Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Discussion paper on un authorised photography

By Jonathon Reynolds - 4 October 2005 16

The Comrade has put out a media release calling for final submissions to a discussion paper entitled “Unauthorised Photographs on the Internet And Ancillary Privacy Issues”. The paper makes an interesting read in itself and is available from the home page of the Justice and Community Safety Webpage.

Although the discussion paper content is serious… I wonder how many people would actually be considering taking unauthorised photographs of the Chief Minister (or any of the other local politicians as public figures) in order to derive sexual gratification?

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
16 Responses to
Discussion paper on un authorised photography
1
Samuel Gordon-Stewar 11:12 am
04 Oct 05
#

I can think of much prettier subjects…I think this is just a slow knee-jerk reaction the the CT modifying a photo of the comrade some time back.

I can understand the japanese tourists taking photos of him, they seem to enjoy taking photos of strange things…oh, am I allowed to say that???

2
Maelinar 11:48 am
04 Oct 05
#

I’m thinking you might get poured into the infrastructure of a certain 18 storey apartment block in Belconnen if you keep up this anti-Stanhope commentary…

3
bonfire 1:02 pm
04 Oct 05
#

i think that all people photographed/filmed should be consulted if the media intend to publish their photos.

i know a person who was ‘outed’ by the media showing some footage of the lesbian street theatre she was in.

her aged and very catholic parents almost had a heart attack.

then again, the media report and inform.

i see where stanhope’s coming from, but worry about the impracticality of it.

4
Thumper 1:55 pm
04 Oct 05
#

Why would anyone want to take a photo of Stanhope. His media releases are scary enough….

5
Thumper 1:58 pm
04 Oct 05
#

I actually agree with Mr Stanhope on this issue. Its sensible and protects people from various forms of exploitation.

However, one must balance this protection of privacy against the right to satire.

6
Ari 2:38 pm
04 Oct 05
#

If you are in a public area you have no “right” to privacy from other people taking photos of the same area.

As for the lesbian street theatre performer – what the hell was she doing in acting in a lesbian street theatre if she was worried she might get recognised as a follower of Sappho?

Obtaining consent is totally impractical as well – how could you photograph a football game if you had to get consent from every member of the crowd who happened to be in the background?

The issue of the inappropriate use of photos on the net is a separate one. There are already laws against the salacious posting of child pictures. Enforcement may be difficult, but it’s no reason to impose draconian restrictions on everyone.

7
annie 2:43 pm
04 Oct 05
#

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?

8
Maelinar 3:25 pm
04 Oct 05
#

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.

9
jr 4:07 pm
04 Oct 05
#

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?

10
johnboy 6:51 pm
04 Oct 05
#

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.

11
terubo 6:59 pm
04 Oct 05
#

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

12
johnboy 9:37 pm
04 Oct 05
#

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.

13
Spitfire3 9:58 am
05 Oct 05
#

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

14
Ari 10:07 am
05 Oct 05
#

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.

15
Spitfire3 10:44 am
05 Oct 05
#

Ah, gotcha. Thanks Ari.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site