I was asked to stop taking photos..

[alsocass]

I went out this morning to take some street photos and ended up with my first experience of being asked to stop.

I was at the local Farmer's Markets which is held at the local showgrounds. I guess it isn't public property. I had my camera out for about three minutes, and I wasn't even taking photos of stalls. I was very unobtrusive (well I thought I was). I continued wandering around the stalls and was approached by security (seriously... security at a farmer's market). I was nice and gave her a quick look at the photos, assured her I was just an amateur out practising the art of photography. She told me that stall holders had been complaining... but I don't believe her, I mean I was taking photos for three minutes tops and the stalls are all in the background, I didn't stand at any stalls taking photos (though I was working up to doing some of that).

I reassured her I wasn't up to anything sinister, that I was just enjoying a morning out while hubby looked after the kids... she laughed with me but also told me I would have to have stall holder and management permission and that management would say no.

I felt a bit shaken up, and despite stubbornly not putting my camera away after I walked off I also was too scared to take anymore photos... which was a shame as their was a jazz quartet playing in the food court... surely I could have taken a photo of that. I nearly went and asked her or them but I couldn't be bothered. It put a yucky spot on my morning and I realised I lost all desire to enjoy my morning at the markets so I left.

I am confused about rights and a bit annoyed about silly behaviours... Surely I was harmless?

[JohnB5319]

I had a similar experience at the markets at Floriade. There's no point arguing with these people - and the joke is that people all around me were talking photos with their 8MP iPhones with no one saying anything to them!

[arthurking83]

Had you had your kids, and a simple tiny P&S .. you would not have been approached!

I was once asked to stop taking photos, and even tho I saw their point of view(that is the management of the facility I was near) .. the security guards that scurried towards me in the ute, laughed when I showed them my images.
I told them(at that particular moment) I just wanted this one particular shot and they were happy for me to get it, but that management was nervous about me being out there taking pics.

Management must surely have thought I was a surreptitious type, gathering unintelligible intelligence for the purpose of a greater gods particular cause .. or something to that effect.

Yeah! right .. in broad daylight with tripod mounted 20cm from the ground usually pointed downwards.

The facility was of course a very prominent and important power facility, so like I said, I can understand their rationale, but the guards had a laugh with me tho.

Got my last shot, and packed it all up.

Funny thing tho .... where I was taking photos, was a particularly interesting setup .. BBQ's a plenty of park space for all and sundry to play on .. and no signage stating photography not being acceptable!
So it begs questions, why have a specific place setup for casual travelers to enjoy, and do management think that nobody in the world owns cameras, or that they don't use them?

and if travelers were to avail themselves of these facilities, and these travelers were surreptitious types on a holy mission from their god to gather unintelligent information, wouldn't this management expect the travelers to be much more discreet than an overgrown oaf, with DSLR, tripods, filters and all manner of obvious gear!! :rolleyes:

I'd love to post some samples, but I'd be worried that men with dark glasses and ear pieces may knock on my door a few minutes later .. I'll wait until I'm ready to go out before I do.(I'm not up for having to deal with mormons!)

[old dog]

sorry you had to endure that mindless performance Cass. Better luck next time.

[Wayne]

Sadly, the person charged with being in control of your market premises reserves the right to restrict or prohibit the use of cameras upon their premises. That said, if you shot from outside their premises, but pointing the camera into their premises there is nothing they can do about it.
I would also recommend you don't show zealous security or management personnel your camera/images, as that just encourages and to them reinforces the mistaken belief they have the right to demand such. It is also fact that any image taken prior to being lawfully instructed to cease taking photos does not have to be deleted if these management types demand that you do so.

[extraball]

could it be that stall holders were nervous, because your photographic evidence could, get them into trouble with the ATO for undeclared income?

[Warbler]

A Fact of Life unfortunately. It is much easier for property owners to simply say no, and not explain themselves. You can only really vote with your feet, or use your iPhone instead.

[alsocass]

Sadly, the person charged with being in control of your market premises reserves the right to restrict or prohibit the use of cameras upon their premises. That said, if you shot from outside their premises, but pointing the camera into their premises there is nothing they can do about it.
I would also recommend you don't show zealous security or management personnel your camera/images, as that just encourages and to them reinforces the mistaken belief they have the right to demand such. It is also fact that any image taken prior to being lawfully instructed to cease taking photos does not have to be deleted if these management types demand that you do so.

Thanks, that is a good point. It was all a bit stupid and I wished some common sense could have taken over. It was a case of worst-first thinking... I could have been taking photos of stall holders craft items so I could make them myself, I reassured her that I wasn't. I was glad that I took control of the conversation, I didn't walk away feeling like I had been pushed around, just annoyed that my plans for the morning had been nixed by a silly security guard (seriously security at a farmer's market...).

[ricktas]

Unfortunately publicly accessible does not necessarily mean 'public' in the sense of being allowed a right to take photographs.

The right to take photos applies when you are on public land. This is where this becomes blurred and hard to determine cause many areas the public can have access to are actually classed as private property and thus the owners, hirers etc of that land can stipulate what can and cannot be done on the land (as long as it doesn't breach other laws). Just the same as we each have the right to tell people what we expect of them within our own homes. Things like 'please do not smoke in my home'. Places like markets can have their own rules, and often photography is one of them.

Whilst it can make you feel a bit down, don't let it ruin your newly found joy for photography.

[jim]

Rick is quite right here, though it is a great pity that photographers now seem to almost routinely find themselves questioned, and even asked to stop taking photos in such places.

25 years ago I spent a happy half hour or so at Paddington market in Sydney chatting with a group of girls (aged 10-14 I, seem to recall) who were minding a baby named Zoe and wanted me to take some photos of her. I probably still have the photos somewhere, and I doubt that it occurred to anyone in that crowded market that anyone could possibly object to such an innocent interaction.

[Sifor]

That said, if you shot from outside their premises, but pointing the camera into their premises there is nothing they can do about it.

In practical terms yes, however if there was a gross invasion they can always press for a civil tort action, claiming the photography was interfering with the use and enjoyment of their land (basically the closest thing in Australia to a tort of privacy).

Also just a random thought - taking photos of trademarks on buildings etc can also land us into strife. Again though, probably wont in reality, but something that should be at the back of our minds as it can happen..

[alsocass]

Also just a random thought - taking photos of trademarks on buildings etc can also land us into strife. Again though, probably wont in reality, but something that should be at the back of our minds as it can happen..

I recall using that example when explaining copyright to my web design high school students. If I recall (and it was a few years ago and a bit hazy), it would be a breech of copyright to take a photo of the big M of a McDonalds if that was the prominent part of the photo (ie filled the frame), but if it was just one tiny part of a streetscape (think about photos of Times Square) then it was okay. The interesting discussion with the kids was about how grey areas worked... when did the sign stop being a copyright infringement and start becoming just part of the background.

@Ricktas Thanks for the law info. I read the few law articles on the site. I wasn't sure what my rights were, I wasn't really worried as I am not wanting to annoy anybody, I was more upset about the lack of commonsense.... sometimes it is okay to bend the rules. I mean if I had been standing over a stall taking photos or putting my camera in peoples faces then I completely understand a security guard asking me to stop (or a stall holder for that matter), but I was off to the side and really thought I was blending in pretty well. I took 7 photos over 3 minutes and none were closeups.

Funny how an encounter can affect a person. Sunday mornings is now my morning off, and I went for a drive into the city to have a relaxing stroll around the markets. After the encounter I just lost all interest. It took about 10 minutes of driving and feeling a bit yucky before I said aloud to myself "snapp out of it, this isn't going to ruin my morning" and went off to a new location.

[AVALANCHE]

Unfortunately that is how it can be sometimes alsocass. I hope it does not deter you from trying in the near future.

A strategy I like to use for shooting at festivals/markets is...

If you liked the band playing...maybe next time you see a band at a market playing, perhaps approach them, tell them you would like to get some photos of them performing and in return you could email them some photos. I've done this a few times and never really been knocked back on the offer. Security have stopped me once or twice and I simply say "I am the band photographer" and it is not a lie because all of a sudden you have become just that and you have access everywhere, even on stage! Behave like you belong there and the area is yours! Then you go can go around and shoot elsewhere for a bit. If security doubt you then simply present the great band photos you have taken. ;) I have gotten into a few places without paying doing that...I hold up to my end and provide them photos (Around 10 or so) and the feedback is generally good. I'll post some time tonight actually when I get back home.

[Wayne]

In practical terms yes, however if there was a gross invasion they can always press for a civil tort action, claiming the photography was interfering with the use and enjoyment of their land (basically the closest thing in Australia to a tort of privacy).

Also just a random thought - taking photos of trademarks on buildings etc can also land us into strife. Again though, probably wont in reality, but something that should be at the back of our minds as it can happen..

To my knowledge no such tort currently exists in Australia. Further, it must be said that for any proceeding in tort to be successful, there are a number of things that must be established.

1) A plaintiff would need to show that the tortfeasor had an onus to act in a particular manner established at law.
2) The plaintiff has to show that the defendant acted in a manner contravening that legal obligation.
3) The plaintiff needs to demonstrate that he/she has suffered an injury or some other loss as a direct consequence of the tortfeasor's actions.

[ameerat42]

Here's a thought. (Quick! Perish it!)
Photographers take photos, security guards maintain security.
Try telling the security guard to stop doing that.

(Well, getting back to basics.)

[Mark L]

Sorry, very tired and about to fall asleep. Will read the full thread tomorrow.
However,

...... and management permission and that management would say no.
......

Ask to talk to management then!
Then ask them what the terms and conditions for access to the markets is!
Our local showground is public land as far as I know.
zzzzzzzz

[Rattus79]

I was asked to stop taking photos once...

I quite cheerily put my DSLR away, pulled my phone out of my pocket and proceeded to take photos of the event in question with the phone.

He got my unsubtle point, (there were at least 3 others shooting with phones in the area) turned around and walked away.

Sometimes, it's all bluff and bluster. Other times it's not and poop can happen.
I do not recommend trying my method.

[Sifor]

To my knowledge no such tort currently exists in Australia. Further, it must be said that for any proceeding in tort to be successful, there are a number of things that must be established.

1) A plaintiff would need to show that the tortfeasor had an onus to act in a particular manner established at law.
2) The plaintiff has to show that the defendant acted in a manner contravening that legal obligation.
3) The plaintiff needs to demonstrate that he/she has suffered an injury or some other loss as a direct consequence of the tortfeasor's actions.

It's a form of private nuisance that is actionable in Australia...if the act of taking photos disrupts or interferes with the occupier's use of their land, then prima facie an action can be sustained..e.g if you're on public land taking photos of a market and this is upsetting the stall owners, scaring away customers etc, then the PL has prima facie a cause of action. In real life would this happen? Probably not for trivial things like a market, this is more reserved for serious breaches... but can happen!

[bladesp2]

could it be that stall holders were nervous, because your photographic evidence could, get them into trouble with the ATO for undeclared income?
Not to mention the pirated software ,dvds and a like .Not usually at famers markets though ,but most markets around australia have some nervous stall holders .

[Lance B]

I was asked to stop taking photos once...

I quite cheerily put my DSLR away, pulled my phone out of my pocket and proceeded to take photos of the event in question with the phone.

He got my unsubtle point, (there were at least 3 others shooting with phones in the area) turned around and walked away.

Sometimes, it's all bluff and bluster. Other times it's not and poop can happen.
I do not recommend trying my method.

This is a good idea and one that I will employ in the future if someone asks me to stop taking photos. It just shows the absurdity of it all.

I am getting quite sick and tired of all this to the point where I almost feel like a criminal every time I want to take some innocent photos in some areas.

[ameerat42]

Anyway, at the end of the day, when it's all said and done, and it's all over bar the shouting...
and all things are equal, and you agreed to disagree...
and you went your separate ways...
and so on and so forth...
...
..
?

[Xenedis]

but most markets around australia have some nervous stall holders

For the anti-photography types, I have two suggestions:


If you're a market stall holder, don't work illegally or sell counterfeited or stolen goods.
If you don't want to be photographed in a public place, don't leave your home.

[Rattus79]

3 learn what the law considers "a reasonable expectation of privacy"

A girl in a bikini on a busy gold coast beach is fair game, but the same girl in the same bikini on a deserted beach is a no go as she has a "reasonable expectation of privacy"

[bladesp2]

For the anti-photography types, I have two suggestions:


If you're a market stall holder, don't work illegally or sell counterfeited or stolen goods.
If you don't want to be photographed in a public place, don't leave your home.


unfortunately if there wasnt a market for these items they wouldnt be selling them.

[Analog6]

Public land often does not include venues like showgrounds. For instance, in Tassie you could photograph the Salmanaca markets to your heart's content as they are definitely on public land.

However, a farmer's market held at a private ground is a different story and they can ask you to cease and desist. Nothing to do but wuck it up, and remember the next time.

Sorry you had this disappointing experience, people are paranoid these days.

[Bear Dale]

Isn't it ridiculous that a 'big camera' purports terror in some, yet an iPhone is innocuous.

[Xenedis]

unfortunately if there wasnt a market for these items they wouldnt be selling them.

That's not legitimate photographers' problem.

[Bear]

Also makes me wonder if some of the issue is related to the professional look of someone with a dslr and a decent lens vs someone with a small point and shoot or using their phone. Some people just find big cameras / lenses intimidating and no matter how much you try and blend in, the paranoia takes over.

I find I use my phone or point&shoot far more than my dslr these days, especially in places like open air markets, carnivals, etc.

[bladesp2]

That's not legitimate photographers' problem.
Never said it was . just stating the obvious as to one reason why they sell these items ,and why some market stall holders might not want to be identified . I will cease at once .:D

[Lance B]

It just seems to me that there is a propensity for many people these days for wanting to play the victim. Point a camera at me? Then many seem to think that thyey are a victim, regardless of your actual intentions.

[Bercy]

Back in days of Black and White - Henri Cartier-Bresson took his Leica and painted it black, so he would not be seen taking photographs, as this might spoil the spontaneity of the scene unfolding before him. So the SLR makes you look like you are taking close up's of tax cheats, faces, competitors brands and prices etc. Like others - I went to my own daughter's ballet (aged 5) with the kit and sought permission to photograph her and they said I could not do so on premises. So I sat there at the concert whilst every one else was taking shots with their iphones. With respect to them, they clamped down heavily on this as well, pretty understandable. Anyway, you can have a camera in the end of you pen if you like - so we are back to Henri - don't be noticed!

[alsocass]

Funny you mention that. On my way to the markets it occurred to me that an old fashioned camera (like the one that one the still life comp this week) would be good for street photography. There is something innocent about using a camera like that... As if the style of camera speaks volumes about the intentions of the photographer. I suppose that begs to wonder what sort of reaction would happen to a photographer with a big white telephoto lens attached.

[outstar79]

People are certainly paranoid....I'm glad where I live the farmer's market loves and lets you take photos, mind you it's run by all the locals, so there is no management - and those locals are more than happy to even pose for you - crazy buggers! :D

[Lance B]

People are certainly paranoid....I'm glad where I live the farmer's market loves and lets you take photos, mind you it's run by all the locals, so there is no management - and those locals are more than happy to even pose for you - crazy buggers! :D

What you say here about the fact that there is no management is a very important one and one that actually gives a little insight into our modern society, and to a point, where the new jobs are being created. The problem is, once you install "rules", then you have to have people to enforce the rules and once you have these people to enforce these rules, then you have people trying to justify their jobs top make sure that their jobs are always there. So, what you then have is an entire industry set up to firstly make you scared of what can happen if you do not have these "rules" and then another industry put in place to enforce them.

So, we have scare mongering - read current affairs programs and much of the mainstream media and the like - then we have security cameras and secutiy guards put around justifying their jobs at every turn to make sure nobody breaks the rules. Is it in any of these people's interest to stop the scare mongering? No way. Whole industries set up to scare us and then others to protect us. I guess it keeps them all employed as who knows what jobs they'd have if they didn't scare us all.

Reminds me of the time of the bombings in London in 2005. Before the bombings, the authorities were concerned about people taking photos in underground railway stations and other public places etc for fear that they may be terrorists "casing" the places, but after the bombings they were asking the public if they had taken photos in these stations at the time so as they could help identify the culprits!! Unbelievable!!

What gets me about all this is that terrorists, or anyone up to no good, is hardly going to be going around brandishing the latest DSLR with big lenses bringing attention to themselves, they do it all covertly and discretely.

[Doktaduck]

I recall using that example when explaining copyright to my web design high school students. If I recall (and it was a few years ago and a bit hazy), it would be a breech of copyright to take a photo of the big M of a McDonalds if that was the prominent part of the photo (ie filled the frame), but if it was just one tiny part of a streetscape (think about photos of Times Square) then it was okay. The interesting discussion with the kids was about how grey areas worked... when did the sign stop being a copyright infringement and start becoming just part of the background.


I would just like to pluck the whole "can't take photo's of copyright/trademark material" out of the conversation and look at some of the law around this so newbs like me don't have to troll the legal sites to get a good definition, though doing so has been an enlightening subject for me :)

A good blog on the issue http://www.galvanilegal.com/reproduction-of-trademarks-in-photos

Basically everything comes down to "what you do with the image" as opposed to, can I take that photo.

For example, we can take a photo of a Coke sign, for the purpose of art, or to show to friends, family, flikr etc... without any issue at all.

Where things get legal is if we then use that image for commercial purposes. For instance, if we put the image on a postcard and sold that, then it is a breach of copyright (or trademark) as the buyer could reasonably think that Coke took the image themselves and made it into a postcard.

Also have to be careful if the copyrighted image is significant in an photograph to be used to advertise a product or service, as it can be interpreted that the company owning the trademark "endorses" the product or service you are selling... this is also a no-no.

Sources for those that want to read up:

Photographers rights - http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/
Another comprehensive overview - http://www.psq.org.au/Legalities.pdf
a good read, though not particular - http://www.privacy.vic.gov.au/privacy/web2.nsf/files/photography-and-privacy/$file/david_taylor_speech_13_04_07.pdf

A breif overview of some "rule" I've learnt:

There is no "right to privacy" in Australia.
You can take photos in public places of people doing ordinary things, without their express permission
It is NOT illegal in any way to take photos of architecture in Australia (avoiding the whole on private land etc..)
You ARE allowed to take photos of any artwork that is on public display, without breaching any legal issues. (though if on private property you can be "evicted")

You can't take illicit or rude photos of people generally, this includes up-skirting and down topping (this gives me an interesting image in my mind of a pervie with a DSLR complete with large lens trying to be "inconspicuous") , or anytime that the subject could be expected to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. ie. photograph of a women in a bikini on a Gold coast street is fair game, one on a secluded beach all alone can be "suspect". If the subject can be readily recognised its best to use a "model waiver" so you don't limit any future possibility of using the image.
You must "obey" a proprietors request if on private land (or on some council lands)
You must "obey" a police officers request to "move along"
You must "obey" a rangers request to "move along" or leave a national park.
Don't photograph military or sensitive instillations :)

How you use an image is more important than taking it. i.e. commercial purposes means that I intend to use the photograph to sell or advertise a product or service. Rules and obligations differ greatly depending on if I am a hobbyist or "semi/professional".

Commercial purposes does not come into effect just because I sell an image, though the subsequent use of that can. (i.e. selling the image as a wall hanging is not commercial, turning it into a billboard advertising a good or service is.)

Anyway , that seems to be what I've gotten from my reading, happy to be corrected on anything I've misunderstood.

[outstar79]

What you say here about the fact that there is no management is a very important one and one that actually gives a little insight into our modern society, and to a point, where the new jobs are being created. The problem is, once you install "rules", then you have to have people to enforce the rules and once you have these people to enforce these rules, then you have people trying to justify their jobs top make sure that their jobs are always there. So, what you then have is an entire industry set up to firstly make you scared of what can happen if you do not have these "rules" and then another industry put in place to enforce them.

Very true, which is why I'm glad we still sort of run on a "bartering" system down there - we have a very medieval approach! :D I love the idea of the old "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Our community lives by it and embrace it! Even to the point of, I'll rebuild my neighbours tractor engine because he's too old and short sighted and he'll cut my fire breaks in, and not manage to run through a fence! :D

[Lance B]

Very true, which is why I'm glad we still sort of run on a "bartering" system down there - we have a very medieval approach! :D I love the idea of the old "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Our community lives by it and embrace it! Even to the point of, I'll rebuild my neighbours tractor engine because he's too old and short sighted and he'll cut my fire breaks in, and not manage to run through a fence! :D

Sigh, and a way of life we seem to be missing these days. :(

In my neighbourhood, I am always the first to offer a lending hand to anyone who requires it. :)

[Wayne]

A breif overview of some "rule" I've learnt:



You must "obey" a police officers request to "move along"





Anyway , that seems to be what I've gotten from my reading, happy to be corrected on anything I've misunderstood.

Not true. Police must only give a lawful "Move On" directive.
They cannot lawfully give one because they feel like it, and you do not have to obey an unlawful directive.

The power comes from the (LEPRA) Law Enforcement (Powers & Responsibilities) act 2002, and;

The officer must believe, on reasonable grounds, that the person's conduct -

(a) is obstructing another person or persons or traffic, or
(b) constitutes harassment or intimidation of another person or persons, or
(c) is causing or likely to cause fear to another person or persons, so long as the relevant conduct would be such as to cause fear to a person of reasonable firmness, or
(d) is for the purpose of unlawfully supplying, or intending to unlawfully supply, or soliciting another person or persons to unlawfully supply, any prohibited drug, or
(e) is for the purpose of obtaining, procuring or purchasing any prohibited drug that it would be unlawful for the person to possess.

The belief in relation to (c) does not require proof that "another person" be present or that "another person" actually is present.

Under section 201 of the same Act the officer must supply his/her identification (eg a name or identity number).


Just to clarify for you.
I have 10 years in the job as a NSW police officer ;)

[Lance B]

You must "obey" a police officers request to "move along"
You must "obey" a rangers request to "move along" or leave a national park.


I see Wayne has replied about the police officer asking you to move along and what he says makes sense. However, are you sure about the (park) rangers as well? I would have thought that they need a good and valid reason as well, ie causing nuisance or doing something illegal as goes for the police officer's reasons for asking you to move on.

[alsocass]

Sigh, and a way of life we seem to be missing these days. :(

In my neighbourhood, I am always the first to offer a lending hand to anyone who requires it. :)

*sigh* That must be my problem. I live in a little suburban neighbourhood in which I know all my neighbours (both sides, behind me, three in front of me, and a couple more down the street). I often take my daughter for a walk to deliver excess veges, and they all know where we store our eggs and help themselves (and pay us for them when they get around to it).

I am not sufficiently hardened to the cold cruel world of the Farmer's Market :lol:

[Wayne]

I see Wayne has replied about the police officer asking you to move along and what he says makes sense. However, are you sure about the (park) rangers as well? I would have thought that they need a good and valid reason as well, ie causing nuisance or doing something illegal as goes for the police officer's reasons for asking you to move on.

NP's and the Ranger are considered same as a residence/owner, business premises/proprietor. Rangers are charged with looking after a prescribed "space" and can ask people to leave.

[extraball]

Took some photos last weekend of the general public, had the camera waist level, and I dont think I drew any attention. Managed to get some interesting shots, but I feel concerned about uploading them. I didn't get anyone's permission, and I don't want to face legalities doing so. If I cant show these pics, then they are pretty pointless shots I guess. Unsure :(

[Mark L]

........
Just to clarify for you.
I have 10 years in the job as a NSW police officer ;)

If ever a Police Officer gives me a "Move On" directive, I hope it's Wayne. :D

[Lance B]

NP's and the Ranger are considered same as a residence/owner, business premises/proprietor. Rangers are charged with looking after a prescribed "space" and can ask people to leave.

But surely, basically being a public place, even though it is a nationl park, that they still require a good reason, whereas a proprieter doesn't as that is his/her own property or one in which they have rented.

[Wayne]

It's a form of private nuisance that is actionable in Australia...if the act of taking photos disrupts or interferes with the occupier's use of their land, then prima facie an action can be sustained..e.g if you're on public land taking photos of a market and this is upsetting the stall owners, scaring away customers etc, then the PL has prima facie a cause of action. In real life would this happen? Probably not for trivial things like a market, this is more reserved for serious breaches... but can happen!

Some quite prominent case legislation to consider;
Victoria Park Racing V Taylor (1937) dealt with the issue of images taken from outside, further ABC V Lenah (2001)

Lance,

s4 Inclosed lands Protection Act 1901;
(1) Any person who, without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person), enters into inclosed lands without the consent of the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands, or who remains on those lands after being requested by the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands to leave those lands, is liable to a penalty not exceeding:
(a) 10 penalty units in the case of prescribed premises, or
(b) 5 penalty units in any other case.

Among other NPWS legislation.

[ricktas]

Took some photos last weekend of the general public, had the camera waist level, and I dont think I drew any attention. Managed to get some interesting shots, but I feel concerned about uploading them. I didn't get anyone's permission, and I don't want to face legalities doing so. If I cant show these pics, then they are pretty pointless shots I guess. Unsure :(

Of course you can, As long as you don't use the photos for commercial reasons, ie sell them to an advertising agency, you are free to display them. If taking photos without their permission was an issue, every CCTV and speed camera in Aus would be illegal. So go ahead. Also note that the legislation is not different for children as many would like you to believe. Children are not mentioned separately. Basically if you are in a public place in Australia, no matter what your age, you should expect to be photographed at any time.

[Lance B]

Some quite prominent case legislation to consider;
Victoria Park Racing V Taylor (1937) dealt with the issue of images taken from outside, further ABC V Lenah (2001)

Lance,

s4 Inclosed lands Protection Act 1901;
(1) Any person who, without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person), enters into inclosed lands without the consent of the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands, or who remains on those lands after being requested by the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands to leave those lands, is liable to a penalty not exceeding:
(a) 10 penalty units in the case of prescribed premises, or
(b) 5 penalty units in any other case.

Among other NPWS legislation.

Thank you for the info, but as I read it it seems to be intimatiing only those people who are there "without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person), enters into inclosed lands without the consent of the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands". So, anyone whom is there lawfully is ok, in otherwords, if I am in a National Park and have a permit or are there during normal hours of operation and I am not doing anything unlawful or being a nuisance, then they can't really throw me out.

[extraball]

Of course you can, As long as you don't use the photos for commercial reasons, ie sell them to an advertising agency, you are free to display them. If taking photos without their permission was an issue, every CCTV and speed camera in Aus would be illegal. So go ahead. Also note that the legislation is not different for children as many would like you to believe. Children are not mentioned separately. Basically if you are in a public place in Australia, no matter what your age, you should expect to be photographed at any time.

yes, I agree. Just seems to be a public perception, that people can not photograph without permission. Our cameras are noticed, and we provide a "face behind the lens", that security cameras mounted in/on buildings do not. I suppose the antics, or the way the media portray paparazzi isn't helping our image either. Heaven forbid we take photos of kids, and the reasoning behind it. I suggested to my wife, that I drop her to work on friday, and take pics of surfers at the beach. She didn't think it a good idea, thought I may upset them, and get myself into trouble. Surfers would be the last people to get upset, doubt they would even know, or care that I was there. Over-sensitive PC world that we live in.

[Xenedis]

yes, I agree. Just seems to be a public perception, that people can not photograph without permission.

As photographers we need to change that perception.

It's quite introguing how some ignorant, paranoid people in the street strongly object to the activities of a photographer with a DSLR, but don't seem to have an issue with walking down the main street of any city, where hundreds of security cameras will monitor their every move.



Over-sensitive PC world that we live in.

The other thing photographers need to do is stop carying what other people think about what we do.

Photography has existed before any of us was even born. It's only in the last decade that the proliferation of cameras has incited fear and terror in people, and I cannot honestly understand why. Sure, terrorists and perverts also use cameras, but like cameras, those kinds of people also existed well before any of us did.

What exactly has caused the fear and anti-photography stance many people have adopted? I honestly do not know.

Again, there's an overwhelming sense of irony in the fact that the people most opposed to being photographed seem to turn a blind eye to the fact that CCTV cameras exist just about everywhere these days. Yesterday afternoon I called into my vet's office, and while waiting, I looked at the ceiling in the reception area. I was surprised to discovered that there wasn't a camera present.

[alsocass]

It is hard to stop caring what other people think when 3minutes and 15seconds of snapping away is all it takes to attract a security guard.

But point taken. Maybe being obvious is a better thing.. Whack on a fluro vest and look official.

Surfers would love having photos taken.... Do you offer your contact info so that they can see the photos afterward? I took a fabulous photo this week and would love to give a copy to the people in it.

[Bear Dale]

It's quite introguing how some ignorant, paranoid people in the street strongly object to the activities of a photographer with a DSLR, but don't seem to have an issue with walking down the main street of any city, where hundreds of security cameras will monitor their every move.





Incredible isn't it!

[Xenedis]

It is hard to stop caring what other people think when 3minutes and 15seconds of snapping away is all it takes to attract a security guard.

As long as you know your rights (and responsibilities!) well, and you are not attempting to enhgage in photography contrary to what you're permitted to do (eg, shooting on private property where photography has been restricted or forbidden), no problem. Feel free to educate the security guard as to your rights.

Some security guards think they have more power than they do, and will try to insist upon something contrary to the reality of the situation.

At all times, remain calm and polite as you explain the reality of the situation.


Maybe being obvious is a better thing.. Whack on a fluro vest and look official.

I've been mistaken for a media photographer before, merely by having a large white lens. I stumbled across a film set in the city years ago, and someone (perhaps the director) saw me and said I could get my media card over there. I said thanks and moved along. :-)



Surfers would love having photos taken.... Do you offer your contact info so that they can see the photos afterward? I took a fabulous photo this week and would love to give a copy to the people in it.

I don't shoot surfers or other candids, but certainly it's a good idea to offer your subjects copies of the images. Sportspeople tend to like having nice photos of themselves in action.

[Doktaduck]

If ever a Police Officer gives me a "Move On" directive, I hope it's Wayne. :D

hehe, me too :)

As for Park Rangers, I really highlighted them due to the issue that Parks while on public land, can fall under those strange rules:

Some info taken from :

http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/park-management/applications,-licences-and-permits/filming-and-photography


Filming and photography plays an important role in encouraging awareness and appreciation of Victoria’s diverse network of parks.
A permit is required for professional, and some amateur, filming and photography in areas managed by Parks Victoria. Filming in state forests is managed by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and permits must be obtained from local DSE offices. Phone 136 186 to obtain local DSE office numbers.
Permits are required so filming and photography in parks is managed safely and responsibly. Parks Victoria places conditions on permits to minimise the impact on the park, park visitors, tenants and tour operators. An annual licence is available for landscape photographers who regularly photograph parks.
Who needs a permit?

Anyone professionally filming or photographing areas managed by Parks Victoria.
Student productions.
Filming and photography sponsored by Tourism Victoria (although no fee is charged).
Wedding and portrait photographers not already covered by an event permit.

Who doesn’t need a permit?

Amateur or hobby photographers.
People taking film or video for personal use.
News related media coverage of current affairs.
Small scale editorial photography (one photographer and assistant).



Park Rangers in Victoria at least fall under the category of "Authorised DSE officer" meaning that they can:

Direct you to leave a public safety zone ( SPLAs 14);
Seize and remove ‘abandoned goods’ (that is, property you have left unattended in a State Forest by section 95C of the FA. They can destroy the item if they think it is perishable, or dangerous;
Seize any item used or being used in the commission of an offence, although the officer must provide a receipt ( FAs 95F; SFTAs 88) and make reasonable efforts to return the item to its owner within 7 days, or after 90 days of its seizure the owner can apply for its return FAs 95G; and/or,
Start proceedings against you for committing certain offences in reserved forest ( FAs 78(2)).


However, other than the prescribed situations above, they really have no more power to arrest then any other citizen.
Your treatment of them will be placed under more scrutiny should any issues arise.

It is an offence to threaten or abuse an authorised DSE officer exercising their duties or powers under the SFTA (s87) or the FA (s96B). It is an also an offence to hinder or obstruct, without reasonable excuse, an authorised DSE officer carrying out their duties or powers under the SFTA (s86) , FA (s96A) or the SPLA (s20). If you commit any of these offences, you can be fined up to around $7,400.
It is an offence to hinder or obstruct an authorised Council officer performing their duties, with a maximum fine of around $7,300 under the LGA (s224(8).


Overall though, be nice, have fun with your photography, know what you do is OK.

[Wayne]

Thank you for the info, but as I read it it seems to be intimatiing only those people who are there "without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person), enters into inclosed lands without the consent of the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands". So, anyone whom is there lawfully is ok, in otherwords, if I am in a National Park and have a permit or are there during normal hours of operation and I am not doing anything unlawful or being a nuisance, then they can't really throw me out.

Lance, being upon those lands with lawful excuse is fine, the issue arises when;

(1) Any person - who remains on those lands after being requested by the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands to leave those lands, is liable to a penalty.

The person in charge of those lands is under no obligation to establish grounds for requiring a person to leave, in contrast to a police "move-on" directive that must meet certain criteria for it to be enforced.
I can assure you without doubt that if a NPWS Ranger asks you to leave for any reason and you refuse, if police are involved, you will almost certainly find yourself either in the truck or walking away with a CAN (Court Attendance Notice).

If you were asked to leave for no apparent reason, yet others present were not and you refused to leave, that would not be a defence to the charge of trespass, remain on inclosed lands etc, however you may be able to seek relief for being treated differently to others under alternate legislation.

[aussie girl]

Unfortunately, we live in a very strange world. Gone are the days when people just took photos, now it is assumed that you are a pedophile stalking kids, or that you are out to take photographic evidence that someone is selling dodgy copyright infringing products so that you can dob them in. And as for farmers markets, what is determined as public and what isn't?? In the next town they regularly hold a farmers market on every second Saturday, and they also have a Quarry market every third Saturday (or something like that) The farmer's market is held on the footpath in front of the local pub and shops. The Quarry market is held across the road at an oval. I would expect that the oval is a public area, but owned by a club or the council. The footpath, I would assume is public space and although owned by the council, it IS a public space, so would that mean that I could take photos at the farmer's market, on the footpath, but may be restricted if I took photos within the oval area.

[Mark L]

Cass, just make yourself aware of the particular markets T&C.
I think sometimes us photographers get a little paranoid. The occasional problem is rightly highlighted. But how many times have you all been out taking photos and not had a problem? Nothing to highlight there.
For a recent 2013 AP members challenge I thought of a photo opportunity in a local chemist. I walked in (with my DSLR) and ask if I could take a photo. I explained why, and the bossman thought about it for five seconds and said "Go ahead, thanks for asking, you could have just done if with a camera in your phone without asking anyway."

[Xenedis]

The farmer's market is held on the footpath in front of the local pub and shops. The Quarry market is held across the road at an oval. I would expect that the oval is a public area, but owned by a club or the council. The footpath, I would assume is public space and although owned by the council, it IS a public space, so would that mean that I could take photos at the farmer's market, on the footpath, but may be restricted if I took photos within the oval area.

Unfortunately it's seemingly becoming more difficult to ascertain what is a public space in which photography is allowed -- or more pertinently, where it is not specifically forbidden or otherwise regulated beyond behaviour which is covered by other legislation (eg, privacy, harassment, tresspass, etc.)

Did you know what you cannot photograph Bondi Beach without a permit?

In 2006, Rex Dupain, son of the famous photographer Max Dupain, landed himself in a spot of bother with the police while photographing on Bondi Beach.

See http://www.news.com.au/national-old/dupain-beach-snaps-draw-police-attention/story-e6frfkwi-1111112657332 for more.

Getting back to the markets held in public streets of major cities, while some stall holders display 'no photography' signs, when they are operating in a public place, do they have any right not to be photographed? According to the law, and according to my own view, no; but is a city street still considered a public place when it has been reconfigured to host a market? It's hard to say knowing what bi-laws and such exist, or whether the street's status as a 'public' street has been temporarily changed by a council due to some sort of hire arrangement or suchlike.

With the photography in which I engage, I am fairly lucky, in that I photograph mostly natural scenes at quiet times when the only other people I'm likely to encounter are other photographers doing the same thing; and even if there are other people around, I'm specifically avoiding having them in my frame. I shoot portraits, too, but the subjects want to be photographed and are posing specifically for my lens.

Despite personally being largely unaffected, it still bothers me immensely that do-gooders are in force trying to restrict or ban legitimate photography, and that there is such an abundance of ignorance and paranoia about photography and the intentions of legitimate photographers. If it's not that, there's a money element, in that the fools assume that if we have 'professional-looking' cameras, we must be commercial enterprises making a buck, in which case the council/proprietor wants its cut too.

As I mentioned earlier, the 'antis' are the same people who go into 'public' places that are under constant surveillance by security cameras, yet they willingly enter that domain without raising any objections.

[coolie21]

I had a brilliant time a couple of years ago being the 'official' photographer for my sons soccer team, so that the other parents could have a record of their kids endeavours. I went a season and a half, and then I had an opposition parent complain once during a game, and that killed it for me. Whether you have the right or not, the fact other people see what you are doing as sinister, no matter how much you have the right to do what you are doing and the agreement and consent of the majority, you just end up feeling sick. Sad.

[Wayne]

Unfortunately it's seemingly becoming more difficult to ascertain what is a public space in which photography is allowed -- or more pertinently, where it is not specifically forbidden or otherwise regulated beyond behaviour which is covered by other legislation (eg, privacy, harassment, tresspass, etc.)

Did you know what you cannot photograph Bondi Beach without a permit?



Not quite..

Commercial entities or productions created with a commercial intent require a permit. Photography taken for private and/or domestic purposes don't. I have defeated Waverley Council and Bondi police on a number of occasions where some Rangers thought I couldn't be using my camera as I didnt hold a permit. I had this confrontation for the 3rd time during the Boost Surfsho(sic) in 2010 on Bondi.
Imagine for a moment how many beachgoers, tourists etc take photos on the sand of Bondi on any given day. Impossible to enforce for non-commercial activities as they would be discriminating with every infringement.

[ricktas]

Unfortunately, we live in a very strange world. Gone are the days when people just took photos, now it is assumed that you are a pedophile stalking kids, or that you are out to take photographic evidence that someone is selling dodgy copyright infringing products so that you can dob them in. And as for farmers markets, what is determined as public and what isn't?? In the next town they regularly hold a farmers market on every second Saturday, and they also have a Quarry market every third Saturday (or something like that) The farmer's market is held on the footpath in front of the local pub and shops. The Quarry market is held across the road at an oval. I would expect that the oval is a public area, but owned by a club or the council. The footpath, I would assume is public space and although owned by the council, it IS a public space, so would that mean that I could take photos at the farmer's market, on the footpath, but may be restricted if I took photos within the oval area.

And that is where the issue lies for us photographers. How do we know what land is public and what is not? Even footpaths are not public lands at times. You will find that quite often what appears to be a public footpath is actually private land owned by the persons/company who own the shops nearby etc. There is not a sign saying 'this is private land' next to these publicly accessible open spaces, so how are we to know, unless we waste our time going to the local Council and finding out. Who does that?

and even then, what can be public land can have by-laws relating to photography.

http://www.hobartcity.com.au/Council/Fees_and_Charges/Parks_and_Gardens_and_Bushland_Reserves
Look down the list to commercial photography. The council list a fee rate for commercial photography, but do not specify what they would determine is commercial. So photographer, big camera, oh lets assume they are commercial and ask them to stop.

A confusing minefield of laws, by-laws, and peoples inaccurate beliefs all converge to create a confusing matter that photographers find themselves up against, for no real valid reason.

[Xenedis]

Commercial entities or productions created with a commercial intent require a permit. Photography taken for private and/or domestic purposes don't. I have defeated Waverley Council and Bondi police on a number of occasions where some Rangers thought I couldn't be using my camera as I didnt hold a permit. I had this confrontation for the 3rd time during the Boost Surfsho(sic) in 2010 on Bondi.

Glad to hear that the restriction isn't applicable to all photography.

If someone spotted you with an iPhone or a P&S, you'd probably go unnoticed; but rock up with a tripd and a DSLR, and you'll immediately fall under suspicion.



Imagine for a moment how many beachgoers, tourists etc take photos on the sand of Bondi on any given day. Impossible to enforce for non-commercial activities as they would be discriminating with every infringement.

Of course. Even if the council did forbid photography, good luck enforcing it.

[Doktaduck]

It's not always "photographer be damned" though,

recently the local basketball stadium has put up a sign saying that photography IS allowed and as a condition of entry you or the players might be photographed.

This makes me smile :)

[Wayne]

Just to clarify the position of Waverley Council, the body responsible for Bondi Beach hasn't changed since my last discussion with them, I sent off an email, text quoted below.


"Hello,

I am a recreational photographer who is looking to take some images at Bondi Beach. I have heard from a number of people that Waverley Council require people to hold a permit for photography in the beach precinct.

I am not taking images in a commercial capacity, merely for my own albums and wanted to clarify the requirement for a permit for non-commercial photography.

Can you please confirm what the requirements are, as it would seem very strange for people taking personal photos to be required to hold a permit as on any given day on Bondi Beach, there would literally be thousands of people, tourists etc with iPhones etc taking photos.

Thank you,

Wayne xxxxxxxxx"

Reply from Waverley Council today;

"JodieW@waverley.nsw.gov.au
2:56 PM (5 hours ago)

Hi Wayne,

A permit is not needed for non commercial use.

Regards,

Jodie Walker
Project Officer, Place Management (commercial centres)
Tel: 8362 3406
Fax: 8362 3430
Email: projectofficerbb@waverley.nsw.gov.au
Website: www.waverley.nsw.gov.au"

So snap away for personal reasons until your heart is content.

[Xenedis]

Wayne,

Thanks for seeking clarification on that issue.

I'd print that email and carry it with you, as there's bound to be some rent-a-cop who'll see your 'professional-looking' camera and challenge you.

[Wayne]

Wayne,

Thanks for seeking clarification on that issue.

I'd print that email and carry it with you, as there's bound to be some rent-a-cop who'll see your 'professional-looking' camera and challenge you.

I agree there are plenty of rent-a-cops who see a big lens or big camera and without a second thought think commercial user, which is silly of them. I'm pretty well known to Council, along with my barrister. We have had the discussion and been down that road with them a couple of times. :)

Happy to forward it to you John if you would like to keep a copy?

[Xenedis]

I agree there are plenty of rent-a-cops who see a big lens or big camera and without a second thought think commercial user, which is silly of them. I'm pretty well known to Council, along with my barrister.

Heh; should the council be concerned? :-)


Happy to forward it to you John if you would like to keep a copy?

Very much so -- thanks! I've PMd you my details.