More Idiotic Photography Restrictions

[obzelite]

my new shirt

[whiz]

The police have commented on the fact that they will be very unlikely to do anything if called to remove photographers. They have also commented on the fact that they believe that it is not a problem.

John Howard thinks that they're wankers...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 696323.htm

You guys should stop being such reactionists to this kind of stuff and just go and taunt them.
You KNOW that you're within your rights as long as you're not on private property.

I just can't wait for someone in Canberra to try this on.

[MHD]

wow... I actually agree with Johnny!

Photography is reasonably well accepted in Canberra (except at nightclubs,,,)

I've even been snaping away inside new parly house with no problems... Its allowed on non-sitting days...

[radar]

my new shirt

Simon,

don't forget to have your message on the front as well for those times you are wearing a backpack. In my case, most of the time when I'm out taking photos.

cheers,

André

[obzelite]

yeah, i can put it front and back, but i find while taking photos most ppl approach from the behind and i usually try and dump anything i'm carrying.

[Justin]

Yes, i can picture it you've got your new shirt, get your camera backpack on, go down to the shopping mall - then get landed on by 50 cops 'cos all they can see on your shirt sticking out from under the backpack is the last word....

[ziggy]

But In Queensland, while there is no express laws, I know of several occasions when a friend has had thier camera taken by Police Officers, in the name of "Evidence" but really just to piss off the owner. Took several weeks for him to have it returned.

So dont be obnoxious... PS 1st post - hello everybody.

[spada]

Hi
Now everything is based on security, even taking picture of a dog inside a shopping center is a serious security isue, when they ( idiots) said it is based on security reason , nothing you can do about it. Last years near Xmas I was in RoseLand center to buy Cat food , Then I saw Santa on the stage , I took some picture with my Fuji S2, not only me there were hundreds of P S cameras too, then a man in suit approach me and said to me he is the security guard , and ask me not to take picture because of security reason, I knew that i was inside a private property so I just put it back in to my shoping bag, while other hundreds of P&S cameras keep taking picutes, not to waist time to talk to those idiots I just walk out and since never come back to Roseland to shop .

[gstark]

then get landed on by 50 cops 'cos all they can see on your shirt sticking out from under the backpack is the last word....

[Dug]

But In Queensland, while there is no express laws, I know of several occasions when a friend has had thier camera taken by Police Officers, in the name of "Evidence" but really just to piss off the owner. Took several weeks for him to have it returned.

So dont be obnoxious... PS 1st post - hello everybody.

hello Ziggy WHat were your friends doing to get cameras confiscated !!!!!

Hell if they did that to me they would not be sitting down for weeks their asses would be set on fire

Unless they had a good reason they would be facing harassment charges.


Anyone in Melbourne interested in a M&G at Southbank (South park)

[SteveGriffin]

Not sure if any of you saw the story on ACA (9 network) tonight but even John Howard said that 'this would appear a bit excessive' .

The ACA website has a vote on at the moment 'Should tourists be banned from taking photos at public sites as a safeguard against terrorism?'. Should all get in and hit the tally.

[Dug]

I wonder who the 12% who voted YES are ?

There must be some paranoid people out there.

[gstark]

I wonder who the 12% who voted YES are ?

There must be some paranoid people out there.

Lord Downer of Bagdhad.

[Nnnnsic]

'Should tourists be banned from taking photos at public sites as a safeguard against terrorism?'

"Sorry Miss, you can't take pictures of Ayers Rock... you might be a terrorist..."

[Dug]

MMM how much explosives would it take to blow up Uluru ?


Perhaps that is why Johnny wants nuclear power

[rmp]

'Should tourists be banned from taking photos at public sites as a safeguard against terrorism?'

"Sorry Miss, you can't take pictures of Ayers Rock... you might be a terrorist..."

Actually, the area around Uluru is the subject of photographic restrictions but not because of security fears.

[whiz]

Sorry, but actually giving ACA a chance to have a public vote just encourages them to think that they have a clue.

Don't participate in their crap. Just push this bullshit privately imposed regulation to the limit and make them realise what a load of crap it is.

Looks like the overclockers are organising some public disobedience.

[Dug]

Sorry, but actually giving ACA a chance to have a public vote just encourages them to think that they have a clue.

Don't participate in their crap. Just push this bullshit privately imposed regulation to the limit and make them realise what a load of crap it is.

Looks like the overclockers are organising some public disobedience.

Do you have the link for overclockers thing?

[whiz]

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showt ... p?t=492753

You'll have to register to check it out....

[Mitchell]

This is an excerpt from one of the articles in todays crikey.com newsletter written by Richard Farmer... Refers to the Southgate incident and some other incidents in LA...

(I don't think there are copyright issues with this... Mods?)

Down on the banks of the Yarra at Melbourne's Southgate retail and restaurant centre the tourists can put away their cameras. The managers of the centre have put up “no camera” signs – Southgate thanks you for not taking photos within the complex unless approved by management. Brazen souls who disobey find themselves approached by security officials and ordered to stop.

Australia is rapidly following the American example. In Los Angeles when you walk down the street near 7th and Figueroa, with or without a camera, a voice comes out of the wall – "Put away the camera. No picture taking here."

Patt Morrison, writing in the LA Times last week, declared that taking pictures of public spaces is becoming illegal. “To the absurdities of overreaching 'no-fly' lists that keep infants off airplanes,” she wrote “add this one: photographers, amateur and professional, being menaced for taking pictures of public sights in plain sight.”

Some examples. A man taking pictures of a symmetrical array of school buses gets a visit from Homeland Security. A shutterbug shooting 16-millimetre film of the scenery outside the train window is questioned, and the film is confiscated. A history student taking photos of the New York State Capitol for her class project finds the police at her door. Another student in Seattle, photographing a popular tourist sight, is corralled by men declaring themselves to be "homeland security". A Texan railroad buff takes pictures of trains and gets grilled for five hours by the FBI and the cops.

Southgate property manager Kathy Barrance understands. Her “no camera” edict follows an incident in which tourists were seen photographing "obscure" parts of buildings and were asked to delete the photos from their cameras. When the intrepid photographers refused, security called police to insist.

“We've had a couple of incidents of tourists taking photos of obscure things, and they were approached by security and asked to stop taking photos," Ms Barrance was quoted as telling the Herald Sun. “It was just the facades of buildings, things that would be of no interest to put in a photo album.” And all done, it appears, without any legal basis. A spokeswoman for the Victorian Police told the paper that “"I've checked with our privacy people and they said there's no law against taking photos”.

[Steffen]

Greg, have you ever read the Courier Mail?

<Blackadder>
My favourite publication - thick, soft and thoroughly absorbent.
</Blackadder>

Cheers
teffen.

[SteveGriffin]

I forgot to mention that the management company for Southbank (forget the name) operates 250 centres around Australia. 'Lorraine?? ' said during the ACA story that the signage was being rolled out through all of their sites Australia wide over coming weeks

[sirhc55]

Kathy Barrance was the obscure object being photographed

[HappyFotographer]

Can I ask probably a silly question, but if you stood outside the property line and shot an image of the building/area (sorry, don't know the area you are talking about) this would be outside their power, or would it still fall into taking an image of a privately owned thing?

[gstark]

Hi Deb.

If you're on public property and you can see it, you san shoot it.

And no, it's not a silly question. The only thing silly is the policy odf the dickheads running that property management group.

[Dug]

Can I ask probably a silly question, but if you stood outside the property line and shot an image of the building/area (sorry, don't know the area you are talking about) this would be outside their power, or would it still fall into taking an image of a privately owned thing?

the only place you cannot do this is government defense areas like military bases or Nuclear reactors

[PiroStitch]

Dug, that's where that super zoom lens comes in handy

[Ivanerrol]

I work at a Major Landmark site in Melbourne.
This site has a major transport hub, a major retail area and a major office complex. This site has over 30 million people passing through the complex per year.

Technically photography is banned by management - however.

At any time of the day you will see tourists, foreign students or locals taking photos of each other or landmark structures or any general photos with camera phones, P & S's and the occasional SLR.
Local universities and schools send their photo students into the complex with a barrage of digital or film SLR's and even view comeras. There was a bunch of young high school students sharing a Pentax K 1000 last Monday. (These are generally by arrangement with management.)

There is an hourly event in the complex where there are a minimum of 5 tourists/locals with cameras. The site is also a hangout for foreign students who live in apartemnts that surround the complex. They all seem to to have a camera phone or the latest P&S which they whip out to take each others picture at any opportunity.

This complex is a potential terrorist target and all staff working at the complex are trained to be aware of this fact.

The security staff use their discretion when approaching anybody with a camera. Obviously security staff and others in like positions are trained to judge their potential targets. The no photo rule at least gives the security staff an excuse to approach someone 'acting not in the normal way'

The rare occasion where the rule is applied is when a store or tenant lines up a foto shoot and has forgotten to get permission. This is generally sorted out by a quick trip up to management (No weddings)


There is no reason why the management at Southgate don't adopt this commonsense.

[Matt. K]

There are many reasons why these people feel uncomfortable when they see photographers in their area:
1...They are wanted by the police for past crimes
2...They are not paying child maintenance and fear being found
3...They are employing illegal migrants as slaves
4...They are carrying out unsafe work practices on their premises
5...They have stolen goods on their premises
6...They are arsholes who think they have the right to tell others what to do and derive pleasure from their perceived power
7...They are afraid of you and don't know what the hell you are up to. They intend to find out.
8...They were once Public Servants and think they run the country
9...They think you are a pervert and child molestor and boy..are you going to cop a dressing down.

Don't let them intimidate you...call their bluff and tell them to F/O and mind their business. Tell them if they persist you will call the police! And if they persist then call the police.
By the way...if you are on their property then they have the right to stop you from taking pictures.

[gstark]

There is no reason why the management at Southgate don't adopt this commonsense.

Yes there is. Their lack of commonsense.

[Dug]

Don't let them intimidate you...call their bluff and tell them to F/O and mind their business. Tell them if they persist you will call the police! And if they persist then call the police.
By the way...if you are on their property then they have the right to stop you from taking pictures.

Don't use the actual words F/O be polite if they have a problem get them to call the police there is a difference between public and private property and public and private space. If you barge into my home and take photos then you are breaking the law. if you are in a public space IE a shopping center they they must have a good reason to prevent you from taking photos.

There is a lot of grey areas but it is unlikely they could press any charges unless you were causing a disturbance.

If they touch you or your equipment then call the police and complain of assault or theft


Always keep your head, stay calm, speak slowly and stand your ground, remember you are representing all photographers.

[Ivanerrol]

There is no reason why the management at Southgate don't adopt this commonsense.

Yes there is. Their lack of commonsense.

What's the old saying - You can't legislate commonsense.

[Dug]

The only thing common about commonsense is the fact that it is not common.

[Raskill]

'Should tourists be banned from taking photos at public sites as a safeguard against terrorism?'

"Sorry Miss, you can't take pictures of Ayers Rock... you might be a terrorist..."

No, you shouldn't take pictures because you may not be a koori....

[Raskill]

Don't let them intimidate you...call their bluff and tell them to F/O and mind their business. Tell them if they persist you will call the police! And if they persist then call the police.
By the way...if you are on their property then they have the right to stop you from taking pictures.

Always keep your head, stay calm, speak slowly and stand your ground, remember you are representing all photographers.

Be aware that if you call their bluff, then any Police Officer who comes WILL ask for your details. I certainly would. This seems to upset people who think that it's an insult or investigation of sorts. If youdon't give the Police Officer details, don't expect them to do much for you. It's a two way street.

[elffinarts]

the security company I used to run used to have higher security clearance than most cops so I always find it very fun to call their bluff.
Also now helps that I have my NewsLTD ID tag with me most of the time.

[Dug]

It is of course an offense not to comply with any police request !!!!

[whiz]

the security company I used to run used to have higher security clearance than most cops so I always find it very fun to call their bluff.

Police generally have a clearance of "Protected" which is just a police check. Real clearances start at "secret"...

And as for Public spaces.... They can still be private property.
Shopping Centers are owned by someone.
Take whatever you like from public property of visible private activities that can be seen in clear view and there's pretty much nothing anyone can do about it unless it's judged that your images are for sexual gratification.

I think that it will be hard to prove that you get off on looking at architecture...


Organise public disobedience against this bullshit!


And remember guys, it's not what you take photos of, it's what you wear...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McB9tsab ... 0terrorist

[elffinarts]

the security company I used to run used to have higher security clearance than most cops so I always find it very fun to call their bluff.

Police generally have a clearance of "Protected" which is just a police check. Real clearances start at "secret"...

Half our lads were ex-SERT team members or ex-sas and working on closse personal protection for dignitaries when working for us in the days before CHOGM in Brissy just before Sept11 hit. After months and months of clearance checks, we had been contracted to do a lot of what was then suddenly taken over by the Feds after Sept11. The Feds have a division that seem to do pretty much most of that kind of work. A mate of mine does that for work but is actually bloody good at photography as well. I should invite him over to dslr forums. His stories about being busted doing shoots with nude models in National Parks are very entertaining.

[moz]

my new shirt

Mine:

[Justin]

Hehe Moz brilliant - as opposed to the usual suspects~!

[elffinarts]

nice shirts, about as subtle as my "Death! Destruction! Tacos!" shirt :p

[Mal]

I can see a niche market developing for those shirts

[whiz]

I have GOT TO GET one of those Unusual Suspicious Person T-shirts..
or get one made.

This could be the start of something big.

[Reschsmooth]

With all these restrictions being placed on general photography, particularly at children's events, (I know, off topic), there are two issues that make me undecided:

1. Custody issues - I guess inadvertantly a pic of a kid can be posted somewhere on the net and their parent without custody may see it. Whilst this may justify restrictions, I think the odds would be pretty bloody small. I think there would be greater chance of that parent hiring someone to track them down (hollywood style).

2. The chance of a pervert taking photos - this is where I get angry (bearing in mind I have no kids). I get irritated when we have to put in place regulations like this to protect the general public from the 0.00001% of the population.

Just my 2c

P

[whiz]

Um, you've missed the point.
There ARE no regulations. Just property owners enforcing the requirements that they always had.
Don't get confused about this.

[Reschsmooth]

umm, three things:

1. I was speaking more generally (not just privately owned shopping centres).
2. Yes, I mis-used the word 'regulations'.
3. What requirements are you referring to?

This current saga about shopping centres restricting photography (albeit they may have the right to do so) is symptomatic of the whole issue about restricting photography generally, particularly in public places, for pretty poor reasons to create a heightened sense of alarm.

I couldn't care less about who imposes their own right (which may well be conveyed by ownership) on someone else, but, in the case of the shopping centre issue, there are other agendas here, probably plus a health dose of paranoia.

But thanks for pointing me in the right direction if I seemed lost.

P

[moz]

I have GOT TO GET one of those Unusual Suspicious Person T-shirts..

Ring Republic Print and ask... 02 9319 1850. They're a political place, website is http://www.corporate-greed.com
if there's lots of interest I could get a batch made up.