Privacy, Photography, and Topless Girls.

1. Everyone has seen the images, and have heard the stories; “This week’s starlet stalked by papparazzi!”, “Stalking photographers jailed!” etc etc. And yet the money that flows in that lurid industry is like the gold rush of the late 19th Century — right place, right time, and you hit it big.

2. There wouldn’t be any money if there wasn’t a demand for those photos. Ordinary people who want to see their stars look, well, ordinary. To somehow prove to themselves that they aren’t famous only because they weren’t there at the time, or that they didn’t get the lucky break. Oh, look at her, she’s so fat now! And her! Oh my, she should get a meal in once a month!

3. It is strange, then, to read about ordinary people worrying themselves into a fit over their privacy. 4. No, that’s not fair. There has been some shocking attacks on one’s privacy, images of people published for nefarious purposes. The photos of celebrities plastered on the covers of gossip mags and the lengths some people will go to get them are atrocious enough. But how much privacy are you expected to have in a public place? An SMH article about a discussion paper on the topic, the pros and cons of whether unauthorised photos on the internet should be a criminal or civil offence.

5. The article cites two incidents of concern, one being where in 2002 pictures of Melbourne private schoolkids playing sports was used by a Californian website with links to hard core gay porn. Unsurprisingly, the boys in the photos were outraged, as was the community. This was a serious invasion of privacy and could quite conceivably damage the reputations of those in the photographs. But the second, where a “beach-goer” was caught snapping photos of topless sunbathers at Clovelly beach, is less clear cut. Again, just how much privacy can you expect in a public place? If one (male or female) decide to show their privates on a beach, why is taking a photo of it prohibited? What if someone decided to hold up a sign with their home address and phone number on it, would it be illegal if one were to take down that information?

6. (The article was a little vague about that second case, there was no mention whether those photos were published online. But from memory Police caught the man whilst taking the photos after complaints were made from the girls).

7. Both those cases were dodgy, no doubt. But the side effects of making publishing unauthorised photos on the internet a criminal act would be staggering. From the article:

A populated beach has become almost a no-go zone for even professional photographers, who experience first-hand the community’s digital age backlash.

“It is almost impossible to operate on the beach now,” says Mike Bowers, the photographic managing editor with Herald Publications. “People tend to look at someone with a camera as some sort of pervert. If you are taking photos it is seen to be for some terrorist reason, or for something inappropriate.

“I think people are more focused on their privacy now. I fear that someone’s going to get hurt because we have had some quite violent reactions from people thinking you don’t have a right to wield a camera in a public place.

“As far as I can see the restrictions will impact on the media, and not have the desired effect on those highly revolting sites people set up.”

8. No doubt those people on the beach already feel that photographs of them in public places was already illegal, imagine how it would be if it was illegal. And the feeling would likely spread, to the streets, to the parks, to sporting events, to bars, pubs and clubs, until it would be impossible to take a photo of anyone in a public place. What would Photojournalists do then? TV Reporters reporting on a busy street? Artists documenting their neighbourhoods?

9. And with photo sharing services like Flickr being so popular these days anyone with a camera that want to share their photos with friends could easily find themselves in trouble. Even simple emailing of photos could conceivably be illegal, if it could be shown that email constitutes publishing online.

10. There is also a question whether such a law would work in the international space of the internet. If a Russian website publish a photo of a topless girl at Bondi Beach, could she even use that law to remove that photograph?

11. Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself. The discussion paper plays out both sides of the argument, and does so in a very even handed manner. It lists options for reforms, from legislation to non-legislative ideas. However, I fear in our current climate of fear — of terrorism, of having one’s privacy eroded — that this may give politicians find yet another way to assault free expression and free press. Photography is important, even necessary, in documenting life in every way from tragedy to celebration, whether it be for personal use or wider distribution. I wonder how this will play out?

Comments

No comments yet.

Leave a comment