DSLRUsers.com

I'm just wondering if anyone knows the australian laws for taking pictures of people in public places? (eg: street candids, festivals, etc).

For example, I have taken some photos at the Falls Festival over New Years - see here: http://www.kmaisch.com/gallery/others

I do not know the people (other than know who the peformers are on stage), so I do not have permission from them. Are there laws that prevent me from putting these photographs on my website? The site is non-commerical and non-profit, so I'm not making money by selling these images.

Cheers,
Kim

G'day,
Don't know but very interested to find out too!

http://www.kmaisch.com/gallery/others/festival_girl is a great shot by the way! Seems to really capture the moment...

Cheers,
Mudder

thanks - hopefully someone has looked into it. If not, I'll make some calls!

Yeah, I liked that shot. Was taken with a cheap 70-300 lens - which was good to be able to zoom in on peoples candid expressions. It was always a struggle with the kit lens as I'd have to be so close to the person they would stop and put on a cheesy smile! hehe

This is something that also interests me as unless I have a persons permission I feel uncomfortable taking their photo as I feel I am intruding on them. Probably the main reason most of my shots are peopleless.

Does anyone here take "candid" shots of people in public often?

I have two following links may explain all in the copyrights, these documents are from the US Goverments/ US Laws,

In Australia, I think we may have something similar in term of privacy, copyright, etc... please use these as your reference only.

http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html
And:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Thanks... I found these to be the most relevant paragraphs:

...avoid publishing or distributing any photo of an individual that reveals private facts about the individual (particularly if revealing those private facts might embarrass the individual).

...The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission.

So, providing that the photograph does not reveal too much about the person's private-life, and providing it is not for commercial benefit, it should be OK (for US law, anyway. I'd assume Australian law is simular).

Kim, this thread may help.

http://forum.d70users.com/viewtopic.php ... =copyright

Also Nnnnsic is the whiz on rules for taking candids in public (also forum admin)

Kim

I posted a link about copyright that you may find interesting

http://forum.d70users.com/viewtopic.php ... light=laws

You have a good album

Well done!

Cheers

Graham

I work for a company that sells video cameras for security purposes, and manage some of their legal work. I know there are laws that prevent you from recording sound (voices mainly) but not pictures. I am pretty sure that there is no law that prevents you from taking shots of people. There are obvious limitations though in terms of publishing such photos (model releases etc), and that infamous case of the guy taking shots of girls on the beach.
We are all photographed many times without permission, so I would say that there are few specific rules if you are taking legitimate shots not for profit.
I can see situations where someone may get upset, but I am unaware of general situations where a person could legally object to having their photo taken.

Welcome kmaisch.

Public domain is a tricky issue and it's been made even more confusing to work around after the debacle at Coogee beach recently.

For the most part, it's all pretty simple and from what I understand you are allowed to shoot them (with a camera of course... don't go postal on these people...). For instance, if you ask them if you're allowed to take a picture, that's always a good thing to do.

Shots from festivals or streets or beaches are fun to walk around. In a beach situation, if you shoot the beach and you get some people who may be offended by the fact that they were in a shot, they've just been a victim to public domain, that is, you shot the beach and that is a public place. You may or may not have intended to shoot them specifically, but that's irrelevant as they're in a public place. From a festival viewpoint, people are having a good time and if it were in a park or some other public place, I would imagine the same rules apply.

For posting your images, I would view it as you'd be allowed to until someone tells you that you can't, personally.
I know at least one professional photographer (a Canon user...) who shot for events like Jamiroquai or the M One (Triple M) concert a couple of years ago and sold them as well as posted them on his site.

One of the facts of the matter here that works in your favour is that you don't really have enough images of these artists (three in total from what I see) to be considered doing anything suspect.
Moreso, if they -- the artists or the management of the artists -- find out and don't like it, if it is within their legal right (which I don't think it is), the first thing they'll do is ask you to remove the images.

Part of this whole problem with understanding what is and what isn't public domain is this issue of greed that we have to walk around talking about. For the most part, it's allowed that if you're not making money from it and shooting for fun, it's ok. That rule has some hard points in it as the Coogee incident showed as the man in question obviously got way too close and was probably shooting for something slightly more perverse than say a standard beach shot that just so happen had some half naked women in it.

skyva wrote:I work for a company that sells video cameras for security purposes, and manage some of their legal work. I know there are laws that prevent you from recording sound (voices mainly) but not pictures. I am pretty sure that there is no law that prevents you from taking shots of people. There are obvious limitations though in terms of publishing such photos (model releases etc), and that infamous case of the guy taking shots of girls on the beach.
We are all photographed many times without permission, so I would say that there are few specific rules if you are taking legitimate shots not for profit.
I can see situations where someone may get upset, but I am unaware of general situations where a person could legally object to having their photo taken.

Hi skyva

There have been many situations in the past where people have asked a photographer to destroy images of them (everybody has intellectual copyright of their own image). In the days of film it was a problem but with the D70, no problem at all. You can delete the photo in front of them and no harm done.

Chris

sirhc55 wrote: In the days of film it was a problem but with the D70, no problem at all. You can delete the photo in front of them and no harm done.

And then you can later recover the deleted images, using tools appropriate to the task.

Oh BOY!!!!! This is what I've been waiting for, and is one of my GIANT pet peeves with society in general these days. Just because we can (legally and physically) does it mean we should (ethically)??????

Society, especially in the states, has come to the point of "well its legal, so screw you!" It drives me nuts to watch photogs just trample anyone and anything to get a shot.

I have had great success with, get this, asking permission!!!! Imagine that. I just walk up and ask people if I can photograph them. I even get their e-mail so I can send them a link to the shots. I have not had anyone say no yet. When it comes to group shots, as long as no one is singled out, I don't see any issues.

Anyways, my rant is over and I must go have a drink.

I appologize if I offend, I do not mean to. I would just like to see us come back to a civilized polite society. You know, manners and all

Andy

Go ahead, flame away now

Andy,

Did they kick you off Springer's show?


Seriously, there's nothing at all wrong with your approach. But I accept that many would be scared to ask in case of rejection. I know I am.

Thanks for all the replies, everyone! At the copyright.org.au site, I found the following info:

Do I need permission from people I photograph?
A person’s image is not protected by copyright. However, in some cases, using a person’s image without permission may be prevented under other laws, such as the law of passing off, the Trade Practices Act 1974 and State and Territory fair trading laws. These areas of law concern conduct which may mislead or deceive the public and may particularly come into play if the photograph you are taking is of a well-known person, and is to be used, for example, as a poster or as a postcard or in advertising. In some cases, uses of photographs may be defamatory of people in them.

If you are commissioned to take photographs, it should not generally be your job to check these issues. However, it may be a good idea to alert clients to the fact that they may need to seek advice from a solicitor with the relevant expertise (note that the Copyright Council does not advise on these other areas of law).

Generally, if you have asked somebody to sit for you, you should get a “model release” from that person which will allow you (and others) to use that person’s image for purposes which will generally include commercial uses. (For a sample photographer's model release, with explanatory notes, see the Arts Law Centre of Australia website http://www.artslaw.com.au)

In other cases, photographers may take more casual shots—for example, photographs of people in the street or at markets, or playing sports. If you know that you might later be using such a photograph commercially, it’s
generally a good idea to get a model release from the people you have photographed. If it’s impractical to get the people in your shots to sign model releases, or if they refuse to do so, your ability to use or license the use of the photograph in certain ways might be limited because of the laws discussed above.

So, that pretty much answers it. If you want to use the photo for commercial purposes, try and get permission if you can.

Andy - I think your approach (asking people first) is fine! However, for candid photographs (spur of the moment, capturing an expression) it's not really possible to ask permission first. Sure, for portraits or "say cheese" shots asking permission first would be no problem - but the type of photographs I like are ones that capture an emotion where the subject is not concious of the photographer...

I don't think taking a photograph of a person without asking is unethical... although there would definately be a line to draw. Eg: I wouldn't take photographs of people at the beach, the swimming pool, etc... but street candids, markets, festivals, concerts - I think are fine (without trampling people to get the shot, of course!)

Sorry, I should have clarified a litlle but I had been up all night. In a public setting I do agree it is fine to shoot first and ask second if candid is what you want. However, I do beleive there is a lot you can do without needing the element of suprise.

The reason I feel the way I do is this - sorry if it gets too long.

4 years ago I was working a joint project with a company, party #2, for an organization, party #1. I was employed by a third party and along as a liason/evaluator. During the event, I was shooting photos. I used them on my website. I was officially on the clock for party #3 and had expressed (not written - my Sony) consent from all involved to take pics. A year later I was sued by party #2 because he felt the image I shot portayed him in a bad light. Basically, It kind of did because he was acting unprofessional at the time. He, however, was not the focus of the image, just happened to be in the shot. The suit went to arbitration prior to going to court which was a mistake on my part because I would now be looking at the D2X from all the money I won. Lesson learned again. Turns out I learned a lot more in regards to copyright laws here in the states however. Copyright, while the focus of the lawsuit was not the issue at hand. The reason the case was dismissed. He mistakenly thought because he was in the image he had copyright privledges. Actually, he had very minimal "Likenesss" rights, and barely anything there at all. So, now I use my current approach. I do use the mode release forms found in this forum on occasion, but mostly for posed shots and such.

So, my whole point was meant to be this:

Politeness goes a long, LONG way! Easy as that.

Andy

Oh yeah, I still use the pic I was sued over......

ahh, that would have been a big annoyance to go through! Glad you came out of it winning the case, at least.

If I shoot pictures of people (namely surfers/bodyboarders) down at the local publicly accessable beach, do I need to get them to sign a release etc. if I ever want to publish, or sell the images down the line?

Asking permission is always a plus when taking the photos, but the release thing stumps me.

I would think if you are going to profit ($$$) from anothers image, get a release. The only time I could see otherwise, using your example, would be pro surfers in a comp. At that point you may have to get the organizing bodies permission or release, but the pros have already signed off to compete.

Andy

kmaisch wrote:Andy - I think your approach (asking people first) is fine! However, for candid photographs (spur of the moment, capturing an expression) it's not really possible to ask permission first. Sure, for portraits or "say cheese" shots asking permission first would be no problem - but the type of photographs I like are ones that capture an emotion where the subject is not concious of the photographer...

I don't think taking a photograph of a person without asking is unethical... although there would definately be a line to draw. Eg: I wouldn't take photographs of people at the beach, the swimming pool, etc... but street candids, markets, festivals, concerts - I think are fine (without trampling people to get the shot, of course!) :)

I take photos of people at the beach quite frequently, and rarely have any issues. Usually, any issues relate to third parties who think they know what I'm photographing, without ever having access to my viewfinder.

One issue which hasn't yet been canvassed in this discussion is that of cultural differences. Some cultures do not approve of having their images capture photographically. I believe those sorts of cultural issues shoould always be respected without question or hesitation.

gstark wrote:I take photos of people at the beach quite frequently, and rarely have any issues. Usually, any issues relate to third parties who think they know what I'm photographing, without ever having access to my viewfinder.

Yeah that is one of the reasons why I, personally, would avoid taking pictures of people at the beach. Other people seeing me with the camera would assume I'm zooming in on something dodgy!

gstark wrote:One issue which hasn't yet been canvassed in this discussion is that of cultural differences. Some cultures do not approve of having their images capture photographically. I believe those sorts of cultural issues shoould always be respected without question or hesitation.

Yeah, good point. I doub't that comes in to the law at all... but something people should be aware of I guess. I have no idea which cultures though?

That's very true about other cultures. Once I was asked to take some family portraits of a fellow worker and his family. Because of their religion (so he told me) I could only take their photos If I agreed to give them the negatives. I still don't know if it was legitimate or I was just being conned.

My understanding of your rights as a photographer in Australia are these....you may shoot anybody you can see in or from a public place...except children who are wards of the state. You can shoot people who are visible from a public place, even if they are on their own property. You cannot climb a fence or tree to photograph somebody on their own property. You may photograph anybody on a beach, topless or not, but if you do this in a way that offends people...IE leering over them with a fisheye lens, then you may be charged with offensive behaviour. You cannot photograph on the premises of a court of law...however, the moment someone steps off the premises of a court you may photograph them.
You are entitled to show your prints in a gallery, or post them on a website, (providing that posting the images does not in any way diminish or ridicule, as in a pornographic website). You may sell the images as works of art. You may not use the images to promote any commercial undertaking or product without permission of the subject.
These are the guidelines I have used and believe that these guidlines are supported by the law.
A couple of cautions...be extremely careful when photographing children without the parents persmission. Although it is not illegal, you expose yourself to potential problems. Do not display images that may hold people to ridicule...for instance, if you take a shot of a man picking his nose and display it, and he turns out to be one of the worlds most eminent dental surgeons...you risk being sued. Another case...a photographer snappped an elderly couple embracing in a park and displayed the image. The couple were married...but not to each other, and the mans wife sued for divorce and got a considerable sum of money in the settlement. The man then sued the photographer...so you can see where this goes. Use your common sense and if in doubt, get legal advice or destroy the image.

Matt, thanks for the straightforward summing up

One issue which hasn't yet been canvassed in this discussion is that of cultural differences. Some cultures do not approve of having their images capture photographically. I believe those sorts of cultural issues shoould always be respected without question or hesitation.

How do you know a strangers culture though? Do you ask every person in your frame? Do you ask before or after?

How does someone's culture differ from someone just not wanting to be photographed? Why is it different?

Matt. K wrote:You may sell the images as works of art.

So I could take photos of someone in a public place, and sell prints as a work of art... even without their permission?

Kim

darb wrote:How does someone's culture differ from someone just not wanting to be photographed? Why is it different?

Because one can be an extremely offensive gesture and the other is simply a desire not to be photographed.

eg. waving at someone your left hand. Seems innocent enough to you, but in certain countries where one uses the left hands to wipe one's rear end after going to the loo (yes I was born in one and I did wipe with my left hand), waving with the left hand signifies "you are worse than sh^t to me", the ultimate insult. (and don't expect a wave back!)

Australians are not insulted by many things I can think of right now, so it's hard to come up with a counter example.

Muslim women (with the headscarf) should not be photographed. Their headscarf is also supposed to prevent other men (not their husbands) from seeing their physical form. If you're shooting in a crowd - fair enough, but if they notice you expect them to move out of your frame of view.

Onyx, will try not to wave at you with the left hand but my D70 users strap only fits my right hand so apologies in advance if I balls up

Chris, I am not sure there is Intellectual copyright in your own image. Copyright is automatically granted to the author of a work of art. Every photograph (regadless of what it is) is considered a work of art. Therefore copyright in an image is owned by the photographer, not the subject. There are other legal issues where the work is to be used for profit and the persons in the photograph are identifiable, but the photographer owns the image. This is not a copyright issue though. If the subject owned the copyright, then papparzzi wouldn't exist. (I should add that this question is quite common in relation to hiring a professional photographer for weddings. The photographer always owns the copyright to the images when they are first created. If the hirer wants to own the copyrightm then they need to have it assigned to them).
Perhaps you work in this area and have some direct experience in these issues, but in my experience in intellectual property, the photographer (or author) always owns the copyright at first instance.

Glen wrote:Onyx, will try not to wave at you with the left hand but my D70 users strap only fits my right hand so apologies in advance if I balls up

Glen,

Also try to remember to use more than just the one finger.

Gary, Onyx hasn't yet critiqued my photos I'll save that gesture for then

 LOL Glen, sorry to disappoint, I don't take offence to left handed waving, with one or several fingers. I'll most likely reciprocate too.

sirhc55
Not sure what you mean by everyone has the intellectual right to their image? My understanding is that here is no protection to individuals in the intelectual rights to their image...only the commercial rights, if that's what you are talking about. Nobody can force you to delete an image that you might have taken of them in a public place! This is an important principle in our democratic rights. It is what you do with the image that is important, and it is where you may get into trouble. Certainly you can exhibit as a work of art, sell as a work of art, use to illustrate a news or magazine story etc...as long as you don't use it to humiliate the subject, or use it for commercial gain...IE as a product or advertisment for a product or company. I understand that photographers are nervous about ending up in court and being sued if they end up doing the wrong thing, but to the best of my knowledge the laws in relation to this have remained unchanged for a very long time. I encourage all photographers to go out into the public arena and photograh whatever or whomever you may see. Use common sense in this...if somebody indicates to you that they do not wish to be photographed then respect their wishes unless you have a strong reason not to. Be polite and don't stick your camera into peoples faces. Keep a low profile and enjoy your photography.
As a disclaimer...I have no legal training and this information should be taken as a post for general information. If anybody would like to add to...or refute any of this information...then I would encourage you to do so as a service to all forum members.

Matt K

as long as you don't use it to humiliate the subject,

How do we explain photos of well known personalities splashed on the cover of magazines not only showing large amounts of cellulite but actually highlighting it with red circles and with headlines to match.

personalities and celebrities are not people. They are bottom feeders that grow rich and fat from the attention that the media gives them. That's how they make their money and they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
Actually...they are a little like public property....but if they want to get nasty then they can...ofen winning obscene amounts of compensation.

Philipb, I agree with what Matt K said and also said magazines have large legal departments who settle every fourth (for example) claim and have worked out the increase in circulation is worth the cost. Now of course how many would pay to see my cellulite?

Hey Kmaisch,

Can you share how do you inscribe your customised name or logo in each of every pic that you have taken?

Cheers!

Here's a couple of documents which explains your rights to a degree.

http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G011.pdf

And more to the point.

http://www.simpsons.com.au/library/docu ... Photog.pdf

Geoff

Geoff

Thanks for that. I've just read the second pdf. I think you've pretty much sorted this one out for now (until the next precedent gets set, I guess)

gleff wrote:Here's a couple of documents which explains your rights to a degree.

http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G011.pdf

And more to the point.

http://www.simpsons.com.au/library/docu ... Photog.pdf

Geoff

The second one is a great link gleff, there's nothing like introducing a few facts to the subject! (At least, as close to facts as lawyers get)

Cheers

ps Do you think your avatar might be improved by a few numbers just below your chin?

digitor wrote:
ps Do you think your avatar might be improved by a few numbers just below your chin?

I'm working on it.. Just 486 to go and i'll be a senior member

Nice one Geoff!

hopefully my brain will continue to function until the end of my night shift allowing me to finish reading the 2nd doc...

ahhh Nigggggggggghhhht Shifffffffffft Paaaaiiinn

Geoff,
It's a good reading though! More brain food! thanks

Hate to spoil the party, but the politicians keep wanting to get involved...

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,12098950%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html

It's a bit of a worry when any politician opens his/her mouth, especially when it may affect my hobby :/

...Bad enough that there's a restriction on lens length, let-alone shooting in a public place!

The council ban on cameras would also cover Tamarama and Bronte beaches, as well as kindergartens, schools and parks.

That'll make school photos a bit difficult won't it.

Nnnnsic wrote:

The council ban on cameras would also cover Tamarama and Bronte beaches, as well as kindergartens, schools and parks.

That'll make school photos a bit difficult won't it.

If I go to a school concert or something my Boy is in, there's no way some up-start do-gooder new-age teacher is going to stop me taking photo's of him!

"I'm sorry sir... you can't bring that--"

*WHAM*

Oh bugger.. did you just get hit by my 200-400... look what you did to my lens... there's a speck of blood on it...

And we thought Herr Heutler (Hitler) was a problem - local councils are nothing but jumped up petty autocrats

Chris PS One way to attack back is to get legislation that anyone in local councils who supports camera bans to have their own cameras confiscated!