You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yesterday on my govt. sanctioned pedal, I was photographed by the passenger in a car that passed me aggressively with a horn toot.
Will I now appear on some Daily Mail hit list of cyclists?
Probably on some local "Spotted" FB group.
Have a search online to find it, explain how you were within the rules and why they are curtain twitching Stasi quislings. Always goes down well on here 👍
If you find who took it charge them your modeling fee, say £100 and if they refuse ask to see the contract that allowed them to use your image
I hope you had your best grumpy cat face on to show you were seriously training, rather than enjoying the ride. 😉
Happened to me as well, some bloke with an SLR lurking at the roadside.
2 people in the car.... so that's ok then.
On Saturday I started counting the number of multi occupant cars... 8 out of the 1st 10. Then I gave up.
Mum dad 3 kids and the dog...
grumpy cat face
standard guise for all roadies innit?
Mum dad 3 kids and the dog
And? Sounds like they all live in the same household
Standard British public turning into willing Stasi-esque informants.
Happened to me as well, some bloke with an SLR lurking at the roadside.
So he was carrying out a non permitted activity. The mind boggles.
I've had a fair bit of abuse from passing drivers. I'm literally the only cyclist on the road from what I can make out - there are a few running errands in town but on the 25km out and back to work, not a single bike. I went in on Sunday and there normally would've been hundreds on that road.
I've got a permit, but of course no-one knows that, so it's just a case of sucking it up and changing the route as much as possible.
I got accosted on a ride the other day by some local busybody out walking her dog. Demanded to know where I'd come from so I gave her the name of the nearest local town. "You live there?"
Yep.
She went on her way with rather ill grace. She kept her scarf wrapped over her face and stood 10m from me, clearly implying my aura of filth and disease.
(I should add that I'd stopped for a photo, she didn't actually step out into the road and flag me down to demand this info).
And? Sounds like they all live in the same household
But going where though?
Makes a change from people either moaning about me not having a bell (I say a nice cheery hello instead) or saying I'm not allowed to ride a bike here (on a bridelway).
But going where though?
To walk the dog?
To drop off some shopping outside an elderly relatives house and wave through the window?
To give Granny Coronoavirus for Easter?
To take part in an occult ceremony?
At least some of those is within the rules.
To walk the dog?
To drop off some shopping outside an elderly relatives house and wave through the window?
To give Granny Coronoavirus for Easter?
To take part in an occult ceremony?
At least some of those is within the rules.
None of which require the whole family to be out and driving to walk the dog is not within the rules
For balance: I popped out for an hour at the weekend and everything was fine and dandy. Everyone was nice and polite, drivers were patient, it was all good.
(The one exception being the plonker on a mountain bike who had decided, after I moved to the side of the trail to give him a ton of space, that he was going to be the first person I've encountered in 30 years of MTBing to dogmatically adhere to the "keep left" of the Highway Code on the bridleway, rather than be pragmatic or follow off-road convention of "downhill gives way to up". But I don't think that's related to the zombie apocalypse.)
We rode past the Wessex Way yesterday - people not only drive to walk their dogs, but they park on right the entrance to the footpath (or actually on the Southdowns Way, as we saw last week), presumably to minimise the amount of walking they actually have to do once they're out.
It is ****ing bizarre.
If you find who took it charge them your modeling fee, say £100 and if they refuse ask to see the contract that allowed them to use your image
Not sure you quite understand the legalities or taking pictures in public.
Police were taking registration numbers up on Stanton Moor (Derbyshire people will know it) the other day. Later on there was a bobby car there and it seemed they'd taken a walk over the moor to collar the offender's.
Police didn't seem bothered about me being there on my bike
Further balance: took the kids out on their bikes over the weekend to the local woods, with the roads being so quiet we can easily ride there and back: its just a 10k roundtrip but the route is through the town center so usually too busy for the kids to ride. Down the single track lane which is normally completely empty we must have passed about twenty walkers and four families out for a bike ride: it's amazing how many people are actually exploring their local countryside for a change! Everyone was very cheery.
it’s amazing how many people are actually exploring their local countryside for a change! Everyone was very cheery.
This ^ what's also amazing in not such a good way, is how many people think you have to be ****'ing miserable, because it's a 'pandemic not a holiday'
Common sense is the ultimate, key - granted, a lot of people unfortunately lack this.
I draw a bit of an analogy to drivers.
The people that scream and shout that you must do this, must do that becaus thems the rules, are probably the same people that will weave in and out of the lorries in lane 1 because that's the highway code to keep left. If lanes 2 & 3 are completely empty, it doesn't matter. People don't seem to be able to assess a situation and apply some rationale
None of which require the whole family to be out and driving to walk the dog is not within the rules
Well either they can all go for a walk together, or mum/dad is going to have to go out separately, and assuming that if one has it they all have it that's then doubled the risk to them and rest of the world.
The law doesn't say you can't drive for exercise. The guidelines advise against it.
The only thing the guidelines seem to say you should do solo is shopping.
The law doesn’t say you can’t drive for exercise. The guidelines advise against it.
Not going to flat out disagree with you, as I'm not sure, but I thought it did. For the very reason to stop people piling into the Peak for a stroll for example. As I said somewhere, coppers were taking registrations at a local beauty spot the other day
None of which require the whole family to be out and driving
I was mostly pointing out that all these people you see may be acting well within the guidance. The thread was started by someone in just such a situation
Surely this applies:
what’s also amazing in not such a good way, is how many people think you have to be ****’ing miserable, because it’s a ‘pandemic not a holiday’
Not going to flat out disagree with you, as I’m not sure, but I thought it did
Then you thought wrong, sorry.
If you find who took it charge them your modeling fee, say £100 and if they refuse ask to see the contract that allowed them to use your image
Not sure you quite understand the legalities or taking pictures in public.
Its not the taking, its the publishing of them that requires the consent of the subject. If you want to publish the picture, and that counts as facebook, then you need the permission of the person in the picture.
Did a 15 mile loop round the Black isle on sunday. Never saw a soul out and only a handful of cars. All on wee backroads or cyclepath - no issues at all.
There is a few cyclists out and about, but no-one here is getting hassle from folk I speak to. To be fair our COVID cases in the local hospital (Inverness) were still in single figures at the tail end of last week, so that might explain why we are a bit more relaxed (than normal) up here.
Its not the taking, its the publishing of them that requires the consent of the subject. If you want to publish the picture, and that counts as facebook, then you need the permission of the person in the picture.
No you don't.
Its not the taking, its the publishing of them that requires the consent of the subject. If you want to publish the picture, and that counts as facebook, then you need the permission of the person in the picture.
There’s hundreds of street photography books and websites that would disagree with that.
You need permission if the person was somewhere that would be considered a private place (don’t take pics of someone stood in their living room). If they are in a public place then you are free to do as you wish unless it is for criminal or terrorist purposes.
Obviously usual rules around defamation of character apply.
How do you think the paparazzi would earn a living if you needed consent?
[i]Then you thought wrong[/i]
It's not like it's hard to look up:
. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-guidance-on-access-to-green-spaces.
stay local and use open spaces near to your home where possible – do not travel unnecessarily
Perhaps you are simply a damn fine specimen of a human being who looks amazing in lycra OP?
Then you thought wrong
It’s not like it’s hard to look up:
. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/coronavirus-guidance-on-access-to-green-spaces.
stay local and use open spaces near to your home where possible – do not travel unnecessarily
That's not the law.
The law is: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made
....
Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
(a)to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed in Part 3 of Schedule 2;
(b)to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
(c)....
I don't think it's in the spirit of the law to drive for exercise, but it doesn't seem to actually be against the law as it's written.
It’s not like it’s hard to look up:
Just to clarify, I wasn't questioning whether you should drive or not for exercise - you shouldn't. Didn't know if it was guidance, or law. I've not researched it fully, as I don't drive anywhere to exercise
Its not the taking, its the publishing of them that requires the consent of the subject. If you want to publish the picture, and that counts as facebook, then you need the permission of the person in the picture.
Noooope.
You only need permission in two cases:
1) There's money involved, e.g. selling the photographs
2) The person is the subject and identifiable.
e.g. you take a photo of a rider at an MTB race, you would need that persons permission to publish it for money, e.g. in an advert to promote your product. You wouldn't need to ask everyone in the crowd cheering them on as they're not the subject of the photograph.
OTOH if your business was selling cycling shoes, and you snapped a pic of a riders leg wearing your shoes then as long as the rider wasn't identifiable you should be OK.
3rd case, you take a pic of the rider and stick it on facebook, no permissions needed.
IANAL, but was involved on the periphery of documentary filming which obviously involved a lot of filming of vulnerable people.
Not going to flat out disagree with you, as I’m not sure, but I thought it did. For the very reason to stop people piling into the Peak for a stroll for example. As I said somewhere, coppers were taking registrations at a local beauty spot the other day
I think the distinction is whether it was necessary or not. I think driving shouldn't be allowed as it's so difficult to police, and if you have a dog then there must be somewhere to walk it locally otherwise you wouldn't have a dog. But some people have been trying to argue that if you drive 5 miles to get out of town then the risk is reduced. I call bull**** because you can guarantee everyone else within 5 miles is going to descend on the same open space and it'll be busier than just walking up and down your street.
This a bit of an issue locally as one of the larger gravel pits/parks was closed to cars, so then people just parked on the roads, it was getting ridiculous. So now they've closed and blocked the pedestrian entrances from the road too.
If you are in public you have no right to privacy. your photo can be used for publication. What it can't be used for without your permission is advertising/endorsement. Any of the photos I've taken in the studio of models I can sell for publication if I want because I own the copyright.
I stopped and waited for a dog walker to pass & he stopped and said
"are you going to ride down that hill?" Pointing to a sweet bit of singletrack.
Expecting the worst I said "well I was"
And he said " oh watch out a horse has shat it's load all over it"
Which I thought was nice helpful info
He didn't take a photo though
Didn’t know if it was guidance, or law.
It is neither. There are links to the guidance and the law above and it isn't mentioned in either.
I think the analogy to drivers and sitting in the middle lane is perfect. Its people making up their own rules (or own interpretation of the rules, being generous) then getting angry at other folk following the actual law rather than their own made up version.
By all means get angry at those blatantly ignoring the rules (the parties, the barbeques, not staying local, visiting second homes, etc), give people a bit of slack when it down to the interpretation
You only need permission in two cases:
1) There’s money involved, e.g. selling the photographs
2) The person is the subject and identifiable.
Nope. As above, see every single newspaper ever as examples of this not being true.
In the UK you've basically got privacy laws and human rights laws (and there are fewer of those now we've left the EU) which are the legal frontier of what you can do in terms of photography in public places.
Beyond that you're into commercial (ie voluntary) territory: eg if you sell to stock sites, you generally need a model release because the stock vendor will want to minimise or eliminate risk of prosecution under whatever laws are applicable (in the UK that's the above, but if they're selling internationally then other laws may apply).
IANAL, of course. But if you're going to say you can't legally do something please start citing the legislation you think exists.
Didn’t know if it was guidance, or law.
It is neither. There are links to the guidance and the law above and it isn’t mentioned in either.
We advise you to stay local and use open spaces near to your home where possible – do not travel unnecessarily.
I'd call that guidance.
You're right, I was trying to think around the specific example of someone photographing someone on a bike and sticking it on Facebook.
There's a whole load of nuances that haven't been mentioned either.
e.g. there's rules about pointing CCTV away from your property, even if it would be legal to stand there tasking photographs and at what point does a photograph become data.
But yes, the local busybody can take a photo of you riding your bike and put it on Facebook.
I took these 2 pics, they’re both “published” on Insta. None of the people gave me permission and they are definitely identifiable, and that is perfectly OK. The second for featured in a local newspaper too, again, no permission sort from the subjects. I’ll
I think driving shouldn’t be allowed as it’s so difficult to police, and if you have a dog then there must be somewhere to walk it locally otherwise you wouldn’t have a dog
The whole family out in the car with a dog were seemingly off for a walk which is against the guidance, but not the law.
FWIW though, my girlfriend's dog quite likes a trip in the car, so comes with us and sits outside the shops (or her older parents' house when she's making deliveries) in the car as long as it's not too hot or too cold. She does worry these days that people might assume she's driving somewhere to walk the dog, but we have only walked the dog or ridden from the front door.
I took these 2 pics, they’re both “published” on Insta. None of the people gave me permission and they are definitely identifiable, and that is perfectly OK. The second for featured in a local newspaper too, again, no permission sort from the subjects. I’ll
Permission may not have been sought. But given that the purpose of a newspaper is to make money then they are using your image in pursuit of that. As a result both the photographer and subject are entitled to be paid and could demand recompense. The national press rely on 2 things
1. Most of the general public cant be bothered to do anything about it, the process would be time consuming and costly. In many cases they are happy to be in the paper or dont even know they are
2. If its someone we have heard of then either an agreement will have been reached or the press will argue public interest if the subject decides to pursue them. This either ends up in court, a deal is done, or the subject decides its not worth the hassle and the embarrassing incident is forgotten about quicker if they just shut up and do nothing.
The photographer holds the rights to the image so should / can be paid. The subject owns no rights to the image so doesn’t get paid unless there’s a previous arrangement. There’s no right to image privacy outside moral norms (upskirting for instance) in a public place. That’s how it works, full stop.
The whole family out in the car with a dog were seemingly off for a walk which is against the guidance, but not the law.
You're allowed to go out for exercise with your household.
both the photographer and subject are entitled to be paid
Copyright law covers the former*, but what makes you think the subject is entitled to be paid?
* Though it doesn’t entitle them to be paid, it just means the image can’t be used without their permission. It's up to them whether they give that, and if so whether they give it conditionally or unconditionally, and freely or in return for payment. Even if the photographer pursues a legal case for copyright violation, it may not necessarily result in financial compensation.
As a result both the photographer and subject are entitled to be paid and could demand recompense.
unless there is a contract the subject has no entitlement to be paid.
And he said ” oh watch out a horse has shat it’s load all over it”
Which I thought was nice helpful info
Well, that cheered me up anyway. Cheers
No-one photographed me on my ride this evening. Not even a selfie.
No-one photographed me on my ride this evening. Not even a selfie.
Other way round for me on my ride - I went into town and took pictures of the empty streets. This is rush hour on a weekday and there was NOTHING around. I cycled on roads I'd never normally dream of going on, had the chance to look at parts of the city I'd never usually see. Could actually hear birds singing - most of the time all you ever hear is traffic noise.
Got some nice pics. No-one in them to be identified!
However, a number of people say they have found themselves the subject of criticism or abuse while taking part in that daily exercise routine.
George, 68, from Edinburgh, told how he had stopped to speak to a friend - making sure they kept a "large" distance between them - after they happened to meet during his daily walk in The Meadows in Edinburgh.
He said: "Suddenly this woman came up to us shouting that we were too close and produced a measuring tape from her pocket.
"She then began measuring the distance between us."
. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-52230081.
Nutters out there, not surprising really.
How do you measure the distance between two people, using a tape measure, without tripling the number of potential transmission vectors?
Stupid bint.