Consent for Photography Not Required in Australia
A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed.
A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed.
However this doesn’t mean you can go photo-mad on whomever you like!
Common law doctrines such as nuisance, trespassing, defamation, offensive behavior, infringement of rights (such as trade secrets) all still apply and can bare weight against you.
Other times when you can be prohibited from taking photos is when you are on private land. Markets and shopping centres are public places but they are still on private land, so you consent to any requirements the property’s owner may impose upon you.
If you are asked by the owners to stop taking photos then you are fully obliged to do so. Once you leave their property however, there is nothing to prevent you from taking photographs from outside its borders.
So what happens when your told to stop and Mr 150kg comes over to escort you out?
Although property owners may use “reasonable force” to evict people, they can never threaten violence (“assault“), detain you at length, push you around & seize your camera or film (“battery“), or even force you to delete digital files.
If you were in a private property and told to stop taking photos as long as your photographs don’t break any other laws you still have the right to display/sell the images that you have already taken. They can not force you to retract/destroy them.
So in summary:
Aside from commercial use or summary-offence issues, consent for photography is not required in this country. It is purely a subjective question of etiquette & taste.
Text lifted (but spell-checked) from the Blackwood Camera Club
More elaborate information available at 4020.net
kathleen
been interested in this, used to work for govt depts and they needed ‘model release forms’ for everyone photographed almost. but the art world is different, thank you stephen
Popular Mr
I think it is a matter of being polite and not invasive. People usually dun mind a snap or 2 unless you are holding a camera with a massive lens and 2 more cameras slung round the neck.
When I intend to do such photography, usually choose the smallest and quietest setup.
Belladonna
so how do you think you would feel if you took a photo of a subject and through that photograph a person was identified as being in a certain area ,and found by someone they didn’t want to be found by.i am essentially talking about people hiding from abuse and domestic violence.I believe it is better to ask because at least that way you are giving the person an option. just as an aside I would never allow someone to photograph my children in a public place, even if they asked I would have to question motive, sad ,yes , but it is the world in which we live.
Princessbren2006
You have to have photo release forms in Education also now. Many stores display no photography unless you have asked permission on their windows now. Belladonna I dont think you can stop that from happening as photo journalist take pics of people all the time. It’s the chance you take by being out and about and isn’t something that you have alot of control of. I tend not to put pictures of people on this site myself.
kathleen
As I am one of those ‘in hiding’, my dad isn’t a nice person lets just say, I have to agree with belladonna. I would’t want my children online, photos are one thing but the internet another, if you are doing a natural study no need for people, crowd scenes though, thats where it all gets blurry
Helen McLean
Whenever I photograph events for the City of Casey, I have to carry around consent forms and have them filled out before I photograph the person. Actually, this has been the system for the past few years, prior to that it was a lot easier and much more candid when I could just shoot away. I think they are just protecting themselves completely now.
Lee Wilde
I am not a photographer, but I am interested in copyright issues. This is very interesting to read, thanks.
kseriphyn
I stray away from “People” and distingushed “building” shots. Trees, water, abstract, animals are my safe bet. The only people images in my port are ones of my own kin.
The world is embedded with copyright contentions and paranoia. I can understand why. Shame really, because I love capturing happy moments on the beach etc. The other day I took photos of my family at a picnic. Some of the shots caught other families that happened to be in range of my own family. I’d never use them for commercial and public display. I’ve actually cropped them out of the shots or deleted them altogether.
I feel horrible when I pull out my camera in public places, because I’m paranoid people would be thinking I’m taking pictures of them when in fact I’m taking landscape shots and pictures of the sky.
I think Canon got it right when they once had their jingle as “Advanced Simplicity”.
kseriphyn
should say “tend” to stray away.
Stephen Mitchell
It’s great that everyone has a view on this part of the Australian “Consent to Photograph” issues!
I gave this information purely for reading and understanding. I make no debate either way on whether it’s right, wrong, inappropriate, or whatever. That’s a judgment call that each photographer has to make on the day.
I’ll only say this:
I also don’t like taking photographs of people in a public place. Not unless it has agreed upon or I have been asked. Recently discovered the fun of capturing action shots of humans – catching/kicking a football, Frisbee-throwing, throwing a stick to a dog, etc.
But I try to avoid full-frontal or portrait shots, instead going for the full-body shot thereby the photograph is more about the activity rather than the person.