Copyright / Photographers Rights

[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.

[Xenedis]

I do support a persons's right to privacy and if thats to the detriment of our hobby then too bad.

I also advocate privacy, but a person in a public place has no right to, nor reasonable expectation of, privacy.

[MarkW]

I also advocate privacy, but a person in a public place has no right to, nor reasonable expectation of, privacy.

So your telling me that your hobby has more legal right to exist than my right to reasonable privacy?

I'm not advocating a blanket ban but one of being able to opt out for future images.

For example, you take my photo as part of a street scene. As I have no idea of what you intend to do with that image, I respectively ask you to take no more images containing me. For all I know you may decide to manipulate the image then publish it on the web for the amusment of thousands. I wouldn't want that and whilst I dont have this right at this point in time, I believe I should have. The current laws only prohibit commercial photography which even there seems to be ignored.

If I don't want to be in your photography then why should I, in fact I believe you may even have the right to harrass me with your photography and I can't do anything about it. There has to be a reasonable limit and a right to privacy after the fact would seem to me to be acceptable.

[Xenedis]

So your telling me that your hobby has more legal right to exist than my right to reasonable privacy?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

What I am challenging is the notion of "privacy" in a public place.

How, both legally and practically, can you declare and enforce your own privacy (which legally does not exist) if you're walking around the Sydney Harbour foreshore?

For example, you take my photo as part of a street scene. As I have no idea of what you intend to do with that image, I respectively ask you to take no more images containing me.

If you see a person photographing you specifically in public (ie, you are the subject, rather than incidentally in the frame), then you're within your rights to ask that photographer to cease photographing you.

No reasonable photographer would refuse that request. That comes down to simple courtesy, not law. Legally, that photographer does not have to comply with your wish.

If you happen to be in a scene someone is photographing, then it is not reasonable for you to ask or demand that the photographer stop shooting.

If you don't want to be photographed, don't go out in public.

BTW, if you're walking around many public places, you're being photographed and filmed all the time by street safety/surveillance cameras, and you have even less of an idea of, or control over, what happens with those images and who has access to them.

For all I know you may decide to manipulate the image then publish it on the web for the amusment of thousands. I wouldn't want that and whilst I dont have this right at this point in time, I believe I should have.

That opens up a whole set of legal and practical challenges as to how that level of "protection" could exist or be enforced.

The current laws only prohibit commercial photography which even there seems to be ignored.

There are laws about passing off. You cannot use an image of someone for advertising or endorsement purposes without a signed model release.

The fact that some people ignore those laws is another matter.

For any law that exists, there'll be people who will break it, and the fact that some law exists does not guarantee you 100% protection from the behaviour that law prohibits.

If I don't want to be in your photography then why should I, in fact I believe you may even have the right to harrass me with your photography and I can't do anything about it. There has to be a reasonable limit and a right to privacy after the fact would seem to me to be acceptable.

There's a difference between perfectly legitimate photography of human subjects in a public place, and specifically harassing someone with a camera. Harassment would be covered by existing laws which aren't specific to photography.

If I am taking a photo of a street scene and you happen to be in the frame and notice it, then I suggest you get out of the frame if you don't want to be photographed.

If you go to tourist-laden places like the Sydney Opera House, Darling Harbour et al., there's a very good chance you will appear in some tourist's photo.