It's on again. Privacy issues in QLD

[Killakoala]

Ms Kelley Burton of QUT has made a statement concerning; '

mak(ing) it a criminal offence to film or photograph topless sunbathers and distribute the pictures on the internet.'

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/s ... 07,00.html

I reckon it's just a publicity stunt to get more people interested in her lectures.

[Big Red]

quite simple really ... if you don't want em seen then don't bare em !!

typical political bullshit of making a mountain out of a molehill

[bwhinnen]

quite simple really ... if you don't want em seen then don't bare em !!

typical political bullshit of making a mountain out of a molehill

Depends on your perspective though

But I tend to agree if you do something in public someone will capture it regardless. Think of all the 'gossip / celebrity' weekly magazines that would have to stop doing their 'beach photo' specials...

[cawdor]

You don't want your ta-tas photographed, don't expose them on public land. Full stop.

In the future do we all have to get our memories erased after seeing exposed breasts on a beach, so we don't use these memories for "impure thoughts"? Gimme a break.

[Killakoala]

The other end of the stick says, 'Ban it, then maybe more women will sunbake naked,)

[Underload]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...(I wonder how well this will go down? )...

If you're on a beach, and you make a decent effort to move away from people (to a degree) to a quieter part of the beach - and you do take your top off - isn't it fair enough to expect a certain level of decency and respect from others? A little 'quiet enjoyment' of the area that you're in?

Yeah, the argument of 'public not does equal private' is pretty true. I can (to a extent) see the other side (albeit maybe a softer version) of the argument. I know that some might disagree, but I like to think we still live in a society where there is a bit of respect for moral, ethical and personal boundaries.

James.

[bwhinnen]

Devils advocate is always fine, and generally someone will do it (and that is a good thing).

What everyone is thinking is that if a simple thing like this becomes law, it will be us photographers that suffer, whether we are professional or amateur. If we are seen taking photos on a beach where there may be someone topless or naked it will be assumed we are perverts, just like taking photos of our kids playing group sport...

This in reality is not about a naked woman on the beach but taking photos in public and the perception of the general public towards those with a camera.

I am sure that the majority of people here, whilst they may enjoy seeing a naked woman or man (as the case may be), we all have moral ethics about the way nudity is portrayed in a photograph, without consent.

Just my further 2c worth.

[Reschsmooth]

I know that some might disagree, but I like to think we still live in a society where there is a bit of respect for moral, ethical and personal boundaries.

James.

I am not "having a go", but whose boundaries should we respect? Yours, mine, the bloke who works for Ralph magazine?

As soon as you start banning something, the ban will start to be very widely interpreted. I capture a shot of my wife on a beach, and in the background is a topless woman, and I post that picture on this site, is that appropriate or not?

One may answer in terms of intent. What if I then unintentionally took that photo? What if I was more devious and did take that photo with the intent of photographing the topless woman under the guise of taking a photo of my wife.

At the end of the day, assuming I intended to take a photo of my wife, does the other woman's rights (whatever rights she may have) outweigh mine?

In summary, I believe that bans on photography in public places are outrageous.

P

[Underload]

I definitely agree with the comments that have been made. I should have included (apologies for not doing so) that my point of view was based around a personal perspective, as opposed to a professional one.

I also agree that outlawing photography in a public place is not only a dangerous thing, but also a very negative one. Some places (as you guys would know) are so restrictive that they've placed specifically allowable focal limits on gear you can take in.

Reschsmooth, you make a good point about the limits and the fine line between what is ok, what is not, and how it is seen. When I made the comments about the respect of boundaries, it was meant with respect to the (in this instance) topless person whose photo had been taken.

I appreciate your replies, as I knew my own wouldn't be popular. I definitely agree with what you both have said. It was really good to have the argument put to me in a way that I hadn't truly explored well enough before - so for that - thanks!


James.

[gstark]

It is a public place.

We are already being photographed in public so much these days, that the professor's point is moot.

Further, why is it the my rights need to be subverted to someone elses?

In private it's a different story, but in public, I would respectfully suggest she has no greater claim to any rights over any other person.

[joey]

I have question somewhat related to privacy. I am not sure if I should open a new topic for my question.

I am carrying my camera with me everyday. When I see something interesting in public places, I take a picture of it. Recently, twice, I had arguments with the security guards. The first one was near a shopping centre, and about 50 metres away from the ANZ bank. The bank was behind and I was composing a picture in front of me, across the road. Security guard came to me and asked me what I was photographing. I told him: the scene in front of me. He was rude and asked me why I photographed around that area. I said him, I was only taking a picture. “Haven’t you seen people taking pictures before”? He asked me to show all the pictures I’ve taken around that area. I didn’t show him anything. I left the place ignoring him.

The other incident was near a night club. It was early in the morning during dawn. I think there was a brawl inside of the club and few people got out; they wore interesting clothing and women had make-up on them. I thought I’d take a picture of them from across the street. DSLRs are not compact cameras and can easily be noticed from a fair distance. The bouncer of that club spotted me taking a picture of those people, and literally, he ran towards me yelling why I was photographing them. Not risking losing my camera and being tackled by the bull-head, I deleted the picture in front of him.

Anyway, my question is what do you tell to the thick-headed security guards? What are my rights when photographing around the areas patrolled by the security guards?

[gstark]

The first one was near a shopping centre, and about 50 metres away from the ANZ bank.

Define "near"

Some places that appear to be public, might not in fact be so.

Consider, say, downtown Sydney. Let's say Pitt St Mall.

Pitt St is public property, and therefore you are, in fact, in the public domain. As long as you're not obstructing traffic (vehicle and/or pedestrian) or doing anythign otherwise illegal, you are free to make images of anythign and everything in sight.

If you're going to be doing something commercial with the images, then there may be some licensing issues that the city council might wish to discuss with you, but apart from that, if there's a bank on the street frontage, and you want to take a photo of it, or a person standing in front of it, that is your legal right.

Let's now move a few feet away, perhaps into Centerpoint or the Imperial Arcade. These are both properites toi which the public has, effectively free access. There seems to be little difference between these properties and the streeet outside, but the reality is that both of these properties are privately owned, and your rights of access are governed by the owners of those properties.

That probably means that they will have overgrown and under-educated goons who will try to boss you around. They can ask you stop making images. They can ask you leave the premises. They cannot make you show them your images. They cannot touch you or your camera.

If you're taking a photo of a property within those premises, then you may need to follow the directives of these gorillas.

The bottom line is to know where you are, and from where you're making your image.

If you're on a public street shooting a bank that's located in a mall, while the mall management and the bank management might not like it, you can make images all day and all night, and they can all go to hell.

The bank was behind and I was composing a picture in front of me, across the road. Security guard came to me and asked me what I was photographing. I told him: the scene in front of me. He was rude and asked me why I photographed around that area. I said him, I was only taking a picture. “Haven’t you seen people taking pictures before”? He asked me to show all the pictures I’ve taken around that area. I didn’t show him anything. I left the place ignoring him.

Good for you.

The other incident was near a night club. It was early in the morning during dawn. I think there was a brawl inside of the club and few people got out; they wore interesting clothing and women had make-up on them. I thought I’d take a picture of them from across the street. DSLRs are not compact cameras and can easily be noticed from a fair distance. The bouncer of that club spotted me taking a picture of those people, and literally, he ran towards me yelling why I was photographing them. Not risking losing my camera and being tackled by the bull-head, I deleted the picture in front of him.

Big bloody deal.

With appropriate software, you can recover the image on your PC once you get home.

But again, this goon was way outside of his sphere of influence, and was abusing his power. You should write a letter to management of the club, ccing a copy of it to the relevant licensing authority, asking them to review the conditions of trading of the club.

Anyway, my question is what do you tell to the thick-headed security guards? What are my rights when photographing around the areas patrolled by the security guards?

If you are in public, you have all the rights in the world and the goons can go to hell.

That said, you need to be prudent in the way you deal with these people, and you certainly do not want to put yourself nor your equipment into harm's way.

Always be polite and professional, but always stand your ground. If they have an issue, invite them to call the police. Indeed, insist that they do so, and in fact offer to do this for them. They will usually know that you have called their bluff, and will back off at that point.

[sirhc55]

I too, always take my camera with me when I go out. Not once have I been approached in my bank or Woolie’s with reference to me carrying a camera. Mind you I don’t pop of shots in these locations

[Killakoala]

Back on topic:

Some points. (I will refer to women as that is what the complainant is on about)

1. The protester in question, Kelley Burton, is in QLD and at QUT, so for her or other women to go topless on a beach in QLD is in fact illegal. There are NO legal nude or topless beaches in QLD.

2. If a women goes topless on a beach anywhere at all, she is considered an exhibitionist, by dictionary definition.

3. If a women wants to get a tan-line free tan then she should stay at home or go to a tanning salon, where she can do this in PRIVATE. For her to do this in public and then to complain about the attention she is getting, makes her a hypocrite, (in my opinion.) How can anyone ask for privacy in a public area?

4. There is a law against stalking which covers excessive acts, but that's another matter altogether. (IE: Papparazzi)

On another related note.

The Australian law Reform Commission (http://www.alrc.gov.au) is currently conducting a review of the Privacy Act of 1988, with a view to publish and put forward for changes to legislation.

I scanned through the 600 odd pages of the review to date (30 October) and found it to be acceptable to us as photographers. Our rights are virtually unchanged with regards to photographing in public places.

Public submissions are still being accepted to the review.

[Manta]

Nicely summarised Steve. Couldn't agree more. Women, or anyone for that matter, will no doubt argue vehemently for the right to get their gear off at the beach, despite its illegality. How then can they have it both ways and complain if they happen to get within the frame of some poor schmuck's photo?

[TTT]

I was in gstark's part of the world yesterday to photo the Sea Sculptures. As I was walking along North Bondi beach I saw colourful activities on the beach, bright red and green costumes as I start taking some general shots. Until a goon keep putting his hand infront of my lens and saying that people should not be taking picture of children. He threathen to call the police so I ask him to go ahead, of course he did not.

Such person have a sick mind to consider that every photographer is a interested in children in the 'wrong' way.
Are they going to ban the telecast of Gymnastic etc

gstark, what is the legal ground on this ?
can anything be done to that goon ?

[Ivanerrol]

The Queensland alleged Academic responsible for the report was interviewed on Victoria Radio talkback last Friday after the newspaper article had come out. This report is a precis of her own University thesis. Listening in on what she had to say, it was evident that the basis of this thesis was in support of her own opinion. It was also evident that newspaper article picked up the thesis and blew up its subject matter. Maybe a just another case of one persons opinion pushing a barrow and trying to get it accepted as main stream policy.'

Following talk back comments were the typical. There was some woman indignant that she couldn't nude sunbake on a beach without a bunch of perverts pestering her. (don't some people realise that there are areas in Kings Cross and elsewhere where good money is paid by those who wish to see naked females?)

An overwhelming amount of callers were opposed to the ideas put forward by the good academic.

[Yi-P]

Why is it that us photographers taking pictures of our own in a public place is illegal and not those who show their private parts in a public place??

If they consider that we take picture of topless woman is infringing their privacy, why is the government allowing women to show their privacy to be seen in a public at all? They are infringing our private life as well as recreational photographers by stopping us from doing so.

If they ever feel like for privacy, they should setup a fenced off part on the beach which you have to pay to get in, and that is strictly area which nudity or topless is allowed, which then will be a private area and stopping photographers from taking picture will sound reasonable. But at a beach which we all are granted access to and why not we cannot do something what we like to do (taking pictures) and they can do whatever they want to (going topless)?


Btw, going little over the other side now, has anyone talked or discussed this with a female? I'd love to hear different point of views between non-photographers and male vs female...

[Ivanerrol]

This view is not neccesarily shared by the writer

Going ONLY on what some of the female talk back callers mentioned. Some female talkback callers seemed to think it was their given right to go topless or nude in a public domain (e.g public beach etc) without their privacy being invaded by oglers, perverts or photographers.

This view obviously was not the majority opinion.

I wonder what our famous Sheiks opinion would be?

[Reschsmooth]

Going ONLY on what some of the female talk back callers mentioned. Some female talkback callers seemed to think it was their given right to go topless or nude in a public domain (e.g public beach etc) without their privacy being invaded by oglers, perverts or photographers.

My non-legal understanding of this is: they don't have [the right to] any privacy in a public place, therefore there is nothing to invade.

As I understand it, we don't have a bill of rights in this country.

I am always unhappy to be proven wrong

P

[gstark]

gstark, what is the legal ground on this ?
can anything be done to that goon ?

Who was this goon?

If they were not a policeman, and they touched you or your camera, that might well be asssault. I'm not sure if council rangers have the same authority as police.

If this goon was just Joe Public, he was well and truly outside the realm of any sort authority, perceived or otherwise, that he simpyl didn;t have.

If he accused you of being a pedophile, or if he implied that you were - which might be taken from his words - then there are other issues that come into play.

Because he might think you to be a pedophoile in no way makes it so, and I would defy any such goon to even try to second guess what I'm taking photos of when I'm looking through a viewfinder: they cannot see what you're seeing and framing, and any supposition on their part is nothing more than speculation.

You were right to challenge him to call the police, and if you wish to pursue it, I'd have a chat to the police at Bondi: much of Bondi is under video surveillance, and if you wanted to press a point, I think you would be well within your rights.

[gstark]

Danger!

Warning!

the good academic.

Oxymoron alert!

[gstark]

Btw, going little over the other side now, has anyone talked or discussed this with a female? I'd love to hear different point of views between non-photographers and male vs female...

As it happens, I mentioned this to Lindy this morning. She laughed in disbelief.

[TonyH]

Regards to the females sunbathing topless....

It's within their rights (aparently) to do so....therefore IMHO it's within everyones rights to look at them whilst doing so in a public place.

Quite simple, if it bothers them people looking at them. then keep the top on, wear an overcoat or whatever number layers of clothing it takes to make them feel comfortable. A public place is for us all to enjoy.... doing whatever is legally allowable.

Bottom line.... if they are out for all to see, then I'm pretty sure that most people (males) will take a look. If they can't handle that, then keep 'em covered up or perhaps buy a sunbed for home....

[Matt. K]

I'll have to get some clarification from the mufti on this. What was he saying about uncovered cats? Or did I misunderstand him?

[TonyH]

I'll have to get some clarification from the mufti on this. What was he saying about uncovered cats? Or did I misunderstand him?

[Marvin]

Btw, going little over the other side now, has anyone talked or discussed this with a female? I'd love to hear different point of views between non-photographers and male vs female...

Well I am a female and my thoughts are if you stick it out there, don't complain when people ogle it or if they take a picture of it.

However, I also agree that intent is the issue (although how you determine that is a tricky one). I wouldn't mind people taking pictures of my kids in bathers at the beach for artistic purposes. I would mind them taking pictures of my kids for less wholesome reasons (although, again, I probably wouldn't know what they were actually using them for, so it is easier to hope that people ask first or have good intentions).

Lee

[Glen]

Killa, well summed up.

Does one person deserve a greater degree of privacy in a public place? Should that be afforded on the basis of a state of undress? Would we afford that privacy to a topless woman, but not to someone born with two heads who would surely attract more photographers and would be most likely more embarrassing for the individual concerned as they are truly unique?

An article from yesterdays SMH, I wonder if the police would have detained and investigated if the children were not naked? http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/tou ... 96086.html

[jethro]

I believe we are all under the guise of toooo! much information from our beloved friends and sometimes enemies the PRESS. Women have been on Sydney beaches and any beach for countless years TOPLESS. Good luck to them. Who cares!.
Only serious perverts and voyers would disagree.
Certain subjects are definately Taboo and most would agree. it depends on the own individuals concience as to subject matter.
Enough said.
Jethro

[moz]

Going ONLY on what some of the female talk back callers mentioned. Some female talkback callers seemed to think it was their given right to go topless or nude in a public domain (e.g public beach etc) without their privacy being invaded by oglers, perverts or photographers.

I 100% agree with them. They should and do have that right.

Of course, I also agree that if you wave it about in public, it's not private. Tautilogically speaking

And as for the cats in burkas, if that's what it takes to keep the imam happy I'm all for it. I think bells are more effective, but a decent sack also works well.

[moz]

Women have been on Sydney beaches and any beach for countless years TOPLESS. Only serious perverts and voyers would disagree.

I think you'll find that the perverts and voyeurs wholeheartedly support the right of women to go topless.

It's more the "offended, of Upper Eastwestness" types who object. There's a category of persons who insist on their right to go to places in order to be offended. They will visit nude beaches to complain that there are naked people there, Mardi Gras to complain about the homo-sex-u-als and "adult" bookshops to complain that pornography is too readily available.

I make a point of writing supportive letters to authorities when I hear of complaints like that, to make the point that I *like* diversity and having a place for everything. If you don't like Mardi Gras, don't go. Duuh. Do you see me going to church on Sunday then whining about the religous bigotry? Then why complain about the cameras at a tourist trap?