Copyright / Photographers Rights

[ricktas]

This thread will be used to compile relevant information, including links, that relate to the Rights of Photographers, Copyright issues etc.

Australian Copyright information for Photographers
- General Information : http://www.copyright.org.au/
- Art, Photography and Design: http://www.copyright.org.au/informat...ign/visart.htm
- Specific to Photographers: http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/...s_pdf/G011.pdf

Photographers Rights
- Street Photography: http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinfor...hersRights.asp

Please feel free to add relevant information below

Note: Due to ever changing legislation, the information provided in the links contained in this thread may be out of date. if unsure please seek up-to-date information from the relevant authorities. Legislation can differ from State to State. Ausphotography site rule 14 should be read.

[AdamC]

http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php

Primarily aimed at NSW obviously, but does have information relevant to other states as well. Site has a handy downloadable summary sheet in PDF for reference when accosted in public.

[reaction]

Rights of Professional and Amateur Photographers petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/ausphoto/petition.html

[Nicholas N]

I love this thread,

I have gone to the site Adam provided, printed the entire thing and will carry copies in my camera bag, car and on me any time I have my camera so I have reference material for the complainant, police, security etc if they try to hassle me.

[MarkChap]

Unfortunatley you could carry an entire library on the subject with you, but it will not make one iota (,--Spelling ?) of difference.

1 :- If you are challenged by a person of authority (police) they will still insist that you follow their directions, of which you don't have a lot of choice.

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.

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 ??

[Kym]

I do keep a few of the printed PDF version (doubled sided) of http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinfor...hersRights.asp in my camera bag.

I've used it to shut up an officious security guy last year. I was very polite and pointed out that I was within my rights when on public land. He said 'what about (c) etc.' and I explained that I actually owned the (c) as the photog etc. Ended being nice about it and did realise that the law was on my side. Probably a rare encounter.

[Nicholas N]

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 ??

Anybody can call the cops, the fact is they cannot charge you with anything if you are within your rights to be there.

Photographers rights are trampled and all we do is say "is my shot worth the confrontation?"

Answer: Yes it is. If it is not illegal, do it. If you are challenged stand your ground.

Otherwise you are back on the list of photographers who complain about the erosion of their rights but never stand up for them.

[kiwi]

Let common sense prevail. It's often common sense to walk away to fight the battle another day - its those that dont fight the battle the other day that are letting themselves down

Every time I have been challenged by authority I place a phone call or write a letter the next day so that next time hopefully the education is there

[reaction]

Indeed guards ignored my showing of my rights.
Don't back down easily, give them something to thnk about and write to mgt /politely/ about your rights.

In my case my friends didn't want to fight it after they ignored my doco, so...

[MarkChap]

Anybody can call the cops, the fact is they cannot charge you with anything if you are within your rights to be there.

True Nicholas, but as soon as they give you a direction to leave, (even if it is because they don't like being proved wrong) and you dissobey them, you ARE then commiting and offence and will be charged.
If they want to win they will, as the old saying goes -

Discretion is the Better Part of Valour.

[Nicholas N]

True Nicholas, but as soon as they give you a direction to leave, (even if it is because they don't like being proved wrong) and you dissobey them, you ARE then commiting and offence and will be charged.

They can charge you if they want, when you go to court they still have to prove you were in the wrong. Any solicitor could prove you had legal access to wherever it was you were and get you off.

[MarkChap]

Round in circles.
Forget about having a lawful right to be somewhere.

If they charged you with Disobeying a lawful direction and you had disobeyed that direction I don't think you would have a leg to stand on.

This is the exact same discussion you could have with another - I am right - No your not - yes I am - no your not
And nobody gets anywhere because they don't want to see your side of the discussion

[Kym]

This in UK Parliament... (read the hansard)
http://news.parliament.uk/2009/04/de...-public-places

Interestingly our Legal system does consider (sometimes) what has happened in the UK.

[sepon]

hello. this is my first minute on this forum and i decided to jump in the deep end. i see there is already a reference to < http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php > ...that's good. i have found that site and that document of great interest in the past. but i would like to address a chapter in that document referring to the Australia Council which references the 2008 Henson debate, < http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/t...le_for_comment >.

i am a working professional, mainly narrative and process documentary work but i also work in nudes as an exhibition photographer, have done for 20 years or so. i was approached a month or so ago quite innocently by a young lady who wanted some promo shots done for a future in swimwear modeling. my first response was, sure, seems easy enough and i have done some of that work before, years ago. but after "agreeing" she said she was 16. so i politely said, sorry, i didn't feel comfortable with this and she needed to be 18, anyway. she accepted that but added that 16 was the legal age of consent and there was no legal issue with the work, even though it was clothed, however scantily, i would suspect. so i still bowed out.

but this has brought up some debate with colleagues as to just how to define "legal age of consent" and the Australia Council Draft Document was brought up, which i have read yesterday.

i am curious, as are we all in this discussion group of mine, the ethical/moral/social/legal position of any kind of figure work with models from the age of 16 on upwards, what is the "real" legal position within the profession? "legal age of consent" might imply legal but i would suspect there would be a battle ahead, given i thought the legal age for any figure work, nude or near-nude, would be 18. one of my colleagues (on this site forum for some time, referred me to it) has discussed taking on the commission of the shoot with this girl. so the debate continues... does anyone have an opinion on this?

cheers,

sepondja

[ricktas]

People under 18 CANNOT legally enter into contracts, a parent or guardian MUST sign any contract with them. End of story! So even if the legal age of consent (which relates to sexual intercourse) is 16, it does not cover contractual agreements. Your model in you example above is using an unrelated and irrelevant legal position to argue for a differing situation. The Legal Age of Consent and Contractual Legal age are two entirely different things.

[Kym]

And even if a parent / guardian signs... nudes etc of someone 17years & 364 days old could get you done for paedophilia / child porn etc. Forget ethics and morals - its the law in this case.

[sepon]

thanks for the prompt reply! we were just on the phone talking about this thread. i think this will put paid to the discussion.

cheers,

s.

[Jube]

Here is aother useful link:
http://earleyedition.com/2008/12/30/...tion-of-links/.

Just to follow up on Kym's comment about Australia following what happens in the UK - one example is the use of anti-terror laws/police powers (both in the UK and in Australia) to stop street photography / reportage - some of you may be familiar with these stories: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...76-952,00.html
http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.co...liberty-folks/

On the issue of copyright, while the photographer owns copyright in the photos he or she takes, you can actually infringe someone else's copyright by taking a photo, even though you have copyright in the actual photo. This is often one of the reasons you can't take photos of art in galleries - you might well be making an unauthorised copy of an artwork by taking a photo of it. This is not always the case, however, so photographing street art/public installations is usually fine from a copyright perspective, as is photographing artworks out of copyright (but there may be other reasons you can't photograph them!).

[Leanne]

Ken Duncan is also an advocate for standing up for photographers’ rights. He placed an article recently in the FCC’s October F-stop http://www.photographynsw.org.au/news_pdf/fcc_0910.pdf and was quoted as saying: “Photographers, who used to be looked upon with favour as people recording and documenting life, are now being looked upon as predators, .. “

Along with a few fellow professional photographers, he set up “Arts Freedom Australia” some six years ago and has been encouraging different photographic associations to band together in the fight against bureaucracy. Check out the website: http://www.artsfreedomaustralia.com/blog/

[fairvue]

True Nicholas, but as soon as they give you a direction to leave, (even if it is because they don't like being proved wrong) and you dissobey them, you ARE then commiting and offence and will be charged.
If they want to win they will, as the old saying goes -

Discretion is the Better Part of Valour.

That is exactly what I did when told to leave. I was with a group of big network photographers covering a sitdown protest in Canberra's parliament house. I was singled out by the police because I don't belong to any media group/network.
To avoid arrest I decided to leave parliament house. (Disobeying Police instructions can cause an arrest)