DSLRUsers.com

Here is another example of the photographers rights being trampled on.

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2009/fe ... s-outrage/

It a shame that this continues to happen, I now think twice about where I'll be doing my photography because of manufactured fear that all photographers are up to no good. Particularly it seems if you have a decent camera, as point and shoots don't seem to draw anyone's attention. Given the recent influx of DSLRs (it seems like every man, his wife and his kid own one somedays), surely this is affecting more people then ever before ? Or are the newly SLR enable already of the mindset that public photography is against the law ?

What do you do?

Do you comply with PC Plod's ill-informed orders and further relinquish your photographic rights or do you make a stand, run the risk of getting arrested (for what, I am not sure) and then spend the necessary time and cost getting cleared. Ideoligically, the latter option is preferred as it will hopefully provide precedence for more appropraite application of the law in the future. For me personally, I would probably go with the former option as I can offord neither the time or expense of going through a court process.

Of course, I would try to explain to the police what I understand the law to allow and disallow, however, I do not sufficient and the use of that summary relating to NSW would help.

Should we expect the constabulary on the street to understand all of the criminal code and it's legal interpretation?

A larger issue is the poor attitude of some of the public who believe that anyone in public with a camera is an evildoer and must be treated with. This stems from, I believe, a broader "alarmed but not alert" mentality whereby civil liberties should be quashed. These generally come from the same people who decry a 'nanny state' (I guess).

Anyway, compare and contrast.

Third option, comply with their wishes. Make sure you get their name and badge number (or ask for a business card) and lodge a complaint after the fact. Maybe not as visible as taking it through the courts but it should lead to at least two better educated officers of the law.

Ant.

Let’s take a look at this:

“Section 127A of the criminal code states it is an offence to observe or visually record another person without their consent in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy.”

It would appear that to just observe another person without their consent could be interpreted as an offence. On that premise if I’m walking down the road and a lady flashes her boobs I could be arrested for observing another person who deserves privacy.

In basic terms this is a crock of sh*t.

I’m very fortunate to be of an age where in my early days of photography carrying a camera was not looked upon as a possible criminal offence.

sirhc55 wrote:I’m very fortunate to be of an age where in my early days of photography carrying a camera was not looked upon as a possible criminal offence.

Because very few people knew what a camera obscura was?

sirhc55 wrote:Let’s take a look at this:

“Section 127A of the criminal code states it is an offence to observe or visually record another person without their consent in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy.”

It would appear that to just observe another person without their consent could be interpreted as an offence. On that premise if I’m walking down the road and a lady flashes her boobs I could be arrested for observing another person who deserves privacy.

In basic terms this is a crock of sh*t.

I’m very fortunate to be of an age where in my early days of photography carrying a camera was not looked upon as a possible criminal offence.

I think you missed the important half of the Section. If she flashed her boobs then she couldn't expect to be afforded privacy (just ask Janet Jackson!).

Ant.

Ant wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:Let’s take a look at this:

“Section 127A of the criminal code states it is an offence to observe or visually record another person without their consent in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy.”

I think you missed the important half of the Section. If she flashed her boobs then she couldn't expect to be afforded privacy (just ask Janet Jackson!).

Would the act of flashing one's boobs be, in effect, an act of granting an observer consent to observe?

But yet again, we are faced with an example of stupidity of an order of magnitude that makes a marketing person look smart.

Ant wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:Let’s take a look at this:

“Section 127A of the criminal code states it is an offence to observe or visually record another person without their consent in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy.”

It would appear that to just observe another person without their consent could be interpreted as an offence. On that premise if I’m walking down the road and a lady flashes her boobs I could be arrested for observing another person who deserves privacy.

In basic terms this is a crock of sh*t.

I’m very fortunate to be of an age where in my early days of photography carrying a camera was not looked upon as a possible criminal offence.

I think you missed the important half of the Section. If she flashed her boobs then she couldn't expect to be afforded privacy (just ask Janet Jackson!).

That is the exact point Chris is making. The cops are looking at the first half of the clause and not the second part.

Section 227A of the criminal code states it is an offence to observe or visually record another person without their consent in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy.

Sunshine Coast solicitor Damon Locantro said there was a grey area in the law when it came to what constituted lawful and unlawful photos at public places like the beach or a public swimming pool.

“The case law in this area hasn’t yet been determined to a great degree in terms of what are private acts and what are not private acts, because the law only came in 2005,” he said.

“Certainly, the recording of someone’s private parts without their consent is clearly an offence, but social things such as games on the beach is a grey area,” he said.

Mr Locantro does not believe Mr Thompson did anything wrong.

“In my view, it would not be a breach of the law for a person to take photographs in that circumstance,” he said.

The Police may be only observing the first half of the indictment, but you are all only observing the first half of the article.

A defence solicitor, someone who has studied law for years at university, works day in and day out in a criminal court representing people, and possibly getting them cleared of criminal convictions, says it is a grey area.

You cannot expect a Police Officer, who is versed in the basics of criminal law to make a decision that pleases everyone, let alone a decision that the Law Courts of the State havent made a 'case law' decision on yet.

sirhc55 wrote:Let’s take a look at this:

“Section 127A of the criminal code states it is an offence to observe or visually record another person without their consent in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy.”

It would appear that to just observe another person without their consent could be interpreted as an offence. On that premise if I’m walking down the road and a lady flashes her boobs I could be arrested for observing another person who deserves privacy.

Not so. A person would "reasonably expect" privacy in such places as public toilets, showers, changing rooms, nude sun-baking in the backyard etc., not walking down the street.

See http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php by photographer and solicitor Andrew Nemeth.

Potoroo wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:Let’s take a look at this:

“Section 127A of the criminal code states it is an offence to observe or visually record another person without their consent in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy.”

It would appear that to just observe another person without their consent could be interpreted as an offence. On that premise if I’m walking down the road and a lady flashes her boobs I could be arrested for observing another person who deserves privacy.

Not so.

Exactly so.

A person would "reasonably expect" privacy in such places as public toilets, showers, changing rooms, nude sun-baking in the backyard etc., not walking down the street.

Correct.

Please tell us which of "public toilets, showers, changing rooms, nude sun-baking in the backyard" happen to be public places.

And please tell us precisely what your expectation to privacy, whilst in a public place, might be, and why? Ask yourself if while you are in a public place, do you believe that you have any entitlement to privacy?

See http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php by photographer and solicitor Andrew Nemeth.

Nothing new nor surprising there. That article has been referred to here a number of times. You should note that this article, as indicated by its title, refers to NSW law; the newspaper article we are discussing is a Qld case.

Raskill wrote:

Section 227A of the criminal code states it is an offence to observe or visually record another person without their consent in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy.

Sunshine Coast solicitor Damon Locantro said there was a grey area in the law when it came to what constituted lawful and unlawful photos at public places like the beach or a public swimming pool.

“The case law in this area hasn’t yet been determined to a great degree in terms of what are private acts and what are not private acts, because the law only came in 2005,” he said.

“Certainly, the recording of someone’s private parts without their consent is clearly an offence, but social things such as games on the beach is a grey area,” he said.

Mr Locantro does not believe Mr Thompson did anything wrong.

“In my view, it would not be a breach of the law for a person to take photographs in that circumstance,” he said.

The Police may be only observing the first half of the indictment, but you are all only observing the first half of the article.

A defence solicitor, someone who has studied law for years at university, works day in and day out in a criminal court representing people, and possibly getting them cleared of criminal convictions, says it is a grey area.

You cannot expect a Police Officer, who is versed in the basics of criminal law to make a decision that pleases everyone, let alone a decision that the Law Courts of the State havent made a 'case law' decision on yet.

In this case the lawyer is misguided as are the police, both are being re-educated by the local photographic community I understand. The circumstances described are not grey, they are very black and white.

There used to be, within law, a statement with reference to reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately in this day and age it is more common for both the general public and the authorities to deem anyone with a ‘large camera and lens’ to be either a pervert or terrorist.

I feel very sorry for the younger generation who can no longer experience the real delights of photography as old farts like myself have in the past.

The climate of today is reminscent of what happened in Germany from the early 30‘s through 1945 in a totalitarian state, which is what is beginning to happen again, all over the world.

We need a Judge John Deed

sirhc55 wrote:Unfortunately in this day and age it is more common for both the general public and the authorities to deem anyone with a ‘large camera and lens’ to be either a pervert or terrorist.

I feel very sorry for the younger generation who can no longer experience the real delights of photography as old farts like myself have in the past.

Yes I envy those who have had the experience of being able to take their camera anywhere. I have had run-ins with the CityRail gestapo and even hired security around the opera house and have always shied from taking my camera (even a little point and shoot) to the beach. The other day I was at Sydney Park with a friend and I felt like I was being watched as I took out my D300+50mm f/1.8 to take a few snaps of the trees and sky by the parents of the kids that were playing near by. Maybe this has some doing in driving me towards disliking people....

The funny/sad thing about this is that during the Olympics we had a US couple and their son staying with us (I used to work with him). We took the ferry to Manly and walked around to Shelly Beach. My work colleague proceeded to walk along the beach with his P&S taking photos of the topless women so he could send them home to his sleazy mates in North Carolina. Here was someone that probably should have been stopped.

Interesting how people who are topless sunbathing on a public beach expect privacy? Is it reasonable to do so?

I have had run-ins with the CityRail gestapo and even hired security around the opera house

ahh yes, I am glad I am not the only one! I got hassled by a security guard under the harbour bridge one night....as much as one trys and not let it get to you, it does bother me!

biggerry wrote:

I have had run-ins with the CityRail gestapo and even hired security around the opera house

ahh yes, I am glad I am not the only one! I got hassled by a security guard under the harbour bridge one night....as much as one trys and not let it get to you, it does bother me!

Yep and the best thing is that they are all ill informed about what our rights are. One time a single security guard worked his way all down the walkway at the Opera house asking anyone with a camera other than a compact point and shoot to stop taking pictures, we all ignored him and pointed out that we are taking photos on public property for personal use. I would have imagined that he would not have had this power trip that night.

aim54x wrote:we all ignored him and pointed out that we are taking photos on public property for personal use. I would have imagined that he would not have had this power trip that night.

Well, not quite.

At the SOH - anywhere basically within sight of the harbour - the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority has rules which will override the general situation. As a guide, they really apply to those shooting commercially, for which activity a permit is required. Commercial includes shooting weddings, btw, but the point here is that even though you're on public land, the basic rules applying to shooting on public land are not entirely applicable.

gstark wrote:

aim54x wrote:we all ignored him and pointed out that we are taking photos on public property for personal use. I would have imagined that he would not have had this power trip that night.

Well, not quite.

At the SOH - anywhere basically within sight of the harbour - the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority has rules which will override the general situation. As a guide, they really apply to those shooting commercially, for which activity a permit is required. Commercial includes shooting weddings, btw, but the point here is that even though you're on public land, the basic rules applying to shooting on public land are not entirely applicable.

hence the PERSONAL USE clause, I doubt the hired muscle (skimpy malnourished muscle) would have worried about the distinction between personal and non-commercial usage.

The Sydney Foreshores ACT has proven to be a bit of a pain, but at the same time how well can it be enforced, I was shooting a mates wedding (as a friend, I did not get paid) and we went down there along with his sister (she does videos professionally, but once again unpaid) and were a little worried about having to convince them that it was non-commercial activity, but we did not run into any gestapo or gestapo wannabes that day.

... Obsolete ...

foonji's advice of interacting with police...

be polite, and listen to what they have to say, don't start ranting and raving and carrying on like a pork chop, you'll only get their backs up and lose any chance of leeway you have in talking with them.

Just talk to them about what you are doing, show them and that you understand their concerns, ask them "if you were a pedophile would you clearly and obviously take photos with a large easily seen camera? or would you be using a small easily concealable camera so you couldn't be seen..?" try and get them thinking logically if they are young, keen and gun ho.

more than likely its because someone has just chewed off their ear with thoughts of evil, so they are just doing their job and investigating into the concern thats been passed onto them.

thats my experience with police.

foonji
Photographers should not have to explain themselves to Police or show them the images on their cameras. Photography is a benign activity. What next...show me what you are drawing and show me what you are reading?

Here's a bit more legal advice on street photographers' rights from Arts Law Centre of Australia.