DSLRUsers.com

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/n ... 10946.html


Further to Thaddeus thread re this discussion paper, here is a short article from todays SMH.



Thaddeus's post: http://www.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?p ... f3c20286a7



No agenda is being pushed here, please keep discussion civil

Thanks for the smh link Glen. It's a very interesting read - especially the comments by the Herald photog about beaches being a no-go area for journo's. I'm heartened by the fact that the politician's have set up a working party, but concerned those best able to exert pressure on policy matters are those on the moral right since they are more organised than the liberal left. Hopefully the EFA will maintain their involvement.

As an aside, the photo with the article is a really nicely done pic. Not something you see a lot of these days in the "paper"

In Petteri's Pontifications he says that he usually does street photography with a standard or small lens because of all the concerns people have with photographers with long lenses.

I wonder if anyone here has run into disapproval they've noticed when carrying a telephoto?

The man with the camera with the long lens hidden above the nude beach is a cliche now isn't it?

rjlhughes wrote:I wonder if anyone here has run into disapproval they've noticed when carrying a telephoto?

Yep. While using my 70-200 VR to take the pic below at Nobby's Beach (Newcastle) earlier this year a couple walked past behind me and the guy said to his girlfriend (loudly) "I didn't think people were allowed to take photos at the beach". I ignored him.

stubbsy wrote:I'm heartened by the fact that the politician's have set up a working party, but concerned those best able to exert pressure on policy matters are those on the moral right since they are more organised than the liberal left.

Interesting you should say that Stubbsy as the discussion paper and proposals were put together by the State Attorneys General - all of whom are Labor...

leek wrote:

stubbsy wrote:I'm heartened by the fact that the politician's have set up a working party, but concerned those best able to exert pressure on policy matters are those on the moral right since they are more organised than the liberal left.

Interesting you should say that Stubbsy as the discussion paper and proposals were put together by the State Attorneys General - all of whom are Labor...

John - my comment wasn't about the politicians it was about lobby groups.

It is a very interesting read Glen. I am currently working my way through
the discussion paper too. It is exactly that - a discussion paper - and it
covers a lot of ground.

Unfortunately, "public opinion" on these matters is often driven by the
current affairs programs (which we have discussed elsewhere), talk back
radio and the tabloids. These areas are not renowned for moderation,
careful thought, or reasonable views. Quite the contrary.

In addition, those people who hold more extreme views, whether religious
or political or otherwise, tend to push their views more forcefully than
people who hold moderate views. There is a danger that the more
extreme views will prevail - a prospect I personally find deeply troubling.

We find ourselves living in a society where a lot of bad stuff happens. Or
perhaps, where a lot of bad stuff still happens (as it did in the past) but
now we hear about it. Just one relatively uncontroversial (for us anyway)
example would be the dalliances of American presidents. Prior to Nixon
(who changed the relationship with the media for ever), they just weren't
reported.

But I digress.

I think we do need to have some protections in place particularly relating
to children. The challenge of differentiating between the appreciation and
enjoyment of children, and the focussing of inappropriate attention is
massive. The temptation is to err significantly on the side of safety, and
that is understandable. But it would be a terrible shame. I hope that
calm and measured consideration of the issues can lead to a position
which balances protection with freedom.

The discussion paper is worth reading. Remember that it is not a proposal
and that we have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Well that's right,

people generally, no matter what their political persuasion, can be suspicious of men with cameras around beaches.

That's the political reality within which this discussion is taking place.

Some parents especially are very concerned about their children being targets.

That's a view, that even if we know we're not doing anything wrong, we should respect, shouldn't we?

stubbsy wrote:

leek wrote:

stubbsy wrote:I'm heartened by the fact that the politician's have set up a working party, but concerned those best able to exert pressure on policy matters are those on the moral right since they are more organised than the liberal left.

Interesting you should say that Stubbsy as the discussion paper and proposals were put together by the State Attorneys General - all of whom are Labor...

John - my comment wasn't about the politicians it was about lobby groups.

Fair enough...

While the issues around children are understandable, they are also fairly simplistic... Everyone has heard of pedophiles, so they think that they understand the problem... I believe that the problems are much wider...

In the discussion paper there are several mentions of photos taken for the purposes of sexual gratification...

Unfortunately there are a wide range of sicko people out there who gain sexual delight from things that you and I would find perfectly innocent...

Believe it or not, as an example, there are people who gain sexual pleasure from pictures of sweaty clothing - should we therefore ban photography of sports people???

There are people who can come to orgasm at the sight of a bare foot - should we therefore ban photography of feet???

There are a frightening number of fetish groups out there who gain pleasure from some very strange things.

If the law attempts to cover everything, then they will need to be very restrictive and will penalise the majority of the population.

In my view it is not the photography that should be restricted, but the inappropriate unauthorised use of those photographs...

Views will differ slightly on the definition of inappropriate (as we have seen in the past week), but in real terms most reasonable people would be able to agree what was and wasn't inappropriate with regard to uses of a sexual nature.

The point made by many here is that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, as photographers we should make sure that our voice is heard. I have only read the outline so far, but we should be very careful what freedoms we allow people to take away, as much is open for discussion.

John is right, there are many fetishes, many of which would appear innocent to the casual observer. Some which are more clear could inadvertantly affect others eg I owned a childcare centre, which often had photos around of the childrens activities so parents could share those moments. Whilst innocent, those photos could provide gratification to some, so parents would miss out on that facility. Unfortunate.

Good point by Greg that communication is better and faster now, I couldn't even spell the word pedophile 20 years ago, but I have no doubt they were around.

Greg and John,

perfectly good conclusions. But where do we draw the line? I'd be interested in your specific views on what's appropriate and what's not. Or a rule of thumb.

And I ask that without yet having one of my own to suggest.

As was stated in the article, there are already laws that cover pretty much everything that could happen that is percieved to be 'unlawful.' So why introduce more laws?

It is already illegal to use an image of someone in a defamatory or innapropriate way.

The stupid guy who took the photos of the topless chick on Bondi Beach with his mobile phone was charged with somthing like lewd behaviour, (although the topless chick was not charged with being topless in a public area. Bondi Beach is not a clothes optional area.)

This discussion paper seems to me to be the result of provacation by extremists. There is NO need to change or add laws that are already covered.

rjlhughes wrote:Greg and John,

perfectly good conclusions. But where do we draw the line? I'd be interested in your specific views on what's appropriate and what's not. Or a rule of thumb.

And I ask that without yet having one of my own to suggest.

And that's where your issue lies, Bob.

Greg has his rule of thumb, John has his, I have mine, Glen his. Beyond our individual selves, they are devoid of any meaning or relevance.

I certainly would not try and impose my rule of thumb upon any other individual, and I would resist most strongly any attempt by any other person to impose their's upon me. That doesn not mean I do not respect that other person's rule of thumb; nothing could be further from the truth.

I would respect that person's choice and and defend and support most vocally their right to settle upon whereever they feel comfortable, but that would be as far as it goes.

My limits are appropriate only insofar as they apply to me. You are free to accept them, or reject them. You are certainly free to comment upon them.

But as soon as you tell me they are inappropriate, you are overstepping the mark: it is not for you to tell me where my limits are. Never has been, and never will be.

So, you are free to voice your disapproval, but that is as far as it goes; anything beyond that is beyond your sphere of influence.

Further to all of these discussions I was out and about yesterday with the 70-200 attached. After taking some photos I was approached by a young lass who remarked ”don’t you know it is illegal to take photos of people without their permission”.

My answer - ”It is is illegal to jaywalk” - she took off very red in the face

Gary,

surely the discussion paper is about raising these questions.

Of course everyone is welcome to their own standards. I'm actually interested in what Greg's and John's are. I think you have made yours pretty clear.

I'm sorry that you think I've been disapproving, it hasn't been my intention to be seen as judgemental. I try to keep a difference between disagreeing and disapproving. I wish everyone did.

I take most of my photos in public places. I treasure that right. My interest here is about preserving it, although perhaps I haven't made that clear.

I suspect that there's some confusion here between people thinking their rights are being infringed and what rules they actually work by.

In a PM someone said that their rule was "do no harm". My current thinking is "don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself" is the best rule for me.

The Dutch line about whether its "contrary to the reasonable interests of the person shown" may even be a rule that many of us would follow, even if on paper we thought it looked too tough.

But I'm not asking for peoples' views in order to publicly disapprove of them if that's your concern.

Bob, I really don't think I can give a specific view on what is appropriate
and what is not, and as Gary points out, that would only be one man's
opinion anyway.

I try and behave in a reasonable manner in all things, I do not try and
tell other people what to do or not do, but am happy to approve or
disapprove of anything based on my own internal assessment.

I am also happy to bang on about stuff ad nauseum, but that is for my
own entertainment.

It is inherently difficult to codify ethical or appropriate behaviour. Society generally adopts a raft of compromises within laws and conventions, and most people accept that we live in an imperfect world. I certainly do.

sirhc55 wrote:Further to all of these discussions I was out and about yesterday with the 70-200 attached. After taking some photos I was approached by a young lass who remarked ”don’t you know it is illegal to take photos of people without their permission”.

My answer - ”It is is illegal to jaywalk” - she took off very red in the face

I'm going to have to use that the next time I'm asked this.

Greg,

I applaud you as a reasonable man in your views. But at the risk of banging on and on myself I think we as photographers do have to define our rules.

The alternative is to say "Trust me, I'm a photographer". Many people do not trust middle aged men with big cameras hanging around their necks. They are a visible target even when most photos are being taken on camera phones.

I guess the point here has been summarised by the last few posts.

Chris gets told by a young woman that she thinks what he's doing illegal. His response won't have changed her mind about what he was doing. It's probably a widely held belief that people with long lenses are up to no good.

Killa says we don't need any more laws - if a discussion paper from all the AG's isn't a precursor to a change in the law I'd be surprised.

The question is how far will it go?

The key to the pedophile problem is that they might target the child whose photo is sexually stimulating to them.

It's how we distance ourselves from that behaviour as photographers and be seen to distance ourselves from that which is the vital issue.

Bob,

You're reading too much into my response.

rjlhughes wrote:I'm sorry that you think I've been disapproving,

Please show me, precisely, I've said that.

I take most of my photos in public places. I treasure that right.

As well you should.

And what you shoot, I'm sure, conforms with whatever standards you set for yourself. That is exactly as it should be.

I too shoot most of my images in public places, and what I shhot conforms with whatever my stndards happen to be. Again, I beleive that that is exactly as it should be.


However, there is no relationship, explicit or implied, whatsoever between what you shoot, and what I shoot. Perhaps we're shooting at the same location and at the same time, and that may build a commonality of a starting point, but that, unless we're working on a joint project, is where any such relationship would end.

What you might be shooting is entierly at your discretion, and it it is for nobody to to pass judgment upon that.

And what I am shooting is entirely at my discretion, and it is for nobody to pass judgement upon it.

Your limits, or Greg's. or Glen's or Steve's, or Birddog's, Peter's, Leigh's ... they are of no more than curiosity value to me. I am certainly interested in seeing their output, which I may enjoy, or I may not.

But, IMHO, it is none of my damn business whatsoever to even pry into their limits, let alone suggest that they might be inappropriate: if they are comfortable shooting whatever it is that they may be shooting, any opinion I might have upon that is irrelevant, imaterial, quite possibly unwelcome, and certainly would be, I believe, me overstepping my boundaries.

So, I am interested in their images, not their boundaries. Is there an issue with that?

Importantly, do I care that people might have an issue with that?

I suspect that there's some confusion here between people thinking their rights are being infringed and what rules they actually work by.

The rules seem to be quite clear.

What is also clear is that many members of the greater unwashed haven't got the foggiest idea of what those rules might be - see Chris's comment about someone suggesting that he was making images illegally.

These nosey dogooders would be better off taking their noses and sticking them back on their ugly little faces, and getting back to their tiny little lives, watching Neighbours, Big Brudder, and Oz Idle, and leaving life to those who wish to engage in it.

Gary

I agree with all you have said. One tiny problem though is that it's the great unwashed whose rules we are forced to live by. If all those reality TV watchers think I'm being a naughty boy by taking a pic of them in the street there's every chance they'll get the law changed to enforce their viewpoint on me whether I like it or not (and as an aside I find there is a strange hypocrisy when we have people sitting in their loungerooms voyeuristically watching naked young teens & twenty somethings on BB uncut while they and others tut tut about curtailing the right for people to take photos in public - and yes I understand the BB "contestants" consented to be perved at, and yes also they are nice to look at )

Gary,

to be fair you did say

"you are free to voice your disapproval"

so perhaps I over reacted. I am trying to be very unemotional in my communication for the sake of clarity.

I'm interested in the views of people here - it's what a forum is about - the sharing of ideas and information.

And since these are rules of thumb that kick in everytime we pick up a camera in public I think its very interesting to hear what other people have to say.

The issue here is not what's shot so much as what's published, of course.

And as site admin what's published here is something you have very clear rules about.
My organisation's Privacy Policy might be a more appropriate parallel. I expect we all, or nearly all, operate under those at work.

Whatever you may think of the mass of people the laws will be made to accomodate what's seen as the greatest good for the greatest number.

If you fail to articulate our own responsible views then your rights will be swamped by the (perhaps) misinformed.

That's why this site, as a leader in the dslr field, should be involved in the debate.

gstark wrote:These nosey dogooders would be better off taking their noses and sticking them back on their ugly little faces, and getting back to their tiny little lives, watching Neighbours, Big Brudder, and Oz Idle, and leaving life to those who wish to engage in it.

Love your work Gary

pETER,

stubbsy wrote:One tiny problem though is that it's the great unwashed whose rules we are forced to live by.

I would accept that as a problem were the great unwashed the ones creating, or enforcing, the law. Fortunately, they do neither; most have trouble figuring out how to cast an intelligent vote, I'm afraid, and I suspect that is a far more worriesome issue.

But, as they currently are written, the rules are fine.

If all those reality TV watchers think I'm being a naughty boy by taking a pic of them in the street there's every chance they'll get the law changed to enforce their viewpoint on me whether I like it or not

No, that will never happen. Implicit in your suggesting is the statement that they would know whom to contact, and how to go about getting the law changed.

Neither of those are likely to be the case.

And then, you'd need to have someone who is not apathetic, and would be willing to do that. As we're still in Oz, my respectful suggestion is that a confluence of those three properties within any one member of the great unwashed is very unlikely to occur.

I am grateful that i live in a democratic country where the lawmakers are asking for input from the general public and those who have an interest in the proposed laws BEFORE the new laws written.

We should be thankful of this.

did anyone here read about the woman in Manhattan that was exposed to indecently? She pulled out her phone cam and snapped a shot of the guy. The pic went up on flickr and got the life blogged out of it. It got on major radio stations, everyone is scouring the net for this guy, and people are throwing out randomn photos of "hey, this looks like it could be him!?" ANyhoo, probably helping curb other's appetites. I'll think twice before I do it aga...err I mean nevermind.

rjlhughes wrote:Gary,

to be fair you did say

"you are free to voice your disapproval"

so perhaps I over reacted.

Yes, I did say that. It's by no means saying that that you have, nor that you haven't. It's merely a statement of fact, that fact being that you do enjoy that freedom to disapprove.

So yes, I think it's fair to suggest that you overreacted.

I'm interested in the views of people here - it's what a forum is about - the sharing of ideas and information.

Only to the point of where the participants are willing to engage.

If x declines to post, publicly or otherwise, the underlying rules by which they make their images, that is probably very close to the point where your right to engage in that aspect of the discussion ends.

You really have very little leeway left to engage them further in that aspect of the debate. You may be frustrated by that. And you may be disappointed in that.

Tough; get over it. You'll simply have to get on with life without that information, noting too that any further perseverance by you on that aspect might be interpreted as harrassment.

And since these are rules of thumb that kick in everytime we pick up a camera in public I think its very interesting to hear what other people have to say.

I would agree.

Except to point out what I have just said - if someone doesn't wish to share, get over it. Move on. No matter how you want to paint it, it's really information that's of little real value to anyone beyond the person whose rules they are.

Whatever you may think of the mass of people the laws will be made to accomodate what's seen as the greatest good for the greatest number.

If you fail to articulate our own responsible views then your rights will be swamped by the (perhaps) misinformed.

And you can articulate your views until you're blue in the face; most times, they will be ignored, because the rules, if they're going to be changed (or new ones set) will have already been decided upon.

Or perhaps you believe that Little Johnny's new IR regime is yet to be set out as internal policy within his party?

Steve,

Killakoala wrote:I am grateful that i live in a democratic country where the lawmakers are asking for input from the general public and those who have an interest in the proposed laws BEFORE the new laws written.

We should be thankful of this.

Do you really believe this to be the case?



guess who's feeling a tad cynical today?

dooda wrote:did anyone here read about the woman in Manhattan that was exposed to indecently? She pulled out her phone cam and snapped a shot of the guy. The pic went up on flickr and got the life blogged out of it. It got on major radio stations, everyone is scouring the net for this guy, and people are throwing out randomn photos of "hey, this looks like it could be him!?" ANyhoo, probably helping curb other's appetites. I'll think twice before I do it aga...err I mean nevermind.

Dave,

Reminds me of the story of the three old ladies sitting on a park bench.

A flasher comes up to them and does his bit, and two of the old ladies immediately had a stroke.

The third one couldn't reach.

I haven't read the paper (or even the whole thread), but everytime this subject is mentioned I come up against one thing:

Who gives two shakes of a shit if some paedophile (and there arn't that many) gets a kick out of a photo. Photos of children are available everywhere in our society, so what good will stopping honest people do? I'd hazard a guess that most paedophiles probably arn't out there with big cameras etc, but rather look for child porn on the net or getting kids clothing catalogues in the mail.

I'm in no way trying to say that paedophilia is harmless, just that looking at pictures or taking pictures is, so the rest of us should not be restricted.

Or, looking at and recording the latest TV ads for diapers

Gary,

that's absolutely right

if people don't wish to share their views that's entirely their right. I agree.

But if they do I'd be interested to read them.

I'm not quite clear on how asking for people's views is harrassment though.

What's that old saying:

There are no difficult questions, there are only difficult answers.

Dooda,

what if - the man who supposedly flashed, hadn't - the picture had just been photoshoped to look like it?

A mate of mine, who works for a major paper, sent back one of my landscapes with the very neat, but quite obvious inclusion of a UFO.

Bob,
Will these PC lobbygroups, want next to ban non PC correct writing, (off or online) that may contravene the general publics senses of morailty as well ?
Isnt that censorship?
It is our very right of freespeech that is being attacked by these zealots and 'whistleblowers', not their right to privacy.

Their logic is tantamount to;
pedophiles use a camera,
photographers use a camera,
ahhh ...
all photographers must be pedophiles then !

Ide hate to be a muslim these days. They look middle eastern, so they must be terrorists.

Peter
The BB contestents are too bloody stupid to realise that they are being exploited by a very powerful corporation which is attempting to profit through their lack of dignity. The producers of that show should be thrown into chains for what they are attempting to foist onto a brainless community. Shows such as that are the breeding grounds for perverts and peadephiles.

ljc welcome back!

some pedophiles are photographers, and some have good cameras with long lenses. That's life. And we have to know that's how we can be seen when we have good cameras and long lenses in public.

Are you aware of the John Brogden resignation?

Now that's fascinating in its implications about society political and media values.

I won't comment further.

And don't try to draw me out. No questions please!

Matt

you hit on one of my great concerns.

Our children are being taught that shamelessness is the way to fame.

lejazzcat
Australians have no legislated right to free speech...to the best of my knowledge.

Maybe Thaddeus could spell the free speech thing out for us?

ljc welcome back!

some pedophiles are photographers,and some have good cameras with long lenses.

But theyre Canon users!

Are you aware of the John Brogden resignation?

I bet he uses a Canon too.

Now that's fascinating in its implications about society political and media values.

We should only buy Nikon ??

I won't comment further.

Can i be sued by Canon for what i just wrote?

ljc

I don't think you're taking this seriously.


As a Canon user I'm happy to stick up for the Nikon users.


These problems with the flashing green lights and the shutter activations give me the heebeegeebees - they could just as well be happening to our gear.

That's where an organisation like this could have some real weight in dealing with manufacturers and distributors.

lejazzcat wrote:Can i be sued by Canon for what i just wrote?

Nope... that's one thing I'm pretty sure of... You can't defame a company...

Bob,

rjlhughes wrote:I'm not quite clear on how asking for people's views is harrassment though.

It's very simple.

You ask the question.

Once.

If there are responses, you accept, perhaps acknowledge, and perhaps discuss them.

That's it; couldn't be easier.

Anything further, particularly persisting with something more than a general enquiry against the group as a whole, might be considered to be harrment.

ljc
I don't think you're taking this seriously.

Sorry Bob, this forum needed a little levity.
Im beginning to feel neurotic about being a photographer, aka pedophile...
I wonder if the lady photogs have the same problems ??? Doubt it.
(Now thats what i call sexual discrimination.)

Interestingly Petteri says he does his street shooting in the company of his wife, and that relaxes people a lot too.

Oh and my comment was meant as a gag, too.

The emoticons which would have made it plainer, remind me of being in primary school, so I try not to use them.

Bob,
I think that Professional Photography( as opposed to snapshooting) should attempt to contain and successfully convey a message.
And as youve said before, " Dont shoot the messenger", just because you dont like the message.

It reminds me of the case in america where two obese children took McDonalds to court for encouraging them to supersize their "3 square meals a day" diet of hamburgers,chips and soft drink.

Some smartarse producer then made the "Supersize Me" doco, and made a mint from the hype. Because of his supposed illhealth after one month of the same diet. No doubt.
But recently, another person, just as stupid, thought theyde be just as successful by doing the "Supersize Me Diet" but they had no ill effects whatsoever!

So i wonder who it is thats making the money taking photographers, journalists, academics etc to court??? Maybe the same people who want more laws to prosecute??
NOT Lawyers surely !

leek wrote:

lejazzcat wrote:Can i be sued by Canon for what i just wrote?

Nope... that's one thing I'm pretty sure of... You can't defame a company...

Defamation law currently varies from one State to another. The Federal Government was considering National Defamation Law reform in 2004 and I'm not sure if there has been progress on that since. Please be assured though, my understanding is that a Company certainly can sue for defamation.

And yes - Australia does not have a Bill of Rights that includes freedom of speech like like the US does.

Cheers

Graham

However, there is a certain level of free speech on the internet, as far as I understand it.

Gary,

uh, what was the question....?

<joke>


The Victorian document is excellent and is likely only to be misinterpreted by those who haven't spent the time it takes to read it.

It makes more interesting points than are appropriate to try to cover here. And it does give some very good definitions of privacy.

It makes the point that we present ourselves differently in different places, that a photo is a permanent record of a temporary situation and that while we may be happy with some people seeing shots, we may not be happy with a wider distribution.

It also goes into some detail about how the internet changed things.

I'll be interested in people's reactions. (Can I say that, Gary?)

All in good humour.

Leigh,

I'm sure someone will explain but don't bet your house on freedom of speech on the internet.

It cost Dow Jones more than $500,000 when they were found to have damaged Joe Gutnick's reputation through publication on the net.

Be especially careful of attacking someone's professional reputation.

Of course you can tell them face to face privately what you think and it's nor defamatory. And that's why God made PM's