Apr 29, 2005, 19:25
This was posted in one of the forums at work.
"
Excerpt from:
Australian Photography Magazine - July 2004 Edition, Page 48 - Suburban Candids
â¦â¦.Call it the "Decisive Moment" (as master French photographer Henri - Cartier-Bresson famously did), call it "documentary" or "candid" or "street" photography - the spontaneous, unposed photography of everyday scenes can be an exhilarating and artistically fulfilling experience. But it can also be dangerous and nerve-wracking, especially in today's climate of suspicion and distrust. â¦â¦â¦â¦.. Many people hold back from this type of photography because they imagine it's an "invasion of privacy". Actually in Australia it isn't. Broadly speaking, in this country you're free to photograph whoever you want, whenever you want, whether they permit it or not!
"Unauthorised photography" has been sanctioned in this country ever since the 1937 High Court decision in "Victoria Racing Park v. Taylor". In 2001 this was reaffirmed in "ABC v. Lenah Game Meats", where the High Court specifically noted that any concept of a "Tort of invasion of privacy" does not exist in Australia.
As Justice Dowd put it bluntly in the 2001 NSWC case of "R v. Sothern" - A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed". Press and Privacy Council guidelines are just that, recommendations only. They're not "Law".
This doesn't mean, of course, that it's completely open slather. State defamation laws still apply, as do common law concepts of Nuisance and Trespass. So, although no one has any right to prevent you from photographing them, they're still entitled to protect themselves from humiliation and continual harassment.
What about consent? Must you always obtain permission from any person you photograph? Generally speaking, this isn't the case. Consent is only required by Trade Practice legislation when the image is used in commercial context (typically advertising). Otherwise, for personal, editorial or artistic use, you're free to photograph anyone, regardless of whether they approve or not. Just ask Rodney Alder!
â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦ Of course many subjects in our culture are just plain taboo. Always avoid playgrounds and schoolyards and be very cautious of parents with young children. Then there's the issue of photographing on private property (ie; in shopping centres or stores). Although this is not illegal as such, property owners do have every right to ask you to stop or even leave. That's all, though. They can't confiscate your camera or film, nor can they detain or arrest youâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.
This applies to Australia of course, is it similar in other countries?
"
Excerpt from:
Australian Photography Magazine - July 2004 Edition, Page 48 - Suburban Candids
â¦â¦.Call it the "Decisive Moment" (as master French photographer Henri - Cartier-Bresson famously did), call it "documentary" or "candid" or "street" photography - the spontaneous, unposed photography of everyday scenes can be an exhilarating and artistically fulfilling experience. But it can also be dangerous and nerve-wracking, especially in today's climate of suspicion and distrust. â¦â¦â¦â¦.. Many people hold back from this type of photography because they imagine it's an "invasion of privacy". Actually in Australia it isn't. Broadly speaking, in this country you're free to photograph whoever you want, whenever you want, whether they permit it or not!
"Unauthorised photography" has been sanctioned in this country ever since the 1937 High Court decision in "Victoria Racing Park v. Taylor". In 2001 this was reaffirmed in "ABC v. Lenah Game Meats", where the High Court specifically noted that any concept of a "Tort of invasion of privacy" does not exist in Australia.
As Justice Dowd put it bluntly in the 2001 NSWC case of "R v. Sothern" - A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed". Press and Privacy Council guidelines are just that, recommendations only. They're not "Law".
This doesn't mean, of course, that it's completely open slather. State defamation laws still apply, as do common law concepts of Nuisance and Trespass. So, although no one has any right to prevent you from photographing them, they're still entitled to protect themselves from humiliation and continual harassment.
What about consent? Must you always obtain permission from any person you photograph? Generally speaking, this isn't the case. Consent is only required by Trade Practice legislation when the image is used in commercial context (typically advertising). Otherwise, for personal, editorial or artistic use, you're free to photograph anyone, regardless of whether they approve or not. Just ask Rodney Alder!
â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦ Of course many subjects in our culture are just plain taboo. Always avoid playgrounds and schoolyards and be very cautious of parents with young children. Then there's the issue of photographing on private property (ie; in shopping centres or stores). Although this is not illegal as such, property owners do have every right to ask you to stop or even leave. That's all, though. They can't confiscate your camera or film, nor can they detain or arrest youâ¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦.
This applies to Australia of course, is it similar in other countries?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein