DSLRUsers.com

Someone has just informed me of a case in Queensland where a photographer lost a court case regarding privacy and a photograph of a woman in a bikini on City beach South-bank in Queensland

the judge made his finding partly on the basis that the camera was utilised as a voyeuristic device and violated the person's right to privacy being such that the nature of her visit to the public place was construed as a private act, that being the act of bathing.

Not that I doubt the information but I have never heard of such a case and I am usually pretty well informed of such incidents.

Has anyone else heard anything about this? It is pretty disturbing if it has happened it basically puts a ban on all public area photography of people. As anyone could claim they were conducting a private act in a public space.



the person who informed me was on an art chat site and has not given any other details

Whilst I don't know the circumstance and would love to hear the full story, the next time they ask a photographer to put away his or her SLR, ask them why they're discriminating against those people with SLR's against those who may have P&S's.

That said, if you're shooting on the beach, use the excuse I've come up with:

You're shooting the beach.
The fact that someone is lying on it isn't your problem.

Surely a public place is exactly that.

A place for the public, if you choose to be seen in a public place doing whatever you do in that "public place" is up to you. People can see you. If you see it with your camera then you see it with your eyes. What is the difference?

So the same magistrate could also say that all the people on the beach at that time used thier eyes as a voyeuristic device and therefore should be prosecuted?

I do wonder how photographers like Max Duipan and Renne Ellis got on!

If this is true it means an end to any work similar to theirs in the future

This just doesn't sound right to me. And so much information is missing to make a coherent judgement from this case.

it sounded fundamentally odd to me

I'm not aware of it happening at that location.
But it does sound a bit like the mobile phone/camera incident at Bondi Beach.

no different altogether this was supposed to be a civil case with $45,000 damages for invasion of privacy on a public beach?????

Unless and untill we get some specifics of the case, I think this needs to be relegated into the Urban Myth bin

my thoughts exactly.