Rules in Sydney

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I just put in an application for a permit to do street photography, architecture and landscapes in the city. I got a call back immediately from the department at Sydney City Council telling me that there are no restrictions, nor any fees so long as:<br>

1. I don't hinder vehicle or pedestrian traffic.<br>

2. I don't cause any complaints, though there are no by-laws on the matter.<br>

3. Photos of public buildings, in malls and what could be considered private property, so long as they are outside...no restriction.<br>

4. No restriction on photos of trains, buses and other infrastructure etc.<br>

5. Strictly non commercial use.<br>

I told them this was a pretty generous policy, and they said if they stopped what I was doing then they would have to stop all the tourists as well, so its a practical policy. <br>

Great news.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There must have been a really bad outbreak of rationality in Sydney. This is totally reasonable and sane, and I'll put up with it any more.</p>

[geoff_r1]

<p>Great to have it the councils point of view on the matter. Do you know if they have any info sheets, to have something in writing?</p>

[Brad_]

I'm not getting something.

 

Was the ability to shoot on the street in Sydney in doubt for some reason; and that motivated you to apply for a permit?

 

In the US, I just go out and shoot...

[geoff_r1]

<p>I just go out and make photos too, and I wouldn't say I was concerned, but good to have confirmation after restrictions were placed in France, and I think perhaps the UK too.<br>

I have had people tell me I'm not allowded to take photos of infrastructure.</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p>The policy certainly seems reasonable, though I'm not sure I'd call it generous—these conditions are pretty much standard in the U.S. San Francisco doesn't even limit one to non-commercial use.</p>

[steven_sherwin]

<p>its a great policy in theory - now go out on the streets and actually shooting people and see how long it takes for people to call the police.... I spent several years doing street photography in sydney but gave it up after being held and questioned several times by police because someone assumed I was either a terrorist or paedophile. People in sydney are extremely aggressive towards photographers and many professionals have spent time with police 'explaining' their actions. In addition, the pathetic furore that surrounded the Bill Henson photos last year would have done nothing in the minds of the public to enhance the image of photographers. By all means, go out and start shooting but be aware that the policy is different to the actual reality. I would advise you look at <a href="http://www.photorights.4020.net">www.photorights.4020.net</a> before setting out so that you can advise the police (and anyone else) of your rights when (if) the time comes</p>

 

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Thanks for the comments, guys.<br>

There was a bit of a debate here about it when some of us were roughed up by the police when APEC was here. Without diminishing the importance, the whole 9/11 horror is a bit ancient history here now, so anti terrorism measures are met with a lot of resistance. The cops here are more worried about traffic matters and drug gangs.<br>

The biggest obstacle is over intrusion. So if one is smart about how shots are taken discreetly, then its ok.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I just read that stuff, Steven. I put it in the category of not being careful and respectful. I took the trouble to ask permission and was told officially it was not necessary. And now I have an email that I can take with me and produce if necessary. I bet if I fronted up to the desk at city LAC and asked the sergeant if it was ok to take some photos on the streets, I would be told to piss off and just do it. They have more important things to worry about. I just proved that there was no harm in asking. Sometimes people make their own trouble by being confrontational. There is no reason to not be courteous and it avoids a lot of trouble in advance.</p>

[steven_sherwin]

<p>sorry, I disagree with your last comment. Anti terrorism laws and measures are continually being increased with little reaction from the public. The recent bikie legislation was a good example - it was dressed up to look like it is targeting 'biker groups' when in fact it allows the police to use the same legislation to target any 'group' or individual they feel they legislation applies to ie: protest groups (peaceful or otherwise). The NSW Law Commission was quite scathing in its response to this legislation yet there was barely a wimper from the public as it was dressed up by the media as targetting only biker groups....</p>

[steven_sherwin]

<p>stephen, sorry, but having an email from the Sydney City Council will not make a scrap of difference to the police or any member of the public. I did exactly the same thing as you 10 years ago but it makes no difference on the street. The majority of police do not even know the law regarding street photography - you are fighting peoples images and perceptions of photographers in what is already an elevated climate of fear and suspicion. Good luck, be courteous and remember to look at the web site I gave you regarding the law and your rights....</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>That website is for anachists, or people who have a bad attitude. Boy, you must have had some bad experiences. That's unfortunate. But do you think I just started doing this? Try since 1962 with my grandfather. He never had a problem, and nor have I, but I thought I would see what the correct process is and what the rules are. The police have nothing to do with it. They are there to keep the peace and manage traffic. If you somehow manage to get them offside, that's if you can find one, then thats your fault. I don't ever assume, I ask.<br>

Just because you had a bad experience, does not make it so for others. I don't try and be secret. I set up, say, on the steps of the GPO and often have a tripod with my F4S on manual. I never use digital so there is nothing to look at or review. I don't raise the camera to shoot. I often have an FM around my neck and take a shot with it while I pretend to adjust the F4. Or I use a remote on the F4. It must be a non event. You also need to stay in one place long enough and engage with the people who are hanging around, and tell them what you are doing. Looking like a burglar or a pap won't win you any friends. I also bring my MEAA membership card and press pass too. I obey the 18 golden rules and number one is look like you belong there.</p>

 

[david_hill3]

<p>1 to 4 are pretty clear and shouldn't need clarification from authorities. These rules would (should!) be pretty much the same in any non-totalitarian state, surely.<br>

5 I don't get. Of course there are the usual caveats about property and model releases for advertising uses, but how can council impose restrictions on how a photo is used as long as council property isn't prominent? As long as 1 to 4 are followed (and I'm not talking here about full-scale commercial shoots with assistants, tripods, lights etc that would be in breach of 1), surely there shoudl be no problem with commercial uses. Otherwise many of the thousands of city businesses that feature their premises or Sydney scenes on their websites or brochures would be in trouble!<br>

(though I should mention that Sydney City Council are pretty cool about most things nowadays and generally seem to be nice people).<br>

David in Sydney.</p>

[jeff_conrad]

<p>David, your comment makes perfect sense. But at least in sunny California, we have cities (e.g., Los Angeles) that require a permit for any “commercial” use (see LA Administrative Code § 22.350). How they determine commercial intent has always been a mystery to me; I'm certain the intent was to require permits for the potentially disruptive “full-scale” commercial activities that you described, but the law reads as it reads. I haven't been hassled the few times that I've shot in downtown LA (and I've always used a tripod), but folks who shoot there frequently could probably speak to this better than I can.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>It's more to do with 3rd party liability insurance. Like if a member of the public tripped over the tripod and got injured, I would have to be covered...which I am anyway. I did ask them what about a commercial shoot. They said that was ok too, fill the form out which is on the web, but if pedestrian traffic or vehicular traffic were to be interrupted, then they would need to allocate a resource to manage that with witches hats and signs. They said they would advice the LAC (Police).<br>

Altogether it was a very interesting phone call and the theme being pushed was "go ahead and let us know what you need". I'm glad I live down here.</p>

[steven_sherwin]

<p>The website address I provided is not for anarchists or people with bad attitude - it is a legitimate photography site that provides a rundown on photographers rights in NSW. In fact this site has been referred to in several trade magazines and articles in the past. You may also find the following blog from a Sydney Morning Herald photographer of interest (if I get the link correct)<br>

<a href="http://www.blogs.smh.com.au/photographers/archives/2007/02/photography_is_not_a_crime">LINK</a></p>

 

[michael s.]

<p><<<em> ... no restrictions ... so long as:</em><br>

<em>2. <strong>I don't cause any complaints</strong> , though there are no by-laws on the matter. ...>> </em> [Emphasis mine.]<em><br /> </em></p>

<p><em><br /> </em> Sorry, gang<em>. </em> I don't share the view that this is perfectly reasonable. I understand that Stephen was evidently trying to write down accurately what he was told, and I appreciate his post here. But if mere "complaints" -- without more -- are enough to put street photography in peril, then I'm not the least bit reassured.</p>

<p>What sort of "complaints" ? To me, the only complaint that would be significant would be a complaint that the photographer was otherwise engaged in some unlawful conduct -- obstructing traffic, assaulting (not merely photographing, but assaulting) passers-by, etc. If the ability to take photos on the street in Sydney is unimpaired only to the extent nobody complains, well ...</p>

<p>Nope -- This ornery old lawyer doesn't like that answer. Not one bit. :-)</p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

[hugh_j.]

<p>Clearly, what you need is one of <a href="http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/05/arent-you-too-old-to-carry-a-fake-id.html" target="_blank">these</a> .</p>

[david_hoya]

<p><em><Stephen Asprey

- That website is for anachists, or people who have a bad attitude. Boy, you must have had some bad experiences.></em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

What a bizarre view of a very sober and informative website! The information on the website is very useful, and the advice given is very reasonable. It is good that Sydney City Council gave you the thumbs-up, Stephen, (to the extent that the issue comes within the Council's powers anyway). However, the danger of asking permission when it is not required is that you instead get a negative response from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. What would you have done then?<br>

I agree that one should be polite, courteous, careful etc, but sometimes that just isn't enough. I will be surprised if you never encounter an over-zealous policeman, security guard or busybody while very politely going about your legitimate business. It may be worthwhile bookmarking the website about photographers' rights in case you need it one day...</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I think we now have a case where those who got hassled doing street don't want to share some of the responsibility. If you became a nuisance or get in peoples' faces, then you deserve it. I know its not to do with street photography, but one of my best friends is also one of our top paps. He gets his shots and makes a lot of money. But he is never hassled. In fact you would not know he was around. That's his method.<br>

The freedoms that we have been given are not a right, but a privilege. Down here we live largely unmolested if we go about our business in a thoughtful way. Smart people keep under the radar. We have no actual Bill of Rights down here to curtail zealots in power. You'll never win at an official level. So instead, use the system to your advantage.<br>

I expected some negative responses. That's ok. I'm a grownup. I am just enthused by the official response I got. It just reinforces in my mind that this approach works. Sure, there might be the odd cop or security guard who oversteps their authority. That's ok. You just ride with it and be more thoughtful about what you do and where you do it.<br>

I spent an afternoon the other day taking shots all around The Observatory...people, buildings, views etc. First thing I did was go to the office and told them what I was doing. Not a problem. "How did you go?" was asked after three hours. It works. Normally people don't want a confrontation. Even officials. Use that psychology.<br>

As for that website, its like there is a war on down here, or something. There isn't. Not if you behave.</p>

[david_hoya]

<p>I agree with a lot of what you say Stephen. But I think the extent to which there seems to be a war going on depends to some extent on the sort of places/subjects you want to shoot. Try hanging around on the beach at Bronte or Bondi one afternoon and photographing "under the radar". Or anywhere where there are lots of kids around... If you want/need to document the typical Australian summer afternoon on a Sydney beach, who do you approach for permission beforehand? Even assuming someone purports to give you that go-ahead, what do you do with it when some bloke on the sand decides you looked the wrong way at his girlfriend or son? Even if you ultimately decide just to back off, it is pretty handy to know what your legal position is beforehand.</p>

[steven_sherwin]

<p>As a grown man approaching 50 with 35 years of photography behind me, I am very happy to accept responsibility for my actions. I dont get in peoples faces, try to move unobtrusively without 'hiding' anything and try to judge situations before I shoot. I am however, not responsible for the over-reaction of some people on the street - that is something I cannot control. While smiling and acknowledging each others presence is one way of getting photos, it is not the way of pure 'street photography' which is a different style.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>So, you have discovered a way or an application form that you did submit. What did you expect to obtain as a result of your application?</p>

<p>Did you receive a written permission that you were possibly hoping for ? If so, you would have had a city document in your hand to "fend off" any "police brutality" etc...</p>

<p>Apparently city officials took your application seriously and expressed generally "good intentions", but in addition to explanation, did you receive any expected and practical result of your action?</p>

<p>The oral explanations are too imprecise and leave too much room for interpretation, and there are too many unnecessary conditions. The lack of "there are no by-laws on the matter" and that perhaps leaves you at the same point where you started from, except more educated, and possibly more confused about it ?</p>

<p>The call was an expression of city officials uncertainty. I would rather prefer to receive a written statement from the city officials that, e.g. <strong>"Hereby Mr. Stephen Asprey is granted permision to shoot pictures on the city streets, for specified period of time"</strong> Your law obedience is implied, and no farther explanations or conditions are necessary.</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>As I said, I submitted the form (see attached) as was called back to say it was not necessary for the taking of private pictures. The conditions are at the start of the form and are only really applicable of its commercial. If one was not be able to comply with five the conditions stated (below), there is a longer application form to fill out.</p>

<ul>

<li>No more then a total of approximately 10 personnel will be on-site</li>

<li>No disruption is caused to the City's stakeholders, retailers or motorists or other events in the vicinity of the activities</li>

<li>Activities are contained to footways or public open space areas only</li>

<li>Public safety is maintained at the locations at all times during the conduct of the activities</li>

<li>Vehicles associated with the conduct of the activities are legally parked at all times and are not driven onto footways, parks or plaza areas.</li>

</ul>

<p>All ok now?</p>