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.

Re:Yet another law ?

[damiangerous]

Not necessarily. It's a very contested area, legally. It depends on the photograph and purpose of publication. In this particular case, it's very questionable at best, and most likely an actionable breach of privacy (in the US). While the photos were taken in a public place, the Lifeguards were the intended subjects, not incidental ones (they were't shooting the beach or sunset, etc) and the photos were not intended for news reporting purposes (the article strongly implies they were in fact intended for sexual titillation). Here is a good primer on American law on the subject (since you're an American I assume you're speaking of US law).

Re:Yet another law ?

[arb]

Perhaps moreso in this case since the lifeguards were presumably civil servants at work.

The majority of Surf Lifesavers in Australia are volunteers...

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. :)

Re:What this might be about

[PD]

Then they should treat it like any other expression. If I say something like "John went to the store" that's inoffensive, and causes no harm. If I say something like "John went to the whorehose" then that might be harmful if it wasn't true.

Photos should be the same way. Photos of John going to the store should be just fine. Photos of John going to a whorehouse would be fine if they are genuine (truth is a defense against libel and slander) and not so find if they are photoshopped.

But then, if it's political speech, satire, or parody, such as Falwell talking about the first time he slept with his mother/drank a certain brand of gin, then that should be protected as well, as long as a reasonable person would recognise the parody.

how can they complain?

[MadAhab]

Is it true that all Australians are bi-sexual?

Didn't they also pass a law against proving that someone is gay?

Seriously, the article made it sound as if there were misappropriation of photos. Via film, use of someone's likeness in a fictional context has long been legally regarded as wrong - it implies something about someone that's counter to fact, so it doesn't get - and doesn't deserve - the same protection as a street photo in a journalistic context.

It depends on the website's presentation. "See these gayboys" can and should get them into trouble. "Man, these guys make me horny" is legit, though in today's "let's blame the internet" environment, it's still likely to catch shit. I say, "Blame Canada". Why? I'm a dumb American, I confuse Australia with Austria.

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.

Hang on

[Rogerborg]

This is utterly superfluous. If the gay site is in Australia, can't they just shut it down by saying that it's not suitable for children?. I mean, who's thinking of the children? Won't someone please think of the children!