What a Creep!

If you really feel the OP was within his legal limits, I sincerely hope you are never on a jury.

Fortunately, the prosecution would instruct the jury as to what the law is, and he would certainly be found guilty.

My understanding is that it's very hard to predict what a jury will do.

I know from experience that in some situations, stopping someone and asking if you can take their photograph ruins any chance of getting a good action shot, people get self conscious.

He did not hide from you, he willingly showed you his photographs without seeming guilty, it probably did not occur to him that you would be anything other than delighted, and he probably expected you to ask him to email you copies, that's the usual reaction I get anyway.

He was probably as shocked at your criminal behaviour as you are to have people saying you were in the wrong...

All a really good point, and I've been photographed in the past, but it's polite for the photographer to state their intent and ask permission to take a couple shots. The way the guy was doing it, from a van, turning around to get more shots, just not a good way to go about it.

He's probably just some old, widower that started taking a photography class to fill his spare time since his wife passed away. Here, he saw a young man reminiscent of him in his prime, and he decided to practice his new photography skills on a moving subject. When you came up to see the pictures he was probably overjoyed, finally someone to talk to about his photography! "They came out great!" he started. Then, you stole his only memory card and ran off with his photography.

You crushed an old man's heart today

That is a perfectly reasonable scenario, though the stuff about his wife having just died may be stretching the point.

The fact is that there are a lot of keen photographers around, of which I am one, and the fact is that it IS absolutely legal to photograph anyone in public.

I have photographed people in all sorts of situations without incident or complaint, perhaps being an attractive female I have "got away" without seeming creepy, but nobody has reacted as the OP did, and if they had I'd certainly have reported them to the police.

To the OP - not everything is about "you" maybe he was just trying out photographing moving people, which is rather an interesting technical challenge.

If you really feel the OP was within his legal limits, I sincerely hope you are never on a jury.

Fortunately, the prosecution would instruct the jury as to what the law is, and he would certainly be found guilty.

My understanding is that it's very hard to predict what a jury will do.

Fair enough. The prosecution would lay out what the law is though.

The law can be a nebulous thing and there are definitely two sides to this issue. Nothing was stolen and because the man handed him the camera there was no assault….

The law can be a nebulous thing and there are definitely two sides to this issue. Nothing was stolen and because the man handed him the camera there was no assault….

"I took the camera took out the SD memory card said thanks and ran away" That's theft.

What I want to know is.. what OTHER pics were on that SD card!?!?

Yeah I want to know that too!!

Excellent application of Pedobear. :laugh:

The law can be a nebulous thing and there are definitely two sides to this issue. Nothing was stolen and because the man handed him the camera there was no assault….

"I took the camera took out the SD memory card said thanks and ran away" That's theft.

...asked him if I could see the pictures he was like "oh yes they are good" I took the camera took out the SD memory card said thanks and ran away

The man handed him the camera to look at the pictures and the card is with the proper owner... Consent could be argued in that he didn't say where he wanted to look at the photos. The card and camera were returned.

Edit to add that I used the same quote as you did, just more of it.

I'm interested in photography so I listen to a lot of photography podcasts. A subject that comes up a lot is whether you're allowed to take photos of people in public. Most of the podcasts are from the U.S. so I can't take much from them (I live in Australia).

I *think* that if you are in public then you are allowed to be photographed but if the photographer wants to sell usage or rights of the photo then the people in the photo need to sign a release form that releases their copyright. See the people in the photo own copyright of the photo so they need to sign over the right before the photographer can profit from it.

Photos of children are actually a different law. Before you take photos of children their parents need to allow you to.

I could be misinterpreting everything (VERY LIKELY) but the point is that if you are in public you've "given up" your right to privacy in terms of your image.

That being said I hate how a lot of amateur photographers (and some pros too!) play the whole "just get away with it" mentality instead of trying to respect people.

EDIT: Yeah you shouldn't have taken the card. You should have demanded he delete the photos which I think you have the right to do.

lol you're such a lying *****.

If you really feel the OP was within his legal limits, I sincerely hope you are never on a jury.

Fortunately, the prosecution would instruct the jury as to what the law is, and he would certainly be found guilty.

My understanding is that it's very hard to predict what a jury will do.

Fair enough. The prosecution would lay out what the law is though.

actually...only the Judge explains the relevant law to the jury

The law can be a nebulous thing and there are definitely two sides to this issue. Nothing was stolen and because the man handed him the camera there was no assault….

"I took the camera took out the SD memory card said thanks and ran away" That's theft.

...asked him if I could see the pictures he was like "oh yes they are good" I took the camera took out the SD memory card said thanks and ran away

The man handed him the camera to look at the pictures and the card is with the proper owner... Consent could be argued in that he didn't say where he wanted to look at the photos. The card and camera were returned.

:huh:

That's quite the stretch.

I don't think so.

Nor do many defense lawyers, which is why they get such a bad rap.

Not more so than prosecuting lawyers:) I don't know what to tell you... There was no crime other than the original photos which, evidently, we need more information on.

Am I the only one wondering if the OP looked on the SD car to see what else was on it??

Hey, did you guys ever see 12 Angry Men? Good movie.

Am I the only one wondering if the OP looked on the SD car to see what else was on it??

He said that it only had pics of him.

Damn, guess I should have read through everything.
Thanks.

Lol!!! What's up with that ?? You must be a great runner !!!!