Strangers Photographing Both You And Your Dog Whilst Out In Public

[sllebasi]

depends on the law and also the expectation. there is an expectation that if you go to a show, you are more likely than not to be filmed, photographed whatever. The media also come under a different law and thats how the papparazzi get away with what they do. It looks like there is the trade practises act, privacy act, copyrite law, common law and the constitution.

I think it all comes down to expectation and choice

[Guest Tess32]

So what about video footage of crowds at the royal shows, sporting events, etc etc on the news - should they be banned? Because anyone could be noticed and identified.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Tess32

[raz]

just googled unauthorised photos and this came up

it is illegal to take any photograph of a minor without authorisation by a parent/guardian

publishing such photographs on the web is a criminal offence

Australian law comprehensively prohibits 'street photography' (including images of public beaches and crowds in streets or other public places).

Interesting... why are there so many photos in magazines and newspapers of crowded areas then? Is it different because they are generally reporting on something to do with the image rather than just displaying it for art's sake? I don't understand. :D

Amazing, isnt it. I could take a photo of someone in the middle east lying in the street with their leg blown off and sell it to a newspaper without the victim's permission, but I cant publish a photo on the net of stranger happily walking her dog down a Sydney street. The world has gone insane

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

So what about video footage of crowds at the royal shows, sporting events, etc etc on the news - should they be banned? Because anyone could be noticed and identified.

unfortunately yes they should be banned.

[koalathebear]

If my dog's at a show or trialling I don't mind if they don't ask. I think that kind of goes with the territory and I like to see those photos too.

Otherwise, I'd prefer they did.

I don't think I've seen photos of the poodlefan clan ...esp the famous Howie. I don't suppose you could point me towards a thread with such photos? :D

As for me, I take photos of dogs at dog school but I ask the permission of the owners and usually try to just take a photo of the dog only - not the owner :D

[natamalie]

just googled unauthorised photos and this came up

it is illegal to take any photograph of a minor without authorisation by a parent/guardian

publishing such photographs on the web is a criminal offence

Australian law comprehensively prohibits 'street photography' (including images of public beaches and crowds in streets or other public places).

Interesting... why are there so many photos in magazines and newspapers of crowded areas then? Is it different because they are generally reporting on something to do with the image rather than just displaying it for art's sake? I don't understand. :D

Amazing, isnt it. I could take a photo of someone in the middle east lying in the street with their leg blown off and sell it to a newspaper without the victim's permission, but I cant publish a photo on the net of stranger happily walking her dog down a Sydney street. The world has gone insane

Agreed, it's tragic. Some of my favourite photography would be classified as 'Street Photography'. There are some stunning historical images of this genre. The one of the Australian woman kissing a US Soldier during their posting in Melbourne during the war springs to mind, (can't remember who it was taken by). To ban this kind of capture would take such a toll on historic culture I think. Photography doesn't just capture an event, or person, it captures the moods and characteristics of a time period. To take the opportunity for future generations to look back on the way we are now would be a real loss in my opinion.

Edited November 12, 2010 by natamalie

[natamalie]

So what about video footage of crowds at the royal shows, sporting events, etc etc on the news - should they be banned? Because anyone could be noticed and identified.

unfortunately yes they should be banned.

You've probably explained earlier in the thread, (I'm being naughty and skipping through a bit) but can I ask why you think they should be banned?

[Remarkabull]

I would feel a little uncomfortable if someone was taking pics of me and dogs without asking and for no reason that I could see.

If I took a photo of you dropping a piece of paper in the bin and you actually noticed me taking it, would you think that was weird? To me that moment in time might be saying something. To you, you're just dropping a piece of paper in the bin so therefore, I'm a weirdo? It's not like I know your name, where you live and what you ate for breakfast. I'm just capturing a moment. How can you tell if someone is taking a photo for 'no reason'?

That's why I said 'no reason that I could see'. I'm not a photographer, I'm not artistic and to me personally I would think it strange that someone would take a pic of me doing something so ordinary. I never said that it would automatically make them a 'weirdo', it would just stand out as strange to me and I would wonder why they were doing it.

If they then explained to me what/why they took the photo then I would probably be ok with it.

[raz]

That's why I said 'no reason that I could see'. I'm not a photographer, I'm not artistic and to me personally I would think it strange that someone would take a pic of me doing something so ordinary. I never said that it would automatically make them a 'weirdo', it would just stand out as strange to me and I would wonder why they were doing it.

If they then explained to me what/why they took the photo then I would probably be ok with it.

Sure for sure. I'm not having a go at you, I'm just really curious because when I take photos of people it's to document my own feelings so I take photos of people doing ordinary stuff, like making a cup of tea or looking at a rain cloud or just telling their kid not to drop icecream on their shirt. Just day to day stuff.

[Greytmate]

just googled unauthorised photos and this came up

it is illegal to take any photograph of a minor without authorisation by a parent/guardian

publishing such photographs on the web is a criminal offence

Australian law comprehensively prohibits 'street photography' (including images of public beaches and crowds in streets or other public places).

Can you give us a reference for this information? Google isn't a recognised authority on Australian law.

[sllebasi]

you make it sound though that you are doing it in view of the people, which, although i dont particularly like it, is ever so slightly a little bit easier to justify. I absolutely love that footage of the woman and the soldier, and it would be a shame to stop all that. If you are 'hiding' in order to take a photo, then the weight of the law could very well be thrown at you, ESPECIALLY of children as that is seen as exploitation. You could also very well earn the wrath of some people particularly fathers of young children.

[ellz]

I take photos of everything and anybody. At dog shows, I take photos of just dogs and photos of dogs and their handlers. I do post some in various places like facebook, but if somebody contacts me and asks me to remove the photos, then I do.

I tend not to post a lot of photos of my own children on facebook and forums so am mindful of not posting photographs of other children on those places UNLESS I have the permission of their parents or unless the child's face is not easily identifiable.

As for me, I've found that the BEST photos of me have been taken without my knowledge and if somebody found me interesting, unusual, ugly or attractive enough to take photos of, I really don't care.

And if somebody wants to take photos of my dogs...then go for it...you might take better shots than I do anyway! :D

[Guest Tess32]

So what about video footage of crowds at the royal shows, sporting events, etc etc on the news - should they be banned? Because anyone could be noticed and identified.

unfortunately yes they should be banned.

I just don't think it's realistic or fair to have laws based on the very improbable.

The fact is someone can be noticed anywhere. It's horrible and unfortunate but going out in public is a risk in itself and banning thing that don't effect 99.9% of people makes no sense.

[sllebasi]

i just googled in unauthorised taking of photos and this is the first link that i looked at. am happy to be proven wrong if someone finds something else more concrete

http://www.caslon.com.au/photonote1.htm

[raz]

If you are 'hiding' in order to take a photo, then the weight of the law could very well be thrown at you,

I hide - so the photo is candid, otherwise it becomes a snapshot. I defy anyone to take me to court for taking their photo without permission.

[natamalie]

So what about video footage of crowds at the royal shows, sporting events, etc etc on the news - should they be banned? Because anyone could be noticed and identified.

unfortunately yes they should be banned.

I just don't think it's realistic or fair to have laws based on the very improbable.

The fact is someone can be noticed anywhere. It's horrible and unfortunate but going out in public is a risk in itself and banning thing that don't effect 99.9% of people makes no sense.

Agreed!

[AmandaJ]

From the perspective of the partner of a "photographer in training" - (yes he is doing classes) - quite often what we mere mortals see as plain boring is actually something quite unique when they have finished with it. They have so many options in the camera settings that just a normal photo is no longer a normal photo. One of the aspects of photography is to capture the feeling not just the image - and they can change the feeling with the exposure etc. OH has been told never to delete an image off his camera as what looks bad there can always been turned into a piece of art. With taking photos of people - he always asks - especially if it's a child. People are getting used to seeing him wander around at dog shows now - taking photos and trying different things - but he will ask. He only ever puts his best work on RedBubble but some of his shots will go to a friend of ours (dog only shots) who does mirror drawings.

As for having a persons photo available on the net....FACEBOOK.....

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

So what about video footage of crowds at the royal shows, sporting events, etc etc on the news - should they be banned? Because anyone could be noticed and identified.

unfortunately yes they should be banned.

I just don't think it's realistic or fair to have laws based on the very improbable.

The fact is someone can be noticed anywhere. It's horrible and unfortunate but going out in public is a risk in itself and banning thing that don't effect 99.9% of people makes no sense.

yep i agree with you but it seems to me that we are at a point where there are now laws that address this.

[Keshwar]

I prefer to have control of any image of myself or my dogs.

If someone is making money off of a photo of me and my dog why shouldn't I get a cut? After all It is my image that is making the money.

It's really not that hard to ask if you want to take a photo of a person and their dog/s.

As for street/crowd shots I think that is a whole different story.

I have asked a photographer at a night club not to include me in any photos that they took. They were happy to oblige.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

.....

As for having a persons photo available on the net....FACEBOOK.....

there are NO photos of me on facebook and there never will. you cant use that as an argument especially when there is a backlash against facebook after a couple of people were murdered.