Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aussie State Gov't Seeks to Regulate Web Photos

Posted by timothy on from the are-you-visible-or-not dept.

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."

5 of 37 comments (clear)

  1. Yet another law ? by redelm · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:Yet another law ? by damiangerous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

  2. While they're at it... by Skyshadow · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  3. How is this different? by booch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  4. How fun, homophobia masqerading as 'rights' by freerangegeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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. :)