The Copyright Act does not prohibit any kind of photography, as it is more concerned with the use and selling of material and ideas without the permission of the person who 'owns' them, for example, selling a knockoff of an artist's work without their authorisation. Photography can be included in these issues if the photographer has taken the concept of another, created a similar shot and claimed it as solely their own.
There are Privacy Legislations in place which give some restraint to photographing people. Anti-Voyeurism and Anti-Terrorist Laws also present limitations to photographers.
If you are taking photos on private property the owner can stop you, even if the property is publically accessible.
Market places and malls are not considered public spaces. The person running the market can ask you to stop photographing and the stall holders have some rights as well.
Railway stations are public spaces so it is fine taking photos as long as you don't tread on too many toes.
You are allowed to photograph the Sydney Harbour Bridge as long as it isn't for commercial use, and even then the definition of commercial use is quite ambiguous. You should be fine with a hand held camera.
Police can stop you taking photographs but only if they feel you are breaking the law or being disruptive. They generally don't mind being photographed but be cautious about taking photos around crime scenes.
Consent is not needed for the one off or occasional shot of a person but it you are going to be photographing them a lot it's a good idea to ask, otherwise they can have you charged for stalking. Good etiquette however suggests getting the person's consent first.
Consent is generally needed when you are using the person's likeness for commercial purposes through them signing a 'model release'.
Art exhibitions are considered non commercial as you are selling the photo itself and not using the person's likeness to endorse anything.
Property release forms are not needed in Australia to photograph private buildings or land, so long as you have the owner's permission to take the photos or take them from a public place.
Straight photographs can't be considered as defamation unless they are severely unflattering. Also people with a higher reputation are more likely to have their claims against you to be taken seriously.
You have copyright claims to pictures even if a third party has commissioned it and it is taken in a public place, provided you aren't employed by anyone in which case the employer owns the copyright.
With private functions however the client owns the copyright.
After reading through the article it is clear that you can photograph someone in the street without their consent then sell that picture at an art exhibition. It is not breaking any copyright or privacy laws as you will own the copyright of the photos, it is taken in a public space and you won't be using that persons image for endorsement. I think it's a good think that the laws aren't too restrictive but these laws can also be very ambiguous so it is hard to know where to draw the line.
No comments:
Post a Comment