NP's and the Ranger are considered same as a residence/owner, business premises/proprietor. Rangers are charged with looking after a prescribed "space" and can ask people to leave.Originally Posted by Lance B
 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 25
NP's and the Ranger are considered same as a residence/owner, business premises/proprietor. Rangers are charged with looking after a prescribed "space" and can ask people to leave.
Took some photos last weekend of the general public, had the camera waist level, and I dont think I drew any attention. Managed to get some interesting shots, but I feel concerned about uploading them. I didn't get anyone's permission, and I don't want to face legalities doing so. If I cant show these pics, then they are pretty pointless shots I guess. Unsure
CC allways appreciated!
My gear Canon 1100D, Tamron SP70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD lens, and Canon 18-55 EFS lens.
If ever a Police Officer gives me a "Move On" directive, I hope it's Wayne.
........
Just to clarify for you.
I have 10 years in the job as a NSW police officer
But surely, basically being a public place, even though it is a nationl park, that they still require a good reason, whereas a proprieter doesn't as that is his/her own property or one in which they have rented.
My PBase site: http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
My Flickr site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/
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.
Last edited by Wayne; 30-01-2013 at 3:02am.
Of course you can, As long as you don't use the photos for commercial reasons, ie sell them to an advertising agency, you are free to display them. If taking photos without their permission was an issue, every CCTV and speed camera in Aus would be illegal. So go ahead. Also note that the legislation is not different for children as many would like you to believe. Children are not mentioned separately. Basically if you are in a public place in Australia, no matter what your age, you should expect to be photographed at any time.Took some photos last weekend of the general public, had the camera waist level, and I dont think I drew any attention. Managed to get some interesting shots, but I feel concerned about uploading them. I didn't get anyone's permission, and I don't want to face legalities doing so. If I cant show these pics, then they are pretty pointless shots I guess. Unsure
Last edited by ricktas; 30-01-2013 at 7:16am.
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
Nikon, etc!
RICK
My Photography
Thank you for the info, but as I read it it seems to be intimatiing only those people who are there "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". So, anyone whom is there lawfully is ok, in otherwords, if I am in a National Park and have a permit or are there during normal hours of operation and I am not doing anything unlawful or being a nuisance, then they can't really throw me out.
yes, I agree. Just seems to be a public perception, that people can not photograph without permission. Our cameras are noticed, and we provide a "face behind the lens", that security cameras mounted in/on buildings do not. I suppose the antics, or the way the media portray paparazzi isn't helping our image either. Heaven forbid we take photos of kids, and the reasoning behind it. I suggested to my wife, that I drop her to work on friday, and take pics of surfers at the beach. She didn't think it a good idea, thought I may upset them, and get myself into trouble. Surfers would be the last people to get upset, doubt they would even know, or care that I was there. Over-sensitive PC world that we live in.
Last edited by extraball; 30-01-2013 at 10:16am.
As photographers we need to change that perception.
It's quite introguing how some ignorant, paranoid people in the street strongly object to the activities of a photographer with a DSLR, but don't seem to have an issue with walking down the main street of any city, where hundreds of security cameras will monitor their every move.
The other thing photographers need to do is stop carying what other people think about what we do.
Photography has existed before any of us was even born. It's only in the last decade that the proliferation of cameras has incited fear and terror in people, and I cannot honestly understand why. Sure, terrorists and perverts also use cameras, but like cameras, those kinds of people also existed well before any of us did.
What exactly has caused the fear and anti-photography stance many people have adopted? I honestly do not know.
Again, there's an overwhelming sense of irony in the fact that the people most opposed to being photographed seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that CCTV cameras exist just about everywhere these days. Yesterday afternoon I called into my vet's office, and while waiting, I looked at the ceiling in the reception area. I was surprised to discovered that there wasn't a camera present.
Threadstarter
It is hard to stop caring what other people think when 3minutes and 15seconds of snapping away is all it takes to attract a security guard.
But point taken. Maybe being obvious is a better thing.. Whack on a fluro vest and look official.
Surfers would love having photos taken.... Do you offer your contact info so that they can see the photos afterward? I took a fabulous photo this week and would love to give a copy to the people in it.
Cass
I switched my camera off auto in November 2012, and I have been busy reading and learning and practicing ever since.
My kit is basic: Canon 1000D (two kit lenses) + 50mm f/1.8 + a tripod/monopod + Lightroom4
Incredible isn't it!
As long as you know your rights (and responsibilities!) well, and you are not attempting to enhgage in photography contrary to what you're permitted to do (eg, shooting on private property where photography has been restricted or forbidden), no problem. Feel free to educate the security guard as to your rights.
Some security guards think they have more power than they do, and will try to insist upon something contrary to the reality of the situation.
At all times, remain calm and polite as you explain the reality of the situation.
I've been mistaken for a media photographer before, merely by having a large white lens. I stumbled across a film set in the city years ago, and someone (perhaps the director) saw me and said I could get my media card over there. I said thanks and moved along. :-)
I don't shoot surfers or other candids, but certainly it's a good idea to offer your subjects copies of the images. Sportspeople tend to like having nice photos of themselves in action.
hehe, me tooIf ever a Police Officer gives me a "Move On" directive, I hope it's Wayne.
As for Park Rangers, I really highlighted them due to the issue that Parks while on public land, can fall under those strange rules:
Some info taken from :
http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/park-manag...nd-photography
Park Rangers in Victoria at least fall under the category of "Authorised DSE officer" meaning that they can:
- Direct you to leave a public safety zone ( SPLAs 14);
- Seize and remove ‘abandoned goods’ (that is, property you have left unattended in a State Forest by section 95C of the FA. They can destroy the item if they think it is perishable, or dangerous;
- Seize any item used or being used in the commission of an offence, although the officer must provide a receipt ( FAs 95F; SFTAs 88) and make reasonable efforts to return the item to its owner within 7 days, or after 90 days of its seizure the owner can apply for its return FAs 95G; and/or,
- Start proceedings against you for committing certain offences in reserved forest ( FAs 78(2)).
However, other than the prescribed situations above, they really have no more power to arrest then any other citizen.
Your treatment of them will be placed under more scrutiny should any issues arise.
It is an offence to threaten or abuse an authorised DSE officer exercising their duties or powers under the SFTA (s87) or the FA (s96B). It is an also an offence to hinder or obstruct, without reasonable excuse, an authorised DSE officer carrying out their duties or powers under the SFTA (s86) , FA (s96A) or the SPLA (s20). If you commit any of these offences, you can be fined up to around $7,400.
It is an offence to hinder or obstruct an authorised Council officer performing their duties, with a maximum fine of around $7,300 under the LGA (s224(8).
Overall though, be nice, have fun with your photography, know what you do is OK.
Lance, being upon those lands with lawful excuse is fine, the issue arises when;
(1) Any person - 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.
The person in charge of those lands is under no obligation to establish grounds for requiring a person to leave, in contrast to a police "move-on" directive that must meet certain criteria for it to be enforced.
I can assure you without doubt that if a NPWS Ranger asks you to leave for any reason and you refuse, if police are involved, you will almost certainly find yourself either in the truck or walking away with a CAN (Court Attendance Notice).
If you were asked to leave for no apparent reason, yet others present were not and you refused to leave, that would not be a defence to the charge of trespass, remain on inclosed lands etc, however you may be able to seek relief for being treated differently to others under alternate legislation.
Unfortunately, we live in a very strange world. Gone are the days when people just took photos, now it is assumed that you are a pedophile stalking kids, or that you are out to take photographic evidence that someone is selling dodgy copyright infringing products so that you can dob them in. And as for farmers markets, what is determined as public and what isn't?? In the next town they regularly hold a farmers market on every second Saturday, and they also have a Quarry market every third Saturday (or something like that) The farmer's market is held on the footpath in front of the local pub and shops. The Quarry market is held across the road at an oval. I would expect that the oval is a public area, but owned by a club or the council. The footpath, I would assume is public space and although owned by the council, it IS a public space, so would that mean that I could take photos at the farmer's market, on the footpath, but may be restricted if I took photos within the oval area.
Cass, just make yourself aware of the particular markets T&C.
I think sometimes us photographers get a little paranoid. The occasional problem is rightly highlighted. But how many times have you all been out taking photos and not had a problem? Nothing to highlight there.
For a recent 2013 AP members challenge I thought of a photo opportunity in a local chemist. I walked in (with my DSLR) and ask if I could take a photo. I explained why, and the bossman thought about it for five seconds and said "Go ahead, thanks for asking, you could have just done if with a camera in your phone without asking anyway."
Unfortunately it's seemingly becoming more difficult to ascertain what is a public space in which photography is allowed -- or more pertinently, where it is not specifically forbidden or otherwise regulated beyond behaviour which is covered by other legislation (eg, privacy, harassment, tresspass, etc.)
Did you know what you cannot photograph Bondi Beach without a permit?
In 2006, Rex Dupain, son of the famous photographer Max Dupain, landed himself in a spot of bother with the police while photographing on Bondi Beach.
See http://www.news.com.au/national-old/...-1111112657332 for more.
Getting back to the markets held in public streets of major cities, while some stall holders display 'no photography' signs, when they are operating in a public place, do they have any right not to be photographed? According to the law, and according to my own view, no; but is a city street still considered a public place when it has been reconfigured to host a market? It's hard to say knowing what bi-laws and such exist, or whether the street's status as a 'public' street has been temporarily changed by a council due to some sort of hire arrangement or suchlike.
With the photography in which I engage, I am fairly lucky, in that I photograph mostly natural scenes at quiet times when the only other people I'm likely to encounter are other photographers doing the same thing; and even if there are other people around, I'm specifically avoiding having them in my frame. I shoot portraits, too, but the subjects want to be photographed and are posing specifically for my lens.
Despite personally being largely unaffected, it still bothers me immensely that do-gooders are in force trying to restrict or ban legitimate photography, and that there is such an abundance of ignorance and paranoia about photography and the intentions of legitimate photographers. If it's not that, there's a money element, in that the fools assume that if we have 'professional-looking' cameras, we must be commercial enterprises making a buck, in which case the council/proprietor wants its cut too.
As I mentioned earlier, the 'antis' are the same people who go into 'public' places that are under constant surveillance by security cameras, yet they willingly enter that domain without raising any objections.
I had a brilliant time a couple of years ago being the 'official' photographer for my sons soccer team, so that the other parents could have a record of their kids endeavours. I went a season and a half, and then I had an opposition parent complain once during a game, and that killed it for me. Whether you have the right or not, the fact other people see what you are doing as sinister, no matter how much you have the right to do what you are doing and the agreement and consent of the majority, you just end up feeling sick. Sad.
Alan
-------------------------------------------
Olympus OM-1, EM-1, Canon 5DMkII, and a few other bits and bobs
Not quite..
Commercial entities or productions created with a commercial intent require a permit. Photography taken for private and/or domestic purposes don't. I have defeated Waverley Council and Bondi police on a number of occasions where some Rangers thought I couldn't be using my camera as I didnt hold a permit. I had this confrontation for the 3rd time during the Boost Surfsho(sic) in 2010 on Bondi.
Imagine for a moment how many beachgoers, tourists etc take photos on the sand of Bondi on any given day. Impossible to enforce for non-commercial activities as they would be discriminating with every infringement.
And that is where the issue lies for us photographers. How do we know what land is public and what is not? Even footpaths are not public lands at times. You will find that quite often what appears to be a public footpath is actually private land owned by the persons/company who own the shops nearby etc. There is not a sign saying 'this is private land' next to these publicly accessible open spaces, so how are we to know, unless we waste our time going to the local Council and finding out. Who does that?
and even then, what can be public land can have by-laws relating to photography.
http://www.hobartcity.com.au/Council...hland_Reserves
Look down the list to commercial photography. The council list a fee rate for commercial photography, but do not specify what they would determine is commercial. So photographer, big camera, oh lets assume they are commercial and ask them to stop.
A confusing minefield of laws, by-laws, and peoples inaccurate beliefs all converge to create a confusing matter that photographers find themselves up against, for no real valid reason.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
