Lifesavers confiscate cameras at Gold Coast beaches

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by PixelPix, Mar 16, 2008.

  1. PixelPix

    PixelPix Guest

    PixelPix, Mar 16, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. PixelPix

    Doug Jewell Guest

    "LIFESAVERS are seizing cameras from tourists and removing
    revealing footage of sunbaking women on popular Gold Coast

    "The veteran patrol captain confirmed lifesavers had
    confiscated some cameras after looking at the images."

    Since when do lifesavers have the right to force someone to
    show them their photos, and then to seize a camera from a
    tourist on a public beach?

    They do a wonderful job as "life savers" but when they start
    pulling this shit, they are overstepping the mark. It would
    serve them right if they got a Manfrotto wrapped around
    their head as far as I'm concerned.
    Doug Jewell, Mar 16, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. PixelPix

    PixelPix Guest

    While I tend to agree.... unless you could prove self-defense I would
    strongly suggest that the manfroggo stays at your side. ;-)

    I would applaud you for standing up to your rights in a non-violent
    manner however, and I would be at your side if I was in the location
    at the time..... probably holding your tripod for safe keeping too.
    lol ;-)
    PixelPix, Mar 16, 2008
  4. No surprise here when there are so many perverts out there taking these pics
    and posting them on the internet without the woman's permission. It's going
    to get worse if photographers don't start showing a little bit of
    responsibility and start policing their own. When you have people taking
    pictures of children and posting them on the internet without their parent's
    *written* permission or snooping in their neighbor's window at night it is a
    problem. Yep, we have that problem in the US and it is very prevalent in

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 16, 2008
  5. PixelPix

    Noons Guest

    A "well-intentioned" train security officer
    in North Sydney station tried that "you cannot
    take photos here" caper with me last year.

    I stopped when I got a written apology
    from the SRA and a guarantee they'd
    fully "re-train" their "security" staff in
    non-fascist techniques of dealing with
    the public.

    I also have a letter signed by Phillip
    Rudock when he was AG, assuring me
    that openly taking photos in public places
    is a perfectly legal activity ANYWHERE
    in Australia and any attempt by ANYONE
    to stop one from enjoying that activity
    is, by definition, harassment.

    Harassment of citizens by would-be fascists
    is illegal and can be the subject of a citizen
    arrest. Which I'll be happy to administer
    next time a stupid arse fascist tries to
    step on my toes.

    Don't give in on this one, folks.
    It only takes one case to go ahead
    unchallenged for this kind of people
    to start making precedents. These
    idiots are fascists, pure and simple.
    Noons, Mar 16, 2008
  6. PixelPix

    Annika1980 Guest

    That's one situation where film has it over digital .... they can't
    just scroll thru the pics.

    Hey Noons, that guy mentioned in the story who they took back home
    only to find child porn on his computer .... was that you or D-Mac?
    Annika1980, Mar 16, 2008
  7. PixelPix

    Annika1980 Guest

    Must you hijack EVERY thread with your illegal harrassment?
    Annika1980, Mar 16, 2008
  8. PixelPix

    Frank Arthur Guest

    If women are shamefully exposing themselves in public why would you
    call a photographer
    of women exposing themselves in public as "perverts"? Wouldn't the
    women exposing themselves in porocative poses in public perverts?
    Anyway- what authority do lifesavers have to confiscate photographers
    Frank Arthur, Mar 16, 2008
  9. PixelPix

    Savageduck Guest

    All of that might be true of the "Photographic Bodysnatchers." However
    it seems private security, Law Enforcement and citizens here in US
    cities such as NYC and Washington DC, and among our allies in the "war
    on terrorism", the UK and Australia are encouraged to make life
    difficult for all photographers. That appears to have happened
    regardless of individual perversions and/or political affiliations.

    NYC, Washington, London, Bristol, Liverpool and cities and harbors in
    Australia, well away from beaches have all had reports of tourist and
    pro photographers being harrased.


    said all of that, carry on pulling the trigger on that D3 (heavy
    panting, lust! lust!) while I wallow in the dirt with my lesser Nikons.

    Savageduck, Mar 16, 2008
  10. PixelPix

    Savageduck Guest

    Savageduck, Mar 16, 2008
  11. PixelPix

    Bob G Guest

    No one can prevent you from taking photographs while in public places,
    any such attempt would be illegal. So long as you don't get in
    people's faces or hound them or cause them harm or discomfort, you're
    allowed to shoot at will.

    It's in the use of your photographs that there are restrictions. For
    instance, you can take pictures of half-naked people on public
    beaches, but if you then publish them in a newspaper article calling
    into question their morality, you'd be in for a law suit.
    Bob G, Mar 16, 2008
  12. PixelPix

    Frank Arthur Guest

    If I was nude at the beach would I be in "for a law suit"?
    Frank Arthur, Mar 16, 2008
  13. PixelPix

    Savageduck Guest

    That is certainly what should be expected if reason prevails. However
    the paranoia of municipalities, Law enforcement & pseudo law
    enforcement (such as private security at shopping malls and park and
    beach authorities) has led to the harassment of tourists with no
    intention of any sort of publication, amateur photogs shooting wildlife
    (strangely enough there is wildlife on those cliff faces of the NYC
    high rises) and landscapes, and pro-photographers.

    There seems to be a high level of this harassment in some US,
    Australian, English and Scots cities, all in the name of protecting
    privacy and the fight against "terror".

    The issue of "candid shots" on Australian & US beaches, or public areas
    such as parks, begs the question;
    At what point do members of the public, in the name of their right to
    protecting their privacy, get to extend that right to all public
    events, or open spaces?

    The news media experience harassment from time to time, however
    photographs taken in the the open at beaches, parks and public events
    are sometimes published. Sometimes an adult or child appears in one of
    these photographs and somebody might take offense, but there is no
    invasion of privacy.
    Privacy is an expected right in a home, place of work and other
    sanctuaries such as hospitals, medical and attorney offices.
    There can, and should not be any expectation of privacy in the open
    public, or at a public event.

    The issue of surrupticious photos taken with lacivious intent for
    dubious gratification, or industrial espionage is another issue, and
    should be dealt with appropriately.

    Then there are those who see spies, paparrazi and perverts everywhere,
    and try to protect us by harassing legitimate photographers.
    Savageduck, Mar 16, 2008
  14. It's a woman's job to tease! You may look but you can't touch.

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 16, 2008
  15. I agree with you, but it still all comes down to the irresponsible actions
    of the few that ruin it on the many. The sad part is it only takes one
    miscreant to get caught misbehaving and that is the one that starts the
    media snowball rolling. Seems the media doesn't notice the behaved and
    responsible photographers following the rules. Like I said before, we have
    that same crap going on in this group where a gentleman from Tennessee feels
    he can take pictures of his neighbors at night through open windows and post
    the pics on the internet. That's an invasion of their privacy. I won't
    even mention the same action he's done with children without their parent's
    permission. It's just irresponsible.
    I'm loving it! Don't fret, all Nikons are great!

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 16, 2008
  16. PixelPix

    Frank Arthur Guest

    "Touch" with a camera?
    Frank Arthur, Mar 16, 2008
  17. Even with a camera. Did you ask her first?

    Rita Berkowitz, Mar 16, 2008
  18. PixelPix

    Jer Guest

    Oh gawd, we're not going get into this shit again are we?
    Jer, Mar 16, 2008
  19. PixelPix

    Noons Guest

    Exactly. Plenty of good material in there.
    And note how any use of force against
    a photographer is open to charges for
    assault. If anyone so much as touches
    your gear while you are taking a photo,
    don't stop: just simply reach for the nearest
    police officer and lay down charges against
    whoever is harassing you. Simple as that.
    I know I do, and it works every single time.

    Look: of course there are ocasions where one
    simply doesn't take photos without asking first.
    An example: school events, child sports
    events, shopping centres, malls and such.
    Just apply common sense and common basic
    social rules.

    But don't let an over-zealous would-be
    fascist spoil your fun when you know you
    are not in the wrong.
    Noons, Mar 16, 2008
  20. I agree that in some cases there are some perverts taking pics that are not
    very flattering (crotch shots, cleavage shots etc), but if you try and stop
    beach photography you are opening the door to stop all lifestyle photography
    including street.

    Law in Australia states (and remember we are talking about Australia here),
    if you are out in the public and the photographer is standing on public /
    crown land, then you have no expectation of privacy. They make exceptions
    when it comes to upskirt type of photography which does not come under a
    photography law, but privacy and harassment laws.

    Are we all to forget some of the wonderful beach life books that were
    produced back in the 60's & 70's, if these laws were enforced we would not
    have these great little gems of history.

    And Rita, here children have the same "expectation of privacy" in public
    places as adults....none!! And that was enforced by a Judge here in the
    past few years. I shoot a lot of kids sports events, and I do not require
    written permission from parents, however I do have permission from the
    sporting body / club, and it is usually heavily promoted and advertised
    (schools are an exception to this, permission has to be sought, that is not
    law, it's school policy).

    However I am not stupid enough to go around snapping general kids photos in
    public, as a parent I probably wouldn't like that either (even though I know
    the law is on the shooters side), I don't particularly wish to get into a
    fight with anyone in public, though they would be the one's to potentially
    be charged with an offence, so I usually ask permission or don't bother.

    By the letter of the law, whomever took the cameras and seized the images /
    footage is in for some serious trouble.

    Mick Brown
    Michael Brown, Mar 17, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.