Rules for taking photos of people in public, in Australia?

[Abyssinian]

I'm having trouble finding out what the laws are about taking photos of people in public for use in my photography albums online and getting them printed etc...

I like taking photos of friends when they're unaware of it, but I don't think that's allowed here.. Could I take photos of interesting people and tell them afterwards, asking for their permission to use them, or whether they would prefer I delete them.. Or is that also wrong.. Does anyone know?

[Magenta]

In most places, you can photograph anyone in public. If you know the subject personally, it's common courtesy to ask their permission. As for strangers, it is perfectly legal. In most places, all your rights to privacy are considered to be few and far between when you're out in public. If you're using the work for a commercial purpose, you should use a model release form just to ensure permission but I don't believe you have to.

Here's a site for you to browse through:
http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

[Abyssinian]

Excellent! So it is okay to take photos of people unaware, but if I ever plan on using them in future I must make sure I alert the person and.. give them my card or something..

Also I'm completely aware that pictures of children is just plain creepy, talk to parents first always! No need to tell me that one. xD

Thank you!

[Jean Poutine]

In most places, you can photograph anyone in public. If you know the subject personally, it's common courtesy to ask their permission. As for strangers, it is perfectly legal. In most places, all your rights to privacy are considered to be few and far between when you're out in public. If you're using the work for a commercial purpose, you should use a model release form just to ensure permission but I don't believe you have to.

Here's a site for you to browse through:
http://www.artslaw.com.au/info-sheets/info-sheet/street-photographers-rights/

Nonono be very careful. Right to anonymity is protected under Canadian law.

Although it is true that in practice nobody will come after you fangs baring if you take a picture of them if it's your hobby, the definition of "commercial activity" can be quite large. In this judgement it was applied to a magazine with under 800 issues sold : http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii817/1998canlii817.html

Perhaps even taking them for an artistic portfolio you might profit from at a later date could be considered "commercial". Who knows.

[Abyssinian]

Canadian law?..

[Magenta]

Nonono be very careful. Right to anonymity is protected under Canadian law.

She was looking for the laws in Australia which I found.

Anyway, while there may be a right to anonymity here in Canada, it's still not illegal. If someone catches you and has a problem with it, I'm sure they'd make it clear. Other than that, it's still perfectly legal to take photos of people when they are on public property. Also, that photograph was of a teenager. Taking photos of minors is a matter of courtesy and common sense.

[Jean Poutine]

She was looking for the laws in Australia which I found.

Anyway, while there may be a right to anonymity here in Canada, it's still not illegal. If someone catches you and has a problem with it, I'm sure they'd make it clear. Other than that, it's still perfectly legal to take photos of people when they are on public property. Also, that photograph was of a teenager. Taking photos of minors is a matter of courtesy and common sense.

I was warning you since you thought a permission form was not necessary even for commercial work in public areas. But permission is required and the decision proves that. Permission might even be required to spread the image (ie post it on the interwebs). And as far as I know, you live in Canada.

The fact that she was a minor has no bearing on the decision of the judges to deny the appeal. Everybody without regards to age is protected under the Charter. In fact beyond recognizing it, no SC judge even takes into account her age at the time. The result would have been the same had she been an adult.

Also, some food for thought about the legality of taking pictures of people in public places and disseminating them (in Canada, derp)...

According to LeBel J.A., writing for the majority, since the respondent was in a public place when the photograph was taken, that act alone could not be considered an invasion of her privacy. However, the unauthorized publication of the photograph constituted an infringement of her anonymity, which is an essential element of the right to privacy.

LeBel J.A. recognized that the unauthorized publication of a photograph could be justified on the basis of the public’s legitimate interest in information. In his view, however, Quebec law recognizes no such exception for artistic activity. Even in the absence of bad faith, the dissemination of the photograph was, therefore, wrongful.

In our view, the artistic expression of the photograph, which was alleged to have served to illustrate contemporary urban life, cannot justify the infringement of the right to privacy it entails. It has not been shown that the public’s interest in seeing this photograph is predominant. The argument that the public has an interest in seeing any work of art cannot be accepted, especially because an artist’s right to publish his or her work, no more than other forms of freedom of expression, is not absolute.

An artist’s right to publish his or her work cannot include the right to infringe, without any justification, a fundamental right of the subject whose image appears in the work. While the artist’s right must be taken into consideration, so must the rights of the photograph’s subject. If it is accepted that publishing the artist’s work is an exercise of freedom of expression, the respondent’s right not to consent must also be taken into consideration. That is what this Court held in the context of the Canadian Bill of Rights in CKOY Ltd. v. The Queen, 1978 CanLII 40 (SCC), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 2, at pp. 14‑15, where the Court denied a radio station the right to broadcast an interview without the consent of the person interviewed.

None of the exceptions mentioned earlier based on the public’s right to information is applicable here. Accordingly, there appears to be no justification for giving precedence to the appellants other than their submission that it would be very difficult in practice for a photographer to obtain the consent of all those he or she photographs in public places before publishing their photographs. To accept such an exception would, in fact, amount to accepting that the photographer’s right is unlimited, provided that the photograph is taken in a public place, thereby extending the photographer’s freedom at the expense of that of others. We reject this point of view. In the case at bar, the respondent’s right to protection of her image is more important than the appellants’ right to publish the photograph of the respondent without first obtaining her permission. (probably because she was in focus)

This is the picture :
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QaYGDDrTwJk/TGumTf3HfwI/AAAAAAAAAmI/qr7hIe1xnmo/s400/celebre_inconnu2.jpg