Legal information

[david farland]

Though I share this site detailing your photography right in public.

Australian street photography legal issues (http://4020.net/words/photorights.php)

Cheers,

[Samuel Doyle]

cheers David,

interesting...

[legal Forum]

What would happen if you take pictures of people walking in the street, exhibit the prints at a gallery and then sell them for prices ranging $20-30K each? Do the people portrayed have any rights to claim for financial compensation? Do they have the legal rights to preclude of exhibiting and selling the prints at a fine art gallery? The answer is no, they can’t ask for financial compensation nor stop you from selling the prints -at least in the U.S.A.- as long as they are sold for editorial use (including fine art prints) and with no commercial purpose (e.g. advertising).

[Noel Evans]

So relax. You only need to worry about SHFA permits if your photography requires a film crew, portable generators and a couple of semitrailers. Otherwise the law is, as far as the general public is concerned,

This pertains to Darling Harbour.

Very interesting. Whilst on a recent Sydney shoot we shot some b roll at Darling Harbour and whilst getting my very last shot, a guy came up to me and started carrying on to a ridiculous extent that I was not allowed to shoot there. I was using a HPX500 off the shoulder. He even asked to see the shots. Of course I refused that request, not that it mattered. But if you saw this guys overreaction you would think I was a terrorist. He seriously just kept going on and on, even after I was moving on at which point he was creating a scene. That was when I turned around and told him that I understood the first time and he should probably just go away now. He then called for backup ????!!! Very strange guy.

Wish I had read this tidbit prior to that shoot. I swear as we shot the aerials the next day I could see him shaking hist fist at me :P

[A. Bastaki]

it sounds like australia has no rights =P

[Christian Edwards]

it sounds like australia has no rights =P
Yeah you may be right, im not really sure ?!its not something iv really considered in the broader sense, i guess its a relative term. i feel kinda disillusioned now the more i think about it . You cant film/video in national parks without permit nor beaches for that matter and thats not even taking into consideration native title landholders

i can however film in my bedroom , and lets face it, thats where all the action happens :)

[Michael Brennan]

... The answer is no, they can’t ask for financial compensation nor stop you from selling the prints -at least in the U.S.A.- as long as they are sold for editorial use (including fine art prints) and with no commercial purpose (e.g. advertising).

Correct. You are selling the photo itself, you are not linking the photo to advertising or selling. But print "drink coke" on the image and it becomes advertising.
The subject has no legal right to seek a % of sales if the picture was taken legally ie in a public place.

However if your photo was used as a poster to attract people to the gallery then this is deemed to be advertising and is a commercial practice.
Same applies if the photo appeared on the cover of a magazine as covers are regarded in the same way as posters. (however the same image printed inside the mag is not deemed advertising)
If you do take a wonderful shot (motion picture or still) then it is a good idea to get a model release so that it can be used for commercial purposes.

Michael Brennan

[jimhare]

That's great Dave, thanks so much for posting.

Jim