DSLRUsers.com

Article in the Telegraph on Friday...so must be true

"Beach snapper arrested

A second alleged voyeur will face court for photographing top-less women on Coogee Beach.
The 30-year-old man was charged with offensive conduct for using his digital camera to take snaps of sunbathers.
Police were alerted to the man's actions by a group of women and arrested him on the beach.
The incident comes just one month after Coogee man Peter MacKenzie was fined $500 for taking shot, of a topless sunbather on the same beach. using his mobile phone camera.
MacKenzie, 25 was the first person convicted of using his phone for offensive purposes on the beach.
The man will face Waverley Local Court on February 2."

Theres no beach at Bobbin Head is there BirdDog?

Hell Jenno, LOL well one would hope there is no beach there or the boys with them big lenses could have some fun. But what is the place comming to it should be the those who are toppless getting fined for doing it public, if they dont want to be photographed they should keep there gear on.
If this was a nudist beach and designated place, well then yes maybe you should be warned or something like that but when on a public beach and being toppless is fair game.
My Thoughts anyhow, and hey i'm human cos if i was there i sure as hell would be looking, could be a bit hard though after Lisa would have given me 2 black eyes no doubt. Even the kids hate going shopping with me.LOL
Cheers
John
BBJ

OK! Here's the plan, we go out as a group to Coogee beach and as soon as we see a topless girl we call the police and demand to have her arrested.
If nothing else we'll get a lot of publicity for our club

Phillip, your plan is not a bad idea in theory...

This trend is disturbing. If there continues to be more arrests, the general public will be more inclined to hold the misconception that taking photos in a public place is illegal.

I'd love to see them arrest a tourist... that's the one group you'd never see arrested.

But what the hell? Am I not allowed to bring my camera to the beach anymore?

Public domain is taking a serious beating... geeze, if these people are so scared of being seen in public... either don't go out or don't go nude... for Christ sakes...

The sign should be display like this at all the beaches:

NO TOPLESS ALLOWED ON THIS BEACH! YOU'RE PHOTOGRAPHED

Or:

PHOTOGRAPH IS ALLOWED ON THIS BEACH, TOPLESS YOU"RE AT YOUR ONW RISK TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED.

It's ridiculous, you're going to the beach to capture the beautiful of it and you'll be arrested over your taken, it's the public place and people should taken care of themselves by being display your topless in the view of everyone.

Or a sign saying

D70 FORUM MEMBERS FREQUENT THIS BEACH, SO GO TOPLESS AT YOUR OWN RISK…..

Cheers
Ray

G'day,
Is the image checked to ensure that the photo taken was actually of the topless girls?

It's getting crazy, what if one of us was one the beach taking a sunset shot or something like that? Or perhaps taking a beach view shot from a cliff... Does that mean we're perverts putting stuff on the internet?

This is the sort of stuff that makes me apprehensive about taking any shots on a beach that's populated... What's the difference between someone taking a shot of a woman topless, or in a skimpy bikini? Or for that matter a guy (not for me thanks, but hey we have to be non-discriminitive)? All it takes is someone to take offence...

I certainly don't condone sleazes out there that do this for the wrong reasons, but it's worrying where all this sort of stuff is heading... This is the sort of publicity that makes people on the street nervous if anyone is just taking street scene shots...

Cheers,
Mudder

mudder wrote:G'day,
Is the image checked to ensure that the photo taken was actually of the topless girls?

It's getting crazy, what if one of us was one the beach taking a sunset shot or something like that? Or perhaps taking a beach view shot from a cliff... Does that mean we're perverts putting stuff on the internet?

This is the sort of stuff that makes me apprehensive about taking any shots on a beach that's populated... What's the difference between someone taking a shot of a woman topless, or in a skimpy bikini? Or for that matter a guy (not for me thanks, but hey we have to be non-discriminitive)? All it takes is someone to take offence...

I certainly don't condone sleazes out there that do this for the wrong reasons, but it's worrying where all this sort of stuff is heading... This is the sort of publicity that makes people on the street nervous if anyone is just taking street scene shots...

Cheers,
Mudder

Perhaps this action will turn the camera owners into the gun owners licensing scheme.
1/ Have to pass the security and background test to obtain a camera license to use in public places and annualy fees applied to the Govt. coffer to feed all the "fat cat".
2/ Have to have the secured cabinet to lock the camera when not in use.

3/ Camera owner without license is prohibited to carry the camera or display it in public places.
4/ Have to report to the local police station all your taken of the day and if there's any topless photos will be prosecuted or your license will be cancelled, but the topless photos will be the properties of the Boy and girl in blue
What's a mad systems Where's our democracy? this will turn into the way of Communist Policies of my beloved country.

Perhaps he was about to report these women for offensive behaviour, and was taking the photos as evidence to support his complaint. Now there's a thought

Cheers

digitor wrote:Perhaps he was about to report these women for offensive behaviour, and was taking the photos as evidence to support his complaint. Now there's a thought

Cheers

Now that's a very interesting aspect, one I hadn't thought of... Wonder if anyone would be game enough to try it though, I wouldn't...

Cheers,
Mudder

I was on Maroubra Beach yesterday, just snapping away........thank god there were no topless bathers or I might of been nicked as well....had the 70-300mm on and felt weird enough as it was.

So it's alright to be out flashing your tits at one and all, but they take offence when someone actually takes a picture......it's a public/family beach.....if you value privacy while nude bathing then take it to an appropriate spot!

Shesshhhh

HappyFotographer wrote:I was on Maroubra Beach yesterday, just snapping away........thank god there were no topless bathers or I might of been nicked as well....had the 70-300mm on and felt weird enough as it was.

So it's alright to be out flashing your tits at one and all, but they take offence when someone actually takes a picture......it's a public/family beach.....if you value privacy while nude bathing then take it to an appropriate spot!

Shesshhhh

Deb,
I'm second to you!!!!!

When mobile phones first came out I would be embarrassed if it rang when I was in public and would very often not answer it! Now, I don’t give a toss.

I have carried a camera for over 40 years and it is only now that I am becoming a little embarrassed to be seen in public carrying a camera.

It would seem that if you own a little P&S then you can point wherever and whenever and no one seems to mind. However, with the D70 you ARE noticed (or Can@n or Pent#x).

There are the odd sleaze bags around and within this group I would add naked men and women who complain when they see anyone with a camera within eyeshot be that person a sleaze or not.

I am reminded of those great words - it was the best of times, it was the worst of times (competing and contradictory attitudes) and this was in 1775 or is it 2005!!

Chris

An article this morning on page 13, Sunday Telegraph, following is an extraction from that article:

" Cameras could be banned from parts of world famous Bondi Beach after perverts were caught photographing children in their swimmers.

Weverly Council's deputy mayor, George Newhouse, is proposing that cameras, including mobile phone cameras, be banned from the children pool at Bondi, parks, change rooms and other areas where children play"

and:

" The council ban on cameras would also cover Tamarama and Bronte beachs as well as kindergartens, school and parks"

So should we stay away from Waverley Council's beaches areas? cos you can't use your mobile phone, mums/ dads will be no longer allowing taking photo of their kids in any of those areas! should be fun!!!!!

Bondi, Bronte beaches can go NUDE without any worrying!!!hehehehe

What is the world coming to?? If women want to be exhibitionist in a public place (which a beach is), why the hell would they object to being photographed? But the thing that sticks in my craw is,why are the police involved? If anything it is the women that should be prosecuted for lewd and offensive behaviour in a public place. What offence is being committed by taking photographs in a public place? What are the police charging the photographer with? There must be worse things going on in Sydney than this!! As Birddog has said, perhaps soon we will have to register our cameras and then have the police check them to make sure there are no images that are deemed to be offensive or against the public interest.
I hope that this photographer has a better lawyer than the one with the phone, and that he appears before a different magistrate.

Regards
Meic

Gary perhaps will move out of Bondi, cos he can't take his camera and the 80-400VR to the beach anymore.

What happened if I'm lucky enough to be one of the owner of the high rise apt. around that area and have the 600mm with TC-20 and take photo people from my balcony? will they come after me

So citizen who lives around that area no longer can possession a long zoom lens or have to register with local council, police station of their lust of any lens with the zoom lgreater than 100mm, Hahahaha! lucky me, I'm not the residence in those ridiculous politic manners

Wavely council's intended ban is almost impossible to enforce. But no doubt it'll be a matter of "when" they will attempt to introduce those bans. Why don't they take it one step further and ban the sale of all digital cameras in the country and mobile phones with cameras?!

I hope this latest guy who got arrested gets a decent lawyer to knock some sense into the judicial system. Get the topless sunbathers charged, then there'll be public outcry.

Onyx wrote:Wavely council's intended ban is almost impossible to enforce. But no doubt it'll be a matter of "when" they will attempt to introduce those bans. Why don't they take it one step further and ban the sale of all digital cameras in the country and mobile phones with cameras?!

I hope this latest guy who got arrested gets a decent lawyer to knock some sense into the judicial system. Get the topless sunbathers charged, then there'll be public outcry.

Onyx,
Soon we have to register our cameras with local council or police station
Or you'll have to get a "special license" when you call into the store to buy a camera, and a camera will be a "lethal weapon", this remind me of 30 years ago once our South Vietnam fell into the communist hand, we had to bring our cameras to the local police station for registration and declared the purpose to own or use the camera, same as signing a declaration.
If not, you'll get the label "Spy for the US/ you're a traitor" and you'll never ever see your next birthday again. Is it the Waverly Council going to do the same?

I was at Manly beach a couple of days ago with the 80-200 on the camera. I took a couple of overall views and then noticed a couple of topless bathers fairly close to my position. This made me feel uneasy so I slung the camera over my shoulder and moved on. It occurred to me that women who sunbathe topless have liberated themselves at the expense of my enjoyment of being able to walk freely along a beach, (not something I do very often), and my freedom to take photographs without having to be self-conscious.
That is not fair. The beach is there for everybodys enjoyment. Where once there were special areas put aside for nude or topless bathers, I can see the day when special areas of a beach will be put aside for photographers. An unhappy thought.

Birddog114 wrote:

Onyx wrote:Wavely council's intended ban is almost impossible to enforce. But no doubt it'll be a matter of "when" they will attempt to introduce those bans. Why don't they take it one step further and ban the sale of all digital cameras in the country and mobile phones with cameras?!

I hope this latest guy who got arrested gets a decent lawyer to knock some sense into the judicial system. Get the topless sunbathers charged, then there'll be public outcry.

Onyx,
Soon we have to register our cameras with local council or police station
Or you'll have to get a "special license" when you call into the store to buy a camera, and a camera will be a "lethal weapon", this remind me of 30 years ago once our South Vietnam fell into the communist hand, we had to bring our cameras to the local police station for registration and declare the purpose to own or use the camera.
If not, you'll get the label "Spy for the US/ you're a traitor" and you'll never ever see your next birthday again. Is it the Waverly Council going to do the same?

Funny that, about 10 years ago when i was in s.vietnam for a holiday
I had a couple of shots left in my film camera. So i decided what the hell, lets shoots some buliding so i can get the film developed.
When the local family saw my developed pictures they immediatey cut the negatives and prints of the bulidings, didn't realise that photographing govenment bulidings is an arrestable offence. luckly the guard in my photo was asleep. btw isn't an offend to expose youself in public? indecent expose? but i guess it only applies to males and not females...

Hey, soon men will go nude on the beach too and women who're lurking around will get caught!!!!!!

What's about women taking photo of topless man? what's the difference???

I think this is worth a letter explaining our views (without necessarily naming ourselves) to the local media. Just think about what they have to lose if these sort of charges become common? They should be the number one critic of this sort of thing.

On a lighter note - how long till a channel 9 cricket camera man gets charged?

onimod wrote:I think this is worth a letter explaining our views (without necessarily naming ourselves) to the local media. Just think about what they have to lose if these sort of charges become common? They should be the number one critic of this sort of thing.

On a lighter note - how long till a channel 9 cricket camera man gets charged?

"channel 9 cricket camera man " what did he do?

I remember crossing from China into Hong Kong in 1986. My wife at the time had the Nikon and was happily snapping away when I pointed out to her the massive notices saying that photographs were forbidden.

What did she do? Kept on snapping! Unfortunately they DID NOT arrest her - ah well

Chris

redline wrote:
"channel 9 cricket camera man " what did he do?

it's their job to pick the most revealing ladies out of the crowd - you haven't watched much cricket on the box?

Just been listening to Sky News re this incident and they said this:

”Police have the power to confiscate a persons camera if they are taking photos that are deemed offensive or if they BELIEVE they are being used for that purpose”

Move over George Orwell and hide the 200-400VR Birdie

Chris

onimod wrote:

redline wrote:
"channel 9 cricket camera man " what did he do?

it's their job to pick the most revealing ladies out of the crowd - you haven't watched much cricket on the box?

no sorry i don't watch much tv anymore and iam not a fan of cricket

sirhc55 wrote:Just been listening to Sky News re this incident and they said this:

”Police have the power to confiscate a persons camera if they are taking photos that are deemed offensive or if they BELIEVE they are being used for that purpose”

Move over George Orwell and hide the 200-400VR Birdie

Chris

How do the police justify the act of the photogs wrong or right?
Say you're wandering around the beach and suddenly you want to capture a special moment of the waves but did not know there's a topless girl in your viewfinder, so then, you're acting right or wrong? how can you prove you're doing the right thing?
Look back few years ago, a French Citizen been shot dead by a copper based in Bondi cos he got a knife in his hand, and the police shot him later been charged with drug dealing, can U trust them? me? no and no!
How many cleaned cop around? We need Clint Eastwood or Arnie here

There's a small column in SMH today:

Extraction read from that column:

"Camera ban opposed"
"Parent have derided a council proposal to ban cameras on Bondi beach, questioning the police's ability to enforce it".

Storm in a developing tray if you ask me.

I don't think that the Waverly Council ban will float. What will they do with Japanese tourists? We can all go down to the beach and lodge complaints about them, and make the whole thing even more unworkable than it is in theory.

The Coogee beach incident is far more serious IMHO. I don't believe that we should be complaining about the women who are sunbathing toploess on the beach, but absent any real details of this latest incident - what camera? , how was he behaving? - it's rather difficlt to pass but a generic comment, and that is that my opinion hasn't changed since the last time.

People are entiled to quiet enjoyment of the beach, but must remember that they are in a public place. Some twit shooting nothing but topless women and using their Nokia cellphone must be, in order to get anything recognisable - hovering over and intimidating his so-called subjects. That could well be construed to be offensive behaviour.

Someone with a decent camera and lens combo, shooting general beach scenes that happenned to include some images of topless sunbathers must be seen as a different situation entirely.

Perhaps Waverley Council's deputy mayor wants to start his own revolution in photography! will this earn him more vote in next election?
A crappy politic's ideas!!!

If there's a fine for a photographer to capture of beauti landscape then another fine should be offered to the topless girl, and if there's a ban then will be both banning on the beach.

I just voiced my opinion on this on Mike Carton's breakkie show, pointing out that I could be shooting with a long lens from several hundred feet away, and nobody would know. What a load rubbish.

George Newhouse, stick your nose somewhere where it more reasonably belongs!

There has been what... only 2 complaints and arrests against people using cameras on Bondi? Considering the hundreds of thousands of visitors (many with cameras) this is getting more attention than it deserves from the media and therefore, the powers that be. The media is placing this whole thing in a sensationalised media spotlight. This is the sort of thing that councils and governments seem to react to quickly with no basis for doing so, other than the sensationalised media reports.

If a women decides to get her gear off in a public place, IMO she gives up her right to privacy (Geez, if I did that, I would probably be arrested for indecent exposure - not a pretty sight - genuinely offensive!). At the same time, I believe that those using cameras in such an enviornment need to show a degree of good judgment, common courtesy.... call it what you will.

Sunrise is running a SMS pole this morning. So far opinion is against the banning of cameras on beaches. The issue seems to be the photographing of children. If the photographing of children for voyueristic purposes by sickos is as widespread as claimed, then something that needs to be done... NOW! Children must be protected from this sort of behaviour - I doubt there would be a decent person alive who would dispute this. The problem is that no one really knows how widespread this problem is.

My opinion. Those who bare themselves in a public place need to accept that they are in a public place and that there is a chance that they may be photographed. If there is a problem, the law seems to be quite sufficient to deal with those problems without making it more difficult for legitimate use of a camera by introducing more legislation.
Parents are forever aware that there are people who will prey on their children. Those sickos need to be weeded out and locked away... forever! Banning cameras is not the answer. Those sickos will always find a way to gratify their perverse needs. In the meantime it is the rest of us who will suffer if the bans are put into force. Mind you, I could quite happily live with the banning of camera phones in public places.

The problem of voyuerism is not restricted to just beaches, but to all public places. This is a situation where I believe that the community needs to police itself.

Just my 2c worth

Cheers

Matt

"To ban a camera phone in public place"

How do they do or justify this?

90% of mobile phone now has camera built in, and the person who use the phone can take photo in many ways and you perhaps not aware of what he/ she's doing.

The mobile phone can be listening with the headphone or speaker built in, people can aim the mobile phone to capture what they want without keep their eyes on the monitor screen.

Banning mobile phone in public place? So?
The mobile phone with camera built in should be banned at the entry point into Australia?
Then there're no mobile phone or mobile phone users around or people with mobile phones won't have their present or restricted in public places.

It's like I always say..

Its not the taking of the picture, its what you do with it (and this relates to copyright, licencing, model release, and protection of privacy)

Matt,

mattco6974 wrote:There has been what... only 2 complaints and arrests against people using cameras on Bondi?

None on Bondi, to my knowledge. The two arrests thus far have been at Coogee.

If a women decides to get her gear off in a public place, IMO she gives up her right to privacy

Privacy? Yes, absolutely. That doesn't though give others the right to stand over her and make her feel like a piece of meat; she is still entitled to peaceful enjoyment of her time in that public place.

At the same time, I believe that those using cameras in such an enviornment need to show a degree of good judgment, common courtesy.... call it what you will.

Exactly.

Sunrise is running a SMS pole this morning. So far opinion is against the banning of cameras on beaches. The issue seems to be the photographing of children. If the photographing of children for voyueristic purposes by sickos is as widespread as claimed, then something that needs to be done... NOW! Children must be protected from this sort of behaviour - I doubt there would be a decent person alive who would dispute this. The problem is that no one really knows how widespread this problem is.

Nor how to enforce it.

You have a Nippers carnival at the beach. Your kid is entered in it. You want to have images of the event for the family archives, don't you? There's nothing at all wrong with that, is there?

I may be standing right next you, but I might be a pervert. Who's to know that as a fact? How could any reasonable person be expected to tell the difference?

My opinion. Those who bare themselves in a public place need to accept that they are in a public place and that there is a chance that they may be photographed. If there is a problem, the law seems to be quite sufficient to deal with those problems without making it more difficult for legitimate use of a camera by introducing more legislation.
Parents are forever aware that there are people who will prey on their children. Those sickos need to be weeded out and locked away... forever! Banning cameras is not the answer. Those sickos will always find a way to gratify their perverse needs. In the meantime it is the rest of us who will suffer if the bans are put into force. Mind you, I could quite happily live with the banning of camera phones in public places.

The problem of voyuerism is not restricted to just beaches, but to all public places. This is a situation where I believe that the community needs to police itself.

And that's about the size of it.

Birddog,

Perhaps I should have left that comment out. I would never advocate their banning, that would be just one more nail in the coffin of our liberty, but I would not lose any sleep over it if they were.

Cheers

Matt

Gary,

I may be standing right next you, but I might be a pervert. Who's to know that as a fact? How could any reasonable person be expected to tell the difference?

Most parents are acutely aware of the behaviour of others around their children. Yes, it may be hard to know for certain, and that is one of the problems that is faced by all.

Privacy? Yes, absolutely. That doesn't though give others the right to stand over her and make her feel like a piece of meat; she is still entitled to peaceful enjoyment of her time in that public place.

I agree. That is where the responsible use of cameras comes into play. At the same time I do not want to see a hapless photographer being arrested because he took a photograph of a scene on a beach and she happened to be part of that scene (not the subject).

There is no measure that can be taken by government at any level that will satisfy everyone. For the most part, any legislation put into play will be to the detriment of the vast majority. As mentioned previously, legislation is already in place to deal with the unpleasant use of cameras. The only reasonable solution that I see for governments at all levels to leave it alone and allow the community and existing legislation to take care of it.

Cheers

Matt

Matt,

mattco6974 wrote:The only reasonable solution that I see for governments at all levels to leave it alone and allow the community and existing legislation to take care of it.

Exactly!

The government - local councils, whatever - need to be emphatically told to butt out!

Aah ha! So Gary, we do agree!!

Cheers

Matt

Matt,

mattco6974 wrote:Aah ha! So Gary, we do agree!!

I live but two minutes from Bondi Beach, and I enjoy wandering down there and taking photos of stuff that happens at the beach. Often that includes topless women, but I will try and take my photos with some element of discretion.

Hmmm ... me .... discreet. There's a challenge!

Seriously, I think I would ignore any such ban. The law interferes far too much in our lives as it is.

Birddog114 wrote:Or you'll have to get a "special license" when you call into the store to buy a camera, and a camera will be a "lethal weapon"

 BTW, good camera with hard body on the strap IS "lethal weapon" Couple of years ago in Thailand I was attacked by 3 dogs in one of Koh Samui temples, so, my Nikon F60 helped me to handle situation very well

The law interferes far too much in our lives as it is.

Oh so true, although I have to say that it is usually the actions of a small minority that stuff it up for the vast majority.

One thing that I have found since living in the Northern Territory is that I really do enjoy a lot more freedom than any where else in the country. The only thing that their are photographic restrictions on are Aboriginal "sacred sites" - Ayers Rock being one of them but thankfully not enforced. I have never once seen a sign forbidding me from exercising my dogs on public ovals - to common elsewhere. It is little things like that which cumulatively have a large impact on our lives.

Cheers

Matt

You know, it just occurred to me, not long ago I was at my local duck watering hole, I was sitting on the ground taking photos across the little lake when this kid came up to feed the ducks, so without really thinking I snapped this shot.



Now under the current climate, would I be in trouble or what?

*Dails 000*

phillipb wrote:Now under the current climate, would I be in trouble or what?

Man, are you ever in deep trouble. I hope you've got a good lawyer on hand.

So I guess trying to sell the photo is out of the question

Just post it on the web.

Just did, didn't I? ... hang on a minute, gota answer the door, someone with dark glasses and black suit wants to see me.