Discussion paper on un authorised photography

Yeah, thanks Ari. I probably couldn’t have explained it myself, you got me out of trouble there!

Ah, gotcha. Thanks Ari.

Spitfire, just to clear up what Terubo is saying.

The correct usage is “fewer” when talking about a number of something and “less” when talking about an absolute amount of something.

Since Johnboy used the term “regulations” he was talking about a number of individual regulations so “fewer” was the correct term.

If he was to talk about “regulation” less would be OK.

We want fewer regulations or we want less regulation.

terubo, since when does less not mean fewer? Can you explain the difference you perceive between the two words?

On the subject of crowd shots you might notice that most are taken low these days so you end up looking at a sea of arses.

in the UK “privacy concerns” have meant an end to churches praying for the sick in their congregations.

I cant say I feel at all protected by these laws.

I need less of “less restrictions” and more of “fewer restrictions”.
Sorry, just feeling like a pedant tonight.

The whole thing is massively anti-libertarian.

We need permission to take a picture?

Afraid we’ll steal souls?

Surely defamation law already covers malicious misuse.

fear of perverts jacking off is going to have to be taken to ridiculous lengths, there are so very many different kinks out there.

Everyone is a publisher now. we need less fewer restrictions, not more.

Somebody help me here… I remember reading somewhere (probably a long time ago now and probably more applicable to the US) that you did not need consent to take a photo (film) if there were more than 5 people in the photo and it was in a public place.

That probably explains why you can get group shots with “stock footage” during the news, of people walking, or doing things (showing faces in a group type situation) when they talk about a generic issue such as smoking or obesity etc – which is different to an issue such as a protest where there is actual shots of those participating.

Does that make sense?

I’m sure the trial by fire will be the next time Canberra hosts a fun run, and Dopey Stan can stand out front with a permission form and a pen for everybody’s authority to use their photographic image for such things as the CT, posting pictures on the CT internet website, on all the what’s happening in Canberra sites, heck JB might even get out there with his camera. (no pressure, just a suggestion)…

Impractical hardly begins to encompass how hard it will be to enforce this.

This whole thing sounds to me like code for “I don’t want people taking photos of me that could be used to make me look like a dick and cost me votes”. It’s got nothing to do with security and/or privacy. That seems to be the flavour of the month excuse to pass draconian legislation at the moment.

If you’re a public figure and someone takes a photo of you as you go about your job, the copyright surely remains with the photographer, doesn’t it?