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

[NickMonk]

Thanks Nick - very informative.
As a newbie photographer I still haven't got the hang of going out in a public place and setting up my tripod and taking shots.
I have only done it three times since I bought my camera:
The first time I had to go to a local shopping centre at night for a homework assignment for a photography course I attended - that felt really wierd.
The second time was a couple of nights after New Year's Eve - I went down to Kirribilli for some Harbour shots. That felt OK because I would have been the odd one out if I didn't have a camera.
The third time was the other day when my hubby and I went to Freshwater Beach - the other half took a swim while I took some shots. I received a lot of looks as if to say "what do you think your'e doing" but luckily nobody challenged me.

Anyway, your thread has helped me understand my legal rights a bit better and hopefully I won't feel so guilty about practicing my new hobby next time I decide to do a field trip.

I am lucky I guess that I have the confidence to go anywhere at any time and shoot without worry about offending people, breaking the law or getting mugged (although I may actually do this ). It sort of comes with carrying around a nice shiny badge.

Doing lots of night photography with a friend or two will soon make you feel more comfortable. If you are in a busy place, yes, everyone looks at you.

[bigdazzler]

If you are in a busy place, yes, everyone looks at you.

Nellie , just tell em to smile and take their picture

[arthurking83]

.... resist arrest is a lot more serious than any so called photographic offence ..

resisting arrest is not something I'd ever do.. ever!
But if a policeman/woman ever wanted to arrest me for taking photos, I'd happily go along, voluntarily, or meet them at the station or whatever and they must be 100% sure they are doing their job within the law. If it turns out that they have wrongfully arrested me in any way, or that they wasted my time or violated my rights to my recreation, then they will be made fully aware that it will cost them. Either financially, or by way to a bad report on themselves in some way.

I also downloaded the PDF on copyright info from a link that Cath posted in that other thread.

I'm not too sure of how legal it is to post an except of it, but I'm going to anyhow, for the purpose of education to our members!

Do I need permission to photograph a building?
Generally, no. Although a building is protected by copyright, a special exception in the Copyright Act allows buildings to be photographed without permission. Be aware though, that the owner of a property may impose restrictions regarding entry onto the property. It may sometimes be the case, as with photographs of people, that certain unauthorised uses of a photograph of a particular building may raise issues under other laws, such as trade practices legislation.

One late night last year, I was at the Shrine of Remembrance here in Melb.
Two police officers were walking about in their regular duty guarding the shrine as they described it, and I was there in the shadows with tripod and much photographic gear taking shots of stuff.
They walked up to me, and I stopped what I was doing, and walked up to them, and left all my gear about 50meters away, and we chatted.
One officer explained that I'm not allowed to take photos of the Shrine if they are for commercial purposes
Now, after reading that excerpt, it seems as if I am allowed to take photos of the Shrine, for my own commercial purposes without their consent... as long as I'm not on their property!
I can stand in any number of places that is not on their grounds, eg on the footpath or across the road, and it seems as though there's nothing they can do about it, going by that copyright notice.

The way I'm reading that copyright notice is that you actually can take photos of copyrighted property as long as you are not on the property when taking the photo!!??
If you read the wording carefully in that copyright notice, especially the section used as an example(Sydney Harbour Foreshore) it seems that the wording is to limited to the taking of photos from their land, and if you took it whilst on a legally sanctioned helicopter ride, or from the ocean using a 2000mm telephoto, or any other place that does not include their property, then you'd be OK.

.. Anyhow the Shrine police and I chatted for quite a while and I offered for them to view my photos.. nothing of commercial value I have to say too, but they declined.
All was amiable I explained about posting on a photo forum(here), etc... and they went about their job, and allowed me to go about my recreation.
They probably thought I was weird having positioned the camera and looking into total darkness though... but some people just don't geddit!

to them I was probably just another weird photographer?

[michael_sa]

...
I arrest people every now and again and not know what charge I have arrested them on - but I do know that I can arrest them, and I think about the applicable legislation on the way back to the station. A bit dangerous you might say but not really - if someone is behaving badly somewhere in public (in particular) there is an applicable charge somewhere.
...

Do you think it possible that this is the same thought process that a police officer who might confront a (law abiding) photographer is employing... s/he doesn't *know* the exact legislation... but surely there must be something..!

I also thought it procedurally correct to notify the suspect that:
a) they're being arrested; and
b) on what charge?

or does that obligation only exist if they (the suspect) actually ask?

(playing devils advocate, but genuinely curious)

Regards,
Michael

[bigdazzler]

I too had a police person approach me one night whilst shooting with a tripod at the Sydney Opera House .. he looked at my LCD and said " wow nice shot buddy !! " .. I guess experiences can vary

[jjphoto]

resisting arrest is not something I'd ever do.. ever!
But if a policeman/woman ever wanted to arrest me for taking photos, I'd happily go along, voluntarily, or meet them at the station or whatever and they must be 100% sure they are doing their job within the law. If it turns out that they have wrongfully arrested me in any way, or that they wasted my time or violated my rights to my recreation, then they will be made fully aware that it will cost them. Either financially, or by way to a bad report on themselves in some way.

I also downloaded the PDF on copyright info from a link that Cath posted in that other thread.

I'm not too sure of how legal it is to post an except of it, but I'm going to anyhow, for the purpose of education to our members!



One late night last year, I was at the Shrine of Remembrance here in Melb.
Two police officers were walking about in their regular duty guarding the shrine as they described it, and I was there in the shadows with tripod and much photographic gear taking shots of stuff.
They walked up to me, and I stopped what I was doing, and walked up to them, and left all my gear about 50meters away, and we chatted.
One officer explained that I'm not allowed to take photos of the Shrine if they are for commercial purposes
Now, after reading that excerpt, it seems as if I am allowed to take photos of the Shrine, for my own commercial purposes without their consent... as long as I'm not on their property!
I can stand in any number of places that is not on their grounds, eg on the footpath or across the road, and it seems as though there's nothing they can do about it, going by that copyright notice.

The way I'm reading that copyright notice is that you actually can take photos of copyrighted property as long as you are not on the property when taking the photo!!??
If you read the wording carefully in that copyright notice, especially the section used as an example(Sydney Harbour Foreshore) it seems that the wording is to limited to the taking of photos from their land, and if you took it whilst on a legally sanctioned helicopter ride, or from the ocean using a 2000mm telephoto, or any other place that does not include their property, then you'd be OK.

.. Anyhow the Shrine police and I chatted for quite a while and I offered for them to view my photos.. nothing of commercial value I have to say too, but they declined.
All was amiable I explained about posting on a photo forum(here), etc... and they went about their job, and allowed me to go about my recreation.
They probably thought I was weird having positioned the camera and looking into total darkness though... but some people just don't geddit!

to them I was probably just another weird photographer?

It's kind of getting off topic but there's a big difference between taking the photo and then doing something with it. There are very few situations where you are not allowed to take the photo in the first place but conversely there are very few situations where you can use said photo commercially without permission, releases etc. Even then, you would be sued after the fact, you would still be allowed to take the photo!

Point is, there are very very few situations where you would not be allowed to take the photo. It's what you do with it later that could get you sued, potentially.

JJ

[Dizzy Photographics]

Yes but don't expect them to be friendly about it. If you really want to do this make sure it is in a crowd situation such as a protest. Then they won't see what you are doing and can't do anything about it anyway.

If I didn't want my photo taken I'd ask for it to be deleted. If this was declined I would know to walk away. Others wouldn't...

Remember that being a police officer can be dangerous. One thing that we don't want is photos of us passed on to gangs and criminals etc - it is unnerving and we are very protective of where we live and who our families are. I'm yet to meet a police officer that doesn't have a silent telephone number for example.

At the risk of getting a stern chatting to about it...I guess then thats why the spunky star force boys didn't smile at me when taking their pictures during a seige a few months back

Must strongly point out too that these photos were never published anywhere or printed or shown to anyone other than family. We had an incident involving a number of star force officers and other emergency service personel just around the corner from home...the shots were purely taken to see how close i really could zoom in with the new (old now) point and shoot...i was pretty impressed really. After about 8 hours the hole incident ended without real drama...all precautionary

[ricktas]

Great thread. STUCK!

[Kym]

We were recently on holidays in Goolwa. I took around 600 shots (still to be processed )
I had some AP cards and my AP hat on.
Being identified as a photog made a big difference.
We had several +ve chats with people about AP and photography.
I think a lot of it is about attitude (as Nick has said) and how you present yourself.

[MarkChap]

Being identified as a photog made a big difference.

This is so true, even if i am off topic a little.

I have to wear a Hi-Vis vest whilst shooting speedway, I had mine printed with Photographer so as to not be confused with the "staff" on the infield.

I have worn this to another couple of events where I was really just a spectator but boy did it make a differenc to where I could get to take take photos.

[kiwi]

I agree but.... The police are a public service and there is a duty of care to check these things out. A member of the public complains, we have to make sure that there is nothing wrong. Happens with a lot of different scenarios, not just suspicious photography. Classic one is the dodgy car that is 'casing' houses in the early hours of the morning. Turns out to be the newspaper deliverer every time

For every 1000 suspicious photographers one might be a paedophile. So we have to go to all 1000 to find the crook.

Would you get called out for a call about a sighting of a Yeti ?

Based on the number of people with cameras of all kinds (slr, p&s, phone etc) and the number of ACTUAL instances of inappropriate images often quoted, there's about as much chance of an Yeti being true than a sicko with a camera

[Jcas]

I love to photograph older houses,but i am hesitant as it crosses my mind that if i seen somebody outside my house taking a pic i would wonder if they were sussing it out for other reasons, am i too suspicious???

[MJR]

I don't know if this has been posted but here is a link for street photograhers rights.....which you can also download the pdf version form here as well.... when I googled it I searched for Victoria photograhers rights.... but it looks to be Australian rights
hope the link works

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

[MarkChap]

I love to photograph older houses,but i am hesitant as it crosses my mind that if i seen somebody outside my house taking a pic i would wonder if they were sussing it out for other reasons, am i too suspicious???

Have some of your work with you.

Knock on the door and say "hey I am "insert name" and I would really love to add a photograph of your house to my series of old/historic/iconic/unique houses and show them what you do.

[Nicholas N]

I have to say.. whilst Nick's post makes perfect sense, I'd be more inclined to tell them to arrest me and charge me with whatever offence they think I'm committing.

I agree, either arrest me or back off.

I arrest people every now and again and not know what charge I have arrested them on - but I do know that I can arrest them, and I think about the applicable legislation on the way back to the station. A bit dangerous you might say but not really - if someone is behaving badly somewhere in public (in particular) there is an applicable charge somewhere.

Is this something you really should be admitting to on a public forum?

Your basically saying "I am arresting you, not sure what for, we'll find soemthing to stick you with back at the station."

Do you wonder why people often have a negative attitude toward the Police?

I'd hope to God that comment doesn't find its way to the media, you'll be public enemy number one tomorrow.

[Chuq]

Hi Nick,

When I read a post on another forum referring to this post as a "Really good discussion on Photographers rights etc. and Police here from a serving Police officer." with a link... I knew exactly who it would be before I clicked on it!

Edit: 0 posts?!?!

[NickMonk]

I agree, either arrest me or back off.




Is this something you really should be admitting to on a public forum?

Your basically saying "I am arresting you, not sure what for, we'll find soemthing to stick you with back at the station."

Do you wonder why people often have a negative attitude toward the Police?

I'd hope to God that comment doesn't find its way to the media, you'll be public enemy number one tomorrow.

You missed my point. I'm talking about myself personally, not others. In the split second something happens on the street trust me YOU KNOW that the law is broken and that an arrest is LAWFUL but I'm not always 100% ready to quote the act, section and exact wording of the charge. And not only that it is only RARELY that things happen like that.
I'm pretty sure I'm repeating myself here - I thought it was clear in my original post.

This thread was made in good faith. It would only go to the media if one of the members here sent it, and that is not going to happen.

[Kym]

You missed my point. I'm talking about myself personally, not others. In the split second something happens on the street trust me YOU KNOW that the law is broken and that an arrest is LAWFUL but I'm not always 100% ready to quote the act, section and exact wording of the charge. And not only that it is only RARELY that things happen like that.
I'm pretty sure I'm repeating myself here - I thought it was clear in my original post.
This thread was made in good faith. It would only go to the media if one of the members here sent it, and that is not going to happen.

I get it!

Eg. Some person is trying to bash someone.
You grab him, arrest him, cuff him etc.
You don't know the exact chapter and verse for his specific crime, but it is obviously a crime.

So Nicholas N ... are you suggesting an officer look up the exact crime first? or actually do his job and stop the crime from happening immediately!

[NickMonk]

I get it!

Eg. Some person is trying to bash someone.
You grab him, arrest him, cuff him etc.
You don't know the exact chapter and verse for his specific crime, but it is obviously a crime.

So Nicholas N ... are you suggesting an officer look up the exact crime first? or actually do his job and stop the crime from happening immediately!

Exactly. Thankyou.

[ricktas]

Hi Nick,

When I read a post on another forum referring to this post as a "Really good discussion on Photographers rights etc. and Police here from a serving Police officer." with a link... I knew exactly who it would be before I clicked on it!

Edit: 0 posts?!?!

Your post count will remain at zero till you post photos etc. Posts to certain sections of the site, do not accrue a post count.