Aussie State Gov't Seeks to Regulate Web Photos

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."

Welp

[JRAC]

Shows how fscked up our govt. is. Lets blame it on John Howard.

Hey, cut me some slack!

[Jon Howard]

Oh, wait.. you mean that Aussie bastard, don't you?

Re:Welp

[Cryonics_au]

Did you read the article? It is the Victorian state Govt. The Victorian state Govt is controled by the Australian Labor Party. Seeing as John Howard is the Prime Minister, and is therefore in Federal politics, there is no way that Howard can be held accountable in this. Give Victorian Premier Steve Bracks a call instead.

Re:Welp

[Cryonics_au]

I forgot to mention that the federal Govt is controled by the Liberal party, which is the Labor parties political foe.

John Howard is the Liberal PM.

Re:Welp

[jyg1234]

Well actually Johnny boy Howard is not the problem. In fact, Johnny boy Howard and Daryl Williams (Federal Attorney General) have no power here. The problem here is with Bracksy.

When he won the election, he promised to rid Victoria of the Kennett regime, but why get rid of something that nobody liked but worked so well?

I don't want to go to far into a political debate here other than to say that it's all the Labor party's fault. They're "the guilty party"!

(Anyone with knowledge of Australian politics would know what the quotes and the names come from)

Links are next.

[undeg chwech]

Next it will be illegal for the gay website to do <img src="http://www.victorianlifesavers.org/LifeSaverI nTightSwimsuit.jpg">

Re:Links are next.

[douglas jeffries]

that can probably already be prevented, because the photographer has copyright and can protect the image from use by others in this way.

since the presentation to the viewer is the same, it shouldnt matter legally whether the image file is on the same server or not.

Yet another law ?

[redelm]

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.

Re:Yet another law ?

[damiangerous]

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 [publaw.com] is a good primer on American law on the subject (since you're an American I assume you're speaking of US law).

Re:Yet another law ?

[redelm]

I agree it's very contentious. Perhaps moreso in this case since the lifeguards were presumably civil servants at work.

Of course a "right to Privacy" can be claimed, but difficult to prove since said "right" is not well-described in statute. Especially where the subject is on public property and no "tresspass by telephoto" applies.

Re:Yet another law ?

[arb]

Perhaps moreso in this case since the lifeguards were presumably civil servants at work.

The majority of Surf Lifesavers in Australia are volunteers...

While they're at it...

[Skyshadow]

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.

How is this different?

[booch]

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.

Re:How is this different?

[kootch]

i'd mod you up... but i can't.

i don't see how this is any different than any other form of media.

if they use your image, voice, etc. on purpose (ie you are not accidentally walking around in the background) they are required to ask your permission before broadcasting it. otherwise, they "must" blur out your image. I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem odd to me.

What this might be about

[LordLucless]

A while ago there was a big uproar when a few guys from a private school rowing club were photographed and posted on a gay website. None of the guys involved where gay, but they coped a whole lot of crap when people they knew saw the images. This laws probably a reaction to that sort of thing.

Re:What this might be about

[PD]

Then they should treat it like any other expression. If I say something like "John went to the store" that's inoffensive, and causes no harm. If I say something like "John went to the whorehose" then that might be harmful if it wasn't true.

Photos should be the same way. Photos of John going to the store should be just fine. Photos of John going to a whorehouse would be fine if they are genuine (truth is a defense against libel and slander) and not so find if they are photoshopped.

But then, if it's political speech, satire, or parody, such as Falwell talking about the first time he slept with his mother/drank a certain brand of gin, then that should be protected as well, as long as a reasonable person would recognise the parody.

Assosciation

[LordLucless]

The problem is that people can easily dismiss rumour. Photos are generally accepted as better "proof". The problem is when someone is photographed unaware, and placed in a context that distorts the picture.

For example, the guys that had pictures placed on a gay website were not, afaik, gay. However, by putting the pictures, which weren't doctored at all, on the site, an assosciation is created which can be damaging.

I'm not too sure about libel laws - the people who posted the pictures never said the guys were homosexual. But anyone who saw the site probably assumed so, and that could be damaging to the people involved.

How fun, homophobia masqerading as 'rights'

[freerangegeek]

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. :)

Re:How fun, homophobia masqerading as 'rights'

[douglas jeffries]

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.

while that is probably true to some extent, that is simply changing the 'victim'. in that case those women would likely complain in the same way these men are now.

everyone will complain when it happens to them, but of course won't mind visiting these websites to see others.

Re:How fun, homophobia masqerading as 'rights'

[freerangegeek]

If that were true, why isn't the reason for writing the law:

Bondi Beach Babes [cooldudesandhotbabes.com]

The reason is that it's acceptable to ogle heterosexually but not homosexually. I suspect, the lifeguards in question are bent out of shape because it isn't hot-sexy-females that are ogling them.

Fundamentally, people need to get over being seen as sexual objects by EITHER sex. Provided:

1) It's look, but don't touch.

2) The 'view' is publically available. (no one snuck into your house to photograph you nekkid)

Please understand, I'm not talking about leering and fondling yourself in front of them on the beach, making rude comments, or making an ass of yourself trying to get a phone number. But good grief, if someone you see fuels a fantasy, let them have fun with it. Speaking as a gay man, I'm certainly not hurt if some woman has a hot sexual fantasy about me, as long as she doesn't try to physically involve me in it. I'm also pretty sure the hot Fed-Ex man I find so attractive isn't hurt in any real way, if he's featured in a dream or two of mine.

Buy a clue

[Anonymous Coward]

--this isn't about lifeguards. This is about private people catching cops or other governmental workers in illegalities, and then publishing the photos when the controlled press won't because it's bought off and corrupt. The lifeguard dodge was just a test case for public opinion.

If ya notice, almost all these new internet* laws in the western/civilized world are designed to protect government from exposure and liability, just follow the clue train back enough you'll see it.

Not only "internet", but everything from "health" laws to "gun" laws etc. All for governmental control.

how can they complain?

[MadAhab]

Is it true that all Australians are bi-sexual?

Didn't they also pass a law against proving that someone is gay?

Seriously, the article made it sound as if there were misappropriation of photos. Via film, use of someone's likeness in a fictional context has long been legally regarded as wrong - it implies something about someone that's counter to fact, so it doesn't get - and doesn't deserve - the same protection as a street photo in a journalistic context.

It depends on the website's presentation. "See these gayboys" can and should get them into trouble. "Man, these guys make me horny" is legit, though in today's "let's blame the internet" environment, it's still likely to catch shit. I say, "Blame Canada". Why? I'm a dumb American, I confuse Australia with Austria.

Hang on

[Rogerborg]

This is utterly superfluous. If the gay site is in Australia, can't they just shut it down by saying that it's not suitable for children? [slashdot.org]. I mean, who's thinking of the children? Won't someone please think of the children!