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/information/art-design/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/legalinformation/StreetPhotographersRights.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Note: Due to ever changing legislation, the information provided in the links contained in this thread may be out of date.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 (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/misc.php?do=cfrules)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/legalinformation/StreetPhotographersRights.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/debate-on-photography-in-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/the_arts/features/draft_children_in_art_protocols_available_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/photographers-rights-and-citizen-journalism-a-collection-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/story/0,23739,24844476-952,00.html
http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/index.blog/1841828/nsw-police-force-ramp-up-secrecy-says-news-corp-civil-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)

[Xenedis]

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.

All a security guard can do is ask you to leave private premises.

It's worth carrying a print-out of Andrew Nemeth's cheat-sheet on NSW photographers' rights. That way, ignorant fools can be educated.


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 ??

You'd have to make a judgment call based on the situation.

But really, photographers, who are pursuing an inoffensive, perfectly legal and socially acceptable recreational activity, should not be hounded by ignoramii and made to feel like predators and criminals.

The more we bend over to the ignorant masses and cop it, the less freedoms we will have.

[damnameany]

I would refuse initially to move on by the police if I was in my legal right to be there and to take the shot. Pointing the above out and saying that to satisfy someone else they are infringing on my rights to do what I am doing. Of course if this does not work move you will lose. First asking for the officers name and badge number (in the UK the police legally have to give this if asked) and then writing to the relevant person of my dissatisfaction in the handling by the police. And when this is sorted via letters go back and take the shot taking said letters with me in case of reoccurrence of the problem.

[ricktas]

I would refuse initially to move on by the police if I was in my legal right to be there and to take the shot. Pointing the above out and saying that to satisfy someone else they are infringing on my rights to do what I am doing. Of course if this does not work move you will lose. First asking for the officers name and badge number (in the UK the police legally have to give this if asked) and then writing to the relevant person of my dissatisfaction in the handling by the police. And when this is sorted via letters go back and take the shot taking said letters with me in case of reoccurrence of the problem.

And by refusing to move initially you are them breaking the law. Failure to undertake the direction of a police officer, ring any bells?

[damnameany]

Very true ricktas but I would expect comment sense to prevail in that I am not being stroppy or aggressive just pointing out that what I am doing is not illegal. If they still insist that I move on then I would. As I said the police win and more important they are just doing their job as they see it. Something I do not have any form of problem with and respect the difficult job that they do.

[Longshots]

Sorry Damnameany, but you would be entirely in the wrong. Although you dont think you would be being stroppy, almost every policeman, authorised secturity guard (employed to enforce terms and conditions of entry of private premises/locations - which often appear as public but are not) arguing with a security guard will guarantee a discussion with a policeman, and if you ignore what they tell you, and I can assure you it will be brief, then you are highly likely to escalate the issue. Let me assure you as an exPom, that the police in Australia have far less interest in listening to you and a print out of from albeit a well respected person who has a legal background, (he is I believe no longer practising), would be highly inflammable to the problem. Plus I've yet to see a policeman or security guard respond with a similar document :)

In some cases, despite what you think about a freedom to photograph any where you like, it is actually illegal, depending on where you are. Why not have a chat with Ken Duncan who is the head of a lobbying group to try to resist the ever increasing restrictions applied to photography across Australia. A public place or assumed public place is not always somewhere where you can do want you want. Quite simply if you are asked to move on, then you have to do so, and that is the same in London and Sydney - as a Pro shooting in both cities I've experienced exactly the same.

Personally I think its hugely unwise to try and pull out a printed section of one's rights to photograph. Sure it annoys the crap out of me to experience being moved on, but once I've been asked, I will politely point out that I have a right to do what I do, and then I will obey the directions given to me, because it is quite simply not worth the grief.

[rellik666]

Just something for VIC rail, thought it may be useful as I heard that you can't shoot at Spencer St station, Metro Rules (http://www.metrotrains.com.au/Media/docs/Rail%20Enthusiasts%20&%20Amateur%20Policy%20and%20Guidelines-4c21a371-8c7d-4ecc-b3b2-e2141253adf2-0.pdf)

[MattHylton]

I'm with Longshots I have many a time been asked what I am doing late at night with my camera. But I always pack up and come back again another time.

[JohnRA]

........ But this subject is foremost in the minds of those who use a camera in public places.
If this thread has been posted previously I'm sure the Moderators will respond.
It would do no harm to carry a print out of this information in the camera bag.

http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinformation/StreetPhotographersRights.asp

[maccaroneski]

I think that's been posted in the sticky thread at the top of this forum regarding police and photographers' rights, but it does bear repeating.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=24730

[ricktas]

Yeah, that link gets posted on the site every few months. Doesn't hurt to bring it back to current discussions on occasions though

[Darvidanoar]

........ But this subject is foremost in the minds of those who use a camera in public places.
If this thread has been posted previously I'm sure the Moderators will respond.
It would do no harm to carry a print out of this information in the camera bag.

http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinformation/StreetPhotographersRights.asp

Have you had a recent experience that has brought this to mind? Care to share, John?

[Kym]

I just merged and moved this thread (it was in The Business of Photography) - its a general issue that comes up regularly.

[Kym]

Maybe for the Birds... http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1354b.html

[djmoonlight]

Thanks for sharing a relevant information, including links, that relate to the Rights of Photographers, Copyright issues etc.

[ricktas]

Thanks for sharing a relevant information, including links, that relate to the Rights of Photographers, Copyright issues etc.

Remember that Copyright legislation and photographers rights are country and even state based, so with you being in the USA, some of what is discussed here will may not be valid.

[farmer_rob]

The UK government appears to want to ban photographers from taking shots of people who don't want to be in the photo. (UK Gov nationalises orphans and bans non-consensual photography in public (http://www.copyrightaction.com/forum/uk-gov-nationalises-orphans-and-bans-non-consensual-photography-in-public?page=1))

It's a longish piece, but the bit that scares me is towards the end:


The ICO code : put that camera away, my face is private

Not content with abrogating photographers' copyright, another part of Government is now going some way to ban photography altogether in public places, for data protection reasons. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) proposed new code for personal information online has "commonsense" new rules that in effect will prohibit photography in public places where anyone who's in the photograph might be unhappy about being photographed. A photo, taken in public, is now deemed private data, y'see.

A bit more detail is available here: The ICO and Photography in public places : clarification (http://www.copyrightaction.com/node/314/390#comment-390)

I hope we don't get such insanity here :action:

[I @ M]

It's a longish piece, but the bit that scares me is towards the end:

Longish is a conservative summation, scary is a very succinct epilogue.


I hope we don't get such insanity here :action:

Unfortunately the electorate of this country have far too many times been seen to believe the spin adopted by the local bureaucrats from ideas that sounded "good at the time" (with a definite purpose in mind) generated in the halls of power in the UK and US.

[mcdesign]

That is going to make it hard for News Photographers etc.

[dbax]

I reckon Andrew's on the money, its the ballot box that matters.

[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.

[Satine]

Thanks for the links, some interesting reading!! There is a discussion going on at the moment about a photographer setting up a photo and then someone taking a photo over their shoulder and then selling the image.

It will be intersting to see where the photographers rights with regard to this issue are upheld in these documents, I think it's just plain polite not to do it, but apparently it still happens.

[Outlaw]

I will add something here ,I was asked to take photos of a friends daughter at a pony club where there was a photographer taking photos to sell.I was approached by some woman yelling at me to leave the grounds as there was an official tog and i was not aloud to take photos .I explained I was taking photos for a friend .The woman was so nasty she even started on my daughter who was there with me when I went to let my friend know I was told to leave the grounds.My daughter told me the woman would not leave her alone yelling at her ...funny thing my daughter had a can of drink in her hand she told the woman to get out of her face so many times... well to cut it short the woman wore the can of drink in her face, not the can just the drink...anyway we left the ground ...I had no intension in selling the photos ..can this be done .Also if I am booked to do a stud shoot at a horse show and there is a official tog there is there a law against me taking photos there ?

[ricktas]

I will add something here ,I was asked to take photos of a friends daughter at a pony club where there was a photographer taking photos to sell.I was approached by some woman yelling at me to leave the grounds as there was an official tog and i was not aloud to take photos .I explained I was taking photos for a friend .The woman was so nasty she even started on my daughter who was there with me when I went to let my friend know I was told to leave the grounds.My daughter told me the woman would not leave her alone yelling at her ...funny thing my daughter had a can of drink in her hand she told the woman to get out of her face so many times... well to cut it short the woman wore the can of drink in her face, not the can just the drink...anyway we left the ground ...I had no intension in selling the photos ..can this be done .Also if I am booked to do a stud shoot at a horse show and there is a official tog there is there a law against me taking photos there ?

I assume the pony club is on private land? If so, you need the permission of the land owner (or leaser) to take photos on their land. Even if your friend who wanted the photos taken was a member of the pony club, she doesn't have the authority to give you permission. You should have found out who was in charge and asked permission first.

But... The reaction of the other woman is extreme and she deserved the drink in her face. If she had approached you in a polite and concerned manner, questioning what you were doing, rather than the yelling and ranting you describe, the conversation would probably have divulged what I said in my first paragraph. Some people just deserve an attitude adjustment, and she was sitting first in the queue.

[Outlaw]

Pony Clubs are held on council grounds not private ground so isnt that public place.There was also other ppl taking photos that same day but they were not asked to leave ...would it be because of the look of my camera do you think...

[ricktas]

Pony Clubs are held on council grounds not private ground so isnt that public place.There was also other ppl taking photos that same day but they were not asked to leave ...would it be because of the look of my camera do you think...

Depends on the contract for use between the Council and the Pony Club. The only way you will find out is to talk to the Council and the person who runs the pony club (be that the President of a committee or a single person who instigated the club). Definitely a DSLR will attract more attention than a point and shoot

[Outlaw]

Ok thanks for that info...I will do that ASAP...

[kiwi]

The ranting women was wrong.

However, I am often contracted as the "official" photographer for events, and as part of my arrangement I make it absolutely clear that I am the only one that will be selling photos to the participants.

If there happens to be anopther photographer there (outside of an obvious parent with a P&S) I will definately ask the event organiser to go and find out what that person is doing.

The reason ? Well, it's happened to me that Ive worked a whole event, and hardly made a sale as good ole Uncle Bob has taken photos and freely handed out CD's for free.

[MarkChap]

Now I am just guessing here, but the ranting woman.

Was she the wife of the official photographer ??

Yes you need permission, but not just anybody can really ask you to leave, that again would be the role of the event organiser.

[Outlaw]

I was not taking the photos to sell them it was for a long time friend of her daughter ...I often go to horse events to take photos for practice but if I have them on display and the person who owns the horse spots their horse and likes the photo and wants to buy it well i sell it to them as not everyone takes the same photos and ppl get sick of the same old shots with the horse standing in the same way ...I have been told that at a horse event if you are not in the arena where the show is no one can stop you from taking photos... am I right ...Ok so what is a freelance photographer ?The more info on this the better ...

[kiwi]

The point is that the official photographer is the one that invests time and money into estbalishing a reputation, link with the club, the website, etc etc etc etc.....

So, yes you are doing exactly what I will not put up with - taking pics and selling to participants. I would be having you chucked out too.

Re the legality of you taking photos - if it's a public event on public land do what you want - but I will still harass you, complain to the event organiser, and have it made very difficult for you. Id actually ask that the official remove your horse/daughter etc from the event too.

I am protecting my investment and income

But that's me, some are nastier

[MarkW]

The point is that the official photographer is the one that invests time and money into estbalishing a reputation, link with the club, the website, etc etc etc etc.....

So, yes you are doing exactly what I will not put up with - taking pics and selling to participants. I would be having you chucked out too.

Re the legality of you taking photos - if it's a public event on public land do what you want - but I will still harass you, complain to the event organiser, and have it made very difficult for you. Id actually ask that the official remove your horse/daughter etc from the event too.

I am protecting my investment and income

But that's me, some are nastier

Kiwi
Does your "contract" with the event organiser and/or property owner actually have exclusivity written into it, or is this some verbal addage. To claim an exclusive right, the person signing the contract must be sufficiently authorisied to do so and then that right must be displayed through the terms and conditions of entry for all persons including participants. This is why motor racing terms and conditions (the only true sport :D) go really messy with its T&Cs. Without the exclusivity clause, you might be summonsed by restraint of trade.

[Outlaw]

I have had it done to me (by what use to be a friend )and spent time and money setting up as well but who gives a .... as said all photographers take different shots and that's what ppl like different...there is such things in law as harassment ...anyone can take photos ...that would be like going to the sporting game where you take photos I bet there is a lot there taking photos ...you would be busy hunting ppl out so you would not get many photos don't you think...anyway i am over this topic ...there has always got to be one in the bunch...I thought I got away from all the nasty's but looks to me like its here as well...

[kiwi]

Kiwi
Does your "contract" with the event organiser and/or property owner actually have exclusivity written into it, or is this some verbal addage. To claim an exclusive right, the person signing the contract must be sufficiently authorisied to do so and then that right must be displayed through the terms and conditions of entry for all persons including participants. This is why motor racing terms and conditions (the only true sport :D) go really messy with its T&Cs. Without the exclusivity clause, you might be summonsed by restraint of trade.

My "contract" or written agreement with the event organisers does say that I claim exclusivity. The T&C, or ticket conditions (if in fact there are any, usually not) rarely mention anything apart from that I am the official event photographer and to buy stuff off me. Im aware of the potential restraint of trade issue.

[kiwi]

I have had it done to me (by what use to be a friend )and spent time and money setting up as well but who gives a .... as said all photographers take different shots and that's what ppl like different...there is such things in law as harassment ...anyone can take photos ...that would be like going to the sporting game where you take photos I bet there is a lot there taking photos ...you would be busy hunting ppl out so you would not get many photos don't you think...anyway i am over this topic ...there has always got to be one in the bunch...I thought I got away from all the nasty's but looks to me like its here as well...

Im not being a nasty, im just saying that where I am the event photographer and trying to earn a living (or at least cover my costs) then I expect other photographers to respect that. Wouldn't you in the same position - obviolusly not?

Put yourself in my shoes, how would you like if Aunty Daisy came and took 1000's of pics and then freely handed them out or even worse sold them to all the entrants ? Like it or not it is taking money out of your pocket when this happens

I do photos at pro events, there are 100's in the crowds with cameras. What they are not supposed to do (according to the ticket conditions) is to sell those photos or use them commercially or even to publish them

[farmer_rob]

I don't think Kiwi is being nasty - just defending his patch as a pro photographer. You've already run into the real nasty - the screaming woman at the pony club, who was totally out of order, and totally unprofessional.

However, you only have rights to take photos from public land. The pony club will have a lease agreement with the council or whoever, and has free rein (excuse the pun:)) to restrict who can take photos. But unless the woman was a pony club official, she had no right to attack you IMO. I think your approach should have been to the head of the pony club - ideally before the event - but especially in the face of harassment from the screaming woman.

(Disclaimer: IANAL, but have responsibility for two sporting events.)

[Outlaw]

The lady I was taking the photos for was one of the ground officials and with one of the judges...as you said if she had of asked nicley i would have put my camera away...but we left the ground anyway so no more nastys would happen ...I got the photos:kewl: for my friend and thats what I went for ...Now you know how i got my name OUTLAW ...lol its also my horse stud name;) ...

[ricktas]

I feel we are getting a one-sided story here. We have not found out if the Pony Club has an official photographer, what that agreement is, and what the conditions of them using the public land are. I tend to agree with Kiwi at present on the information provided to us.

Outlaw, consider this the other way round. YOU have a contract to be the exclusive photographer for an event (what that event is doesn't matter), then I turn up and start taking photos and undercutting your price. How would you feel/react to me presence?

As per my posts earlier today, until we are given ALL the facts surrounding this, no-one on AP or elsewhere is in a position to give a definitive answer.

[farmer_rob]

I think the issue has a number of facets:

1) Public land or not? Is the pony club within its rights controlling access? (I suspect yes.)

2) Competing sales. Is Outlaw selling his photos? (He Indicated he did in one post, which appeared to rile Kiwi, although it appears not for this event.)

3) Behaviour of the shouting woman. Why does she think she has the right to tell Outlaw what to do? On face value, her behaviour was not appropriate.

4) Position of the Pony Club. Did they make an exclusive arrangement? Had they conveyed to members and parents that photography was restricted in some way?

I have dealt with pony clubs in the past (as a parent of participants - not a photographer) and the memories make me shudder - in my experience, pony clubs have a substantial proportion of petty rule-driven martinets, who gravitate to positions of power. I recently had to meet someone at the local pony club for completely non-horse reasons, and it still made me twitch to go there :crzy:.

[Outlaw]

I think the issue has a number of facets:

1) Public land or not? Is the pony club within its rights controlling access? (I suspect yes.)

2) Competing sales. Is Outlaw selling his photos? (He Indicated he did in one post, which appeared to rile Kiwi, although it appears not for this event.)

3) Behaviour of the shouting woman. Why does she think she has the right to tell Outlaw what to do? On face value, her behaviour was not appropriate.

4) Position of the Pony Club. Did they make an exclusive arrangement? Had they conveyed to members and parents that photography was restricted in some way?

I have dealt with pony clubs in the past (as a parent of participants - not a photographer) and the memories make me shudder - in my experience, pony clubs have a substantial proportion of petty rule-driven martinets, who gravitate to positions of power. I recently had to meet someone at the local pony club for completely non-horse reasons, and it still made me twitch to go there :crzy:.

To put things straight I am a she a great grandma at that:D

You are right I WAS NOT SELLING PHOTOS from that PC .

I have been official at PC`s and one phototog that I was helping I let her come along to learn how to take equine action, she knew I was official there but she put ALL her images on her site for sale but it did not bother me at all (Not Greedy)...as I have said before everyone takes different shots and in my yrs of photography I have learnt that ppl like a different
I have never said I am a pro and never will as IMO no one is as we are still all learning
I do not boast on my work as I do not have a big ego .
I do what I do and love doing what I do .
I am not a nasty nanny tog by any means :D... I respect others and if I don't have a nice thing to say about ppls photos I don't say anything (1 exception on the stairs Bike photo as that was not nice:eek:)but was not his capture anyway..
I respect others so expect to be respected back ..;)

[farmer_rob]

To put things straight I am a she a great grandma at that:D...

My apologies - a quick skim last night didn't indicate gender, so I guessed :o.

[Outlaw]

no problem...I gues most of the ppl that take photos are men .

[kiwi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612575.stm

[MarkW]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612575.stm

There's nothing worse to a Greek than calling him a Turk - what an insult :eek:

[farmer_rob]

I think it would be illegal in Australia if he hadn't signed a model release, as I believe it is a commercial use. I'd be surprised if Sweden doesn't have something similar - so either the photographer or the stock photo agency slipped up, or the bloke didn't realise he'd signed his rights away. The cross border issues involved here are a bit messy though.

(I'm guessing he is wearing traditional costume, so the pot is probably offending turks as well as the greeks!)

[Shane.R]

I think it would be illegal in Australia if he hadn't signed a model release, as I believe it is a commercial use. I'd be surprised if Sweden doesn't have something similar - so either the photographer or the stock photo agency slipped up, or the bloke didn't realise he'd signed his rights away. The cross border issues involved here are a bit messy though.

(I'm guessing he is wearing traditional costume, so the pot is probably offending turks as well as the greeks!)


Fair dinkum, that yoghurt company deserves to be sued. Buying a stock photo for the face of their product! How cheap are they? Do it professionally! Damn, anyone could land their face on toilet paper :eek:

[Kym]

Just for interest http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2010/04/articles/copyright/in-assessing-employee-status-in-copyright-ownership-disputes-technology-startups-are-a-special-case-says-the-ninth-circuit/
Ok, its about software development (my game) but the copy principle is basically the same.

[maccaroneski]

I think it would be illegal in Australia if he hadn't signed a model release, as I believe it is a commercial use. I'd be surprised if Sweden doesn't have something similar - so either the photographer or the stock photo agency slipped up, or the bloke didn't realise he'd signed his rights away. The cross border issues involved here are a bit messy though.


Rob I think that you're right - but for a wrong reason. It wasn't the commercial use aspect that would see them in hot water here, but rather, the misleading aspect.

There is no settled law at the moment in Australia that says you can't take an image and use it"commercially" without a model release. The closest that we have are the laws around misleading and deceptive conduct, defamation type laws (I know both Greeks and Turks and either would consider their reputations damaged if you called advertised them as the other), or finally passing off type laws (e.g. if you took an image of Say Ian Turpie, a well known product endorser, and used it to promote something else suggesting that hehad endorsed it).

Of course as I've said before "you don't want to be the test case", so "better safe than sorry" probably applies vis a vis model releases.

[Outlaw]

I have a Q here can my photos be used in a mag without giving me the photo credit ?What law is on this ?

[Xenedis]

I have a Q here can my photos be used in a mag without giving me the photo credit ?What law is on this ?

In Australia, any intellectual property (eg, photo) you create is automatically copyrighted.

There are some exceptions, such as when you're producing IP for an employer, or where an agreement otherwise states that copyright is transferred to another party.

The bottom line is that a magazine cannot use your images without permission if they are copyrighted. If you have granted a creative commons license or some other license which allows other people to do various things with your image, then there'd be an exception.

By default, copyright is yours.

[Scotty72]

Depends on the contract for use between the Council and the Pony Club. The only way you will find out is to talk to the Council and the person who runs the pony club (be that the President of a committee or a single person who instigated the club). Definitely a DSLR will attract more attention than a point and shoot

A friend with some experience in Council matters has suggested (but I have never tried) that if you are approached in such circumstances to stop (we have hired out the council field), ask them to establish that they have permission to determine who is and isn't allowed to be there.

A general rule of thumb

Eg. if a group (eg a dog club) hires out a corner of the park, they have no authority to exclude others from that park (but may ask you to not go within their area (usually roped off). By extension, if you are standing 2 inches from their rope pointing your lens if their direction - too bad for them.

If the whole park is fenced off and you need to enter via a gate etc. then, generally they will have the authority to stop you entering - but shoot through the fence. :)

As for disobeying a police direction... Please don't forget the words (in NSW at least) REASONABLE and LAWFUL in regards to the directions the cops may issue.

So, being ordered off a public park for no other reason than your possession of a camera - would seem utterly unreasonable and worth a phone call to the Ombudsman etc.



Scotty

[Outlaw]

In Australia, any intellectual property (eg, photo) you create is automatically copyrighted.

There are some exceptions, such as when you're producing IP for an employer, or where an agreement otherwise states that copyright is transferred to another party.

The bottom line is that a magazine cannot use your images without permission if they are copyrighted. If you have granted a creative commons license or some other license which allows other people to do various things with your image, then there'd be an exception.

By default, copyright is yours.

I took the photos for a couple of their feral ute that they needed for the mag and they were told if they use them in the mag or anywhere else that photo credit was to be given to me...
I bought the mag (Downunder)and my photos were used but with no photo credit to me at all...

Scotty nothing to do with PC ...I cant even be bothered with the PC`s anylonger ...wast of time ...

[ricktas]

I took the photos for a couple of their feral ute that they needed for the mag and they were told if they use them in the mag or anywhere else that photo credit was to be given to me...
I bought the mag (Downunder)and my photos were used but with no photo credit to me at all...

Scotty nothing to do with PC ...I cant even be bothered with the PC`s anylonger ...wast of time ...

You need to make sure you get information/clauses like this in writing. Being told it verbally is one thing, but if it is written, then you have recourse.

[Outlaw]

You need to make sure you get information/clauses like this in writing. Being told it verbally is one thing, but if it is written, then you have recourse.

ok thanks...

[Jube]

You need to make sure you get information/clauses like this in writing. Being told it verbally is one thing, but if it is written, then you have recourse.
I agree with Ricktas that in future it is best to make sure you get it in writing. It is surprising that the publisher did not get written authority from you and sort out an appropriate credit with you before publishing your photo in the mag.

However, Ricktas is not quite right in stating that you only have recourse if you have agreement re a credit if you get that in writing. There are two issues - one is ownership of copyright, which means the exclusive right to reproduce (copy), publish (print in a mag), communicate (make available online) your photograph. Based on what you have said, it sounds like you gave permission (albeit verbally) so there wasn't really an infringement of your copyright (I don't know the full facts so I am just basing this on what you have posted).

The other issue about not being given credit for your photo is an infringement of your moral rights - your right to attribution of authorship. This is covered by another part of the Copyright Act and relates to the right to be named as author and the right to integrity of your work. This exists separately to whether you have licensed or even assigned your copyright.

Hope that all makes sense.

[Longshots]

I agree with Ricktas that in future it is best to make sure you get it in writing. It is surprising that the publisher did not get written authority from you and sort out an appropriate credit with you before publishing your photo in the mag.

However, Ricktas is not quite right in stating that you only have recourse if you have agreement re a credit if you get that in writing. There are two issues - one is ownership of copyright, which means the exclusive right to reproduce (copy), publish (print in a mag), communicate (make available online) your photograph. Based on what you have said, it sounds like you gave permission (albeit verbally) so there wasn't really an infringement of your copyright (I don't know the full facts so I am just basing this on what you have posted).

The other issue about not being given credit for your photo is an infringement of your moral rights - your right to attribution of authorship. This is covered by another part of the Copyright Act and relates to the right to be named as author and the right to integrity of your work. This exists separately to whether you have licensed or even assigned your copyright.

Hope that all makes sense.

My turn to be pedantic and correct you - the agreement (albeit verbal) was made with a proviso - please go back and read that part again - a proviso that a credit was printed with the photo. She gave permission with that proviso.

So although there is no question about moral rights (rarely used I might add), the agreement was on the basis of that.


The one main thing I conclude when I read these type of typical stories, is that there is no such thing as "oh I'm not a pro", and yet charging (albeit) small amounts. IMHO, you're either going to approach this professionally or you're not. And thats the key to the issue. Deal with all of these things "professionally" and you're likely to receive a "professional respect". Have all your agreements in writing - they can be very simple. A nod and a wink style agreement can always be forgotten.

[Adrian45]

Very useful imfo guys. Somthing that i had not even thought about until now. Thanks for posting this tread.

[Bear Dale]

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/photography-bans-leave-ordinary-life-out-of-the-picture-20101017-16p0v.html


The thin edge of the wedge?

[RaoulIsidro]

The negative side effects of these laws being passed is the lack of proper education of the persons who are tasked to enforce it.
Without proper training to implement these laws, each of these rangers or patrols can become a Judge Dredd or Harry Callahan.
It seems enthusiast photographers are more aware of the laws than those who implement the policies.

[Bear Dale]

Very good point Raoul.

[Kym]

Another press item...

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/photography-bans-leave-ordinary-life-out-of-the-picture-20101017-16p0v.html


The right to record events in public spaces is fast being eroded.

About a year ago, photo enthusiast Sean Farrow was struck by the beauty of Cape Schanck during a visit and wanted a picture of the beach and cliffs in the midday sun. He grabbed his new digital camera and headed down the steps to the sand until he was stopped by a booming voice from above.

It wasn't the voice of God, but someone whose power was equally closed to question. A uniformed ranger from Parks Victoria informed him: ''I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave, that's not permitted here.''
Advertisement: Story continues below

According to Parks Victoria, commercial photography or filming in Victorian national parks is banned unless the photographer has paid for a permit. Such distinctions were apparently lost on the ranger because at that stage Farrow was hardly a commercial photographer. The camera he was carrying was relatively cheap, good enough for a competent amateur. It was, however, sufficient for the ranger to sense a transgression, so Farrow put away his equipment and left.

At the end of August, a group of photographers calling themselves Arts Freedom Australia held a rally in Sydney to protest at what they feel are increasing erosions of the right to record whatever is happening in a public place - a right that is supposedly enshrined in law.

There is growing alarm as freedoms to record life and nature are being restricted in a manner unprecedented in the years since 1825, when Frenchman Nicephore Niepce made the first photograph.

Since then, photography has produced an amazing record of human life. It has shown the horrors of war, beauty of nature, triumph of achievement, degradation of poverty, hubris of celebrity, but most importantly it has recorded everyday life. It is this latter category that is often most treasured.

<snip> ... more via the link

The comments are a good read as well.

[reaction]

it is sad, but we are powerless to change it. the self righteous and politically motivated care only for the control and power they gain

[Scotty72]

Of course we can change it.

We demonstrate and use civil disobedience.

[Kym]

Mod note: Threads merged

[Kym]

Of course we can change it.
We demonstrate and use civil disobedience.

But as a teacher your should know "Won't someone think of the Children?"
http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/think_of_the_children.jpg

:D

And therein lies the real problem, no-one (Joe Public) really thinking.

[Scotty72]

Also, as a teacher, I know that the expression "Won't someone think of the Children?", whilst a valid concern, is an often abused by those in authority to stamp on people's rights. (which is the point of the cartoon you posted - I guess)

It is like 'terrorism' - it is used to justify the gross abuse of human rights. (again, I suspect you already think this too) :)

Scotty

[Longshots]

Of course we can change it.

We demonstrate and use civil disobedience.

Or we can unite and use the power of the word to lobby those who need to listen. AFA is already having success by doing this. I'd urge people to support them.

Had it not been for constructive lobbying by representatives (ie volunteers, like myself), the Australian Copyright law would not have been changed/amended.

[farmer_rob]

Or we can unite and use the power of the word to lobby those who need to listen. AFA is already having success by doing this. I'd urge people to support them.

Had it not been for constructive lobbying by representatives (ie volunteers, like myself), the Australian Copyright law would not have been changed/amended.

Had it not been for lobbying by other industry bodies, australian copyright laws would not have some of the egregious clauses regarding anti-circumvention devices and other restrictions on fair dealing introduced 10 years ago.

Lobbying cuts both ways - it is not always volunteers, and you are often working against well connected and well funded groups.

[olympuse620]

Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out but the links that you put in the initial sticky work any longer

[ricktas]

Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out but the links that you put in the initial sticky work any longer

Sorry bout that, looks like the copyright council have started to introduce a fee for access to some of the information:

See this: http://www.shop.copyright.org.au/product.php?productid=16559

Some free stuff can be found on this page: http://www.copyright.org.au/search-results/?q=photographer

[Dark Mist]

Thanks for sharing your experiences. Luckily I've yet to meet such overbearing misinformed police or security guards. I agree that it's unlikely to be worth the effort to prove you are right, but what does that say about the value of these people's time?