Overclockers Australia Forums
OCAU News - Wiki - QuickLinks - Pix - Sponsors  

Go Back   Overclockers Australia Forums > Other Topics > Photography & Video

Notices


Sign up for a free OCAU account and this ad will go away!
Search our forums with Google:
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 29th January 2012, 7:34 AM   #1
two40 Thread Starter
Member
 
two40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,196
Default Photo Rights and Privacy Laws To Change...?

SMH article source

Quote:
Overseas, celebrities such as Naomi Campbell have led the way in seeking to enforce their right to privacy from the lenses of the paparazzi.

In Australia, however, while in a public place ''a person … does not have a right not to be photographed'' - as former Supreme Court justice John Dowd once put it - because of the absence of a right to privacy.

''In every other Western nation in the world there's a bill or a charter of rights that governs privacy, where people have a constitutional right to privacy,'' the head of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Cameron Murphy, says.

The council, along with other privacy experts and lawyers, has called for such a right to be enshrined in legislation in Australia in submissions made to a federal review late last year which could also restrict the use of photography.

Quote:
Nemeth says for the past few years people have been becoming more hostile to having their photograph taken in a public space, especially when male photographers take images of children, even their own, or take photos at the beach.
__________________
clock | photo | flickr | book
two40 is offline   Reply With Quote

Join OCAU to remove this ad!
Old 29th January 2012, 7:49 AM   #2
wrobel
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 841
Default

So what happens to all the cctv's around the country?
wrobel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th January 2012, 9:04 AM   #3
BRGMCS
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,629
Default

Ironic that the council for civil liberties wants to restrict what people can do...
__________________
MickyD everwhere else
BRGMCS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th January 2012, 9:32 AM   #4
Jack's Butt
(Banned or Deleted)
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 384
Default

Well that's me boned.
Jack's Butt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th January 2012, 9:56 AM   #5
Power47
Member
 
Power47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,271
Default

maybe i can start shooting weddings in a ghillie suit
__________________
Power47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2012, 8:06 PM   #6
deepspring
(Taking a Break)
 
deepspring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Maitland, NSW
Posts: 3,263
Default

I've never experienced any kind of harassment, but I am so glad I'm only into product, still life, and landscape photography...

When I do my landscape shots, I usually plan well in advance what I am going to take before I take my camera out of the bag, so I'm not caught meandering around a place for any longer than about half an hour to an hour.

I only photograph on beaches when it's either dawn or sunset when most people (especially children) are either in bed or are heading home, and I generally avoid heavily populated locations.
deepspring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st March 2012, 10:37 PM   #7
lionman
Member
 
lionman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Perth,WA,Earth
Posts: 2,290
Default

Since when is taking a photo of someone an invasion of their privacy? Wouldn't that basically equate to looking at someone being an invasion of privacy?

Pointing a 600mm lens at someone house into their bedroom window is one thing, but taking a photo of strangers on the street is completely harmless.

I think the Council for Civil Liberties have lost their minds.
__________________
My PC: i7 4770 - H87M - 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws - HD5850 - 120GB Samsung - 9TB - HX-650W - Fractal Define Mini - U2410
HTPC: 6400K - 88X - 4GB 1600MHz - HVR-2200 - 5TB - 550W TruePower - SG06 - 50" LED
Fujifilm X100 + X-T1 - 12mm F2.0 - 18-55mm F2.8-4 - 35mm F1.4 - 56mm F1.2
lionman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2012, 8:37 AM   #8
checks202
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Sydney - CBD
Posts: 688
Default

My 2cents,

To enforce that people can't pictures of strangers is crazy. So what happens to tourists?

I say, keep shooting and if someone doesn't want themselves in the picture I expect them ask or say something. In such I'll delete it.
__________________
This is the part where you brag about the cool stuff you own.
checks202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2012, 8:47 AM   #9
NIE70
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 9
Default

Found an interesting article on the issue.

http://4020.net/words/photorights.php
__________________
NIE70 - Canon 1D MK IV - Canon 70-200 L f/2.8 - Canon 24-105 L f/4 - Canon 100 L f/2.8 - Kawasaki ZZR 250 - iMac 27" i7 (2011)
NIE70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2012, 8:50 AM   #10
jum
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 520
Default

Sounds like one of those laws where they want to make everybody a criminal so that the cops can arrest someone if/when they feel like it.

Male at a beach with a camera? Obvious pedo - random mother complains - lock him up.
jum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2012, 9:08 AM   #11
426
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lionman View Post
Since when is taking a photo of someone an invasion of their privacy? Wouldn't that basically equate to looking at someone being an invasion of privacy?
About the second you show it to somebody else without their permission.

I had this same argument with my wedding photographer.

Ultimately, its your "copyrighted" photo, but the likenesses in them belong to the person you took them from.

When you "look at someone" you cant take that look and publish it later. You can describe it sure, but its not the same thing.
426 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2012, 9:41 AM   #12
Athiril
Member
 
Athiril's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Carnegie, Melbourne
Posts: 3,786
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 426 View Post
About the second you show it to somebody else without their permission.

I had this same argument with my wedding photographer.

Ultimately, its your "copyrighted" photo, but the likenesses in them belong to the person you took them from.

When you "look at someone" you cant take that look and publish it later. You can describe it sure, but its not the same thing.
Their likeness doens't belong to them. As it stands you do not need a person's permission.
__________________

http://www.flickr.com/photos/athiril/
35mm, 6x7cm, 4x5"
Ask me about C-41 & E-6 processing!
Athiril is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2012, 9:54 AM   #13
426
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
Their likeness doens't belong to them. As it stands you do not need a person's permission.
I would think for commercial use. eg. advertising on their website, you would.
426 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2012, 10:14 AM   #14
^catalyst
Member
 
^catalyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: melbourne
Posts: 11,031
Default

426, please, do not post any more opinion on this before reading in to it further. There is a huge amount of misinformation and misunderstanding online about photographing peopling in Australia, please do not add more. I mean no offence.

Even for commercial use you don't necessarily need permission, but its far too complicated to explain adequately in a few sentences and really needs to be addressed on a case by case basis.
^catalyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd March 2012, 10:27 AM   #15
Athiril
Member
 
Athiril's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Carnegie, Melbourne
Posts: 3,786
Default

Suffice to say you do not necessarily need permission. Obviously any commercial usage is best to have it, especially to preserve a good rep if you're a photographer etc, so people will continue to want to hire your services.

Either the commercial usage needs to be of note (big campaign) not some backyard catalogue or low traffic website, or you need to be of note yourself. Though there's probably exceptions to that too.

http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheet...ge/#headingh32



While putting an example of their work in a gallery may be commercial usage, it's not necessarily 'sponsorship' of their services by that person, as in the case you're talking about the image is not usually of a noteworth person with a public reputation, nor is it misleading people into thinking that this person edorses this photographer's services.

As it is the image itself, and not the person's likeness that's advertising their services, because generally their service is about the quality of image they can provide, and Average Joe being in the image isn't bringing any benefit to their business either, it's also a documentation/journalism of something that has happened.


I would go so far as to say, it's more like the image itself is in commercial usage, but the likeness of the person is not in commercial usage, though it may not necessarily be seen as two separate things. But you cannot get a black and white rule in this case to apply to everything so you don't have to examine everything case by case.


"53 False or misleading representations "
" (c) represent that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits they do not have;"
__________________

http://www.flickr.com/photos/athiril/
35mm, 6x7cm, 4x5"
Ask me about C-41 & E-6 processing!

Last edited by Athiril; 2nd March 2012 at 10:40 AM.
Athiril is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Sign up for a free OCAU account and this ad will go away!

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 2:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. -
OCAU is not responsible for the content of individual messages posted by others.
Other content copyright Overclockers Australia.
OCAU is hosted by Internode!