Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use,, (legal/rights) influence
From: William Robb On 30/11/2011 10:12 PM, Christine Aguila wrote: On Nov 30, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Philip Northeastrnort...@bigpond.net.au wrote: It seems strange for a country that gave us Henri Cartier-Bresson - the master of candid street photography I've always thought the same thing. Cheers, Christine France kind of knee jerked after a bunch of paparazzi hunted down an English Princess and contributed to her demise. Certainly makes more sense than blaming the wheel man for being drunk on duty. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use,, (legal/rights) influence
On 12/2/2011 12:07 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: William Robb On 30/11/2011 10:12 PM, Christine Aguila wrote: On Nov 30, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Philip Northeastrnort...@bigpond.net.au wrote: It seems strange for a country that gave us Henri Cartier-Bresson - the master of candid street photography I've always thought the same thing. Cheers, Christine France kind of knee jerked after a bunch of paparazzi hunted down an English Princess and contributed to her demise. Certainly makes more sense than blaming the wheel man for being drunk on duty. Apparently the wheel man was drunk on duty, and comparatively reckless as well. There was more than enough blame to shared by all concerned in that incident. -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
Here in Iceland the laws are similar to most of Northern Europe (I think). In general, you can take pictures in public spaces wherever you want, but displaying them is another matter. You'll need consent from all people that are prominent in your photographs with few exceptions, most notably journalism. In practice there is very little street photography done here, as the market for photos of grim-faced pedestrians trying to hurry out of the wind and rain (or snow) is rather limited. Leisurely shopping and visiting coffee shops is done in shopping malls, which are privately owned and generally don't allow photography. I've read articles on Street Photography in England, where supposedly photographers would rather take candid photographs of strangers on beaches or along the seaside in the summer, because people were much more relaxed there than in the cities. That pretty much sums it up for my country as well. Thrainn Þann 29.11.2011 18:06, skrifaði Thibouille: 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 :) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
On Dec 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Þráinn Vigfússon wrote: . . . the market for photos of grim-faced pedestrians trying to hurry out of the wind and rain (or snow) is rather limited. Thrainn Mark!! stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use, (legal/rights) influence
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of John Sessoms I think that's been the *LAW* in France since around 2004. Maybe before that it was just custom. I don't think that's correct. The law in question just states that everyone has the right to have their private life respected, and that judges can take all measures to protect it: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT060 70721idArticle=LEGIARTI06419288dateTexte=20111201 This encompasses the right to one's own image, but it is highly complex and most certainly does not entail seeking everyone's permission before you take a picture. In practice it means you're supposed to get the subject's permission if you want to publish a photograph or other image which shows the person in a private context. In addition it seems that you can't publish a picture which could be harmful - for instance, showing Dominique Strauss-Kahn handcuffed while awaiting trial is illegal in France, even though he was in public, because of the presumption of innocence. The fact that the USA and other countries showed such pictures was considered quite shocking, because they could be prejudicial in the event of a trial. This does not extend to people engaged in the performance of their duties, so it doesn't protect say a corrupt politician. http://www.cndp.fr/savoirscdi/index.php?id=870 Bob For a country that derives so much of its GDP from tourism, they don't seem to like tourists very much. From: P. J. Alling 15 Years ago I got the impression that the situation in France was pretty much the same as that. On 11/30/2011 6:26 AM, Thibouille wrote: 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 Qu?bec, 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use, (legal/rights) influence
On 30/11/2011 10:12 PM, Christine Aguila wrote: On Nov 30, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Philip Northeastrnort...@bigpond.net.au wrote: It seems strange for a country that gave us Henri Cartier-Bresson - the master of candid street photography I've always thought the same thing. Cheers, Christine France kind of knee jerked after a bunch of paparazzi hunted down an English Princess and contributed to her demise. -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use, (legal/rights) influence
On Dec 1, 2011, at 9:35 PM, William Robb wrote: On 30/11/2011 10:12 PM, Christine Aguila wrote: On Nov 30, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Philip Northeastrnort...@bigpond.net.au wrote: It seems strange for a country that gave us Henri Cartier-Bresson - the master of candid street photography I've always thought the same thing. Cheers, Christine France kind of knee jerked after a bunch of paparazzi hunted down an English Princess and contributed to her demise. Good point. French photographers are paying the price of a total loss of control. With freedom comes responsibility. Something that was sorely lacking in the French paparazzi. (Who would probably call themselves photojournalists.) Paul -- William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
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 supera1...@fastmail.fm: 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 rnort...@bigpond.net.au 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
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
15 Years ago I got the impression that the situation in France was pretty much the same as that. On 11/30/2011 6:26 AM, Thibouille wrote: 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 Walterssupera1...@fastmail.fm: 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 rnort...@bigpond.net.au 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
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use, (legal/rights) influence
I think that's been the *LAW* in France since around 2004. Maybe before that it was just custom. For a country that derives so much of its GDP from tourism, they don't seem to like tourists very much. From: P. J. Alling 15 Years ago I got the impression that the situation in France was pretty much the same as that. On 11/30/2011 6:26 AM, Thibouille wrote: 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 Qu?bec, 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use, (legal/rights) influence
It seems strange for a country that gave us Henri Cartier-Bresson - the master of candid street photography Philip Northeast www.aviewfinderdarkly.com.au On 1/12/11 10:51 AM, John Sessoms wrote: I think that's been the *LAW* in France since around 2004. Maybe before that it was just custom. For a country that derives so much of its GDP from tourism, they don't seem to like tourists very much. From: P. J. Alling 15 Years ago I got the impression that the situation in France was pretty much the same as that. On 11/30/2011 6:26 AM, Thibouille wrote: 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 Qu?bec, 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
On Nov 30, 2011, at 12:59 AM, Brian Walters wrote: On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:43 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: In Australia someplace (Sydney maybe, or was it Melbourne?) I recall coming across a street art fair. One painter had a handwritten sign on his booth: Please - No Photographs! I passed him by, noting the suspicious glare he gave to my two Pentax DSLR's. Fifty meters or so down the street I took a few wide shots of the whole scene, including a 3/4 frontal view of his booth. He came running out foaming at the mouth. I ignored him and walked away. I mean really! I understand his concern for protecting his intellectual property, but his reaction was way over the top. I think he's still there and still glaring - or at least he was during the photowalk with Ivor and Jane last year at The Rocks market. Cheers Brian It was Sydney, 2004, it was at the Rocks. Same guy? My offensive image is here: http://smhalpin.posterous.com stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use, (legal/rights) influence
I caught a bit of an interview on NPR's Fresh AIr show today about privacy rights. Two random thoughts: 1. The interviewee commented that Europe was much more aggressive about protecting the rights of the person to their own image, where the US is more laissez-faire. (Ironic that it takes a French word to express a core American value.) 2. The guest the got going on about Google street view and it struck me that this was one extreme of street photography - no artistic merit but just taking shots of every street, everywhere. I said they were random. Mark C. PS: Around the time I was getting out of my car the interviewee was commenting about Europe's Right to Oblivion laws (IIRC) that allow one to purge their old posts and photos etc that might be embarrassing. I wonder how light the PDML archives would get if such a law was passed in the US... On 11/30/2011 6:51 PM, John Sessoms wrote: I think that's been the *LAW* in France since around 2004. Maybe before that it was just custom. For a country that derives so much of its GDP from tourism, they don't seem to like tourists very much. From: P. J. Alling 15 Years ago I got the impression that the situation in France was pretty much the same as that. On 11/30/2011 6:26 AM, Thibouille wrote: 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 Qu?bec, 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use, (legal/rights) influence
On Nov 30, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Philip Northeast rnort...@bigpond.net.au wrote: It seems strange for a country that gave us Henri Cartier-Bresson - the master of candid street photography I've always thought the same thing. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 9:13 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: On Nov 30, 2011, at 12:59 AM, Brian Walters wrote: On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:43 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: In Australia someplace (Sydney maybe, or was it Melbourne?) I recall coming across a street art fair. One painter had a handwritten sign on his booth: Please - No Photographs! I passed him by, noting the suspicious glare he gave to my two Pentax DSLR's. Fifty meters or so down the street I took a few wide shots of the whole scene, including a 3/4 frontal view of his booth. He came running out foaming at the mouth. I ignored him and walked away. I mean really! I understand his concern for protecting his intellectual property, but his reaction was way over the top. I think he's still there and still glaring - or at least he was during the photowalk with Ivor and Jane last year at The Rocks market. It was Sydney, 2004, it was at the Rocks. Same guy? My offensive image is here: http://smhalpin.posterous.com Yeah - pretty sure that's him. And, of course, I meant *Igor* and Jane. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
[All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
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 :) -- 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
Street photography has been controversial in the USA since Robert Frank published The Americans in the late 1950s. It has ridden a roller coaster of acceptability and legal permissions/legal challenges on the basis of invasion of privacy, national security, popular opinion, etc etc ever since. The current explosion of social networking and image sharing has spawned another wave of controversy, with some parties calling for more and more restrictive legislation. But I feel it is the essence of photography that matters. Street photographers are are the observers and recorders of Zeitgeist, the daily milieu, of contemporary culture, outside of the artifice of commercial and advertising portrayal. Street photography reminds us of who, collectively, we are from the viewpoint of the individuals pursuing it. It presents a personal historical record beyond the grasp of Big Media. It shouts, I was there! This is what I saw that was important to me! and whatever that is, whatever it says, is open to the viewer to see and interpret. There's no wonder that it is a controversial pursuit. G On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Thibouille pentaxl...@gmail.com 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 :) -- 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
From: Thibouille 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) ? Street shooting is legal in North Carolina, USA, but there *ARE* a lot of ignorant officious assholes who think they know better. * did the status of street shooting in your country change in recent years (I'd say recent being last 15 years till today) ? There are a lot more ignorant officious assholes today than there were 5, 10 or 15 years ago. The law hasn't changed. * would you say there's a tendency to restrict photographer's rights in your country and why/how ? There IS a tendency to restrict photographer's rights. But it's not the law. It's ignorant officious assholes think they have the right to tell you what you can and can't do. Too many dumb-asses with an attitude that anything that is not mandatory should be forbidden and it's their god-given task to enforce it. 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
Although I haven't heard *too* much about restrictions here in Wisconsin, I have a tendency to agree with John...There are a lot of people who think they know the law and bellow about restricting where you can take pictures and who you can photograph. One thing I find ludicrous, though, is this...Concealed carry has recently been approved in Wisconsin and there has been much discussion about what government buildings are restricted, particularly regarding concealed carry in the State Capitol. Our legislators finally came up with this gem: You can bring a firearm into the Capitol building and even to the galleries where you can observe the Senate and Assembly, *but* you can not bring a camera, either still or video, into those same galleries. I guess they figure they will suffer more harm being photographed than shot. :] John, do you have a plug-in that will automatically enter ignorant officious assholes so you don't have to keep typing all those letters? *(VBG)* On 11/29/2011 2:41 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: Thibouille 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) ? Street shooting is legal in North Carolina, USA, but there *ARE* a lot of ignorant officious assholes who think they know better. * did the status of street shooting in your country change in recent years (I'd say recent being last 15 years till today) ? There are a lot more ignorant officious assholes today than there were 5, 10 or 15 years ago. The law hasn't changed. * would you say there's a tendency to restrict photographer's rights in your country and why/how ? There IS a tendency to restrict photographer's rights. But it's not the law. It's ignorant officious assholes think they have the right to tell you what you can and can't do. Too many dumb-asses with an attitude that anything that is not mandatory should be forbidden and it's their god-given task to enforce it. 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 -- Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
ignorant officious assholes ... I like it! I'll write a macro for my editor. ;-) I remember the security guard at Museo de Orsay (forgive my spelling ...) in Paris telling me that I couldn't use my Leica. I then pulled out my Minox C and asked if I could photograph them ... and they said sure! So I took all my photos in that museum with the Minox. No one said anything to me. :-) G On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Paul Sorenson pentax1...@gmail.com wrote: Although I haven't heard *too* much about restrictions here in Wisconsin, I have a tendency to agree with John...There are a lot of people who think they know the law and bellow about restricting where you can take pictures and who you can photograph. One thing I find ludicrous, though, is this...Concealed carry has recently been approved in Wisconsin and there has been much discussion about what government buildings are restricted, particularly regarding concealed carry in the State Capitol. Our legislators finally came up with this gem: You can bring a firearm into the Capitol building and even to the galleries where you can observe the Senate and Assembly, *but* you can not bring a camera, either still or video, into those same galleries. I guess they figure they will suffer more harm being photographed than shot. :] John, do you have a plug-in that will automatically enter ignorant officious assholes so you don't have to keep typing all those letters? *(VBG)* On 11/29/2011 2:41 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: Thibouille 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) ? Street shooting is legal in North Carolina, USA, but there *ARE* a lot of ignorant officious assholes who think they know better. * did the status of street shooting in your country change in recent years (I'd say recent being last 15 years till today) ? There are a lot more ignorant officious assholes today than there were 5, 10 or 15 years ago. The law hasn't changed. * would you say there's a tendency to restrict photographer's rights in your country and why/how ? There IS a tendency to restrict photographer's rights. But it's not the law. It's ignorant officious assholes think they have the right to tell you what you can and can't do. Too many dumb-asses with an attitude that anything that is not mandatory should be forbidden and it's their god-given task to enforce it. 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 -- Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
It's a bit higher threshold for the shooter. Taking a photograph of a legislator being a fool is easier on the photographer than filling one full of lead, no matter how richly deserved. On 11/29/2011 4:22 PM, Paul Sorenson wrote: Although I haven't heard *too* much about restrictions here in Wisconsin, I have a tendency to agree with John...There are a lot of people who think they know the law and bellow about restricting where you can take pictures and who you can photograph. One thing I find ludicrous, though, is this...Concealed carry has recently been approved in Wisconsin and there has been much discussion about what government buildings are restricted, particularly regarding concealed carry in the State Capitol. Our legislators finally came up with this gem: You can bring a firearm into the Capitol building and even to the galleries where you can observe the Senate and Assembly, *but* you can not bring a camera, either still or video, into those same galleries. I guess they figure they will suffer more harm being photographed than shot. :] John, do you have a plug-in that will automatically enter ignorant officious assholes so you don't have to keep typing all those letters? *(VBG)* On 11/29/2011 2:41 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: Thibouille 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) ? Street shooting is legal in North Carolina, USA, but there *ARE* a lot of ignorant officious assholes who think they know better. * did the status of street shooting in your country change in recent years (I'd say recent being last 15 years till today) ? There are a lot more ignorant officious assholes today than there were 5, 10 or 15 years ago. The law hasn't changed. * would you say there's a tendency to restrict photographer's rights in your country and why/how ? There IS a tendency to restrict photographer's rights. But it's not the law. It's ignorant officious assholes think they have the right to tell you what you can and can't do. Too many dumb-asses with an attitude that anything that is not mandatory should be forbidden and it's their god-given task to enforce it. 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 -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
On 29/11/11, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: I remember the security guard at Museo de Orsay (forgive my spelling ...) in Paris telling me that I couldn't use my Leica. I then pulled out my Minox C and asked if I could photograph them ... and they said sure! So I took all my photos in that museum with the Minox. No one said anything to me. :-) Years ago I was filming at a crown court - just outside the court precinct (the legally defined boundary of every court in the country, UK, within which one cannot film on pain of arrest) - and the Clerk of the Court came out and demanded to look down the viewfinder! I had been on a tripod picking off individuals as they entered the car park and walked to the entrance. Of course he had no right and I could have flatly refused, but even then I had the makings of a brilliant diplomat I said of course he could and while I manoeuvred myself out of the way, I deftly pressed on the zoom rocker to widen the lens right out. He looked down, robes and all, and exclaimed 'Blimey - not a very good lens is it - the building is a speck in the distance!' He retreated giggling to himself, satisfied I was no threat to anyone's privacy. Of course, I had the last laugh - and always do ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
On 2011-11-29 16:22, Paul Sorenson wrote: John, do you have a plug-in that will automatically enter ignorant officious assholes so you don't have to keep typing all those letters? *(VBG)* Time for another acronym: IOA. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
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 :) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
-Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Thibouille 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 ? in England you can pretty much photograph anything in or from a public place unless there's some specific law against it. There has been a lot in the news recently about journalists hacking mobile phones to get information about celebs and other people in the news, and this has occasionally veered onto the subject of paparazzi photographing celebs, even though the first act is clearly illegal while the second is not (although some paps' behaviour could be classed as harassment). Similarly, the recent Occupy protests have raised the issue of what is and is not public space. The protests could not be held in places such as Canary Wharf and, believe it or not, Paternoster Square, because they are apparently private property. This same argument is often used to prevent people taking pictures. My view, and I think courts would probably take the same view because there is plenty of precedent, is that these places may be private property but they are still public spaces. At an individual level, there seem to be more and more people who think that photography in public should be restricted, or that we should be obliged to have everyone's permission before we include them in a photograph. It doesn't take much thought to realise what a dangerous idea this is from the point of view of individual liberty. I think the reason for the increased pressure on photographers is that there is a general lack of education here about fundamental rights of people in society, about why it is so important to distinguish between the public and the private realm, and about why photography as a witness helps maintain rights. Publishing pictures is a different issue, of course. There are restrictions on how photographs can be used, particularly for commercial use (as opposed to artistic journalistic use) and on the whole these have been stable recently. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
I believe that the general rule in the USA is that you can take a photo in any public place of anyone but you cannot use an image of someone commercially without their consent. You *can* use the photo for journalistic, editorial or artistic purposes. Public BTW mean owned by the government - like a sidewalk, street, plaza or park. Privately owned public places like shopping malls don't count - the owner can set any rules they like. The stock agency that I used to send photos to wanted a model release for any human and a property release for any domestic animal or privately owned building or property. The editorial / artistic exception always struck me as a little inconsistent - if I took a street shot of someone with an amazed expression on their face, I could not use it to sell cola or some other product without their release. But it could be sold as a print in a gallery. - Mark C. On 11/29/2011 1:06 PM, 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 :) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
True enough, though theoretically public means owned by the public, places actually owned by the government are different. A small but important distinction. On 11/29/2011 7:08 PM, Mark C wrote: I believe that the general rule in the USA is that you can take a photo in any public place of anyone but you cannot use an image of someone commercially without their consent. You *can* use the photo for journalistic, editorial or artistic purposes. Public BTW mean owned by the government - like a sidewalk, street, plaza or park. Privately owned public places like shopping malls don't count - the owner can set any rules they like. The stock agency that I used to send photos to wanted a model release for any human and a property release for any domestic animal or privately owned building or property. The editorial / artistic exception always struck me as a little inconsistent - if I took a street shot of someone with an amazed expression on their face, I could not use it to sell cola or some other product without their release. But it could be sold as a print in a gallery. - Mark C. On 11/29/2011 1:06 PM, 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 :) -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Mark C pdml-m...@charter.net wrote: I believe that the general rule in the USA is that you can take a photo in any public place of anyone but you cannot use an image of someone commercially without their consent. You *can* use the photo for journalistic, editorial or artistic purposes. Public BTW mean owned by the government - like a sidewalk, street, plaza or park. Privately owned public places like shopping malls don't count - the owner can set any rules they like. What about walking about with a street map and camera in hand, and pretend your from out of town, on vacation. I bet that would work. Dave The stock agency that I used to send photos to wanted a model release for any human and a property release for any domestic animal or privately owned building or property. The editorial / artistic exception always struck me as a little inconsistent - if I took a street shot of someone with an amazed expression on their face, I could not use it to sell cola or some other product without their release. But it could be sold as a print in a gallery. - Mark C. On 11/29/2011 1:06 PM, 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 :) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
Two small hopefully illustrative vignettes: a. The town where I now live has a park on a small knoll which overlooks the cooling pond for a power generation plant; also spread out for view is a portion of Dow Chemical's home facilities (offices, processing, etc.) http://maps.google.com/maps?daddr=43.589344,-84.245996hl=enll=43.590649,-84.245911spn=0.050043,0.076475sll=43.594752,-84.221191sspn=0.05004,0.076475vpsrc=6mra=miftmrsp=1sz=14t=mz=14 The park is officially named, logically enough, Overlook Park. A road leads to a small parking area on top of the knoll; the whole place is a favorite for teens with no place to go, for families looking for a small hill to sled when there is snow, etc. Many varied birds in the pond at some times of the year. All in all, a good spot for photography. Two-three times each month the local newspaper notes, in their Crime column, that the police were called to investigate reports of someone taking photographs from Overlook Park. Of course there is no reason they shouldn't, but paranoid busybodies will call 911 and complain. b. I was wandering through a small fair, taking photos mostly of other fairgoers on the rides, at the shooting galleries, etc. One father objected because I had aimed my camera in the general direction of his daughter. I have o idea what his issue was. He didn't look like one of those natives from remote regions who believe that a camera will steal your soul. So, short analysis of these two vignettes: in the U.S. you are permitted to use your camera in most public places, but many members of the public don't know that. Long ago (mid 1960's) a research project involving attitude formation and change asked a number of people in the mid-west to answer a series of questions. One was do you support the constitutional right to free speech?, another was do think that a communist should be allowed to speak in the town square? A high proportion agree with the first, a high proportion disagreed with the second. stan On Nov 29, 2011, at 1:06 PM, 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 :) -- 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
Great story, Cotty! Read it to Darrel, and he giggled as well! Cheers, Christine On Nov 29, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Cotty cotty...@mac.com wrote: On 29/11/11, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: I remember the security guard at Museo de Orsay (forgive my spelling ...) in Paris telling me that I couldn't use my Leica. I then pulled out my Minox C and asked if I could photograph them ... and they said sure! So I took all my photos in that museum with the Minox. No one said anything to me. :-) Years ago I was filming at a crown court - just outside the court precinct (the legally defined boundary of every court in the country, UK, within which one cannot film on pain of arrest) - and the Clerk of the Court came out and demanded to look down the viewfinder! I had been on a tripod picking off individuals as they entered the car park and walked to the entrance. Of course he had no right and I could have flatly refused, but even then I had the makings of a brilliant diplomat I said of course he could and while I manoeuvred myself out of the way, I deftly pressed on the zoom rocker to widen the lens right out. He looked down, robes and all, and exclaimed 'Blimey - not a very good lens is it - the building is a speck in the distance!' He retreated giggling to himself, satisfied I was no threat to anyone's privacy. Of course, I had the last laugh - and always do ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
In Australia someplace (Sydney maybe, or was it Melbourne?) I recall coming across a street art fair. One painter had a handwritten sign on his booth: Please - No Photographs! I passed him by, noting the suspicious glare he gave to my two Pentax DSLR's. Fifty meters or so down the street I took a few wide shots of the whole scene, including a 3/4 frontal view of his booth. He came running out foaming at the mouth. I ignored him and walked away. I mean really! I understand his concern for protecting his intellectual property, but his reaction was way over the top. stan On Nov 29, 2011, at 6:00 PM, Philip Northeast 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 :) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:43 PM, Stan Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: In Australia someplace (Sydney maybe, or was it Melbourne?) I recall coming across a street art fair. One painter had a handwritten sign on his booth: Please - No Photographs! I passed him by, noting the suspicious glare he gave to my two Pentax DSLR's. Fifty meters or so down the street I took a few wide shots of the whole scene, including a 3/4 frontal view of his booth. He came running out foaming at the mouth. I ignored him and walked away. I mean really! I understand his concern for protecting his intellectual property, but his reaction was way over the top. I think he's still there and still glaring - or at least he was during the photowalk with Ivor and Jane last year at The Rocks market. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [All countries ] Street shooting and Image use (legal/rights) influence
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 rnort...@bigpond.net.au 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
