discussion, gear, and photography journal
heading straight up
In November 2007, while attending the Red Bull Air Race qualifying in Perth with a friend, I took a a number of photos of some of the many police officers who were in attendance in the crowd. Along with photos of the various Red Bull aeroplanes, I also published a photo of two police officers in my Red Bull photo gallery.

Several weeks ago, I received the following email, which referenced the image of the two police officers:
Subject:
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:06:26 +0800
From: (name removed) <(email removed) @ hotmail.com>
To: <mpot (at) martybugs.net>

Hi there.

Recently my friend was browsing through your internet page and noticed a photo on the following address ; martybugs.net/gallery/photos/(imagename removed)

It was forwarded to me as he was concerned.

This photo is one of my self and my partner I full police uniform from last years red bull airrace.

With all due respect, could you please remove this photo, as my permission was not given to have the photo taken, nor was permission given to have it placed on the internet.

I would appreciate a reply when you have conpleted this task.

(name removed).
However, under Australian law (and similarly in almost all other countries), a photographer does not need permission to take photos of people in a public place, and nor is permission required to publish these photos.

There's plenty of useful information on the internet about photographers' rights, as well as plenty of stories about security guards and police who do not understand photographers' rights.
Here's a recent story about a guy who was called a pervert, and told to stop taking photos, when he was just trying to take photos of his own children on a slide in a park!

For Australian photographers, here's some very useful resources: I'd recommend printing out one or both of the PDFs listed above, and keeping a copy in your camera bag. You'll then have a useful reference handy if anyone ever attempts to stop you from taking photos in a public place.

Getting back to the email I had received, requesting me to remove an image from my photo gallery... I promptly responded, indicating that under Australian law, I didn't need permission to take the photo, or to publish the photo.
However, out of respect for the police officer's privacy, I offered to remove the photo from my website if they could provide some further proof of their identity.
They had sent the email from a hotmail address, and I had no way of verifying that the person sending the email was really the person in that photo.

I asked that they confirm their identity either by providing their surname or their service number, as both were legible on the police officer's badge in the full resolution image, but were not legible in the reduced size images on my website.

The police officer responded by emailing their service number, and I promptly confirmed that it indeed matched the service number shown on the police officer in the photo. The photo was then removed from my gallery, and I emailed the police officer, informing them that the photo had been removed, but also confirmed that I was only doing so out of respect for their privacy, but was under no legal obligation to do so.

There's plenty of useful information available on this topic. Earlier this month, Scott Kelby interviewed Attorney Ed Greenberg to discuss copyright, model releases, and shooting in public (focussing on US laws).
Earlier this week, Shawn Duffy blogged about "Portraits in a Strange Land", where he provides some very useful information on taking photos in public in other countries. It's based on his recent experiences in India and Palestine, and is a worthwhile read for anyone intending to travel with a camera. (sduffyphotography.com no longer exists, and I haven't found the post elsewhere)

Have you had a good, bad or ugly experience taking photos of strangers in public?
If you enjoyed this post, then subscribe to the RSS feed, or subscribe by email to get updates directly in your inbox.
Comments:
Nick wrote at 2008-07-25 05:34

That is very interesting, this is an area/topic that I haven't really thought about. However, as you will notice, most of the pictures that I take don't contain people! It is important to keep in mind though because it is always a good idea to know your rights and what you can and cannot do.

Nigel Honey wrote at 2008-07-25 08:28

Interesting story Marty. So many people (read that as everyone) think they have rights they dont when it comes to photography!

Alex wrote at 2008-07-25 20:05

Very interesting

You've had some interesting legal articles lately, someone's popular ;)

Bas de Waard wrote at 2008-07-28 22:49

When travelling through Mozambique we had to be very careful because taking photographs of public buildings is prohibited by law. One of the reasons why we have so few photos for that part of our trip through southern africa. The other reason (another topic?) was because pulling out a camera in public is one way of showing people you have something valuable (to steal or knock you over the head for).

Darren Heerema wrote at 2008-08-01 21:24

You still need permission to publish the photos don't you? What else is a model release form for? Or is that only on private property?

Martin wrote at 2008-08-02 01:51

Nope, no permission is required to publish the photos. In Australia, a model release is only required if you want to use the photos commercially. Commercial use does not mean selling the photos - you can certainly do that without a model release.
To quote from 4020.net:
In a photographic context, "commercial use" does not mean the sale a picture, but rather the use of a person's likeness to endorse some product or service, or to entice others to buy it.

Martin Attwood wrote at 2008-09-06 17:52

i just had a nasty experience with out of control women in Townsville on the Strand,she gave it to me with both barrels and it wasnt very pleasant, not knowing my full right was my down fall,that is i am legally allowed to photogragh other people with out harrasment, i would gladly delete any pic if i was asked by the person i had taken the pic off,then again i think i will stay away from street pics untill my wounds are healed.has anyone else out there had a simalar situation ?

Thanasis wrote at 2008-11-11 10:14

Hi,
I wish I had read this a few days ago. Still, it's nice to know my rights. My story can be read here:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum50/55916-photographers-conversation-policeman-street.html

Chris wrote at 2009-01-12 15:56

It appears that police in South Australia think that "Street photography is a crime"
While at Semaphore on Sunday 11th January 2009 I was stopped & detained by Police for taking photos in an area where Children were present. I was minding my own business at the water slide taking photos of people having fun playing mini golf, the general area of the site & then I moved onto the water slide. At the end where the pool is & the slide ends. I was standing in full view of the people present, I never approached anyone, (Child that is) until a woman from the business approached me. She asked if I had Children on site, to this I applied NO. She then went on to say photography was not allows if you have NO kids there. She also wanted to know why I was taking photo & video, which I replied it is a hobby. "What taking photos of kids you don't know", to her I replied "They are there, having fun & what better photo or video". There were two other women present at the time, who I spoke to & they voice their disapproval of photos of their kids being taken, but couldn't tell me why.
I don't approach any child or ask for personal info etc. I was there just a tourist recording people having fun in the area in general, the kids having fun on the slide. This I had done around the sideshow area prior to going into water slide area. After talking with them & seeing an argument would happen here & I had taken all the video & photos I wanted I left.
I was stopped on my way back to my car, well just across the street from it. Where they continued asking questions on what I had been doing & what was on my camera. He then stated he would be seizing my cameras, on which I replied NO, where he made a threat "We can doing this the hard way or the easy way" I offered my camera to show them what was on them, thinking once they seen what on them I will be on my way, oh NO that didn't happen. It would have been pretty clear by looking at them that nothing inappropriate was on those cameras.
I was held there for about an hour while CIB was called in. Where interview was recorded on the street & they also looked at my cameras. The CIB Officers detained me for about another hour by those 2 officers. They also search my car, which I allowed, as I hadn't done anything wrong.
They told me they were following up on an allegation made by some parents at the water slide. They couldn't tell what these allegation where, except I was taking photos & video of kids using the water slide. The police are now saying it is a crime to take kids photos if you don't know them. I would have thought if I was approaching kids & asking them for personal info, such as their name etc, or going to change rooms then those parents have a concern, as would the police.
The officers had nothing to backup their allegation of me being a pedophile, as was implied by the officers. I co-operated with them, in thinking I would be done in 30 minutes or so & NOT 2 hours. Even their check up found nothing on record, but yet seized my gear & searched my car. Then to top it off The CIB Officer reads me a pedophile act to keep away from anywhere that kids maybe. This adds injury to insult to be classed a pedophile on their so called allegations. I see this as the police bulling to be accused & convicted by Police on the street for just doing my hobby, PHOTOGRAPHY!!
If a woman was to do what I did over 2 days, one at Glenelg then at Port Adelaide & Semaphore, no-one would even worry about it, but a bloke, well must be a pervert!!

Frankie wrote at 2012-04-03 23:47

Hi there. Great post. Just what I was looking for but note it is a few years old. Have the laws changed since this was written?

Cheers

Frankie (aspiring street photographer - Perth)

Martin wrote at 2012-04-04 00:31

@Frankie: as far as I'm aware, nothing has changed with regards to local WA laws and street photography.

Richard wrote at 2016-08-24 12:07

Due to the increased popularity of drones, there are growing concerns about privacy. Have there been any changes yet to the Privacy Act? It wouldn't surprise me to see increased regulation and tightening of privacy laws in Australia, which could potentially also affect drone and kite aerial photography. At any rate, it seems to be on the radar for discussion, see for example these news reports:

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/privacy-concerns-mount-as-drones-take-to-the-skies-20151208-glijvk.html

http://www.hhg.com.au/announcements/are-australia-s-privacy-laws-ready-for-drones

https://www.choice.com.au/electronics-and-technology/gadgets/tech-gadgets/articles/drones-and-privacy-rights

Relevant excerpt: "And a 2014 federal government report recommended that retailers who sell drones include a pamphlet that "should highlight remotely piloted aircraft users' responsibility not to monitor, record or disclose individuals' private activities without their consent". It also recommended that new legislation be introduced to protect against privacy invasion by drones by July 2015, although that hasn't happened."

See the 2014 report here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/Drones/Report

Martin wrote at 2016-08-24 13:20

@Richard: I'm not aware of any changes to the Australian Privacy Act.
There has been a lot of discussion about drone pilots needing to be registered, but that's more as a result of safety concerns, rather than privacy concerns.

It's definitely an area that's in a state of flux, and I certainly expect changes in these areas in the future.

Richard wrote at 2016-08-24 15:57

Here are two articles from August 2016, which imply that while there haven't been any legal changes yet, concerns about privacy may lead to new laws that make it an offence to intentionally video/photograph someone without their consent.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/drones-will-be-everywhere-and-theres-nothing-we-can-do-about-it-20160802-gqiyj6.html

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/drone-spying-and-photography-laws-could-become-tougher-in-canberra-20160810-gqp7xp.html

Add your thoughts:
Name* (use your real name or initials, not your business name):
Email address* (required, never published):
URL (optional, "nofollow" attributes are used on URLs):
Comments* (no HTML allowed, some BBcode allowed, "nofollow" attributes are used on URLs):
 Check this box if you are a real person*
  
BBcode allowed in comments:
[b]bold[/b]
[i]italics[/i]
[url=http://server/path]link name[/url]
[img]http://server/path/image.jpg[/img]
Fields marked with a * are mandatory.
Note that comments are moderated, and will not appear immediately.
Please do not include your URL in the comment text, and please use your personal name or initials, and not your business name, as that comes across as spam.
learn more about your camera and how to use it
making photo books? save with Blurb discount coupons
Blurb
[ MartyBugs home | blog | about this site | copyright | disclaimer | privacy | appreciation | contact details | site map ]
web by mpot.  all content and images are copyright © 2001-2025 .
all rights reserved.  unauthorised duplication, reproduction or distribution is prohibited.
martybugs.net