Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > People Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 29, 2009, 8:58 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 569
Default

JohnG,

FYI, A Councilmember in Honolulu recently proposed a "smell" law for public transportation (bus, etc.). Got close but did not pass.
paniolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 29, 2009, 9:18 PM   #42
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

:d :d :d :d
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2009, 10:27 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

australian law on photography is slightly different, maybe its the same as America, Im not sure

In australia people do not have a right to control their own image. Australian courts have confirmed in many recent cases that individuals do not have a right not to be photographed. many Commonwealth, state and territory laws prevent the taking of photographs that are offensive, classified as child pornography or taken for the purposes of sexual gratification.

However Private property is a different matter. venue managers may prevent unauthorized photography in several ways, including making it a condition of entry that photographic equipment is prohibited in the venue;persons wanting to take photographs in the venue must sign a form indicating that they have the subject’s consent and the photographs will not be used for an inappropriate purpose; and/or venue staff have the power to ask patrons to leave the venue if they are taking photographs in breach of any conditions of entry.

Music concerts, plays and such are an example. You can be asked to stop taking photos in a shopping center but you can stand on the sidewalk and photograph the place from the outside. Generally its not an issue, i often see people taking photos of their family at shopping centers with their phone cameras. Im quite happy with the laws as they are here.

The only thing that irks me is when at different events they allow standard digital cameras in yet ban DSLRs, yet some of the new digital cameras come with 12 X zoom and high megapixels. Beats me
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2009, 11:54 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,646
Default

For the umteenth time, the issue is NOT the taking of the pictures, its the use of them afterwards. Now what does Australian law say about publishing an individuals photo without consent?
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2009, 2:56 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
For the umteenth time, the issue is NOT the taking of the pictures, its the use of them afterwards. Now what does Australian law say about publishing an individuals photo without consent?
I am curious about the way all countries handle this question. But I do know US Law backwards and forwards. US law is quite clear. You need no permission either to take an image or to post an image. This is similar to the treatment of speech. However, you can prove the equivalent of "slander" with far more ease than you can with speech. With speech, the burder of proof is on the one claiming slander, the defendent need only show that what they posted between quotation marks is accurate.

An interesting delema has occured to me because of a picture I shot yesterday. One of my better efforts, it shows two men loudly sharing a joke as they cross a crowded street. It's why I took the shot. It's a "warm friendly" shot. Loading it in to the computer, turns out they are passing the barely visible body of some homeless guy, who is almost certainly sleeping - but for all I know is dead. In that case the two men can be accused of a callous disregard for misery. Amazing how a barely visible face can change the impact of a photograph.

I'm going to post a modified version of this shot to hide their identites, and a longer explanation.

I doubt if they even noticed this guy, and when I post the shot, you will see why.

Without having talked to a lawyer, this seems to me to be an example of a shot that might cause harm to those photographed. The appearance of laughing over the body of a dead man can certainly be taken that way.

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2009, 3:20 PM   #46
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Bynx:

Even though the title of this thread included "Feedback welcome", I think the OP was probably looking for comments about the photos, not objections over posting them or an in depth discussion about your privacy concerns. ;-)

It does look like the posts in this thread are a bit more civil compared to the recent discussion about your concerns in the General Q&A Forum. That's a good thing, as when threads start to break down into name calling or personal attacks when others disagree with an opinion, you'll find that we don't tolerate that here.

IOW, we should probably stick to discussing the photos, not debating the pros and cons of whether or not we should be able to publish them, as I'm seeing the same arguments over and over and over again.

We get it, as JohnG already pointed out:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Bynx - we get it. You want photographers to ask permission....
So, let's stick to commenting on the photos, as this debate is going nowhere (and it's not fair to others to use threads asking for comments about photos as a microphone to voice your objections over displaying these types of photos).

Thanks.

JimC
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2009, 11:14 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

This thread has had 790 views and 45 replies. compare that to the other active threads in this forum. The 'other' thread you're referring to had 1929 views and 150 replies - and it's been locked for three days.

Apparently controversy sells...

the Hun
rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2009, 11:01 AM   #48
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
For the umteenth time, the issue is NOT the taking of the pictures, its the use of them afterwards. Now what does Australian law say about publishing an individuals photo without consent?
I think one has to have permission if it is for monitory gain, but even then I can find nothing saying I cant publish photos taken in a public place as long as they are not of a nature such as pornographic etc.

Last edited by aladyforty; Oct 1, 2009 at 11:27 AM.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2009, 1:36 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,990
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinniethehun View Post
This thread has had 790 views and 45 replies. compare that to the other active threads in this forum. The 'other' thread you're referring to had 1929 views and 150 replies - and it's been locked for three days.

Apparently controversy sells...

the Hun
Controversy DOES sell, which is why Steves is paying me a dollar for each view...

(Or would the above be considered slander?)

Dave
Chato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2009, 4:26 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

I. A poll

This morning I went to a public park and made a very simple poll. I asked 27 persons (groups, couples, individuals, old and young people, etc.) how they liked or not to be shot and their images to be published in the Web. 23 persons said no. No to the shot, no to the posting. But if I first asked permission the result was pretty different: 19 persons said no problem.
Thatís it for me: people do not want to be shot and divulged without permission and Iíll respect that, donít matter what the law reads.

II. Chatoís picks

I find Chatoís street photographs too casual and with few narrative and aesthetic points of interest. Many things are missing in his random street picks: a good (innovative) story, a documentary (needed) representation, a motivating tellingÖ something that works not just for he, but for the observer also. Above all: beauty, which I feel is very much absent here.

III. If controversy sells I want a part of the cake!
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 PM.