Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: They can see your house from here

211 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last

  • BenWilson,

    I'll just point out the obvious. Streetcam is not a live feed. Whether or not I'd be disturbed by a live feed (that would probably depend who had access), it's got little bearing on this technology.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    Precisely: what's yours is theirs.

    Right, I'll het a webcam mounted this weekend & we'll see what the dirty pinkos get up to on weekdays when I'm not there.

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • David Hood,

    Concerns about public photography have a lot to do with the imagined character of the photographer. I think the Chaser's War on Everything covered this best:

    Dunedin • Since May 2007 • 1445 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    Fucking brilliant!

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    Short anecdote:
    I was taking some crappy night time shots with my brand new Fuji S305 (yes it was some time back, 04/09/03) and the reason they weren't so hot is that I was quite pissed. I think I was waiting for Mrs Harris to pick me up. Anyway, these shots were around Molesworth St, which has some very photogenic buildings in it - Parliament, the GA Library, St Paul's Cathedral and the National Library, for a few. Not having a tripod on me, I was resting the camera on bins and walls and bollards to try to keep it steady. Having literally crouched in the bushes in Parliament grounds without incident, I was mightily surprised when an Armourguard security person approached me on the steps of the NatLib and told me that I couldn't take photographs there. Now I was in a suit, but still worse for wear. Anyway, I told her she was wrong and there were no security concerns about taking photographs in a public place and she should call the Police in if she thought otherwise. I must have been authoritative enough, because she backed off and didn't call the boys in blue, but she and her associate hung around the bottom of the steps (while I ostentatiously took some more crappy photos of St Paul's) until my lady wife arrived to pick me up.

    Moral:
    Most people (Police and security included, although not in this anecdote) have no idea about the legality of public photography . AFAIK, it is legal to take photographs of anything in a public place, unless there are specific signs forbidding it (like inside the art gallery).

    Graeme, oh wise one? Any clarification to add?

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    I lie, I wasn't in a suit. I would probably have been wearing a leather jacket, though - (see http://www.flickr.com/photos/nzlemming/3078771193/ from earlier in the evening)

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Christopher Dempsey,

    Anyway, I told her she was wrong and there were no security concerns about taking photographs in a public place and she should call the Police in if she thought otherwise

    And no security concerns either about taking photos the lobby of a large office building in downtown Auckland either.

    Researching the use of bonus rights in the construction of the Vero Centre on Shortland Street I was busily taking photos of the lobby area, when the security attendent approached and said that I couldn't take photos.

    I said that I could. The Resource Consent for the building specifically had easements in favour of the council for certain parts of the lobby area (as they were bonus rights granted by council), therefore an easement in favour of council means that it's public.

    I carried on taking photos of the rather impressive lobby. (The areas around the seating inside, and the area outside are all easements in favour of Council as are these stairs and the path leading to the external plaza at the back of the building).

    The security attendent didn't take it any further.

    Parnell / Tamaki-Auckland… • Since Sep 2008 • 659 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Mark, bizarre anecdote for you. After the extremely troubled birth of my son, when we were finally released from hospital, I naturally wanted to take some shots of the momentous occasion, as we left the place. But some old security guard refused to let me, saying that it was not legal to take photographs of the hospital.

    Now I had trouble believing him, but I didn't want to crush the buzz of taking my baby home by having a yelling match with some bureaucratic dickhead.

    I think a lot of these creeps just try it on.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    I think a lot of these creeps just try it on.

    That they do. Everyone has a feeling that they know what "privacy" is, but bugger all actually have read the Act - they just work from their gut, and I suspect many of them have the equivalent of chronic candida overgrowth.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Isabel Hitchings,

    But some old security guard refused to let me, saying that it was not legal to take photographs of the hospital.

    Really? I have some shots of me leaving hospital with my first born (that'd be the old Chch Women's seven years ago). I look like I've been released from prison - scruffy, shell-shocked and determined never to go back.

    Christchurch • Since Jul 2007 • 719 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    ...it was not legal to take photographs of the hospital.

    In some old buildings etc in Europe they'll tell you you can't take photos because of copyright law.

    I understand this to mean "beacause we don't want you to".

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Well the Mrs is pregnant again, so if it happens again, I'll have a better retort ready.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • James Green,

    In some old buildings etc in Europe they'll tell you you can't take photos because of copyright law.

    And in other places, because of the potential damage done by the flash.
    One of my pet peeves is the number of people who seem incapable of turning off the flash on their camera. I almost never use the flash on my point and shoot. Even at night, I'd much prefer the grainier warm look than red-eyed people looking pasty as flock because of the flash.
    FLASH IS NOT YOUR FRIEND.

    And don't even get me started on flashes at big events. I guess it can sometimes look really cool looking back at the crowd and seeing all the flash flickering, but given the effective range of a flash is under 10m, epic fail.

    Limerick, Ireland • Since Nov 2006 • 703 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    I'm fairly sure you can not only take photos of anything in a public place in NZ, but the copyright in those photos is vested by statute in the photographer.

    (John Radford, the creator of the Tip sculptures in Western park was trying to sue Hallensteins for using images of them on a tshirt. Presumably he's finally got a better lawyer and been advised to give up. If you don't want your creations photographed and those photos used, don't allow them in a public place in NZ.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    I was once doing a youth theatre thing - so parents were taking photos - and there was one bit with candles moving behind a white backdrop. I suspect that the ones where people's flashes went off didn't come out too good.

    We were at the night zoo in Singapore and the guy driving the tour vehicle has to stop and seriously tell the group off for flashes. Fortunately at an aquarium elsewhere my wife had worked out her new camera resets to having the flash on every time you turn it off, so it wasn't us.

    This on a camera that can do the equivalent of 6400asf (or more, I forget), so unless you can't see lack of flash is not really a problem.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Yes the photograph itself is considered to be an artwork.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Lyndon Hood,

    Probably just 3200 actually, but still...

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1115 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Pretty sure most camera vendors just err on the side of caution in flashing automatically. Probably they figure most people using the camera are taking pictures primarily of the people nearby.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    If you don't want your creations photographed and those photos used, don't allow them in a public place in NZ.

    He's got a bad lawyer if he loses that one or doesn't get a deal. Placing something in public doesn't relinquish copyrights, though it certainly opens them up to being used a lot.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    And don't even get me started on flashes at big events. I guess it can sometimes look really cool looking back at the crowd and seeing all the flash flickering, but given the effective range of a flash is under 10m, epic fail.

    Yes, I often wonder what sort of results the tourists get from taking night time shots with flash of the city from the Cable car lookout.

    Actually, now I think about it I had a discussion with some guy in Paris who wanted to know why I wasn't using a flash at nightime. Seemed to bother him.

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    I guess part of the point is that the flash doesn't harm the shot of something that it fails to illuminate, but it might illuminate close things a whole lot better...so why not?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    I guess part of the point is that the flash doesn't harm the shot of something that it fails to illuminate, but it might illuminate close things a whole lot better...so why not?

    Problem being that any camera with a light meter sort of takes the average of the pretty faraway stuff and the blazing bright nearby stuff, and thus the view is wrecked.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1611 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    I guess part of the point is that the flash doesn't harm the shot of something that it fails to illuminate, but it might illuminate close things a whole lot better...so why not?

    It could wash out the foreground of a long shot.

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams,

    As for your Sydney issues, Australians are all a bit odd anyway. Leave that den of inequity and return to your rightful home immediately.

    I regularly contemplate coming home, I probably would've years back except my wife's got a killer job at the Sydney Opera House and my youngest's got great childcare. I like it enough here, but it's not home.

    The existence of facts in respect of which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy; and

    Publicity given to those private facts that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person.

    Highly offensive seems a pretty high threshold (counts out getting caught in your knickers grabbing the washing), I wonder as monitoring becomes more and more commonplace, if the courts mightn't lower this somewhat.

    Most people (Police and security included, although not in this anecdote) have no idea about the legality of public photography . AFAIK, it is legal to take photographs of anything in a public place, unless there are specific signs forbidding it

    The existence of a sign mightn't be enough, lots of 'authorities' make pronoucements that are likely outside their scope (I'll leave Mr Edgeler to opine on the doctrine of ultra vires).

    Back to the Sydney beaches, I checked to see if, as I thought, there were photograpy bans at Sydney beaches; there's not. There's a lengthy discussion of the relevant laws here.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    Problem being that any camera with a light meter sort of takes the average of the pretty faraway stuff and the blazing bright nearby stuff, and thus the view is wrecked.

    Yup I always use spot mode personally. It's one of the beauties of digital photography, that you can actually see what the contrast will be like.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.