Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,829   Posts: 1,582,249   Online: 1026
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1
    Dr Croubie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rAdelaide
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,533
    Images
    2

    Street vs Privacy in Aus

    Interesting article.
    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.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    68
    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.

  3. #3
    Jaf-Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    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.

  4. #4
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Croubie View Post
    image is captured and published without their consent.
    The discussion seems to be based on aspects digital photography.

    Film is exposed, not captured.
    Publish, in that context, probably refers to digital upload to the internet. Not publishing analog prints in a book.

  5. #5
    Jaf-Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    The discussion seems to be based on aspects digital photography.

    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.

    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.

  6. #6
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,041
    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.)

  7. #7
    Jaf-Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    On flickr there are many street photographers from Germany. Several of them use film too.

  8. #8
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,041
    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.)

  9. #9
    Jaf-Photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    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.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaf-Photo View Post
    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.
    In fact, worse, you get photographed and filmed by security cameras everywhere much more regularly.

    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?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin