How to deal with Police when out photographing (& Photographers Rights)

[oldfart]

The worst thing about this is that due to his being charged with "recording in breach of privacy", his lawyer will only have to prove that the girls being in plain view in a public place had no expectation of privacy, No matter how morally corruptible this persons motives may be.

[kiwi]

Its good to see the Swimming QLD policy re it being quite OK parents using their cameras, bravo.

[Lani]

Not a very thorough report really....seems to maybe be a bit more than meets the eye....but will never know from that amount of information.
I thought it was good re swimming Qld too Darren....common sense is a beautiful thing.

[kiwi]

The worst thing about this is that due to his being charged with "recording in breach of privacy", his lawyer will only have to prove that the girls being in plain view in a public place had no expectation of privacy, No matter how morally corruptible this persons motives may be.

I doubt whether a school or council swimming pool is deemed a public space however

[Kym]

In principal ... Since when is taking a photograph a crime?

The pool would probably have conditions of entry, so it is not a public place in the normal sense of the word.

Ok, this guy is *probably* a creep - and it does damage to all of us. How I hate this sort of 'journalism'.

[virgal_tracy]

The worst thing about this is that due to his being charged with "recording in breach of privacy", his lawyer will only have to prove that the girls being in plain view in a public place had no expectation of privacy, No matter how morally corruptible this persons motives may be.

I think that a school hiring out the facility and having its own guidelines would be enough expectation of privacy from someone with no connection to either the school (through work or as a parent / guardian) or the facility.

Without any legal backing for this next statement, I would assume that any student would have an expectation of privacy from anyone not associated with the carnival.

In this case, in imho, the man charged would have to prove that he wasn't going to use the images for personal gratification.

[James T]

I doubt whether a school or council swimming pool is deemed a public space however

It has an assumed right of public access though. I'm not too up on relevant Aussie laws though. In the UK you'd be fine unless there were conditions of entry stating otherwise, or until someone from the centre asked you to stop taking photos.

Looking briefly at the Southgate Centre or whatever it was a few years ago in Melb. Rob Hulls seemed to suggest that the shopping centre should act as though it was a public space.

Can't comment on this story until I see the pictures.

[jim]

Rather worrying story since it gives no real evidence of any wrongdoing, yet it seems the bloke has been charged. Perhaps rather than watching for half an hour then detaining him, they should have asked him to stop as soon as it became apparent that he was photographing their kids.

The clear assumption is that he is a predator who needed to be caught and put away, and I think that taking photos of kids isn't really enough to justify that.

[kiwi]

Rather worrying story since it gives no real evidence of any wrongdoing, yet it seems the bloke has been charged. Perhaps rather than watching for half an hour then detaining him, they should have asked him to stop as soon as it became apparent that he was photographing their kids.

The clear assumption is that he is a predator who needed to be caught and put away, and I think that taking photos of kids isn't really enough to justify that.

It looks as though there is more to the story - notice that he's also been charged over other incidents in other locations

[jim]

Well the story posted is rather light on detail. Would certainly hope there is more to it than that.

Of course if the incidents at other locations are similar, he might still just be a photographer who likes photographing people.

[farmer_rob]

I think a lot of here have tried the man and found him guilty of "something we don't like". This is VERY dangerous. What if his daughter was going to be at a swimming carnival in a couple of weeks and he wanted to ensure he was able to get good photos? What if he was developing a series of photos of swimmers for a book? What if he wanted to break into the ranks of sports photographers and he was doing the hard yards at the low end? There is nothing to suggest that the photos he took were indecent - only that the police and people did not like him taking them. Where does the line get drawn? He may have been stupid or misguided but does that mean he was bad?

Although, technically, the pool was probably not a "public" place, it would also be hard to define it as a place where people would normally expect privacy (unlike a changing room), especially during a swimming carnival.

Watch out, because next time you accidentally capture someone in a picture, you might also be arrested on the same grounds.

[kiwi]

well, Id like to believe that, but the circumstancial evidence that he was only taking pics of girls aged 12-16 is a bit indicting I think

In this case, common sense seems to be right

[kiwi]

I think a lot of here have tried the man and found him guilty of "something we don't like". This is VERY dangerous. What if his daughter was going to be at a swimming carnival in a couple of weeks and he wanted to ensure he was able to get good photos? What if he was developing a series of photos of swimmers for a book? What if he wanted to break into the ranks of sports photographers and he was doing the hard yards at the low end? There is nothing to suggest that the photos he took were indecent - only that the police and people did not like him taking them. Where does the line get drawn? He may have been stupid or misguided but does that mean he was bad?

Although, technically, the pool was probably not a "public" place, it would also be hard to define it as a place where people would normally expect privacy (unlike a changing room), especially during a swimming carnival.

Watch out, because next time you accidentally capture someone in a picture, you might also be arrested on the same grounds.

I agree it's dangerous. Id like to think the best of him but cant in this case with the facts as presented. It does not appear if the circumstances you describe, ie a sports photographer, are relevant here. He offered no excuse for what he was doing. If he was what you describe it would have been sorted out on the spot

I hear what you are saying in broad terms though of course

[jim]

He offered no excuse for what he was doing.

I'm certainly not arguing that the bloke is innocent when the people on the spot and the police clearly think otherwise, though in times past I've taken photos of kids and if challenged I wouldn't have been able to offer any excuse except that I thought they might make nice pictures. You can imagine how well that would go down in the current climate.

[kiwi]

Well, in my hobby I take 500 pics of kids every weekend and the only excuse I have is I wanna make some money off them.. I get approached at times also.

But, Im not sure though as a "joe citizen" that going into a school swimming carnival into the marshalling area and taking pics of girls is defensible under any pretence. If you do have honourable intent surely you would go and arrange permission from someone.

This to me is quite different than taking kids pics in a public park etc. Though i will say that it's likely these days sooner or later to cause you harm.

[I @ M]

I think that there are far too many "what ifs" involved here and one other thing to think of is that this man may be tried and judged by a jury, which may even be composed of people from amongst the AP membership data base and in order for justice to work properly those jury members should not be influenced by comment, innuendo and here say from the media. AP has grown to be media in the fact that we are now discussing this case for all of Australia and the world to potentially see.

[Kym]

Merged the thread

[oldfart]

I hate defending the photographer against the moral inferences made by the story but:

Observations or recordings in breach of privacy
(1) A person who observes or visually records another person, in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy—
(a) without the other person’s consent; and
(b) when the other person—
(i) is in a private place; or
(ii) is engaging in a private act and the observation or visual recording is made for the purpose of observing or visually recording a private act;
commits a misdemeanour.
Maximum penalty—2 years imprisonment

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LE...CriminCode.pdf

I don't see how being surrounded by other competitors, officials and parents gives anyone the expectation of privacy. This photographer was operating in a marshalling area, not the girls change rooms. Even the argument that the entire facility is deemed a private place would be mute if the photographer paid an admission fee to gain entry, and photography is not clearly sign posted as activity prohibited at the facility. Further, clearly none of the images have been deemed sexual in nature or he'd have been charged with child porn offenses.

I would think that charges against those making the citizens arrest for Offences against Liberty would have a much better chance of being successful.

[dowden photography]

I agree it's dangerous. Id like to think the best of him but cant in this case with the facts as presented. It does not appear if the circumstances you describe, ie a sports photographer, are relevant here. He offered no excuse for what he was doing. If he was what you describe it would have been sorted out on the spot

I hear what you are saying in broad terms though of course

News Ltd do not report facts, they report what people have told them and in this case they have reported 1 side of the story, told by the police & people who didn't want their children photographed while swimming.

[kiwi]

News Ltd do not report facts, they report what people have told them and in this case they have reported 1 side of the story, told by the police & people who didn't want their children photographed while swimming.

What !!!! You are rocking my whole belief system
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk