It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are photographers rights disappearing?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
My cousin, who is studying photography, just had the police call her following a complaint from someone in her area after taking photographs of her neighbourhood for an assignment.
Story goes, she was to complete a photographic assignment about her neighbourhood no more than 500mt from your house. So, she drives around her block, with tripod and equipment and starts to take some images. Upon returning home, the local police called their house after a complaint was made and car registration was taken.

Complaint for what ?

Well, this is her facebook post

It is not as exciting as it sounds - but I will try to make it interesting. Last night I took some photos in the street behind my house using my tripod and some people called the police about it. They reported the car registration. The reason I was taking the photos was because I have to do a photo assignment for a course I am doing and the assignment involves exploring my neighborhood - no more than 500 meters from my house. Anyway, to cut a long and quite boring story short, I got a call from the police tonight saying I had been reported. Actually, they thought it was my dad because of the car rego - but I fessed up and said it was me. I explained to them what I was doing and they still told me not to do it again. I asked them if the incident would remain on record and they told me the complaint would - even though what I did was legal. After that, I decided to go down to the police station because I didn't want the incident to remain on record. I haven't done anything wrong. The police were having none of it. Whilst I was technically doing nothing wrong, I was 'acting suspicious'. Apparently there has been a lot of break and enters recently. I don't know what that has to do with me taking photos. It was also made quite plain to me that they thought I was a little odd - I mean why the F would anyone want to take photos of the street/house (ps. I wasn't on anyone's property nor sticking my camera over anyone's fence). Anyway, I said I was going to go back in the street and take the photos I needed to take for my course and the police nicely said they could look into that amounting to harassment or intimidation! Naturally, I got really riled up and then I started to cry!!!!! (at least I can admit it) - so I got out of there. Anyway, the photos were crap so I am just going to have to go back tomorrow night and take some more!!


This is what happens to someone who is studying Art Law ?

Here are some links to Australian law
www.artslaw.com.au...

There is no restriction on taking photographs of people on private property frompublic property. According to Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) there is no freedom from view, so people who are photographed on their property from a public location have no legal claim against you if what is captured in the photograph can be seen from the street.

But she wasn't taking images of people, but general neighbourhood photos.

4020.net...

If this was the case wouldn't Google Street View have one hell of a lawsuit against them ?

Myself being a photographer also, had been approached by grounds staff at my son's soccer match and asked what I was doing. Needless to say I'm using high end gear with the large 400mm lens on it (pedophiles apparently pose as photographers now lol - pfft ) Anyway after stating im taking images of my son and any other child within frame was supplementary they walked away. But that's not the story.

What are your thoughts ?




posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
This only happens in America, lol.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by lavenlaar
 


You should see how we get treated at monuments and federal property.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Pretty soon, people aren't even going to be able to look at each other without a lawyer.

If I was that person, I would have kept doing what I was doing, and see what happens when you don't heed their word. Turn it into a situation, and put the spot light on them for such a stupid investigation.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by lavenlaar
 


You should see how we get treated at monuments and federal property.


This is Australian Law regarding Govt Property

Government property

It is illegal to enter certain property belonging to the government such as railway yards, electrical power stations and military bases. Trespassing in these areas may lead to arrest and prosecution. For example, under the Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952 (Cth) it is an offence to gain unlawful entry into a "prohibited area" (including flying over it), punishable by imprisonment. The Minister can declare any area of land or water "prohibited" if it is necessary for Commonwealth defence. The same applies for taking a photograph of the area or anything in it. Merely possessing a camera while in a "prohibited area" can also result in imprisonment. Four Christian Pacifist activists were prosecuted under this Act for trespassing on the US Pine Gap military base in Australia and taking photographs in October 2006.

It is also illegal to photograph any defence installation in Australia under the Defence Act 1903 (Cth). Your photos, camera and film can be confiscated and destroyed, and you can face potential fines or imprisonment. You can even be arrested without a warrant. Always obey any warning signs displayed at such locations as you can be penalised even if you haven’t taken any photos, but have photography equipment in your possession.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by lavenlaar
 


Oh pardon the ignorance, I assumed you were in the US. We are treated like leppers

I haven't really taken out my camera much since I been to canada, not sure if it is different here yet.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I showed this post to my fiancee who is a photographer. He said that the best way to not tick people off with taking pictures is to take the initiative and approach your subject before taking any pictures and ask them if its okay. I suppose it also goes for taking pictures of peoples houses and other property.

Another point he makes is that police are cracking down on photographers because they simply don't like them. They don't like having a camera shoved into their faces every time they make an arrest (or use excessive force, harhar) and they way they deal with is by intimidating everyone and anyone with a camera.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Friends of friends of mine got reported to the police for taking photos of some young children playing a ball game in the park a couple of summers ago by a passer by who wouldn't leave their name.Guess who's children they were,why theirs of course
!!!!!!
Apparantly now perverts are believed to pray on young children while taking perverted photos of them throwing an inflatable ball backwards and forwards at close range in a VERY public place.

The law in the UK is pretty much the same,if you're in a public place you have waived the right to privacy the instant you step out of your front door and we can take legally take photos of people from an age of 1 minute to 100+ years old as long as they're not for commercial gain.We can take photos and be paid for them without having to share the money with the subjects of the photos as long as they're only used for editorial purposes.We can legally take photos of secret government bases,airfields etc and no police or any kind of military have the right to take out cameras or memory cards,if they do this is just common theft.Only a high court judge can issue a warrant to confiscate our equipment and memory cards if they're given a VERY good reason why they should.We even still hold intellectual copyright on any photos we take on private property as long as we're there with the permission of the land owner.

In fact the only thing we can't take photos of the UK is one of those strange laws that makes you say whhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?????????????? We're not allowed to take photos of a high court judge while he or she are wearing their robes and wig and we can't take a photo of the OUTSIDE of the court house while the trial is taking place,doing either of these is taken as contempt of court and carries strict penalties.

The police and neighbours need some sense knocking into them,your cousin has't done anything wrong and can go for harassment in their defence when the police try to tell them they're breaking a law that doesn't exist.Keep taking the photos,we're 100% in the right.

Chris.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Imagewerx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
thanks imagewerx, you just gave me an idea re:judges robes, the Australian speaker of the house (Peter Slipper) plans to re-don the robes and wigs of past in parliament. Maybe a way the govt doesn't want any images/footage in the house... hmmm



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join