DSLRUsers.com

Did anyone else see last weeks Bondi rescue TV program?

I had wondered for some time about the arrest of a photographer on Bondi Beach and his pleading guilty to taking photos of topless women.

(If you and they are in a public space then you have the right to photograph them if they do not wish to be seen topless then they should cover up)

Anyway, the footage of this guy clearly showed, first him sneaking round taking photos with a point and shoot camera, then him covering his lap with a towel and shall we say "Causing the towel to move up and down in a rapid motion?" it did not leave much to the imagination.

Faced with several lifeguards, about 6 police and several angry beach goers, small wonder the guy fessed up and took the charge.

I still think the charge was wrong and it should have ben a lewd act in a public space but the guy was good for it and deserved everything he got and then some.

I just wish it was not played up under photographer heading it should have been just a pervert!

I was please to at least find out the real story rather than the media beat up.

I didn't see the show but heard about it and thought the same thing. I thought it was fine to take photos of people in a public place as long as the images weren't for commercial use.

Of course, you could debate the dubious ethics of taking stealth photos of topless women...

I agree he should have been charged with a lewd act. But didn't NSW enact a law last year after men were caught taking photos on the beach with their mobile phone camera?

Commercial or not if it is in a public space then it is OK.

Unless the person can prove financial loss from the photos.

Like a sports person with a sponsorship contract.

Jonas wrote: But didn't NSW enact a law last year after men were caught taking photos on the beach with their mobile phone camera?

Waverly Council were under pressure to do this. I thought it was kicked out because it was both unenforcable and stupid. Even the pro-ban parents realised that they'd have to ban *all* photography and that would hurt them too. Otherwise what... ban innocent white middle-class men[1] from taking photos of their own kids at the beach?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3649
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1282639.htm
sensible take from Queensland:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Beach-camera-ban-ruled-out/2005/01/27/1106415717831.html

[1] no, I am not taking the piss. Many objections really did center on this point.

DSLR Users M&G at Bondi beach south end?

My friend edits this program before it goes to air. I'm sure he would have found the whole thing very amusing.

Please tell him he did a great job editing that segment.

As much as I feel it is OK to take photos I was glad they got that guy off the beach!

Sadly not all people with cameras are photographers

Dug wrote:DSLR Users M&G at Bondi beach south end?

We actually thought about that for the AW last year.

Mind you, I take the view when I'm taking pictures down there that I'm taking pictures of the beach. If the people happen to be in it, that's their problem.

Dug i watched this also, I had the same thoughts.

If he wasnt tuggen off under his towl , how far would this have gone???

I found it amusing also the Girl was all upset cause some one took a photo of her topless. Considering she was lying topless at a beach for all to veiw..

He should have got done for a lewd act or something , but taking photos !! It didn't seem like he was skulking around in the bushes either..


MATT

in 2004 when Peter Mackenzie was charged with using the camera in his mobile phone to take photographs of topless female sunbathers at Bondi Beach. Mackenzie was fined $500, however he was charged with nuisance, not photography,

I think this about sums it up.

If there is to be a ban on public photography then first remove all security cameras from our streets.

keep photographing or our rights will disappear!

MATT wrote:
I found it amusing also the Girl was all upset cause some one took a photo of her topless. Considering she was lying topless at a beach for all to veiw..

MATT

My thoughts exactly! i'll just lye here topless but don't you look.

Sorry Public is public, private is private. As I don't want women ogling and photographing at my handsome, muscle rippling, tanned, male physique i wear a t-shirt on the beach

(It also stops people from chundering when they see me!)

Dug wrote:DSLR Users M&G at Bondi beach south end?

I was having enough fun running round on Saturday with the big lens... I got away with it because I know people at the event, but most people think "big lens" = "long lens" and are confused by the short-but-fast lenses like the 70-200/2.8's that many of us know and love. Nice bokeh

I have been wondering how it would go down at Bondi...

From a female point of view, why would u go topless if you didnt wanna be seen,, I am not blonde , but am i missing something here, if you gonna flaunt it,, expect to been looked at, thats my motto,,


Suzanne

not just a female point of view there are a lot of pretty boys strutting their stuff on the beaches, or so my wife tells me

I just prefer the girls personally

bindiblue wrote:why would u go topless if you didnt wanna be seen,

I don't think it's about not being seen, it's about who does the seeing. Lots of people (especially women) dress and act to attract that special someone but get quite offended if "the wrong person" is attracted [1]. I don't agree with it, but I've been told by enough people that this is how they think that I'm inclined to believe them. The idea that public space = public gaze never crossed their minds[2].

Our society's nudity taboo helps to maintain the pretence, as most people will avoid overtly staring. But a camera is inherently overt, so it also violates that "don't stare" custom as well. It's hard to take a photo out of the corner of the camera's eye

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense
[2] in the loosest sense of the term.

Exhibitionism would also be an equally valid reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibitionism

Everyone has their own agendas, if we were all the same their would be no problem but very little fun

Hey Dug when do you ever get time to watch TV anyway?

Brett

The TV is next to the computer I watch while I am keywording and processing images.

moz wrote:l But a camera is inherently overt, so it also violates that "don't stare" custom as well. It's hard to take a photo out of the corner of the camera's eye

It is if you have a fish eye or similar wide angle

MATT

Just remember that being charged with someing is quite different from being convicted of something.
You have absolutely NO idea about what happened to that guy if that case went to court.
It may well have been "tossed" out on the grounds that it wasn't actually illegal.
You realise that you've been manipulated if it got your back up?

It's just a pity that being stupid wasn't always illegal or painful instead of just sometimes.

also he didn't have to hand the camera over until he was charged and they couldn't have charged him without looking at the camera so he could have just walked away, but he didn't

the footage of him tossing was pretty cut and dried. I don't think he had a leg to stand on in court.

if a person was innocent they would have a lot more grounds for appeal

Interesting story on last night news about SLA banning photography at Nipper carnivals.The news service put it over as it were law when in fact it has no legal standing at all. Quite a few parents were upset.

Oneputt wrote:Interesting story on last night news about SLA banning photography at Nipper carnivals.The news service put it over as it were law when in fact it has no legal standing at all. Quite a few parents were upset.

Yeah I saw that, the way it came across was that unless you were an authorised carnival photographer or parent of a competitor you would be asked to leave the carnival area. So if I am standing there with my camera around my neck in that area I could be asked to leave. So I wonder what happens if you say no??

Precisely, I suspect that they are banking on not being challenged.

Yes I am opposed to being treated like a pervert because I have a camera in a public place or for that case having to prove that I am not. I dont know where this is going to go or end up

Has this happened to anyone on this site as yet?

If challenged you are within your rights to request police be called and inform you of what laws you have broken.

If anyone other than police attempts to move you from an area it may be assault.

They may ask you to move on you can tell them NO!

Dug wrote:If challenged you are within your rights to request police be called and inform you of what laws you have broken.

If anyone other than police attempts to move you from an area it may be assault.

They may ask you to move on you can tell them NO!

Yes Dug, I agree with you, The problem is that the organisers or other people at the said event would not approach this subject rationally. You could almost place pretty safe bets, that they would see the use of your rights a defiance angaist their percieved authority, it would then escalate with thier emotions getting involved and this would not be done discretly or quietly, and before you know it there are more anxious misinformed people getting involved in what they percieve as a invasion of thier privacy. Then throw into the mix the emotions of parents protecting thier children from a percieved threat..

I dont know the answer to this one mate, but I have been involved with enough emotionally charged situations to know that the truth and rational thinking are the first things to dissappear.


Brett

I carry business cards, I make no secret of who I am, what I am doing and why I am doing it .

If they have a problem with that then that is their problem not mine.

If they wish to break the law then that is fine charges will be pressed.

Stay calm, talk in even tones, never raise your voice, never threaten anyone, but stand your ground.

Dug wrote:I carry business cards, I make no secret of who I am, what I am doing and why I am doing it .

If they have a problem with that then that is their problem not mine.

If they wish to break the law then that is fine charges will be pressed.

Stay calm, talk in even tones, never raise your voice, never threaten anyone, but stand your ground.

I agree Dug if it is a public area we have our rights too. I'm sure that when most sane people see the equipment we use, common sense should prevail.

I can't find the article to back this statement up, but I recently read an article stating that in the UK over something like 70% of photos being processed now are from mobile phones. At least with our equipment we aren't ninja photographers (mobile phone carriers) and are doing what we do in direct view of people.

Tony

Handing them a business card which identifies me as a public servant working for the Federal Attorney General's department makes them take a back step.
I remind them that we have more lawyers than anyone else.