16 replies to this topic

[John Stuart-Clarke]

Putting the welfare of our subject before the photograph is a principle which we all have at the forefront of our minds but until now, our help page didn't make any explicit reference to this. I have therefore added a new section dealing with wildlife welfare and habitat protection, which I would ask you all to read. If you can think of any further clarifications we can make in this area, please let me know.

[Barry Fisher]

John, whilst I can fully understand where you are coming from and although I fully concur with your desire to put the welfare of the subject before any photograph, I can't help thinking that you might be going a bit over the top here. I really can't see what harm it can do if I post a photo of a common species, say a sparrow, and then state that it was taken in my backgarden or a some other common (unmanaged) location and yet your new rules would not allow me to do this. I really do think that you need to allow the poster to use his/her own discretion over what information is included. Clearly, the more sensitive the subject, the less the details that should be published, however, I would hope that the majority of the members of this forum would never risk putting the welfare of their subjects at risk with any of their actions.

[John Stuart-Clarke]

That's a fair point Barry. Nevertheless, in setting rules, I will always err on the side of being over protective. I think people will understand "the location" to mean a precise - as opposed to an imprecise - location. For clarification, revealing that you have photographed a common species in your garden, your locale or your country is not something we would take issue with.

I would like to hear opinions from other members on this before responding further.

Edited by John Stuart-Clarke, 28 January 2012 - 09:09 AM.
Added comment on specific location

[Glenn.B]

Hi John, this is a difficult one. I understand what you are trying to portray, but i also agree with Barry's comments.

But my first thoughts were that this may/will frighten off new members from joining and may/will possiibly loose established members...............IMHO. I hope i'm wrong.

[John Stuart-Clarke]

Glenn.B, on 28 January 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

But my first thoughts were that this may/will frighten off new members from joining and may/will possiibly loose established members...............IMHO. I hope i'm wrong.

Why?

[Glenn.B]

Hi John, I try to promote this site when ever i meet photographers that are not already members. A number of them have had a look and some of them,for one reason or another ( they tend not to want to tell me ) they seem reluctant to join. I wish i knew why, so i could allay their concerns ( if any. maybe they just don't want to join )

Maybe it's just me, but the wildlife,welfare and habit protection details read in such a way as to be slightly intimidating ? I'm i being stupid ??????

[Barry Fisher]

John Stuart-Clarke, on 28 January 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

That's a fair point Barry. Nevertheless, in setting rules, I will always err on the side of being over protective. I think people will understand "the location" to mean a precise - as opposed to an imprecise - location. For clarification, revealing that you have photographed a common species in your garden, your locale or your country is not something we would take issue with.

I would like to hear opinions from other members on this before responding further.

As you are seeking the views of other members, I thought it might help members if I explain my POV further by including an extract of a PM that I sent to WPF Team via Claire, who kindly explained to me the reasons behind setting the new rules.

"....... The new rule, if taken literally, means that, unless the photo was taken in a managed location, it would be breaking the rules to even mention that it was taken in the UK, or a county or even to say that it was taken from "a hide in my backyard". There's no way that giving a location in such loose terms poses a risk to any subject.

If the intention of the rule is to prempt the publication of precise locations, then I believe that the rule should be amended to that effect. I would be quite happy if such a small but, in my opinion, significant change were to be made. Obviously, I would have no objection to you circulating my response to the rest of the team as I'm sure that many members other than myself would like to go on knowing eg that Deanne's cardinals were taken from her new hide in her garden etc. However, with the rule as currently presented, she would no longer be allowed to tell us that without being in breach of the rules. Anyway, that's simply my point of view for what it's worth, as I'd prefer the rule to be correctly phrased from the start, rather than simply turning a blind eye to minor infringments in the future."

John, I note from your response above that the rule is intended to apply to giving details of precise locations only. In that case why not simply add the word precise to the rule? I think that it would be far better to get the wording right from the start rather than to risk frightening potential posters from posting for fear of breaking the rules.

One further point that needs to be considered is that many photographers, like myself, often include details of the photo's location in the exif data attached to their images and we are required by the forum rules to include the exif data with the image. Whilst one can easily avoid specifying this location in a forum post itself, this location is then still readily available for anyone who wants to find it by reading the exif data using suitable software. Have you considered this in framing the new rule?

Glenn.B, on 28 January 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

But my first thoughts were that this may/will frighten off new members from joining and may/will possiibly loose established members...............IMHO. I hope i'm wrong.

Glenn.B, on 28 January 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

Maybe it's just me, but the wildlife,welfare and habit protection details read in such a way as to be slightly intimidating ? I'm i being stupid ??????

Glenn's thoughts expressed above were the very same thoughts that I had when I first read the new rules, so I can see exactly where he is coming from. In particular, I think the final two sections will tend to deter potential new posters from posting:

• When publishing work relating to protected species or habitats, include a description of the permissions and authorities under which you were working

Surely it would be sufficient to simply state that the appropriate licence was held?

• When publishing work related to species or habitats which are sensitive to disturbance, include a description of the precautions you took to prevent any disturbance from occurring.

I think this last section in particular is likely to deter potential posters. Personally, I regard all species and habitats as being sensitive to disturbance but I really don't think that a description of the precautions taken needs to be included with an image posted for the purposes of critique etc.

Please don't get me wrong John, I wholeheartedly commend your desire to protect the species and habitats and I can fully understand your desire to protect the integrity of the forum, however, like Glenn I have severe resevations that this particular rule might frighten and intimidate potential new members from joining or posting. Especially as you have already emphasised elsewhere in the rules that the welfare of the subject must come before any photograph!

[John Stuart-Clarke]

I've revised the rules to acknowledge the meaning of "the location" and made them less intimidating to read

[Kiri]

Looks like we were actually violently agreeing on the spirit of this rule, which is a great thing for the wildlife we all love.

It can be difficult to cover all scenarios and eventualities in documenting our policies and trying to do so in great detail can equally risk coming across as over the top and burdensome, so its a fine balance that we try hard to get right. I'd like to believe most people understand and would welcome the positive intentions of this policy and feel comfortable interpreting the rules using their own common sense and judgement.

[TeeCee105]

Personally I think that John’s concept is fine, but the communication makes it all OTT, if not SCARY, and brings the phrase sledgehammer and nut to mind.

I’m always worried about over complicating matters.
My reading of the initial post is that it unintentionally comes over as such and thus I agree that this will put some off joining.


However, as stated I agree that the idea is for the right reasons, so may I offer the following suggestion?

It would be easier to simply state that all UK members of the Forum are required to sign up so that all images of wildlife posted are taken in accordance with the requirements of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the schedules therein, together with the Royal Photographic Society’s Nature Photographers' Code of Practice ( http://rpsnaturegroup.com/page7.htm ).

As for revealing the details of the location of any image, can this be simplified as the following?

• The name of any reserve or conservation area can be used unless they have specifically asked the individual poster NOT to reveal the details.
  (This can then cover scheduled species when photographed from a hide on a reserve etc).
  
• For images taken of Schedule 1 or 2 species taken outside of any reserve or protected area, then the location should be either “undisclosed” or limited to the county name.
  
• Images of other species can have fuller location details included.

[Barry Fisher]

John, the changes you have made to the rules have now adequately covered the points that I was worried about and, as far as I'm concerned, do look less intimidating to potential new members etc.

[Pete]

Tony
John has reworded it.... Hence John's post two above yours

The new wording is as follows

Quote

As a general principal, members should always put the welfare of their subject before their need or desire to photograph it. Specifically, members are required to ensure that their contributions to the site comply with the following rules:

• Never reveal the exact location of wild subjects in any public part of the site (e.g. forums, blogs, galleries, chat room) unless those locations are a public place, under full-time management by an appropriately qualified body. For clarity, it's absolutely fine to say that an image was taken in your garden, your local area or in other locations described in such general terms. It's also entirely your own choice as to whether or not you share such locations privately with other members.
  
• When revealing an exact location, please state who the managing body of the location is (e.g. RSPB, WWT, The Wildlife Trusts, etc..).

Further, when publishing work relating to legally protected species or habitats:

• Please include a description of the permissions and authorities under which you were working (e.g. do you hold a relevant license? Were you under the supervision of a an approved bird ringing group?).
  
• When publishing work related to species or habitats which you know to be sensitive to disturbance, please include a brief description of the precautions you took to prevent any disturbance from occurring.

If you are in any doubt as to whether or not these rules apply to your work, please contact a member of staff for further help before publishing it.

[TeeCee105]

Sorry Pete, it may be re-worded in part but still comes the same to me.

[John Stuart-Clarke]

Tony, we're not just a UK-based site - we have members in other countries, especially the US, and I'm not an expert in the laws that protect wildlife and habitats in other countries (nor those in the UK, if I am honest). So whilst I welcome your input, I don't think wording it specifically for UK-based folks is an option.

[TeeCee105]

Agreed John, I was too tired last night.
I drafted my comments in another programme but didn't select the whole text when pasting in here.

The missing sentence that should have been included read.
"This, I accept, will only apply to the UK members and an equivalent would need to be found for all our international colleagues."

[Simon]

It all looks fine to me and I can't see why this would put anyone off. Its just about applying some common sense and not giving away locations of species that are on private land.

The problem with forums is that for every member there are ten lurkers who may be just looking for information on sites.

As for the information on protected species, its well worth being clear on how an image was obtained, the licences held and what you did to prevent disturbance. The majority of members will be responsible folk but its a public forum and giving this information may just help to educate those that have less concern for wildlife and habitats (and there are plenty of people with cameras and long lenses that perhaps need a bit of educating).

[roy c]

My usual protocol with regards to locations is to always protect the location if the bird is on the schedule 1 species list for my county or if I deem it necessary for any other reason. The simple way for me on this forum is just not to mention any locations I guess.