photographers' rights clarified in NSW after Gay Mardi Gras arrest scuffle

[lynnb]

An incident at the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras festival has led to senior NSW police making a public statement acknowledging the right of NSW citizens to photograph and record video in public places.

While an unfortunate incident for the person arrested (and still under investigation) this has at least forced an official public statement confirming police do not have the right to order people to stop taking photos or to confiscate film or memory cards or delete images.

 

[Keith]

I watched that video today ... that cop looked like a real prick the way he behaved!

I realise that handling problems at these types of events is a challenge for many of them but it's what they get paid to do ... and they need to follow protocol.

The Gay Mardi Gras is a huge event and benefits Sydney in immeasurable ways IMO ... it doesn't need this sort of crap!

 

[68degrees]

Props to at least one official stating what should be the obvious in OZ. In the USA there is a first amendment to our constitution which is routinely ignored by police and other law enforcement officials.

I am sadly amused that one of the situations most regularly encountered for such an abuse is when a LEO is arresting someone. Even if a photographer or videographer is well out of the way, even across a street, it can be construed as interfering with a LEO to make a record of the incident.

they will make whatever excuse needed to arrest someone. Then its your problem and $$$$ to get out of jail and fight it. and theres caps on how much you can sue a municipality and its always and amount that is too small to interest any lawyer.

 

[Damaso]

Thanks for posting!

 

[maggieo]

they will make whatever excuse needed to arrest someone. Then its your problem and $$$$ to get out of jail and fight it. and theres caps on how much you can sue a municipality and its always and amount that is too small to interest any lawyer.

As they say, "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

 

[rkm]

An incident at the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras festival has led to senior NSW police making a public statement acknowledging the right of NSW citizens to photograph and record video in public places.

While an unfortunate incident for the person arrested (and still under investigation) this has at least forced an official public statement confirming police do not have the right to order people to stop taking photos or to confiscate film or memory cards or delete images.

I saw that on the new last night, and thought the same thing. Horrible circumstance, but great that there was a statement made reinforcing rights.

The only confusion for me as someone who photographs, is what spaces are public and what spaces are not?

Are commercial spaces that are intended for public use, public?

Nothing to do with photography, but everything to do with thuggish police, this story of a Brazilian student being killed by police for the sake of two packets of biscuits deeply saddened me, and reinforced my distrust of police in general. I am a father and I grieve for the Curti family who lost their son at the hands of NSW police.

http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/thuggish-po...brazilian-student-roberto-20121114-29bff.html

 

[peterm1]

Fortunately the days of "gay bashing" by police as an "unofficial policy" is now well and truly over in Australia and events like this are marked by cooperation and restraint between the gay community and police.

But there is always someone who does not get the memo!

Its too easy for a burly cop to throw a young and slightly built gay bloke who looks as if he could not win a fight with a school kid to the ground and stand on him. Outrageous and uncalled for.

I understand its hard for cops but they are paid (and trained) to keep their cool and if they cannot do so they should not be in the job. Simple as that. These days most cops in most police forces in Australia are very good at their job - somewhat more restrained than what I see and hear about in the USA where too many cops seem "gun happy". Although to some extent there is a problem emerging with police over using tasers - its much easier to taser someone giving you trouble than to risk getting your uniform dirty by scuffling with them.
At least thats the conclusion I draw.


Even so its still a far cry from the bad old days when Australian cops were "biff merchants" who were selected for their ability with their fists more than with their brains or other abilities. Anything that tarnishes this professionalism has to be stamped out and it seems that most senior police understand that.

These days a somewhat bigger problem in Australia is with "rent a cops" - the private security industry. We have had far too many instances where thugs providing security to nightclubs and the like have killed patrons who were a bit too drunk for their own good and have made the mistake of giving the security guy "lip". One king-hit to the head of a drunk and unsuspecting bloke is all it takes to turn them into a vegetable or to put them in an early grave. Unfortuantely courts take a far too lenient view, perhaps because its always hard to get evidence to show clearly what happened. Which brings me to my next point.

I saw the video and the cop telling the person not to film and it has to be said he was a bit half hearted about it - perhaps in the hope that they would back down. But he let the matter drop and he did not follow through and here was none of what I have seen elsewhere in other countries from time to time when the video maker him / herself is arrested and brutalised. Needless to say the ability to film police in situations like this is essential to the need to hold them accountable when they do over step the mark. And of course to clear them when they are wrongly accused of being too rough.

 

[lynnb]

rohankent - although shopping malls such as Westfield may have open public areas and may look like public space, my understanding is that they are not and photography without permission is prohibited. My understanding is that if the land is owned privately then it's private property in terms of civil rights.

However I understand that if you are standing on public property and photograph people on private property then the main legal consideration is whether the people on private property you are photographing have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Generally speaking a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy if they are in a private space - inside their house, for instance.

Additionally one cannot take a photograph of a person's private parts without their consent (and it would be advisable to have the protection of a model release even if consent was given). So if someone suffered a wardrobe malfunction and you photographed that, it could be a problem.

Of course these are my personal understandings and as such they have no legal basis. As always, it's up to people to get their own legal advice. My understandings have been gained from searching the net, including this resource - but nothing beats getting your own legal advice.

The above only applies to NSW. Other Australian States and other countries may have different laws about whether you can photograph people in privately-owned or operated 'public' spaces.

 

[rkm]

Thanks Lynn.

As for shopping malls I guess we shouldn't assume that the answer is no. I noticed a local place, Rouse Hill Town Centre recently ran an Instagram photographic competition #RHTCSummer where entries had to be of people in the centre. One would assume therefore that their general policy is that photography is Ok, be it iPhone or other cameras. Probably the best course of action is to ask the management of each place what their policy is.

 

[Keith]

My understanding of shopping malls etc is that being privately owned public spaces you can photograph until you're asked not to. I looked into this a while ago after being severely harassed by the police at my local center one day. I received an apology from the desk sergeant at the local police station after the event and was told I could take it further if I wished.

 

[lynnb]

My guess is that because iPhonography is so ubiquitous they use a discretionary approach. I imagine if the person taking photos appears 'professional' (by their equipment, no doubt) or fits a 'risk profile' stereotype (middle age man taking photos of children) then they will investigate.

It's good to see competitions like that being promoted. Anything that helps dispel the paranoia some people have about public photography is a step forward.

 

[nikon_sam]

It's great that a statement was made by a high ranking official claiming that photographing or filming police in public places is perfectly legal...what I don't like is calling the officer "Naive"...in doing so he allows the officer to get away with his actions...
If you are being paid to uphold the law you should know the law...this officer wasn't "Naive" he was just trying to get away with breaking the law himself...and most likely trying to get away with beating up the Mardi Gras participant...

Remember..."The more you defend a lie, the angrier you become..."

 

[nikon_sam]

My understanding of shopping malls etc is that being privately owned public spaces you can photograph until you're asked not to. I looked into this a while ago after being severely harassed by the police at my local center one day. I received an apology from the desk sergeant at the local police station after the event and was told I could take it further if I wished.

I believe this to be true...it's happened to me at our local outdoor shopping mall...the mall & grounds are privately owned but open to the public...they can enforce any photography rules they want at any time for any reason or not...
There aren't any "No Photography Allowed" signs anywhere and they have no written policy...they enforce this as they see fit...
If you don't comply with them then they'll get you for Trespassing...:bang:
That they can enforce....

 

[newspaperguy]

Forget about your principles, and your "rights."

Unless you're taking photos as an integral part of your job -

and your employer has good lawyers - my advice would be:

If someone asks you to stop taking photos, do it!

Rick

 

[lynnb]

Rick, that's good advice from a personal safety viewpoint, but if public officials are doing things they shouldn't and no-one shines a spotlight on them to bring their behaviour to light then the danger is their behaviour will become normalised, and everyone loses - except those whose power is being protected by these actions.

An interesting article here about the US Justice Dept affirming the right to photograph police in the Garcia case.

 

[DamenS]

The extended video, which shows the large police officer throwing the slight boy onto concrete, WITH his hands already having been handcuffed behind his back, truly disgusts me ... how many people have died in Australia, even since David Hookes, through hitting their heads on hard ground after being punched ... and this was done by a police-officer who already had the victim in handcuffs so he had no chance of breaking the fall ? Apparently the police officer had already "handled the victim violently" prior to the video starting - hence the blood already flowing down.

I'm glad it is all caught on film, but most of the time these things aren't - I still suspect it will just "go away" as these things tend to do - but I sincerely hope the fact there is photo/videographic evidence ensures something is done. One of the less purely "artistic" and more "practical" benefits of photography. I know this thread is meant to be about the acknowledgement of our rights as photographers, but the larger issue seems to be a transgression against our rights as people. Here's a link to an article with the full video:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/teen-in-m...rce-video-swore-at-police-20130306-2fk03.html