Copyright / Photographers Rights

[Xenedis]

2:-If hassled by others (esp security gaurds that are full of themselves) they will be too ignorant to understand and appreciate the information you have and continue to hassle you.

All a security guard can do is ask you to leave private premises.

It's worth carrying a print-out of Andrew Nemeth's cheat-sheet on NSW photographers' rights. That way, ignorant fools can be educated.

You would really need to ask yourself if the shot is worth confrontation/aggrevation and then the possible escalation to having the police called whereby which you are back at point 1 and lose anyway ??

You'd have to make a judgment call based on the situation.

But really, photographers, who are pursuing an inoffensive, perfectly legal and socially acceptable recreational activity, should not be hounded by ignoramii and made to feel like predators and criminals.

The more we bend over to the ignorant masses and cop it, the less freedoms we will have.

[damnameany]

I would refuse initially to move on by the police if I was in my legal right to be there and to take the shot. Pointing the above out and saying that to satisfy someone else they are infringing on my rights to do what I am doing. Of course if this does not work move you will lose. First asking for the officers name and badge number (in the UK the police legally have to give this if asked) and then writing to the relevant person of my dissatisfaction in the handling by the police. And when this is sorted via letters go back and take the shot taking said letters with me in case of reoccurrence of the problem.

[ricktas]

I would refuse initially to move on by the police if I was in my legal right to be there and to take the shot. Pointing the above out and saying that to satisfy someone else they are infringing on my rights to do what I am doing. Of course if this does not work move you will lose. First asking for the officers name and badge number (in the UK the police legally have to give this if asked) and then writing to the relevant person of my dissatisfaction in the handling by the police. And when this is sorted via letters go back and take the shot taking said letters with me in case of reoccurrence of the problem.

And by refusing to move initially you are them breaking the law. Failure to undertake the direction of a police officer, ring any bells?

[damnameany]

Very true ricktas but I would expect comment sense to prevail in that I am not being stroppy or aggressive just pointing out that what I am doing is not illegal. If they still insist that I move on then I would. As I said the police win and more important they are just doing their job as they see it. Something I do not have any form of problem with and respect the difficult job that they do.

[Longshots]

Sorry Damnameany, but you would be entirely in the wrong. Although you dont think you would be being stroppy, almost every policeman, authorised secturity guard (employed to enforce terms and conditions of entry of private premises/locations - which often appear as public but are not) arguing with a security guard will guarantee a discussion with a policeman, and if you ignore what they tell you, and I can assure you it will be brief, then you are highly likely to escalate the issue. Let me assure you as an exPom, that the police in Australia have far less interest in listening to you and a print out of from albeit a well respected person who has a legal background, (he is I believe no longer practising), would be highly inflammable to the problem. Plus I've yet to see a policeman or security guard respond with a similar document

In some cases, despite what you think about a freedom to photograph any where you like, it is actually illegal, depending on where you are. Why not have a chat with Ken Duncan who is the head of a lobbying group to try to resist the ever increasing restrictions applied to photography across Australia. A public place or assumed public place is not always somewhere where you can do want you want. Quite simply if you are asked to move on, then you have to do so, and that is the same in London and Sydney - as a Pro shooting in both cities I've experienced exactly the same.

Personally I think its hugely unwise to try and pull out a printed section of one's rights to photograph. Sure it annoys the crap out of me to experience being moved on, but once I've been asked, I will politely point out that I have a right to do what I do, and then I will obey the directions given to me, because it is quite simply not worth the grief.

[rellik666]

Just something for VIC rail, thought it may be useful as I heard that you can't shoot at Spencer St station, Metro Rules

[MattHylton]

I'm with Longshots I have many a time been asked what I am doing late at night with my camera. But I always pack up and come back again another time.

[JohnRA]

........ But this subject is foremost in the minds of those who use a camera in public places.
If this thread has been posted previously I'm sure the Moderators will respond.
It would do no harm to carry a print out of this information in the camera bag.

http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinfor...hersRights.asp

[maccaroneski]

I think that's been posted in the sticky thread at the top of this forum regarding police and photographers' rights, but it does bear repeating.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ad.php?t=24730

[ricktas]

Yeah, that link gets posted on the site every few months. Doesn't hurt to bring it back to current discussions on occasions though

[Darvidanoar]

........ But this subject is foremost in the minds of those who use a camera in public places.
If this thread has been posted previously I'm sure the Moderators will respond.
It would do no harm to carry a print out of this information in the camera bag.

http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinfor...hersRights.asp

Have you had a recent experience that has brought this to mind? Care to share, John?

[Kym]

I just merged and moved this thread (it was in The Business of Photography) - its a general issue that comes up regularly.

[Kym]

Maybe for the Birds... http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech...ves/1354b.html

[djmoonlight]

Thanks for sharing a relevant information, including links, that relate to the Rights of Photographers, Copyright issues etc.

[ricktas]

Thanks for sharing a relevant information, including links, that relate to the Rights of Photographers, Copyright issues etc.

Remember that Copyright legislation and photographers rights are country and even state based, so with you being in the USA, some of what is discussed here will may not be valid.

[farmer_rob]

The UK government appears to want to ban photographers from taking shots of people who don't want to be in the photo. (UK Gov nationalises orphans and bans non-consensual photography in public )

It's a longish piece, but the bit that scares me is towards the end:

The ICO code : put that camera away, my face is private

Not content with abrogating photographers' copyright, another part of Government is now going some way to ban photography altogether in public places, for data protection reasons. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) proposed new code for personal information online has "commonsense" new rules that in effect will prohibit photography in public places where anyone who's in the photograph might be unhappy about being photographed. A photo, taken in public, is now deemed private data, y'see.

A bit more detail is available here: The ICO and Photography in public places : clarification

I hope we don't get such insanity here

[I @ M]

It's a longish piece, but the bit that scares me is towards the end:

Longish is a conservative summation, scary is a very succinct epilogue.


I hope we don't get such insanity here

Unfortunately the electorate of this country have far too many times been seen to believe the spin adopted by the local bureaucrats from ideas that sounded "good at the time" (with a definite purpose in mind) generated in the halls of power in the UK and US.

[mcdesign]

That is going to make it hard for News Photographers etc.

[dbax]

I reckon Andrew's on the money, its the ballot box that matters.

[MarkW]

I don't know about the implications of the complete legislation but from what I have read in this thread that there is an "option" for members of the public to opt out, to say that I don't wish to be photographed. My belief is that people should have this right, right up to the level of denying photography when its in the supposed "public interest" or not. A point of law often touted by the mongrel current affairs programs which all too often run rough shod over everybody just to get a story and still they get it wrong. But who cares, they weren't hurt in the process.

I maybe wrong and if I am I would withdraw support, but I do support a persons's right to privacy and if thats to the detriment of our hobby then too bad.