Just got off the phone from someone looking for a Wedding disco for next year.

During chat, the enquirer says "I don't want some pervy DJ leering and taking photos of the family and daughters, or being rude over the mic..."


It's got me thinking. Are mobile DJs viewed like this in the wider sense?

Discuss!

I can imagine some perceptions of the DJ being a medallion man who thinks he is gods gift to women.

Then there is the dirty old man Benny Hill look-alike (me LOL).

Nik will step in now as he has a huge camera

Jim

Chatting to my manager a few weeks ago (when I brought my kit to a company BBQ). He thought all mobile DJ's got drunk and turned up in jeans.
I explained things are a bit more sophisticated now, but it was an interesting observation.


Most people only see a mobile DJ a few times, weddings, birthdays - the good ones do as expected and fill the floor.
The bad ones will crack poor jokes, play inappropriate music and I guess, also step out of line.

I bet they won't remember the good ones!

I remember some local mobile DJs who used to play in pubs when I was 17 or 18. They did all of the above - tried to chat up barmaids. Swore in the mic (lots) and was keeping up with me on pints! (before packing up and then driving home)

We'll mostly keep the entertainment to the level required. So a formal do will need less chat/banter, and a spit n sawdust pub gig will probably need more chat. Not sure about the perving!
I guess he's the jelous type.

I also wonder if he gave the same lecture to the venue over their waiters/barstaff??

Could this be an opportunity for a new ProPerv Licence?

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

Surely that says more about how the client's mind works, rather than their honest view of DJs?

No.

Just by your enquirer.

Well Jeremy Clarkson once jokingly pigeon holed HGV Drivers as rapists on national television, so perhaps we should consider these comments from this client as being a cut above how some industries are preceived.

Leaving aside a few DJ's who offer a Professional photography service in addition to their DJ'ing, I'm not sure where the taking photos comment comes from or what would even put it into the clients' head!, I don't think i've ever even seen a sketch on TV, which would automatically link carrying cameras with DJ's, its a bit difficult to be wondering around with a camera AND be on hand to plan and cue the music and take requests .

Maybe she's had a bad experience from a photographer who was dabbling at being a DJ



Well said.

Some clients, can be, to put it politely, eccentric or have odd ball ideas. Only if this becomes a regular occurance and question posed for everyone, will I be reaching for the Nytol

The overall impression I had from the call was that 'DJs' the enquirer had observed were not nice.

i have a regular in one of my ressys that when she has a few refers to me as a perv because i have a website ???

some people just have the wrong idea ??? i would never take photos unless agreed with the client before hand but in her mind im a perv ???

oh well i'll not lose no sleep lol

I think there has to be some common sense element when taking photos of people you don't know, more so when there are young children in the audience / on the dancefloor who may appear in the photograph even if the focus is elsewhere.

Those DJ's who run photography alongside their DJ'ing services will probably be okay to take photographs in some respects because they have permission and a contract of work (hopefully) to engage in that service just the same as the official event photographer although its still probably both polite and professional to ask if you do candidly photograph somebody and the focus and subject of the entire photo is on them.

However any Dj who does decide to just randomly take photos of their audience should excercise common sense where possible.

If you do decide to take random dancefloor photos without permission, then try and not to include pictures of children in them unless you have their parents consent. There is huge controversy raging in law circles about this, which has resulted in most Schools already having to remove pictures of school trips and their pupils from their own websites.

Its usually a good idea if you intend to use photos of guests at a function, to seek permission of both the client and the people who are 'appearing' before using them on a website, after all, they may not want Dj's adding their pictures to website(s) and secondly they may be employed in an occupation where this would be a breach of their contract. This sounds very MI5, but you would be surprised at how many routine everyday occupations factor this into contracts, ranging from store 'mystery' shoppers to business analysts and of course some elements of employment in the armed forces and police.

If you do tend to use photographs without permission, then a routine practice of blurring faces slightly might be a good compromise, as well as selecting the ones where the individuals are looking away from the camera rather than directly towards.

Incidentally, you are free to take as many photo's as you like in the open air, so if you wanted to go out and take photos of an incident such as a accident or a fire then you can, and nobody can legally stop you, as you have the same powers as journalists in this respect in relation to events which are happening in the public domain. However these freedoms do not extend to taking photos at private functions or in privately owned buildings so if somebody asks you to stop photographing them or not to publish their photos, then respect it otherwise it can work out to be very costly.

I cannot believe that a contract could be used to stop people from them occupation having their photos taken. You are not after all identifying the person and saying what job they do.

I do agree however that everybody deserves the right to privacy and any photos that I use on my website have the written permission of the client that enables me to take the photographs, and also an agreement that I can use them in advertising, but I will remove any from my website if they or their guests wish me to do so.
I always show the client the photos I'm going to use.

Jim

There is a big difference between just taking a photo for a family album and plastering it all over the internet, perhaps with a nice adwords campaign taking traffic to it or it appearing under Google images.

I don't make these rules or have any influence over them. I thought you'd appreciate being made aware that in some cases they do exist, and the fact that employers are free to make certain rules in relation to their employees, even daft ones.

But you aren't looking at the big picture, because such photos may be indentifying the people they socialise with and possibly within the same photo - their family and friends.

......Some occupations do have a tendency to attract revenge

Then again some Dj's are shy too - plenty of photos of audiences but very few of the DJ

Anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could be deemed to have committed a criminal offence. That is because of a new law - Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act - which has come into force.


Source


I do believe that Blue Police Box's are ok to photograph, but that's another subject!

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 states

Which is actually an addition to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 below


I think the key points are from the 2000 Act

and from the 2008 Act

So taking pictures of the police for example in uniform would be useful in identifying a police officer, also taking pictures of the Men In Black stood next to Gordon Brown or John Prescott would also be of use identifying security officers.
However a picture of 30 people dancing around a bride will at best identify a Bride, the Groom and a few Bridemaids, it will not however show that the man with green socks is a member of MI5, nor will it show that the girl with the pink top is JP's private secretary.
None of the information in the photo would be of any use for terrorism, as long as the party was not the SAS Christmas Party LOL

Jim

Yes - I'd read that elsewhere...

Interestingly, the Police are reported as still misusing counterterrorism powers to restrict photography AFTER the issue of guidelines in *April 2009.

Read about Gemma Atkinson here

God bless Britain, eh?!


*Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Shahid Malik) said during 1st APRIL 2009 (Parliamentary discussion) - note the date!!!!

"I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute.

There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has said that we will issue all police officers and forces with a circular on the new offence. It will set out the policy intentions behind the offence and make it clear that it does not criminalise legitimate photographic or journalistic activity. The circular will be discussed with interested parties before it is issued."

Read full transcript if you dare

Unfortunately the police, along with many other official and unofficial bodies, do get a little over zelous.
I'm sure many people have had parking tickets and even motoring fines, that when and if challenged, end up not being legal.
Police officers are not experts in the law, the experts are the lawyers, solicitors, barristers and judges.
As an example I am certain that the local bobby on the beat (if he exists LOL) will never have read either of the two acts listed above, he may however "know" that you cannot take pictures of the police.

On the case of Gemma though, a few points do spring to mind.
Her boyfriend was identified by a sniffer dog, these dogs are rarely wrong, the dog did smell something, now although he may not have been in possession of anything it does not stand that he hadn't been in contact with it. Also the dog can't talk so even the it identified something we don't know if it was cannabis or even possibly explosives. With that in mind and the fact that there were several plain clothed officers on a train station you don't know what was going through the officers heads, just remember July 2005.

I am all for justice though, and when the police get it wrong they are just as answerable as you and me.

Jim