Letter in Sydney Morning Herald of 14 September

[george_sanderson]

This letter appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, Wed 14 Sept.

 

Has anyone else experienced this? On Saturday morning at the

Paddington markets with about 1000 other people, a friend from

overseas wanted to take a photograph of the stalls with the church in

the background. As he was about to do so, a security guard stepped

forward and told him he was on private property and taking

photographs was not permitted for security reasons.

 

The circumstances were so ludicrous I thought the guard was joking,

but he was adamant and serious and would not listen to any reason

such as the greater risks posed by garbage bins, unattended boxes and

backpacks carried and lying on the ground behind the stalls.

[roger krueger]

Security is not the reason, it's the excuse. Guards aren't paid to listen to reason, they're

paid to do as they're told. They're also sometimes dregs who take great delight in this the

only scrap of power over others they've ever had.

 

This is far from new. There are many reasons owners of private property don't want

photography, including the possibility of recording things embarassing to the property

owner, and the possibility of causing disturbances with people who don't want to be

photographed. It's not about the recent terror issues--I caught heck for pulling out a

camera at a mall over ten years ago.

[chris_waller]

Was it private property? That's the first question. Secondly, although the ostensible reason given was security, I suspect the real reason was that there might have been people trading there who would not want to be on film, e.g. people without trading licences or fly-by-nights dealing in counterfeit goods.

[35mmdelux]

I was photographing a public political meeting in the building where I work when the guard came over and told me to use available light only. I almost burst out laughing - I've been studying the medium 15 years, own 2 Leicas, 2 blads, 1 F5, and the guy with the gun is telling me how to do my job! Its the little bit of power they have and most like to impose it. Its hard to believe that there still is this kind of censorship. I remember photographing in Franco's Spain in 1973. While I didn't like the censorship I understood the dictators reason. But here in America. Everything is going to pot.

[nemeng]

George - see the extensive discussion I have about the legalities of candid/street photography in Australia on my site at:<p>

 

<a href="http://4020.net/unposed/privacy.shtml">privacy.4020.net</a><p>

 

Basically, if the Markets where held on private property (I think they are - a schoolyard?), then the guard can quite legitimately instruct you not to take photographs. Mind you, they cannot stop you from doing so once you have left their property.<p>

 

I photograph all the time inside shopping centres, department stores, supermarkets etc. (see <a href="http://4020.net/unposed/">unposed.4020.net</a>). None of it is "illegal" as such. But the few times I've been asked to stop, I did so without argument. It's their turf and rules.<p>

 

OTOH, beaches, public parks, "the street" etc. are more interesting. Some people still imagine they can prohibit photography here. They cannot. Didn't stop me from be assaulted by street cafe patrons in Haldon Street in Lakemba in April though, did it?...

[kai_griffin]

Andrew, your site is <u>fantastic</u>! I've had to bookmark it so I can return to it with more time to enjoy it!<br>Cheers,<br>Kai

[george_sanderson]

Andrew

 

Have always enjoyed your site. What happened in Lakenba?

Regards, George

[nemeng]

Lakemba = no-go-zone for white non-muslims.

 

'nuf said :?(

[philippartridge]

Time was, Australia lagged social trends and behaviours by some years or even decades relative to the U.S. The sudden arrival of the closely managed state, as it might be called, looks to be a universal phenomenon in the Anglo countries. One reads of US photographers being accosted for taking pictures of bridges, railroads, buildings, etc.

 

And street photography brings out the worst in authorities; maybe our custodians want the state alone to have the capacity to take and retain images of the citizenry...some cities are worse than others; my feeling is you could take pictures all day long at say, Salamanca Markets in Hobart Town, but that is a long way from the centres of power...and from snappy Sydney.

 

Try shooting from the footpath - from memory, the market spills close to the street. In any case, Paddo street folks are far more interesting than the dweebs that hang out at the markets.

[simonpg]

This sort of stuff really makes my blood boil. Those thugs would have had to cart me off kicking and screaming and I would sue big time.

 

I hope fellow Australians really get their backs up and resist this Nazi type of totally unnecessary anti-photography behaviour.

 

The stories coming out of the UK are frightening.

 

But, a key tip is that we MUST resist; we MUST protest; and we MUST NOT allow ourselves to be bullied by ignorant thugs of any type or position (read - police as well as private seurity guards).

 

Andrew, your site posting is fantastic; all we need now is one for every State and Territory. Thanks.

 

Roger, you are spot on; not a reason, an excuse for mindless behaviour!

 

Maybe there should be a full on protest - photographers take you camera gear to the steps of parliament and scream and shout!

[gaius1]

Don't count on public support. The people shouting the loudest about photographers hounding Princess Diana to her death were the very same people who were the most avid readers of the celebrity gossip magazines. The general public will happily let photography be banned, just so they can get a greater thrill from fuzzy paparazzi shots from 600/4 lenses...