Street vs Privacy in Aus
Quotes of note:
"In 1900... 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."
"Cases in the US, UK and New Zealand tell us that courts will rarely rule that an individual in a public place, such as on the streets of Brisbane or the London underground, has a “reasonable expectation of privacy”."
"We need to begin an informed debate in Australia about the appropriate balance of legal rights in a photograph and to adjudicate the claims of those behind the camera against those whose image is captured and published without their consent."
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
f/64 and be there.
The article is about Eggy, a guy doing his thing and doing it well.
The only issue arises from misinformed people expecting privacy in *public* spaces.
It is an interesting question.
They article mentions "the annoyance of street photography". This is an interesting choice of words. It fails to recognise that street photoraphy is actually a high artform, practiced by many of the pioneers in photograhy.
If you do it right, street photography is non-invasive and results in respectful images that the subjects would not object to.
In Sweden, "offensive photographing" has been made a crime. In the original version of the bill, offensive photpographing was defined as "taking a photo of someone without their prior consent" regardless of the circumtances. This was clearly impractical an unreasonable. It would have outlawed news photography, traditional street photography and it would also have made it illegal to film a crime in progress for instance. (Films from mobile phones do help the police to solve crime). So the definition was amended to "taking a photo of someone in their private sphere without their prior consent".
This is a fair distinction as I don't think any serious photographer would want to take a photo of someone through their kithen window. Only weirdos. There is also an exception for journalistic purposes.
The discussion seems to be based on aspects digital photography.
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
Film is exposed, not captured.
Publish, in that context, probably refers to digital upload to the internet. Not publishing analog prints in a book.
Legally, there would be no difference if you use a film camera or a digital camera. Also, publication entails all forms of publication, whether it's in electronic or printed form.
Originally Posted by ic-racer
In fact if you have violated someone's rights, it will probably cost you more if you do it in a commercial setting, such as a book that is for sale, than if you post it on your blog.
Anyway, this is all hysteria. I get photographed on the streets almost everyday, directly or indirectly . Mainly, it's tourists with cameras or kids with smartphones. Occasionally, I get targeted by street photographers, and I'lljust give them a wave and a smile when they are done.
If I should happen to wear an ugly shirt or pick my nose while they are shooting, it's hardly their fault.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
As a a side note:
Street-photography seems to have a largely varying popularity nationwise.
(I can hardly remember when I last saw something of that kind.)
On flickr there are many street photographers from Germany. Several of them use film too.
The number on Flickr does not neccessarily correspond to the number on street (and any induced annoyance) in german or foreign cities I visit. (In Germany even the term street-photography is not common.)
It hardly seems worth arguing about. It goes without saying that if a large number of Germans are posting street shots regularly on flickr, they have to be on the streets shooting them.
Streets photographers however use a number of techniques to conceal their shots, so it's easier to spot them if you know the techniques than if you don't.
When I shoot street, 99 percent of my shots are undected.
In fact, worse, you get photographed and filmed by security cameras everywhere much more regularly.
Originally Posted by Jaf-Photo
If I'm in a public place then, as long as I'm not doing something illegal (not that I ever do), I don't care who snaps me. Anyone on the same street at the same time can see me and, since I don't know who any of those people are, why should I care if they are looking at me on the Internet from a different place at a different time?