Aussie State Gov't Seeks to Regulate Web Photos

Mind Socket writes: "The Syndey Morning Herald has published an article stating that the Victorian government has flagged new internet privacy laws to prevent people's photos being published on websites without their consent. Yet another case of an Australian government trying to control the internet differently to other media."

Comments

Yet another law ?

[redelm]

Funny, I thought the photographer owned the copyright on photos, not the subject. Of course, the photographer and/or newspaper usually seeks consent to avoid being sued for defamation or uncompensated services. But news is news, and what happens in a public place _is_ public.

As a practical matter, this would only work iff the website or some sponsor/owner of it were within the Court's jurisdiction.

While they're at it...

[Skyshadow]

While they're at it, maybe they can ban people from posting pictures of their cats and ugly children.

Seriously, though, I can see the reasoning here, but it seems like a law just begging to be abused -- what if I said that you can't post muckraking photos of workers at my food processing plant peeing in the Cream of Mushroom, etc? Why should I be able to publish celebrity photos in a tabloid but not a web site? Isn't this just effectively removing the internet as a valid form of journalism?

Maybe it's just time to update privacy laws somewhat in a way that doesn't treat the net as a redheaded stepchild.

How is this different?

[booch]

How is this different than publishing in a magazine or something? I don't see this as being any more restrictive for Internet pictures than any other medium.

How fun, homophobia masqerading as 'rights'

[freerangegeek]

Yeah! public officials in a public place have their nickers in a twist because somebody is ogling at them as 'sexual objects'.

Too bad boys, if this were private locker room video taken without consent, fine, outlaw it. Reasonable expectation of privacy, etc...

If you really want to stop this, just have the life guards wear ugly boxer suits, or grow a big gut to hang over the suit line.

I'm sure if this were pictures of lovely female lifeguards doing their duty, they primary surfers would be the very gentlemen writing the 'digital rights' law.

Personally, if I were the web publisher, I'd just write a nice essay on the beach and surf conditions and call myself a news site. The photos would then just be the typical news background image. :)

Buy a clue

[Anonymous Coward]

--this isn't about lifeguards. This is about private people catching cops or other governmental workers in illegalities, and then publishing the photos when the controlled press won't because it's bought off and corrupt. The lifeguard dodge was just a test case for public opinion.

If ya notice, almost all these new internet* laws in the western/civilized world are designed to protect government from exposure and liability, just follow the clue train back enough you'll see it.

Not only "internet", but everything from "health" laws to "gun" laws etc. All for governmental control.

Assosciation

[LordLucless]

The problem is that people can easily dismiss rumour. Photos are generally accepted as better "proof". The problem is when someone is photographed unaware, and placed in a context that distorts the picture.

For example, the guys that had pictures placed on a gay website were not, afaik, gay. However, by putting the pictures, which weren't doctored at all, on the site, an assosciation is created which can be damaging.

I'm not too sure about libel laws - the people who posted the pictures never said the guys were homosexual. But anyone who saw the site probably assumed so, and that could be damaging to the people involved.