LOL! Do people really have an expectation of 'privacy' with Google having infiltrated your very living space and watching your every move? If you have a smartphone, if you have a computer and a browser, your privacy went out the window a long, long time ago. And what about the plethora of camera in cities that also watch the public's every move (and are exceptionally helpful with police investigations where there is assault, robbery etc)? And in stores?
I don't really see how a problem can arise in casual street photography unless somebody actually, physically takes offence to being photographed; this images shown on that site are charming; the elderly man with the birds — that is really uplifting; but the model (Naomi Campbell??) ... dunno how she'd react to that (maybe a bit like Lara Bingle — lash out, kick, scream, punch and be arrested for it). But people on the street — hundreds of them, in context as representative of any city on the planet could not possibly give rise to issues of privacy. How could it? There are some clear lines of protection though. Provision does exist online where people who recognise themselves in photographs that they are unhappy at featuring in can request to have the material removed; this is the policy with Flickr, Vimeo, YouTube and PhotoBucket, among many others and often rides side by side with copyright.
This line is what you must remember:
"Privacy, as a concept and legal right, is notoriously slippery and contextual."
"(need to) ... adjudicate the claims of those behind the camera against those whose image is captured and published without their consent."
.::Gary Rowan Higgins
A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
Forget about it. There is no such thing as "privacy, as a concept and legal right". What I mean is, there is no such thing as deleting something from the Internet. It might be taken down by some responsible sites but it's already been copied all over the place, within minutes (or even seconds, or even less) before anyone has any idea what's happening. Also, the very idea of companies being responsible for respecting an individual's right to privacy and being asked to "delete" all records is laughable. It doesn't matter what laws or protective mesaures are in place -- if someone, even me or you, wants to keep data, there is nothing that can prevent "one" from keeping a copy of it somewhere without anyone knowing about it. (Therefore consider your position before you trust your material to "the cloud"...)
This message will self-destruct... never! (For future generations, who may come across this post 300 years from now, that's a play on the opening sequence of the 1960s television series "Mission: Impossible" -- Google it! :-))
And all the while, as they stand there and demand the film photographer delete their image from his/her camera, the whole discussion is being recorded by literally dozens of "security" cameras. Evidently those are OK.
And never think that those images that are filmed with security camera's will necessarily be over written in a week or so. I knew of a security firm in a building that I did some work in that used to save 'the best bits' for later viewing.
(moral of the story - never engage in sexual acts in a dark secluded nook outside of an office block....).
There are so very many things wrong in this article, starting with this paragraph:
a) privacy and commercial use are two very distinct provisions and it is the latter that was introduced as a result of that NY case. You have the right to veto the use of your image for commercial purposes in the USA and the law in AU is basically the same
In 1900, a teenager whose photograph was taken surreptitiously and used without her consent in advertisements for flour took up Warren and Brandeis’ suggestion and brought a case in the New York Supreme Court, which led to the enactment of the first “privacy” laws in the United States. Now, more than a century later, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand have also recognised a “right to privacy”. Australia is yet to do so.
b) AU does have a formally recognised right to privacy, but it does not apply in public areas. You cannot be legally photographed through your house windows without permission, for example. The AU High Court (functionally equivalent to the US Supreme Court; our Supreme Courts are much lower in our juridical chain) has formally recognised the right of photographers to take photographs of people in public as long as they do not violate privacy, e.g. by shooting through windows.
All of the above has again absolutely nothing to do with copyright:
which is just plain wrong in so many ways.
Copyright laws, still in force today, gave photographers extensive rights over their images and, by doing so, denied rights to those photographed
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Lots of the survelliance cameras are discreet and will have low light capability they are d cameras and they won't be going on to tape and deleted in a week.
Street photographers captured kids street games just pre and post WWII.
If you ban it you lose it.
In 60 years, much of it spent in big cities, I have never knowingly had my picture taken.
I suppose this means that street photographers consider me un-photogenic.
That's an insult and my feelings are hurt.
Can I sue them for NOT taking my picture?
If you got offended, of course! 😁
With technology like Google earth and street, why should anybody be concerned about privacy in the street?
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
The Australian State Attorneys General Conference in 2005 affirmed that "no one in Australia has a right not to be photographed in a public place". This affirmation is, of course, not for the benefit of photographers but rather to the advantage of authorities who want to conduct surveillance without legal challenge.
Emboldened by this knowledge I sometimes photograph in public spaces with a conspicuous 8x10 camera on a tripod...which starts a few conversations. One impression I've formed is that people dislike being caught unawares or pursued by a camera. The big camera doesn't sneak, chase, or offer a threat and it is generally (and remarkably!) ignored.
The other impression I get is that people in a public space don't actually want privacy, they want anonymity.
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.