DSLRUsers.com

See http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Charges-dismissed-for-beach-peeping-toms/2005/04/05/1112489472363.html

Phone destroyed, $500 fine... Still seems wrong

I still fail to see how this could be remotely illegal...

Public place = public eye

It is what is DONE with the pictures that is where the law comes in

In actual fact for editorial purporses you could be anywhere in public doing anything and you could end up on the front page of the paper...
I suppose that is why they call it PUBLIC

*runs off ranting and waving arms in the air*

Hey MHD!
Your first prize pic, had a topless woman in it and you cloned it out
I'll have my gear to Bondi beach soon with the WT-2 wifi on my D2x

Birddog114 wrote:Hey MHD!
Your first prize pic, had a topless woman in it and you cloned it out
I'll have my gear to Bondi beach soon with the WT-2 wifi on my D2x

Then watch the fun as they ask you to show them the images that you've captured that would (otherwise) be on your CF card.

"This card contains no images"

Can they legally ask you... or rather, is it within their rights to ask you (and thereby force you) to show you the images you've shot?

gstark wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:Hey MHD!
Your first prize pic, had a topless woman in it and you cloned it out
I'll have my gear to Bondi beach soon with the WT-2 wifi on my D2x

Then watch the fun as they ask you to show them the images that you've captured that would (otherwise) be on your CF card.

"This card contains no images"

Scratch the head Oh, my new camera is faulty, so no image recorded officer! I have to send it back to Nikon.

Hilarious Birdy, I can just see it now!

Wouldn't you have a couple of folders on your card, stick a few touristy shots in one of them, do your "art" shots on the other one, and happily show anybody who was interested the contents of folder #1????

Not that I am encouraging any dodgy business here, not at all, oh no. But it would be dead easy, all the same.

An interesting point is that with a digital camera you have the ability to show pics when asked (that’s after you politely tell them to bugger off). In the old days of film cameras this question could not be asked, let me rephrase that - would not be asked because it did not happen - ah the modern day paranoia

Greg B wrote:Wouldn't you have a couple of folders on your card, stick a few touristy shots in one of them, do your "art" shots on the other one, and happily show anybody who was interested the contents of folder #1????

Not that I am encouraging any dodgy business here, not at all, oh no. But it would be dead easy, all the same.

GregB,
That what are my thoughts! do they know what am I doing with my camera? Have "our officers" seen or have any of knowledges of all the new gadgets? unthinkable!
I show them a LCD with a blank screen with the word: NO IMAGE, even with the WT-2a, you don't need to insert the CF card, the wifi hdd is in my backbag or in my wife's bag, and powered by battery, hehehehehe!

They can ask...and you can say no. They can't confiscate your camera unless they arrest you first. Wrongful arrest can be expensive.

sirhc55 wrote:An interesting point is that with a digital camera you have the ability to show pics when asked (that’s after you politely tell them to bugger off). In the old days of film cameras this question could not be asked, let me rephrase that - would not be asked because it did not happen - ah the modern day paranoia

Chris,
This make me recall an incident once I was back in VN after the country in the hand of Communist, they took a camera off the hand from one of the foreign press and pulled the strip of film out of it while he took some photos of the people in a labour camp.

Good points (excuse the pun!) people.

But I don't think this photographic issue will go away though.

Personally, I can't see anything wrong with a person photographing, for example, a road, a town square, or anything like that.

I don't have a problem with someone photographing a beach with people in it (clothed or unclothed) but if someone takes a photograph of you specifically (say with a camera phone, or even a Canon 300 ) without asking then would this bother you? General photography versus in-your-face photography is a different thing? Yes / No?

From what I can gather, the guy who was fined took in-your-face photographs of topless women, whereas the guys who has charges dismissed may well have been taking more general photographs.

Along the same lines of thought, do you think there would be some parents who would object to a stranger photographing children in a school playground?

As MHD points out that it is what is done with the pictures that is important also.

I guess, I have mixed thoughts about this topic because I can clearly see valid points from both sides of the argument.

Unfortunately, it appears that galahs with cheap photo capable mobile phones are making life much more difficult for the genuine photographic enthusiast.

Cheers

Graham

Menu -> Blue Section -> Hide Image

D70 = no WiFi link, no images on the CF card, therefore I must have been using the camera as a telescope
Hypothetical, of course

This link:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Would be GREAT if we lived in the US...

I really want something like this for Aus... The "real" law is in reality quite good to us... but it is people's (including some heavy handed police) perception that needs working on

MHD wrote:This link:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Would be GREAT if we lived in the US...

I really want something like this for Aus... The "real" law is in reality quite good to us... but it is people's (including some heavy handed police) perception that needs working on

Good find MHD... It might be worth asking if the Arts Law Centre could help draft an Aussie version... or tell us what doesn't apply from the US version...

You can contact them by telephone for free advice http://www.artslaw.com.au/AboutUs/ContactUs.asp

bago100 wrote:Along the same lines of thought, do you think there would be some parents who would object to a stranger photographing children in a school playground?

Graham, this is another issue of wrongful assumption - that somehow by taking a picture of the child the person is intending to harm the child or derive indecent pleasure from such. It's a very far strung assumption IMHO.

MHD wrote:This link:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Would be GREAT if we lived in the US...

I really want something like this for Aus... The "real" law is in reality quite good to us... but it is people's (including some heavy handed police) perception that needs working on

So that no-one else has to ask him...

Sorry but I don't know of an Australian equivalent.

At 07:06 PM 4/8/2005 +1000, you wrote:
Hello

I was most interested by your article regarding rights for photographers.

I see you have a link to the UK equivalent.

Do you know whether this information exists somewhere for Australian law?

Regards
Adam.


Bert P. Krages
Attorney at Law
6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97223
http://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm

Author of:
Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images
http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm

Heavenly Bodies: The Photographer's Guide to Astrophotography
http://www.krages.com/hb.htm

Photography: The Art of Composition
http://www.krages.com/pac.htm