Photo Rights and Privacy Laws To Change...?

two40 · 29th January 2012, 8:34 AM

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.

wrobel · 29th January 2012, 8:49 AM

So what happens to all the cctv's around the country?

BRGMCS · 29th January 2012, 10:04 AM

Ironic that the council for civil liberties wants to restrict what people can do...

Jack's Butt · 29th January 2012, 10:32 AM

Well that's me boned.

Power47 · 29th January 2012, 10:56 AM

maybe i can start shooting weddings in a ghillie suit

deepspring · 1st March 2012, 9:06 PM

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.

lionman · 1st March 2012, 11:37 PM

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.

checks202 · 2nd March 2012, 9:37 AM

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.

NIE70 · 2nd March 2012, 9:47 AM

Found an interesting article on the issue.

http://4020.net/words/photorights.php

jum · 2nd March 2012, 9:50 AM

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.

426 · 2nd March 2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionman

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.

Athiril · 2nd March 2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 426

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.

426 · 2nd March 2012, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athiril

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.

^catalyst · 2nd March 2012, 11:14 AM

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.

Athiril · 2nd March 2012, 11:27 AM

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;"

29th January 2012, 10:04 AM	#3
BRGMCS Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,547	Ironic that the council for civil liberties wants to restrict what people can do... __________________ MickyD everwhere else

29th January 2012, 10:56 AM	#5
Power47 Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,944	maybe i can start shooting weddings in a ghillie suit __________________ R4E - 3970x @4.8 - 3Way SLI evga 680 4GB FTWs - 16GB Corsair CL9 2400mhz - Xonar Phoebus - 240gb Intel 520 - AX1200i - TJ11 - Custom CPU Watercooling 2x Dell u3011s - Asus VG278 - Topre REALFORCE 104 - Logitech G700 - Sennheiser PC350 JPower Photography

1st March 2012, 11:37 PM	#7
lionman Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Bedford,Perth,WA,Earth Posts: 1,728	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: 4GHz 1090T - M4890TD - 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws - CF HD5850 - 120GB Inferno + 128GB G.Skill Falcon II - 5x 1TB - HX-650W - COSMS S - U2410 HTPC: 550 - M4A88TD-M - 2GB 1333MHz - HVR-2200 - 500GB WD AAKS + 1TB Samsung - 550W TruePower - SUGO SG02- 32" LCD 5D2 - 20 -35mm F2.8 - 50mm F1.4 - 85mm F1.4 - 70-200mm F2.8 + Fijifilm X100 Flickr

2nd March 2012, 9:37 AM	#8
checks202 Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Sydney - CBD Posts: 690	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.

2nd March 2012, 9:47 AM	#9
NIE70 Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Sydney Posts: 9	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)

29th January 2012, 8:49 AM	#2
wrobel Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Adelaide Posts: 699	So what happens to all the cctv's around the country?

29th January 2012, 10:32 AM	#4
Jack's Butt (Banned or Deleted) Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 384	Well that's me boned.

1st March 2012, 9:06 PM	#6
deepspring Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: No Where Posts: 3,244	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.

2nd March 2012, 9:50 AM	#10
jum Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 351	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.

2nd March 2012, 11:14 AM	#14
^catalyst Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: melbourne Posts: 10,027	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.

2nd March 2012, 11:27 AM	#15
Athiril Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Carnegie, Melbourne Posts: 3,609	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 11:40 AM.