Professional Web Applications Themes

Copyright Australia - Photography

In my search for copyright and privacy laws relating to photography I came upon an excellent article which answered all of my questions and saved me a trip to a copyright lawyer. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/PLPR/1999/59.html?quer y=%22photographing%22 (Watch the Wrap) Interestingly, street photography is perfectly allowable in this country, even for commercial publication. In contrast to the laws of other countries such as France (mentioned in the article) we are lucky to be Australian photographers! It's a good read and I hope it helps someone! ~Seb...

  1. #1

    Default Copyright Australia

    In my search for copyright and privacy laws relating to photography I came
    upon an excellent article which answered all of my questions and saved me a
    trip to a copyright lawyer.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/PLPR/1999/59.html?quer
    y=%22photographing%22

    (Watch the Wrap)

    Interestingly, street photography is perfectly allowable in this country,
    even for commercial publication. In contrast to the laws of other countries
    such as France (mentioned in the article) we are lucky to be Australian
    photographers!

    It's a good read and I hope it helps someone!

    ~Seb


    Seb Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Copyright Australia


    "Seb" <net.au> wrote in message
    news:3f73f91d$0$23594$iinet.net.au... 
    came 


    How does a privacy charter deal with copyright ?


    Miro Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Copyright Australia

    You have to be careful. For example in Perth it is illegal to take pictures
    in Hay Street Mall. This relates ONLY to Hay street Mall. And is an old hang
    over frm the '30. As far as I know still applies but no one has enforced it.
    I just read about it once in one of those articles about old laws.

    You can't ride a camel down the man street of Kalgoorlie either!!

    Interesting article :)



    "Seb" <net.au> wrote in message
    news:3f73f91d$0$23594$iinet.net.au... 
    came 

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/PLPR/1999/59.html?quer 
    countries 


    David Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Copyright Australia

    Miro:

    Copyright is one of the primary protections of privacy under Australian law.
    Read the article.

    Dimitri:

    The MET is on an actual premises, albeit a government owned one, so it
    doesn't count as a public place in the sense that it can be easily defined.
    The public I was referring to was on the street, which can not reasonably
    considered a part of a premises.

    I suppose you have to look out for specific bans on photography in
    particular places such as the one in swimming pools...

    In general you are allowed to take a photo of anything you want and sell it
    including private property without the permission of the owner. As long as
    you are not there all the time as to be a "nuisance" under law. The
    copyright of the photo belongs to you unless you were commissioned by the
    owner to take the photo, in which case you have special obligations.

    ~Sen


    Seb Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Copyright Australia

    Your problem was you used a 'pro camera', if you had pulled out a small
    rangefinder he wouldn't have bothered you.

    Next tme that happens call his bluff and point out that you rang about a
    permit at the 'ministry' or 'head office' and were told you you didn't need
    one as you were an amatuer not a professional.

    If he insists then ask him for the contact number and name of the person who
    has told him you NEED to have a permit or the correct number to ring to GET
    one. Make it appear as if someone has already told you it is not necessary
    to have one. And if you are nice about it he will probably get bored and
    move on.

    Smile a lot and just act confused. After all as far as you know you don't
    need one.

    A more aggressive approach is: hand the guy a business card (or just a name
    and address card) and inform him that you are taking the picture, and if he
    wishes to he can send the fine to your address but if he attempts to stop
    you then you will call the police and charge him with assault. Bear in mind
    in this case the law is on YOUR side. He can only attempt to remove you if
    you are committing criminal damage or causing a public nuisance.






    "Dmitri Kalintsev" <com.au> wrote in message
    news:optushome.com.au... [/ref]
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/PLPR/1999/59.html?quer [/ref]
    country, [/ref]


    David Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Copyright Australia



    Miro wrote: 
    >
    > How does a privacy charter deal with copyright ?
    >[/ref]

    "... and privacy laws"

    Scott Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Copyright Australia

    Seb wrote:
    <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/PLPR/1999/59.html?query=%22photographing%22>
     

    <brackets> are your friends
    Graham Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Copyright Australia

    I've read/had similar discussions in other forums. 'Specially when the
    anti-terrorism stuff came out. I think everyone agreed to disagree and that
    the safest course was to call the local council of the area you are wanting
    to shoot in and ask them.

    Another good guide to copyright I found at
    http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
    and even though it's photographer specific, it's also American.

    K

    Dmitri Kalintsev <com.au> wrote in message
    news:optushome.com.au... [/ref]
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/PLPR/1999/59.html?quer [/ref]
    country, [/ref]


    Krissy Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Copyright Australia

    American....kinda useless don't ya think as it has no relevance in our
    system...

    ~Seb

    "Krissy" <com.au> wrote in message
    news:comindico.com.au... 
    that 
    wanting [/ref]
    pulled [/ref]
    course [/ref]
    >[/ref]
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/PLPR/1999/59.html?quer [/ref]
    > country, [/ref][/ref]
    Australian [/ref]
    >
    >[/ref]


    Seb Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Copyright Australia

    The station attendant's statement that you need a permit is quite correct.
    He was probably security. Ever since Australia started it's "war on
    terrorism" (s) the security proceedure in most Government departments
    is to stop people who are not known to the department from taking
    photographs of key installations.

    The theory is that the pictures could be used to plan the placement of
    explosives or some such event. Personally I don't have an opinion on this
    but I have an opinion on Australia engaging itself in terrorist activities
    such as invading a country and wiping out it's infrastructure.

    My opinion will be felt at election time. If you lot don't like your freedom
    being interfered with because this country went to war without the consent
    of it's population... vote the perpetrators out at the next election.
    Otherwise use David's first line of defence... Smile!

    Doug

    "David in Perth" <com.au> wrote in message
    news:3f741452$0$95044$news.telstra.net...
     
    need 


    Snaps. Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Copyright Australia


    "Scott Coutts" <monash.edu.au> wrote in message
    news:hAWcb.124265$bigpond.net.au... 
    > >
    > > How does a privacy charter deal with copyright ?
    > >[/ref]
    >
    > "... and privacy laws"
    >[/ref]

    Testing ones rights on an unknowing bystander can have some serious
    consequences for the camera equipment. Seems like common sense should always
    prevail.


    Miro Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Copyright Australia

    By the way, what is the story with taking photos on The Met's premises
    (Melbourne's public transport, train stations in particular)? I've pulled
    out my 10d the other day on Melbourne Central's platform, just to be
    approached
    by (friendly) Met employee, who asked if I had a permit (which I of course
    did not have, not being a pro or whatever) and asked me to put my camera
    away. :( I was planning to take a shot for my own, not for sale or
    whatnot..

    Any official information on this anywhere?

    Thanks,

    -- D.K.

    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:31:57 +1000, Seb <net.au> wrote:
     
    Dmitri Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Copyright Australia

    In article <optushome.com.au>,
    Dmitri Kalintsev <com.au> wrote:
     

    A few months ago I had a similar incident at a Sydney railway station.
    The difference being that I was taking the shot for publication.
    Because I knew I would stand out very obviously, I went and asked at the
    ticket office. Got told a definite NO, due to safety concerns. I took
    this to mean terrorism, but in hindsight it may have just meant people
    tripping over my tripod (although no one was around at the time);
    perhaps a bit of both. But I was given a name and number to call to get
    permission. Although I didn't bother to do this at the time (just went
    behind the fence and shot from a public place instead), I got the
    impression that it wasn't going to be that much of a hassle if I had a
    good reason.
    N
    Narelle Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Copyright Australia



    Narelle wrote:

     

    There are a few like that if questioned "smile". Water Board catchment
    areas. National Parks (NSW) for commercial use photos. Local Councils
    Mall shopping areas. To name another three.

    I understand and read somewhere - that if you single out a person, as a
    percentage of the frame, in a public place, and the image is used for
    publication it may be necessary to have a release from that person.


    Wiz Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Copyright Australia


    "Wiz" <com> wrote in message
    news:3f74fbba$0$95051$news.telstra.net... 
    >
    > There are a few like that if questioned "smile". Water Board catchment
    > areas. National Parks (NSW) for commercial use photos. Local Councils
    > Mall shopping areas. To name another three.
    >
    > I understand and read somewhere - that if you single out a person, as a
    > percentage of the frame, in a public place, and the image is used for
    > publication it may be necessary to have a release from that person.
    >
    >[/ref]

    REad the article, it deals with that. You can single them out and publish it
    as long as you are not exploiting their reputation as to suggest they gave
    permission to publish it. Also, if you publish it in specific publication or
    near a certain type of photo, that could be seen as defamation. Read the
    article, it's really good and covers everything you would need to know...

    ~Seb


    Seb Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Copyright Australia

    Or you can smile and say ... 'Bitte? Sprecht du deuch?' 'Spraat jullie
    Hollandes?' 'Parla Italiano?' Apa Kabar?

    'Keine photographie?' (after much gestulating on his part) 'Warum, bitte?'

    :)


    "Snaps." <com.au> wrote in message
    news:NK0db.124499$bigpond.net.au...
    Otherwise use David's first line of defence... Smile! 
    > need 
    >
    >[/ref]


    David Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Copyright Australia

    Folks

    as someone who deals with copyright law as part of my profession I would
    urge you to read the material that is available through copyright Australia
    and Austlii (or other legal databases you may have access). The issue of
    taking photographs in public places is not one of simply copyright. A
    number of other statutes may apply. These can range from legislation
    through to subordinate legislation such as council by-laws, statutory rules
    etc dependant on where you are. There is not one simple answer that fits
    all sizes. I wouldn't get too caught up with worrying about what
    international conventions we have signed up to around this particular issue.

    regards

    Don
    "Seb" <net.au> wrote in message
    news:3f75055e$0$23595$iinet.net.au... [/ref][/ref]
    the [/ref][/ref]
    get [/ref][/ref]
    went 
    > >
    > > There are a few like that if questioned "smile". Water Board catchment
    > > areas. National Parks (NSW) for commercial use photos. Local Councils
    > > Mall shopping areas. To name another three.
    > >
    > > I understand and read somewhere - that if you single out a person, as a
    > > percentage of the frame, in a public place, and the image is used for
    > > publication it may be necessary to have a release from that person.
    > >
    > >[/ref]
    >
    > REad the article, it deals with that. You can single them out and publish[/ref]
    it 
    or 


    Don Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Copyright Australia

    LOL Did ANYONE read theoriginal posted article?

    ~Seb

    "Don" <com> wrote in message
    news:tHadb.125633$bigpond.net.au... 
    Australia 
    rules 
    issue. [/ref][/ref]
    station. [/ref]
    > the [/ref][/ref]
    took [/ref][/ref]
    people [/ref]
    > get [/ref]
    > went [/ref][/ref]
    a [/ref][/ref]
    catchment [/ref][/ref]

    > >
    > > REad the article, it deals with that. You can single them out and[/ref][/ref]
    publish [/ref]
    gave [/ref]
    publication [/ref]
    know... 
    >
    >[/ref]


    Seb Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Copyright Australia


    "Seb" <net.au> wrote in message
    news:3f740f38$0$23593$iinet.net.au... 
    law. 

    Crap. Copyright protects public property. It never ceases to amaze me how
    simple ideas become knitted together to form one large mound of steaming
    cr_p. Privacy is an act which defends one civil rights. There are several
    types of privacy also, the main being, privacy to and privacy from.

    Furthermore, the doent is untested largely and is structured more in
    academic terms than it is in legislation. Just because you find it
    impressive doesnt really mean much given that it has little weight.



    Miro Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Copyright Australia


    " Miro" <com> wrote in message
    news:3f7553f1$0$2484$optusnet.com.au... 
    > law. 
    >
    > Crap. Copyright protects public property. It never ceases to amaze me how
    > simple ideas become knitted together to form one large mound of steaming
    > cr_p. Privacy is an act which defends one civil rights. There are several
    > types of privacy also, the main being, privacy to and privacy from.
    >
    > Furthermore, the doent is untested largely and is structured more in
    > academic terms than it is in legislation. Just because you find it
    > impressive doesnt really mean much given that it has little weight.
    >[/ref]

    Sigh. I can't be bothered arguing with you, you troll nitwit. Read:

    "
    Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
    If the privacy rights of the individual are to be adequately protected,
    perhaps copyright law is not the right vehicle.[1]
    This quotation is taken from an article in the Intellectual Property Law
    Bulletin ((1998) 11(5) IPLB 49) which explored issues of copyright ownership
    in commissioned photographs and the recent changes to the Copyright Act 1968
    (Cth) (the unamended Act), introduced by the Copyright Amendment Act (No 1)
    1998 (Cth) (the Amendment Act). Under s 35(5) of the unamended Act,
    copyright did not automatically vest in a person who commissioned the taking
    of a photograph under an agreement for valuable consideration. The Amendment
    Act has now modified this exception by allocating copyright to the
    commissioning party where a photograph has been commissioned for 'private
    and domestic purposes', which are defined to include 'a portrait of family
    members, a wedding party or children'.[2]

    It has been suggested that the legislative basis underlying this exception
    is centred on the need to accommodate the conflict between the photographer'
    s right to reproduce that work and on the commissioning party's desire to
    control or limit that right. Commentators have suggested that its real
    effect is to operate as a 'wanting substitute for privacy legislation'.[3]

    Certainly, if photographers were to retain residual copyright in 'private'
    photographs, individuals could strike difficulty in restraining unauthorised
    publication of photographs of themselves that were initially commissioned
    for private and domestic purposes.

    No general right to privacy
    In Australia, there is no common law right to privacy.[4] This was
    demonstrated in Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v
    Taylor[5] where the High Court held that the act of overlooking someone's
    racecourse and broadcasting the results of the race did not constitute an
    infringement of legal rights. Presumably, the same result would have been
    reached had the races been photographed.[6]

    The lack of such a right heightens the role of s 35(5) of the Copyright Act
    1968 (Cth) insofar as it applies to private and domestic photographs. Yet
    its limited application means that it does not adequately fill the privacy
    'gap'. For example, it only applies to a commissioner of photographs. So if
    a mere passerby were to take a photograph, that person would be free to
    publish that photograph, or sell it for publication, despite having received
    no authorisation to do so from the subject. Further, in order to own
    copyright pursuant to s 35(5), the subject must have paid 'valuable
    consideration' to the photographer,[7] a requirement that has led to some
    controversial findings.

    Is copyright law the right vehicle for protection?
    The view that copyright law and privacy law should be kept entirely separate
    was supported by the US Congress when it debated the issue of whether a
    photographic portrait should be considered as a work made for hire for the
    purposes of the Copyright Act of 1976 (US). The 'work for hire' doctrine
    under US copyright law vests copyright in the commissioning party in certain
    cirstances. One of these is where the work is 'made for hire' pursuant to
    an employment relationship. Photographic portraits were ultimately excluded
    from the doctrine's application on the basis that the rationale underlying
    the vesting of copyright in a commissioned portrait to a commissioner was
    related more to the privacy interests in controlling the reproduction of a
    picture of oneself, rather than to the notion that the commissioner was the
    true author of the work.[8]

    Cases where copyright law has provided a means for privacy protection
    Regardless of the comments made above, the presumption that the copyright in
    a private and domestic commissioned photograph vests in the commissioning
    party can provide effective protection of an individual's privacy. This is
    illustrated by a US case, Mail v Express Newspapers.[9] In this case, the
    commissioner-ownership exception empowered a married couple to grant a
    newspaper rights to publish the couples' wedding photographs, to which they
    held the copyright, in 'newsworthy' cirstances where the wife, who was
    dying, was being kept alive to give birth.

    The indirect protection of privacy rights via photographic copyright is also
    vividly illustrated by the decision in the English case Williams v
    Settle.[10] The defendant was found liable for infringing the copyright in a
    wedding photograph commissioned and paid for by the bride's father. Some
    years later, the father was murdered and the photographer sold copies of the
    wedding photograph to two national newspapers. The Court held that since the
    photographs had been commissioned for valuable consideration, copyright
    vested in the estate of the father and the photographer was in breach of
    copyright in having provided the photographs to others for publication.

    Other individuals, however, have not been so lucky.
    "

    ~Seb


    Seb Guest

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Copyright on smileys?
    By Willem in forum PHP Development
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 7th, 12:43 PM
  2. Copyright symbols
    By Majicman17@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Illustrator Windows
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: July 14th, 03:57 PM
  3. copyright
    By Gustavo Tobares in forum Macromedia Flash
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 8th, 08:21 PM
  4. copyright logo
    By wood1e in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: August 8th, 03:22 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139