranoids, I'll offer my views, to help people understand what the fuss is about.

You might have noticed that neither my nick nor email describe much about me, other than my anonymous paranoia. A few years ago, it would have been nigh impossible to determine who I was from my nick alone. However, as various services leaked more and more information about me, it now takes a fraction of the time. (Yes, I know of at least one case of a person who has found my full name and home address.) I'm still somewhat confident of it still being hard to put name to picture and I don't plan on this changing any time soon.

The webcams are in a fixed position, and one can simply apply the "Four Lions" anti surveillance technique. It is only members who can access the feed, so it's not too much a security breach. Besides, it is a cool feature, so I'm willing to put up with it, for science.

The same would probably go for a rover in the space. Unless it started streaming live footage to hundreds of people, I doubt I would complain.

The problem with photography, is it is used in a very different manner to the webcams. Nobody takes photos in the space for archive or because it's cool. Most usually it is to go online, or distributed by some means that makes my paranoia elevate.

The best course of action that I see, is to simply shout that you're going to take a picture, and ask if anybody objects. Initial camera flash works too, though be warned that some people may think you've already taken a picture of them.

This was demonstrated to great effect the other day, when Sci announced that he was doing a pan and asked if anybody objected. Despite everyone's best effort to come up with a troll response, the filming was completed successfully.

It gives anyone who cares a chance to voice their concern, or hit the deck. I think the biggest fear comes from unsolicited cameras pointed in one's direction. Once the camera has been announced, the fear of the unknown diminishes. (Think of letting a dog sniff your hand before you pet it, and not sneaking up behind a horse.)

[Chris Brasted]

@93091e
Nicely put

--

[Adrian Godwin]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:53 AM, 930913
<proxify....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> As one of the paranoids, I'll offer my views, to help people understand what
> the fuss is about.

Excellent, thank you.

So you've explained what you see as a problem, and how you try to
avoid undesirable cameras.

But what are your concerns ? You describe it as paranoia, presumably
at least partially tongue in cheek (i.e. you consider it important,
not just an unnecessary fear). What do you see as the consequences of
your photo appearing online? Is that the only outcome you'd like to
avoid, or are there others ?

-adrian

[Mark Steward]

I can cope with people taking occasional unsolicited photos of me and making them publicly available, but it's taken a long time and wouldn't have happened without Facebook's encouragement.  Also, while some people can capture artistic photos of anything they point a camera at, including spur-of-the-moment/casual shots, certain people always catch me at awkward moments.  It takes a little reassurance for an aggressive photographer not to make being in the space unpleasant.

Photographers do have the right to take photos on private property unless asked not to, and they have no obligation to delete photos.  However, this swings things very much in favour of the photographer, and I think it's this entitlement that causes friction.  As a trustee, I've had to deal with the following situations:

 - photographer taking close-up shots without permission; subject politely asking where the photos were going; photographer refusing to give an answer

 - photographer snapping a project on the shelves; owner assuming this meant it was being reported to the trustees

 - camera-shy subject feeling they couldn't ask people to stop filming something (which was intended to be shared, started without warning, and had been going on for 15 minutes) while they walked past

 - subject asking a photographer not to point the camera in their direction; photographer incorrectly insisting that they wouldn't be in shot

 - subject asking photographers to delete photos from their camera, including shots that didn't include them

Perhaps we're trying to solve something insoluble, and these situations should be dealt as they arise.  Still, I've heard someone (whose name I don't know) say they didn't come on Tuesdays because they were concerned about being photographed, and Russ has said on IRC that he's given up taking photos because of the hassle.  Are these just expected consequences of a large membership?

Mark

-adrian

[Chris Brasted]

@Mark

"Are these just expected consequences of a large membership?"

I would hazard it's more a consequence of people having different
boundary perceptions, and I don't think you'd need a very large group
for that to manifest itself.
IMO it's about etiquette, most people will check and respect the
boundaries of others; some people assume that it's not an issue. The
trouble with etiquette is that it's too low level to enforce as a
hanging offence, but sufficiently bothersome not to go away.
If there are no sanctions, we can only have guidelines.

[Adrian Godwin]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Chris Brasted <chrisb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> IMO it's about etiquette, most people will check and respect the
> boundaries of others; some people assume that it's not an issue. The
> trouble with etiquette is that it's too low level to enforce as a
> hanging offence, but sufficiently bothersome not to go away.
> If there are no sanctions, we can only have guidelines.
>

Indeed, and perhaps more importantly, interacting politely and non-aggressively.

All Mark's examples would seem to be covered by 'don't be a dick' on
one side or another. I appreciate that we get into arguments about
rules when people have different ideas about what that means, but
defining the boundaries of every possible interaction doesn't scale
well.

-adrian

[Chris Brasted]

@Adrian
I think "interacting politely and non-aggressively" and "'don't be a
dick" are pretty much all the scaling factor you need.

As to rules: there are those with sanctions, i.e. disobey the rule and
you're busted, and those without sanctions, which, if you're lucky,
are enforced socially. If you're unlucky, then you get a population
which insists on rules and makes themselves unpopular, those that
ignore infractions (life's too short) and those that cheerfully ignore
them.

I'm not clear whether LHS exercises any sanctions over people for
incorrect photography behaviour or not. What's the position?

[Monty]

My main reason for disliking being photographed by photographers I don't know is because in the past we've had reporters and media types come in and misrepresent the space and certain activities taking place. The main example I can think of is when the Sukey crowd took over the quiet room in the run up to the student protests. During this time reporters took pictures in the space and referred to the location as Sukey HQ, no mention that it was in fact the London Hackspace. I'm not intending to suggest that those pictured in the articles didn't consent or weren't involved with Sukey but smaller stuff like that has happened before. Why would I care being associated with Sukey? Well, while I may have no objections with the actual software/platform they provide I do disagree with some of the highly questionable ideals and activities of those who involved or otherwise associated with it.

So in short, if I disagree with a particular activity/group (e.g. it's questionable whether it is ethical or legal) then I shall try distance and disassociate myself from it, however, given the confined space of the Hackspace a photograph could easily suggest an association to said activity/group if used incorrectly/irresponsibly.

[Monty]

Are you sure? I thought on private property photographers have to seek permission first and various restrictions or conditions can be imposed on entry.

[Mark Steward]

I believe that with some exceptions (Official Secrets Act) that unless it's a condition of entry, you can assume you're fine.

http://www.lfph.org/photographers-rights-in-the-uk

Mark

--

[Monty]

That's only your rights as a photographer while you're standing on public property.

[Mark Steward]

Oops, that one only refers to commercial photos on private land.  This one's more comprehensive:

  http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

Mark

[Geekinesis]

I think I would still agree that however inconvenient or frustrating it is, it should always be the photographers responsibility to ensure they are following the guidelines.

I can understand peoples frustration but I dont think we should ever have to justify 'why' we dont want a photo taken of ourselves. 

I dont think its that hard to take a photo of someone or a project without other people in the background....?

I think the cctv is a separate matter, and it just confuses the issue to conflate it with photography in the space.

But for the sake of discussion, and as an example, I am feeling increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of tagging that goes on in photos on facebook, meetup, and many others. I dont particularly like the look of myself in photos anyway, and especially not when the worse for wear at a party or event. Its always a bit of a shock to have photos suddenly appear on my facebook timeline (which I use for work purposes) which I didnt even know were taken. It may seem like a trivial example but just to illustrate that the reasons for not wanting to be photographed are varied but all valid.

Maybe its to do with my age? Its just something I am not used to. 

Does Hackspace ever count as a public space, even on tuesdays? 

A shopping centre is used by the public but you cant take photos there without permission as it is owned or run by a commercial or charitable organisation.

[Adrian Godwin]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Geekinesis <geeki...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I think I would still agree that however inconvenient or frustrating it is,
> it should always be the photographers responsibility to ensure they are
> following the guidelines.
>
> I can understand peoples frustration but I dont think we should ever have to
> justify 'why' we dont want a photo taken of ourselves.
>

I'm not asking for justification. I'm asking for explanation. So that
the concerns are understood and guidelines can be agreed (we only have
guidelines for filming, at the moment) which fulfil the requirements,
rather than speculating on what will satisfy members.

> I dont think its that hard to take a photo of someone or a project without
> other people in the background....?

We've been over that. Often, it's not. Sometimes, it is. Sometimes,
due to the nature of photography, someone who sees a camera pointed at
them may not, actually, be in the picture. So it can and should help,
but can't be dismissed as easy.

> But for the sake of discussion, and as an example, I am feeling increasingly
> uncomfortable with the amount of tagging that goes on in photos on facebook,
> meetup, and many others. I dont particularly like the look of myself in
> photos anyway, and especially not when the worse for wear at a party or
> event. Its always a bit of a shock to have photos suddenly appear on my
> facebook timeline (which I use for work purposes) which I didnt even know
> were taken. It may seem like a trivial example but just to illustrate that
> the reasons for not wanting to be photographed are varied but all valid.
>

Good, this is what I'm trying to elicit.

[David Sullivan]

On Monday, 28 January 2013 18:34:54 UTC, Geekinesis wrote:

I think I would still agree that however inconvenient or frustrating it is, it should always be the photographers responsibility to ensure they are following the guidelines.

I can understand peoples frustration but I dont think we should ever have to justify 'why' we dont want a photo taken of ourselves. 

I dont think its that hard to take a photo of someone or a project without other people in the background....?

This is somewhat missing the "background" of some incidents up till now, do you consider a bit of shoulder behind the main room archway whilst taking a picture in the Lobby background? If that is the case I don't think the proposals go far enough. I think it needs full permission of everyone in the space at the time or no photo.

Sully.

[Charles Yarnold]

Just as a side note, in many of my mediations the person objecting to a taken photo believe there is a rule in place calling for a photographer to get permission first, if nothing else these 2 threads have highlighted that there is no such rule currently. Something I will remember in future mediations until/if we reach a consensus.

[Paddy Duncan]

An interesting point, but considering that most cameras in use nowadays can either take stills or video, with no obvious indication as to which is actually happening, I would consider the 'filming in the space' rule applies by default.

--

[Geekinesis]

i am not really aware of the incidents to be honest. But I would imagine that If I were to object it would only be if my face was clearly identifiable. 

[Adrian Godwin]

Yes, but it's not about the capture of motion pictures or stills. It's
because the filming guidelines have very little to do with privacy,
shyness, identification etc. They simply weren't written with that as
the issue.

They were mostly written in response to teams of photographers turning
up unannounced and disrupting the activities in the space for
significant periods.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

[Alex Pounds]

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:33:17PM +0000, Charles Yarnold wrote:
> So what, if any, rules should we have on photography in the space?

The last time this topic came up, I advocated for a fairly liberal "If
you're in the space, expect to get photographed" approach, tempered by an
equally wide-ranging "Don't be a dick" policy. It's possible that two
things have changed since then:

1. The Hackspace is no longer as public as it once was. My previous
stance was based around the idea that a) if you're in public, then you
have no right not to be photographed and b) the Hackspace is, at least,
a semi-public space. But recent discussions have suggested that we're
moving towards a more members-only status, so maybe that is no longer a
useful heuristic.

2. We have far more members/visitors than we used to, and "Don't be a
dick" is too subjective to be useful.

On the whole I would still say that people should feel free to take photos
in the space, and if you don't want to be photographed you should keep an
eye out for people with cameras and ask them nicely not to photograph you.
But as a photographer, I would say that. Personally, I don't feel like the
Hackspace is a very photography-friendly space so I don't bother taking
pictures - apart from the occasional "This is what I'm working on" snap of
something on a desk.

--
Alex Pounds
Web Developer & Photographer

http://alexpounds.com/ | http://ethicsgirls.com/

[Geekinesis]

Should there be a distinction between 

A) people casually capturing a memory on their phone which remains on their phone or pc (which I wouldnt object to) or 

B) a photo that's put on facebook/twitter and made public (possible objection if I look ugly or drunk in the photo)

[Adrian Godwin]

It would be nice if such a distinction were possible.

But people's expectations have changed - photos have always been taken
to share, and current fashion is to share them more widely. If this is
a problem, it's in the social networks' usage of them rather than the
public's intentions.

So while we might have that as an ideal, impressed on members and
learned by rote, it isn't the public's expectation of how they use
their 'phones. It would be difficult to apply to random visitors (who
are, in any case, the ones most likely to take wideview snapshots
rather than project-specific ones). As, indeed, is a general ban :
professional photographers might look out for 'no photo' signs but the
average visitor just snaps away, as they have since the instamatic was
invented. 'No photo' signs might be seen in an art gallery or a
pay-to-enter display, but not in somewhere with the social atmosphere
of a pub.

[Peter "Sci" Turpin]

Regarding the members-only aspect, would that imply that there'd be
different rules for the open-evening?

[Martin Dittus]

I don't think it's worth pursuing such a notion. We're not a member's-only club, and I don't think we need different rules for different times -- that just makes it needlessly confusing.

Alex was merely summarising a general impression he had. (It was a useful observation for me btw, I hadn't seen it that way before.)

m.

[chrisbob12]

@Martin

Eh? I don't understand. It is a membership organisation, unless I missed something. Non-members can't just stroll in and use the kit. Members enter into an agreement with the LHS entity when they join.

[Martin Dittus]

We're not talking about kit usage here, we're talking about visitors. We have them almost every day, not just on Tuesdays. Some of them with cameras, and some with opinions about being photographed.

m.

On 29 Jan 2013, at 00:42, chrisbob12 wrote:

> @Martin
>
> Eh? I don't understand. It is a membership organisation, unless I missed something. Non-members can't just stroll in and use the kit. Members enter into an agreement with the LHS entity when they join.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "London Hackspace" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to london-hack-sp...@googlegroups.com.

[Ndolvu]

My 5 cents 

The hackspace is a member orginsation however we dont restict membership, therefore the same rules apply as in public including public curtesy in my view = as in the public domain not eevry one will be happy and not every one's needs can be meet 

It is a free world and we reitterating it are on camera a large part of the day ..... despite what we may wish it a fact 

I would have to hide in a cave in Zimbabwe to avoid this and even then I may be photographed by an "1st World" Satilite :-)

On Saturday, 26 January 2013 22:33:17 UTC, Solexious wrote:

Hello all,

So I made the mistake of doing something I thought would cause no drama, always the worst thing to think!

In the past I had always understood photos in the space were by the permission of anyone appearing in them, but it seems there are many interpretations.

So what, if any, rules should we have on photography in the space?

I think we should have a rule no matter what it is, so that people can know what to expect when taking, or not wanting to be in photos.

Personally I would rather everyone was free to take snaps whenever with whoever in them while at the space. But I know there are people who would rather not be in them.

I see these main options of dealing with photos in the space

1. All photos allowed.
2. Photos allowed but photographer must seek permission from those appearing in them.
3. Photos allowed but any objectors must make them self known to the photographer.
   
4. No photos allowed.

Personally I would go with either 1, 2 or 3. 3 does have the draw back that anyone objecting to photos needs to be constantly checking to see if anyone is taking photos to object to them, where as the photographer always knows when they are about to be taking photos to ask permission.

Thoughts?

Sol

[Ndolvu]

Sol 

For me the answer is 

Photos allowed but any objectors must make them self known to the photographer.

This subject for me is simple but it appears that there are some strong view ..... how to come to a consensus ?