simonpg Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Sadly during the last week Australia has reached the "bottom of the barrel" in terms of attacks on amatuer photographers. In the state of Queensland a Government school headmaster announced his biggest initiative (my take on it) for 2006 is that "all photography of children playing sports will be banned in the interests of preventing paedophile activities". What the hell taking pictures has to do with paedophillia is anyone's guess. Where the linkage between owning cameras an being a paedophile lies is also anyone's guess. He draws a ridiculously long bow that should offend genuine law abiding photographers world-wide. Like all things in life criminal activities are perpetrated by a small minority. The evils of paedophiles are obviously conducted in secret. No photo of a child is, per se, evil. It's the intent and use of images that becomes evil. This idiot's initiative was matched by security guards in the regional city of Geelong. The local amateur photographer club drove to the area of the Shell oil refinery to take industrial images only to be challenged by guards who insisted "no photographs are allowed to be taken of the refinery because you may be terrorists"! Wisely the club members told the guard in plain English (as Aussies can do so well) what they could do with that statement and returned the next evening to continue their creative activities. So, now here down under mindless fools concoct imbecilic ideas about protecting the world from wrong-doers. So, my point here is if these stories are similar to ones in your country and neighbourhood - stand up and revolt; attack those who would accuse you of evil because you use a camera; don't allow such stupidity to take a never-to-be undone foothold; fight back and don't be intimidated by them. If we sit back and grumble without taking real action, so much of our life events and day to day history will never be recorded for future generations. We should ensure that the gifts of Cartier-Bresson and so many others can live on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denisgermain Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 plain stupid.... but then again France and Quebec have fairly tough laws on the "use" of a person's image. The worst part is that people with real cameras are the target of these laws when the dangerous/sick ones are using cell phone cameras to shot their crap! BTW most of Cartier-Bresson's photos were done with actors (including the famous "Lovers Kissing" photo). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonpg Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 Thanks Denis. Yes, I was aware of HCB's often use of actors but he is identified so heavilly with the "street" image concept so helps my overll point. I totally agree with your point regarding cell phones and other "secretive" tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denisgermain Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 :D - there is INDEED a bunch of sick humans on this planet... and it makes some people have weird reactions............ a man came to me and asked me why I was shooting kids playing hockey??? FGS they are wearing a gladiator outfit and a full-face mask.... I don't see how it could be used for what anything else than what it is.... kids playing hockey! (but then again I'm only Photographer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Just an aside, but wasn't the kissing photo Doiseneu [sP]. He used actors, I don't think HCB did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denisgermain Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 that's right Doisneau did shoot the kissing couple... http://luciolenice.canalblog.com/images/DOISNEAU.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jukka_lehmus Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 And the persons in that photo (a theatre student and her boyfriend if I remmber correctly) decades later asked for royalities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 It's the way the world is going. Expect a return to witch trials and the burning of heretics in the not-too-distant future. Oh, and by the way, the Sun goes around the Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefoot Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Kick 'em out of the commonwealth, I say. And the next ashes series, and the World Cup and Rugby League and Rugby Union. No, hang on. They can stay in Union Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Simon - sorry to hear that you have got them as well. I feel that it comes about as a knee jerk reaction to a problem and the "band-wagon" effect. There appears to be a degree of sanity returning here in the UK as the banning has been reversed in a number of cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
working camera Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Simon which Qld state school? It is getting pretty bad here in Aus photo wise. C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alejandrokeller Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 How do kids do sport in down under? Naked? if not, it is even more difficult to understand that ban. As for the terrorists, forget about taking pictures. It is way easier, and safer, to use Google maps to get information about any "strategical" target... I really hope this stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdkirk Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I hope nobody checks the stats on how many kidnappers use automobiles... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy_smith2 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 that headman sounds like a hick with his brain in his ass. security gards are always hicks with their brains in ther asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Are you sure you're reading the article on Geelong correctly? Seems like I remember that the cops checked them out, but didn't tell them they couldn't take photos. Maybe my memory is going bad, tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemeng Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 A similar "kiddie photo ban" was attempted by a couple of local councils in Sydney a year ago. Both eventually dropped the idea after a lot of heat from the media:<p> <a href="http://4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml#beach"> http://4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml#beach</a><p> As for the VIC attempt to ban shots of oil storage tanks... er, so what? How many of us have been stopped from taking photos by security guards for mindless reasons?!<p> Finally, here's a Doisneau "The Kiss" discussion link from a while back:<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ByOs"> http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ByOs</a><p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_hall1 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Well, conservative societies are not going to be concerned with art endeavor (unless it is suitable propaganda)...(while liberal societies will try to integrate psychological theme into art endeavor and thus also supporting art on condition). And there are two sets of law one where determined by court process and the other where the person can be reached without actual process. So for art to survive it must be either determined or profitable... But I do see an issue. Photography of children's sports should be for the local community's use only. In other words a child playing an amateur sport should not be recognized as a public figure outside of the community... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enrico__ Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 I know what you mean simon, but its usually in the most unusual circumstance. support your cause and keep on rattling that film. Here in Sydney all sorts of attitude exists in abundance... just turn a blind eye and revolt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boris c hann Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 "BTW most of Cartier-Bresson's photos were done with actors......" "Yes, I was aware of HCB's often use of actors......" Come on boys, don't be coy. Tell us more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
________1 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Absurd. Doisneau occasionally took pictures of people he knew and a few of those people apparently were actors. He also took many, many candid images of complete strangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonpg Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 Thanks all. For us in Australia this is very bad and sad - our legacy is that of an easy going society but more recently one where "rocket scientists" and illogical bureaucrats are getting air time. However, we have NO formal bans and our rights in the streets are well known to all so what we MUST do is resist such attempts to squash our enjoyment and fight back. The risk is that keen amateur photographers cowtail to those who intimidate us. I have just been told my essay on this topic is likely to get published in our largest circulating daily newspaper. I decided that I should act rather than grumble. So, I encourage all who are concerened about similar developments to do the same. Keep shooting and use lots of film!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Simon - go for it mate. Sadly though it is only part of the problem. What is happening here in the UK is leading me to think that the "Mother of Parliaments" has spawned a control freak agenda that I do not understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 "What is happening here in the UK is leading me to think that the "Mother of Parliaments" has spawned a control freak agenda that I do not understand." What is happening everywhere is that the profitable Cold War of the 1940s - 1980s collapsed and nothing (on the right scale to justify the continuance of the enormous spending of the industrial/military/Government/corporate machine) came along to replace it. Until 'Terrr' or 'The War against Terrr'. (We are not even allowed to pronounce it properly!) Now everyone in a uniform feels especially enabled to fight 'Terrr' wherever they think it exists even if they are a shopping Mall guard. This will continue for about 40 years like the 'cold war' did. Ordinary people will still have no real idea why they were supposed to hate other ordinary people in other lands but 'War against Terrr' will give them the official excuse. Read 1984 by George Orwell. It is all there. In the year 1984 we all said how wrong George Orwell had got it. By 2004 it all made sense. He just got the year wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Trevor - I suspect you and I are coming to this from two very different directions. All I would say in addition is :- 1. A uniform is not a prerequisite for this kind of behaviour. 2. Any law that gets approval from all sides and is rushed through is a bad law. 3. I have always had a healthy disrespect for politicians of all persuasions - that disrespect is now changing to an intense disrespect. 4. Give a politician and inch and he will seek to take a mile - now it looks like a league ( I'm not into metrification either ). 5. I hope that I am again part of the silent majority and I hope that they will for once stop being so ....... silent. So back to square one - Simon go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 I agree Bill. However there is a little light at the end of the tunnel. Blair lost a vote for the first time ever recently. (He wanted authorities to be able to lock up anyone under suspicion of terror for up to 90 days without having to charge them. He lost.) The Law Lords recently ruled that NO evidence obtained by use of torture (wherever the torture occurred) can be admissable in a UK court of law. The government is coming under a lot of pressure to admit they know about (and permit) the transition (or rendition) of prisoners via UK airports and RAF bases to places of torture. They have now admitted they were aware of such 'renditions'. It remains to be seen what they will do to stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now