I was asked to stop taking photos..

[alsocass]

I went out this morning to take some street photos and ended up with my first experience of being asked to stop.

I was at the local Farmer's Markets which is held at the local showgrounds. I guess it isn't public property. I had my camera out for about three minutes, and I wasn't even taking photos of stalls. I was very unobtrusive (well I thought I was). I continued wandering around the stalls and was approached by security (seriously... security at a farmer's market). I was nice and gave her a quick look at the photos, assured her I was just an amateur out practising the art of photography. She told me that stall holders had been complaining... but I don't believe her, I mean I was taking photos for three minutes tops and the stalls are all in the background, I didn't stand at any stalls taking photos (though I was working up to doing some of that).

I reassured her I wasn't up to anything sinister, that I was just enjoying a morning out while hubby looked after the kids... she laughed with me but also told me I would have to have stall holder and management permission and that management would say no.

I felt a bit shaken up, and despite stubbornly not putting my camera away after I walked off I also was too scared to take anymore photos... which was a shame as their was a jazz quartet playing in the food court... surely I could have taken a photo of that. I nearly went and asked her or them but I couldn't be bothered. It put a yucky spot on my morning and I realised I lost all desire to enjoy my morning at the markets so I left.

I am confused about rights and a bit annoyed about silly behaviours... Surely I was harmless?

[JohnB5319]

I had a similar experience at the markets at Floriade. There's no point arguing with these people - and the joke is that people all around me were talking photos with their 8MP iPhones with no one saying anything to them!

[arthurking83]

Had you had your kids, and a simple tiny P&S .. you would not have been approached!

I was once asked to stop taking photos, and even tho I saw their point of view(that is the management of the facility I was near) .. the security guards that scurried towards me in the ute, laughed when I showed them my images.
I told them(at that particular moment) I just wanted this one particular shot and they were happy for me to get it, but that management was nervous about me being out there taking pics.

Management must surely have thought I was a surreptitious type, gathering unintelligible intelligence for the purpose of a greater gods particular cause .. or something to that effect.

Yeah! right .. in broad daylight with tripod mounted 20cm from the ground usually pointed downwards.

The facility was of course a very prominent and important power facility, so like I said, I can understand their rationale, but the guards had a laugh with me tho.

Got my last shot, and packed it all up.

Funny thing tho .... where I was taking photos, was a particularly interesting setup .. BBQ's a plenty of park space for all and sundry to play on .. and no signage stating photography not being acceptable!
So it begs questions, why have a specific place setup for casual travelers to enjoy, and do management think that nobody in the world owns cameras, or that they don't use them?

and if travelers were to avail themselves of these facilities, and these travelers were surreptitious types on a holy mission from their god to gather unintelligent information, wouldn't this management expect the travelers to be much more discreet than an overgrown oaf, with DSLR, tripods, filters and all manner of obvious gear!!

I'd love to post some samples, but I'd be worried that men with dark glasses and ear pieces may knock on my door a few minutes later .. I'll wait until I'm ready to go out before I do.(I'm not up for having to deal with mormons!)

[old dog]

sorry you had to endure that mindless performance Cass. Better luck next time.

[Analog6]

Public land often does not include venues like showgrounds. For instance, in Tassie you could photograph the Salmanaca markets to your heart's content as they are definitely on public land.

However, a farmer's market held at a private ground is a different story and they can ask you to cease and desist. Nothing to do but wuck it up, and remember the next time.

Sorry you had this disappointing experience, people are paranoid these days.

[Wayne]

Sadly, the person charged with being in control of your market premises reserves the right to restrict or prohibit the use of cameras upon their premises. That said, if you shot from outside their premises, but pointing the camera into their premises there is nothing they can do about it.
I would also recommend you don't show zealous security or management personnel your camera/images, as that just encourages and to them reinforces the mistaken belief they have the right to demand such. It is also fact that any image taken prior to being lawfully instructed to cease taking photos does not have to be deleted if these management types demand that you do so.

[alsocass]

Sadly, the person charged with being in control of your market premises reserves the right to restrict or prohibit the use of cameras upon their premises. That said, if you shot from outside their premises, but pointing the camera into their premises there is nothing they can do about it.
I would also recommend you don't show zealous security or management personnel your camera/images, as that just encourages and to them reinforces the mistaken belief they have the right to demand such. It is also fact that any image taken prior to being lawfully instructed to cease taking photos does not have to be deleted if these management types demand that you do so.

Thanks, that is a good point. It was all a bit stupid and I wished some common sense could have taken over. It was a case of worst-first thinking... I could have been taking photos of stall holders craft items so I could make them myself, I reassured her that I wasn't. I was glad that I took control of the conversation, I didn't walk away feeling like I had been pushed around, just annoyed that my plans for the morning had been nixed by a silly security guard (seriously security at a farmer's market...).

[Sifor]

That said, if you shot from outside their premises, but pointing the camera into their premises there is nothing they can do about it.

In practical terms yes, however if there was a gross invasion they can always press for a civil tort action, claiming the photography was interfering with the use and enjoyment of their land (basically the closest thing in Australia to a tort of privacy).

Also just a random thought - taking photos of trademarks on buildings etc can also land us into strife. Again though, probably wont in reality, but something that should be at the back of our minds as it can happen..

[alsocass]

Also just a random thought - taking photos of trademarks on buildings etc can also land us into strife. Again though, probably wont in reality, but something that should be at the back of our minds as it can happen..

I recall using that example when explaining copyright to my web design high school students. If I recall (and it was a few years ago and a bit hazy), it would be a breech of copyright to take a photo of the big M of a McDonalds if that was the prominent part of the photo (ie filled the frame), but if it was just one tiny part of a streetscape (think about photos of Times Square) then it was okay. The interesting discussion with the kids was about how grey areas worked... when did the sign stop being a copyright infringement and start becoming just part of the background.

@Ricktas Thanks for the law info. I read the few law articles on the site. I wasn't sure what my rights were, I wasn't really worried as I am not wanting to annoy anybody, I was more upset about the lack of commonsense.... sometimes it is okay to bend the rules. I mean if I had been standing over a stall taking photos or putting my camera in peoples faces then I completely understand a security guard asking me to stop (or a stall holder for that matter), but I was off to the side and really thought I was blending in pretty well. I took 7 photos over 3 minutes and none were closeups.

Funny how an encounter can affect a person. Sunday mornings is now my morning off, and I went for a drive into the city to have a relaxing stroll around the markets. After the encounter I just lost all interest. It took about 10 minutes of driving and feeling a bit yucky before I said aloud to myself "snapp out of it, this isn't going to ruin my morning" and went off to a new location.

[Doktaduck]

I recall using that example when explaining copyright to my web design high school students. If I recall (and it was a few years ago and a bit hazy), it would be a breech of copyright to take a photo of the big M of a McDonalds if that was the prominent part of the photo (ie filled the frame), but if it was just one tiny part of a streetscape (think about photos of Times Square) then it was okay. The interesting discussion with the kids was about how grey areas worked... when did the sign stop being a copyright infringement and start becoming just part of the background.

I would just like to pluck the whole "can't take photo's of copyright/trademark material" out of the conversation and look at some of the law around this so newbs like me don't have to troll the legal sites to get a good definition, though doing so has been an enlightening subject for me

A good blog on the issue http://www.galvanilegal.com/reproduc...arks-in-photos

Basically everything comes down to "what you do with the image" as opposed to, can I take that photo.

For example, we can take a photo of a Coke sign, for the purpose of art, or to show to friends, family, flikr etc... without any issue at all.

Where things get legal is if we then use that image for commercial purposes. For instance, if we put the image on a postcard and sold that, then it is a breach of copyright (or trademark) as the buyer could reasonably think that Coke took the image themselves and made it into a postcard.

Also have to be careful if the copyrighted image is significant in an photograph to be used to advertise a product or service, as it can be interpreted that the company owning the trademark "endorses" the product or service you are selling... this is also a no-no.

Sources for those that want to read up:

Photographers rights - http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheet...aphers-rights/
Another comprehensive overview - http://www.psq.org.au/Legalities.pdf
a good read, though not particular - http://www.privacy.vic.gov.au/privac...h_13_04_07.pdf

A breif overview of some "rule" I've learnt:

There is no "right to privacy" in Australia.
You can take photos in public places of people doing ordinary things, without their express permission
It is NOT illegal in any way to take photos of architecture in Australia (avoiding the whole on private land etc..)
You ARE allowed to take photos of any artwork that is on public display, without breaching any legal issues. (though if on private property you can be "evicted")

You can't take illicit or rude photos of people generally, this includes up-skirting and down topping (this gives me an interesting image in my mind of a pervie with a DSLR complete with large lens trying to be "inconspicuous") , or anytime that the subject could be expected to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. ie. photograph of a women in a bikini on a Gold coast street is fair game, one on a secluded beach all alone can be "suspect". If the subject can be readily recognised its best to use a "model waiver" so you don't limit any future possibility of using the image.
You must "obey" a proprietors request if on private land (or on some council lands)
You must "obey" a police officers request to "move along"
You must "obey" a rangers request to "move along" or leave a national park.
Don't photograph military or sensitive instillations

How you use an image is more important than taking it. i.e. commercial purposes means that I intend to use the photograph to sell or advertise a product or service. Rules and obligations differ greatly depending on if I am a hobbyist or "semi/professional".

Commercial purposes does not come into effect just because I sell an image, though the subsequent use of that can. (i.e. selling the image as a wall hanging is not commercial, turning it into a billboard advertising a good or service is.)

Anyway , that seems to be what I've gotten from my reading, happy to be corrected on anything I've misunderstood.

[Wayne]

A breif overview of some "rule" I've learnt:



You must "obey" a police officers request to "move along"





Anyway , that seems to be what I've gotten from my reading, happy to be corrected on anything I've misunderstood.

Not true. Police must only give a lawful "Move On" directive.
They cannot lawfully give one because they feel like it, and you do not have to obey an unlawful directive.

The power comes from the (LEPRA) Law Enforcement (Powers & Responsibilities) act 2002, and;

The officer must believe, on reasonable grounds, that the person's conduct -

(a) is obstructing another person or persons or traffic, or
(b) constitutes harassment or intimidation of another person or persons, or
(c) is causing or likely to cause fear to another person or persons, so long as the relevant conduct would be such as to cause fear to a person of reasonable firmness, or
(d) is for the purpose of unlawfully supplying, or intending to unlawfully supply, or soliciting another person or persons to unlawfully supply, any prohibited drug, or
(e) is for the purpose of obtaining, procuring or purchasing any prohibited drug that it would be unlawful for the person to possess.

The belief in relation to (c) does not require proof that "another person" be present or that "another person" actually is present.

Under section 201 of the same Act the officer must supply his/her identification (eg a name or identity number).


Just to clarify for you.
I have 10 years in the job as a NSW police officer

[Lance B]

You must "obey" a police officers request to "move along"
You must "obey" a rangers request to "move along" or leave a national park.

I see Wayne has replied about the police officer asking you to move along and what he says makes sense. However, are you sure about the (park) rangers as well? I would have thought that they need a good and valid reason as well, ie causing nuisance or doing something illegal as goes for the police officer's reasons for asking you to move on.

[Wayne]

In practical terms yes, however if there was a gross invasion they can always press for a civil tort action, claiming the photography was interfering with the use and enjoyment of their land (basically the closest thing in Australia to a tort of privacy).

Also just a random thought - taking photos of trademarks on buildings etc can also land us into strife. Again though, probably wont in reality, but something that should be at the back of our minds as it can happen..

To my knowledge no such tort currently exists in Australia. Further, it must be said that for any proceeding in tort to be successful, there are a number of things that must be established.

1) A plaintiff would need to show that the tortfeasor had an onus to act in a particular manner established at law.
2) The plaintiff has to show that the defendant acted in a manner contravening that legal obligation.
3) The plaintiff needs to demonstrate that he/she has suffered an injury or some other loss as a direct consequence of the tortfeasor's actions.

[Sifor]

To my knowledge no such tort currently exists in Australia. Further, it must be said that for any proceeding in tort to be successful, there are a number of things that must be established.

1) A plaintiff would need to show that the tortfeasor had an onus to act in a particular manner established at law.
2) The plaintiff has to show that the defendant acted in a manner contravening that legal obligation.
3) The plaintiff needs to demonstrate that he/she has suffered an injury or some other loss as a direct consequence of the tortfeasor's actions.

It's a form of private nuisance that is actionable in Australia...if the act of taking photos disrupts or interferes with the occupier's use of their land, then prima facie an action can be sustained..e.g if you're on public land taking photos of a market and this is upsetting the stall owners, scaring away customers etc, then the PL has prima facie a cause of action. In real life would this happen? Probably not for trivial things like a market, this is more reserved for serious breaches... but can happen!

[Wayne]

It's a form of private nuisance that is actionable in Australia...if the act of taking photos disrupts or interferes with the occupier's use of their land, then prima facie an action can be sustained..e.g if you're on public land taking photos of a market and this is upsetting the stall owners, scaring away customers etc, then the PL has prima facie a cause of action. In real life would this happen? Probably not for trivial things like a market, this is more reserved for serious breaches... but can happen!

Some quite prominent case legislation to consider;
Victoria Park Racing V Taylor (1937) dealt with the issue of images taken from outside, further ABC V Lenah (2001)

Lance,

s4 Inclosed lands Protection Act 1901;
(1) Any person who, without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person), enters into inclosed lands without the consent of the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands, or who remains on those lands after being requested by the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands to leave those lands, is liable to a penalty not exceeding:
(a) 10 penalty units in the case of prescribed premises, or
(b) 5 penalty units in any other case.

Among other NPWS legislation.

[extraball]

could it be that stall holders were nervous, because your photographic evidence could, get them into trouble with the ATO for undeclared income?

[bladesp2]

could it be that stall holders were nervous, because your photographic evidence could, get them into trouble with the ATO for undeclared income?

Not to mention the pirated software ,dvds and a like .Not usually at famers markets though ,but most markets around australia have some nervous stall holders .

[Xenedis]

but most markets around australia have some nervous stall holders

For the anti-photography types, I have two suggestions:

1. If you're a market stall holder, don't work illegally or sell counterfeited or stolen goods.
2. If you don't want to be photographed in a public place, don't leave your home.

[bladesp2]

For the anti-photography types, I have two suggestions:

1. If you're a market stall holder, don't work illegally or sell counterfeited or stolen goods.
2. If you don't want to be photographed in a public place, don't leave your home.

unfortunately if there wasnt a market for these items they wouldnt be selling them.

[Xenedis]

unfortunately if there wasnt a market for these items they wouldnt be selling them.

That's not legitimate photographers' problem.