Taking photos of a church. any legality problems?

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by nakey, May 21, 2009.

  1. nakey

    nakey Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,093
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia.
    Friend in WA went to take a photo of a church on the way to uni. a nun came out and blasted her for doing so. half of the angry nun rant was about legality and half was about God not liking pedophiles (yeah, i don't get that either... :confused: )

    now, i've looked at artslaw and 2040, and i can't see anything saying that it's illegal. she was on public property (sidewalk) when she took the picture. i'm reading that the legalities of architectural photography are copyright rather than issues about private property.

    Basicially, i can't see anything that says it's illegal for her to do that. have i got it right?

    for the record, friend was using a cheap P&S. not one of them "terrorists" with a DSLR and L glass :p
     
  2. gmturner

    gmturner Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    Messages:
    1,384
    Location:
    Launceston
    i dont think it would be illegal, otherwise google street view would have to blur all churches?. Think you can pen this one down to another religous person out of their mind, get used to it.

    Get a group of mates together with a heap of camera's and just go snap happy, and if they try do anything call police, ohh and make sure one of the cameras is taking video and upload here plz, ta.
     
  3. bubblegoose

    bubblegoose Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,508
    Location:
    Molesworth - Tasmania
    I like your style ;)
     
  4. adamadam

    adamadam Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,390
    Location:
    Perth
    Should have taken a photo of her :D
     
  5. SyN

    SyN Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    7,359
    i paid 11 pounds to get into st pauls cathedral and found out i cant take photos there. had to do some waist level shooting with the pns :(
     
  6. FB008

    FB008 Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    9,185
    Location:
    Uncanny Valley
    should have shot from the hip
     
  7. Dropbear

    Dropbear Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,720
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Why did he make so many of them Priests then?
     
  8. Azrael

    Azrael Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,009
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Inside St Pauls is private property, and they are perfectly within their rights to ask you not to take any photos.
    Outside on the other hand is another matter entirely. The only reason i would think for wanting to limit photos was if there was an event on there that you were disrespecting, such as a funeral.
     
  9. HUMMER

    HUMMER Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    8,786
    Location:
    sydney
    just as well i wasnt hassled when i went take photos in a church overseas. yes a funeral was going on at the time. how do i know this? because the hearse was parked at the front of the church.
     
  10. Azrael

    Azrael Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,009
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Usually its not a particularly big issue, 99.99% of people recognise that old churches are iconic buildings and dont mind at all.

    For example, the church i go to is the oldest church building in Adelaide and we get people coming by all the time to take photos. I can think of only two times where people have been asked to leave, and one of those was a guy walking around the Sunday School area with a PnS and shooting from the hip trying not to be noticed.
     
  11. bubblegoose

    bubblegoose Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,508
    Location:
    Molesworth - Tasmania
    Put the camera in M/L Jpeg, H-Burst mode, and snap em off till your finger hurts, right in her face! :D
     
  12. Azrael

    Azrael Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,009
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Good work Watch them walk your arse out onto the street. St Pauls is private property you idiot. :thumbdn:

    It is attitudes like yours which give all photographers a bad reputation.
     
  13. bubblegoose

    bubblegoose Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,508
    Location:
    Molesworth - Tasmania
    HAH sorry, I quoted the wrong person.... lol

    And I never take pics when I am not allowed too, im paranoid about legal issues...
     
  14. bubblegoose

    bubblegoose Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,508
    Location:
    Molesworth - Tasmania
    Put the camera in M/L Jpeg, H-Burst mode, and snap em off till your finger hurts, right in her face! :D
     
  15. f@rmboy

    f@rmboy Terrorist Photographer

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    2,105
    Location:
    Yo mommas bedroom
    Same here.... You'll find that a lot of places don't allow photography indoors. Windsor Castle, The Tower of London, Greenwich Observatory and just about every National Trust building F@rmboy visited were the same. Shoot to your hearts content outdoors but strictly no photography allowed indoors. It's a bit of a shame really considering the high entry fee they charge you. F@rmboy would have been happy to pay a little extra for permission to take photographs but unfortunately the majority of these places dont allow photography indoors just so that they can sell their own overpriced souvenir books/postcards and whatnot.

    As for the OP, if the photographer is on public property and he/she is affording the people in the photograph a reasonable amount of privacy, then he/she is well within the law.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2009
  16. Arch-Angel

    Arch-Angel Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,914
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Not pointing any fingers in here, but it just seems to me like photographers are an arrogant breed...

    Regardless of if something is within the law, if someone is in strong opposition to what you are doing, would it not be better to try to reason with them then resort to bullying tactics?

    OP, for all you know you might have been the 4th photographer there that day - the first three of which might have been less than legitimate with their motives...
    Perhaps saying something like "I'm very sorry, I wasn't meaning to be offensive to you or anyone. I just thought this was a particularly beautiful building, and was pretty sure I was well within my rights to take a photo of it. If you'd like me to stop then I will, but otherwise i'll just get the shots I need and move along."
     
  17. mr_wrxman

    mr_wrxman Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,381
    Location:
    Sydney 2141
    I'd say it's more of a case of the some of the general public being naive about what photographers can/can't take photos of.
     
  18. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,953
    Location:
    melbourne
    If you are on public property, you can legally take a picture of anything in your field of view.

    The end.
     
  19. mr_wrxman

    mr_wrxman Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,381
    Location:
    Sydney 2141
    Without invading someone else's privacy, you can't use a 800mm into someone's window while they're changing on the 10th floor.

    (or can you :lol:)
     
  20. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    11,953
    Location:
    melbourne
    Well, you can actually. Australia has no inherit privacy law.

    The issue would be if you published it, and even then it depends if the person has a 'salable reputation'. So if it was just some random, you wouldn't be defaming them as they have nothing to lose. You can't sue someone for opportunity cost.

    But, to re-affirm, IANAL.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2009

Share This Page

Advertisement: