Photo Rights and Privacy Laws To Change...?

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by two40, Jan 29, 2012.

  1. two40

    two40 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,198
    Location:
    Sydney
    SMH article source

     
  2. wrobel

    wrobel Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    933
    Location:
    Adelaide
    So what happens to all the cctv's around the country?
     
  3. BRGMCS

    BRGMCS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,663
    Ironic that the council for civil liberties wants to restrict what people can do...
     
  4. Jack's Butt

    Jack's Butt (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Messages:
    384
    Well that's me boned.
     
  5. Power47

    Power47 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,328
    Location:
    Melbourne
    maybe i can start shooting weddings in a ghillie suit :leet:
     
  6. deepspring

    deepspring Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Maitland, NSW
    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.
     
  7. lionman

    lionman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,874
    Location:
    Perth,WA,Earth
    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.
     
  8. checks202

    checks202 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney - CBD
    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. :)
     
  9. NIE70

    NIE70 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9
    Location:
    Sydney
  10. jum

    jum Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    520
    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.
     
  11. 426

    426 Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    166
    Location:
    Melbourne
    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.
     
  12. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,923
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    Their likeness doens't belong to them. As it stands you do not need a person's permission.
     
  13. 426

    426 Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    166
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I would think for commercial use. eg. advertising on their website, you would.
     
  14. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,660
    Location:
    melbourne
    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.
     
  15. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,923
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    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-sheets/info-sheet/unauthorised-use-of-your-image/#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;"
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2012
  16. 426

    426 Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    166
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I take no offence, and I did read (admittedly, little) on it. From here. Looks recent, looks legit (to me).

    More specifically, for my personal point...here.

    Lifted straight from the link:
    In a photographic context, “ commercial use ” does not mean the sale a picture, but rather the use of a person's likeness to endorse some product or service, or to entice others to buy it.

    A wedding photographer shows samples of their work on their website. Commercial — they are using images of people to endorse or sell their wedding photography services.


    As photographers, I understand that 99.9% of the time, you're within your rights and currently, the law.
     
  17. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,923
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    Commercial usage doesn't need to be a person's likeness, but any image, but in the context what that was describing, that whole section is about if you need permission for a person's likeness.

    Commercial usage of a person's likeness hinges on what they deem to mean 'sponsorship'. I would argue that an image can be used to advertise something (commercial usage) that has a person in it, but where the person's likeness is not doing any advertising so to speak, they're not seen as 'sponsoring'/'endorsing' it.


    "53 False or misleading representations "
    " (c) represent that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits they do not have;"
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2012
  18. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,660
    Location:
    melbourne
    Ath is on it, it also comes down to the value of the persons image. If they have a saleable reputation then the rules are different again.

    example, street shot of some random guy with a coke, used as ad, no problem.
    street shot of Bill Murray on the street with a coke, used as ad, $$ owed.
     
  19. lionman

    lionman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,874
    Location:
    Perth,WA,Earth
    Someone looking at a photo of a person in public is no different to just looking at someone in public. Are they going to make it illegal to look at people too?

    It has nothing to do with commercial use as obviously any changes to privacy laws would have minimal effect on commercial photography were contracts are used that clearly state who has rights to the image.

    Imagine the impacts these proposed laws would have on tourism and journalism.

    A simpler solution to the paparazzi issue is to create a law where by you need the permission of the subject to publish the image of a public figure. eg professional sports people, actors, musicians, politicians etc. I imagine this would drastically cut down on the number of unsolicited photographs of celebrities.
     
  20. Naedw4981

    Naedw4981 Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    So who decides who's famous enough to get this protection or should it apply to all?
     

Share This Page