Thanks to all who responded so far. Seems the idea was good. I totally agree with Godfrey on the subject. Of course legal details are country (or region in federal countries) specific but interesting nonetheless. It seems in Québec, street shooting is more or less dead unless you ask the subject *before* you take the picture. Which completely annihilates the purpose of the photograph in the first place. Hell...
Any other countries? Thanks :) 2011/11/30 Brian Walters <[email protected]>: > As an addendum to Philip's reply, this Information Sheet - "Street > Photographer's Rights" - might be useful. It was compiled by the Arts > Law Centre of Australia: > > > http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/ > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney Australia > http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ > > > > > On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:00 AM, "Philip Northeast" > <[email protected]> wrote: >> One of the problems in Australia, and other countries with a Federal >> system of government, is the conflict between state and >> national(Commonwealth) laws. >> >> So this applies particularly to Tasmania, an Australian state. >> >> Privacy laws apply to information, so medical records and other personal >> details are protected by Federal privacy legislation, there is no right >> to privacy regarding images in the Privacy act. >> >> For street shooters this means that if you can see it you can photograph >> it if it is in plain public view - if there is "no expectation of >> privacy " by a person. >> >> This caveat allows for laws to prohibit photographing in public toilets >> (it is a public place by there is some expectation of privacy). Other >> practices such as using mirrors for upskirt photography come under this >> caveat. >> >> Even if the subject is on private property, but still in plain view then >> there is no definite prohibition on photography. >> >> Australia does not have a specific right to freedom of expression in the >> federal constitution but because the constitution specifies a democratic >> government it implies there must be free discussion to achieve this - >> freedom of expression. >> >> Protections against photography and its use. >> ============================================= >> To protect people there are federal defamation laws that could apply if >> publishing the photograph damages a persons reputation. >> >> There is also the concept of Nuisance - persistent photography that >> harasses the subject could get the photographer into trouble. >> >> Section 13 of the Tasmania Police Offences act deals specifically with >> restrictions on photographing and publishing. >> >> >> >> POLICE OFFENCES ACT 1935 - SECT 13B >> >> 13B. Publishing or distributing prohibited visual recording >> (1) A person who publishes or distributes a prohibited visual >> recording of another person having reason to believe it to be a >> prohibited visual recording, without lawful and reasonable excuse (proof >> of which lies on the first-mentioned person), is guilty of an offence. >> >> Penalty: >> >> Fine not exceeding 50 penalty units or imprisonment for a term not >> exceeding 12 months, or both. >> (2) In this section – >> >> "distribute" includes – >> (a) communicate, exhibit, send, supply or transmit to someone, whether >> to a particular person or not; and >> >> (b) make available for access by someone, whether by a particular person >> or not; and >> >> (c) enter into an agreement or arrangement to do anything mentioned in >> paragraph (a) or (b); and >> >> (d) attempt to distribute; >> >> "prohibited visual recording" of another person means – >> (a) a visual recording of the person in a private place or engaging in a >> private act made in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect >> to be afforded privacy; or >> >> (b) a visual recording of the person's genital or anal region, when it >> is covered only by underwear or bare, made in circumstances where a >> reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy in relation to that >> region. >> >> >> >> >> Philip Northeast >> >> www.aviewfinderdarkly.com.au >> >> On 30/11/11 5:06 AM, Thibouille wrote: >> > The teacher asked to do some work about a legal issue concerning legal >> > rights of photographs use. >> > As he showed us a couple short movies on the topic and because I >> > believe that street shooting is indeed a fundamental of photography, >> > I'd like to know: >> > >> > * the status of street shooting in your country, both on a legal and a >> > practical point of view (I know that often things are permitted but >> > some zealot thinks you shouldn't be allowed to no matter what the law >> > is) ? >> > * did the status of street shooting in your country change in recent >> > years (I'd say recent being last 15 years till today) ? >> > * would you say there's a tendency to restrict photographer's rights >> > in your country and why/how ? >> > >> > >> > This doesn't need to be huge answers, really. But if you have any >> > legal reference in your mind, please do so :) >> > >> > I just can't check legal status in 30 different countries myself, but >> > I'm very interested (and somewhat concerned) about this. >> > >> > Thank you for your cooperation :) >> > >> >> -- > -- > > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille/Thibs ---------------------- Photo: K-7, Sigma 28/1.8 macro, FA50/1.4, DA40Ltd, K30/2.8, DA16-45, DA50-135, DA50-200, 360FGZ KX, MX, SuperA+Motor, Z1, P30 Mamiya C330+80/2.8 Sekonic L-208 FalconEyes TE300D x2 Studio flashes Laptop: Macbook 13" Unibody SnowLeo/Win7 Programing: Delphi 2009 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
