Punters using recording devices in sessions without concent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by babelx

Once I've had the fortune of a WL actually taking my phone and starting to record the session. That was nice! I doubt that would ever happen again.... I think most will know who I am talking about.....

---

there was a service on cracker that allowed recording with consent.. works if u want to see you in sort of a porn video
doesn't appeal me much

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zucon

there was a service on cracker that allowed recording with consent.. works if u want to see you in sort of a porn video
doesn't appeal me much

---

yes it said she will wear a mask! LOL.

Those cracker ads though. Never believe them. You'd get a pork chop who looks like they are on druuugz. I've walked away many times but also been duped many times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayne

I'm not sure you are correct Sextus. I think laws have been changed in the name of antiterrorism and child protection; and in the interests of commercial property. I've got two personal anecdotes.
One, a former colleague of mine was arrested on Coogee Beach for filming surfers. The police charged him with filming minors. It was thrown out of court, but his career was finished.

---

How did it get to court? No wonder it was thrown out. Google Luna Park images (for example) and look at the avalanche of innocent photos of children being themselves. Minors in photographs is merely capturing public reality. The polices' highest purpose is to protect rights, not abuse them. In this case they should be better advised by their superiors, as they are subject to civil suits for wrongful arrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayne

Two, an acquaintance was fined for photographing the harbour bridge from the opera house. He is a professional journalist and the maritime board said he breached their copyright over the harbour shores - you are not allowed to photograph Sydney Harbour without permission.

---

Suppose you use a telephoto lens and get shots of the harbour from Potts Point? :shout:

There was a report in the paper the other day at Barangaroo where Ken Duncan, AO, called the bluff of Sydney Harbour rangers who tried to prevent him taking photos. They threatened to call the police on this Order of Australia guy. He replied: "Bring it on. I can't wait to see tomorrow's headline: "Ken Duncan arrested for taking photos." :shout: A police officer said he'd come, sure - "to shake Duncan's hand."

It is just money grubbing council bullshit and toothless intimidation. Everyone has a civic duty to ignore them.

I heard that the firmware on mobile phones sold in Australia have the camera shutter sound built into them to prevent people talking photos/filming without consent. The sound on my old phone was pretty annoying and realised that I couldn't switch it off.

In terms of taking photos or video in public, in general I think it's legal unless you have caused some harm by taking the photo i.e. copyright in terms of a performance or nuisance in the case of taking pictures of other people.

I think I saw on the news that specific laws were introduced to make 'upskirting' illegal as well.

But what do you guys think about being filmed yourselves? I know for sure some places have security cameras. One time a girl told me she saw me walking in on the camera and I was a little shocked as I'd never thought of this before.

Yes. anything found to be done for sexual or prurient reasons is justly right out. The evidence for wrongdoing is in the content of the photo itself. An innocent photo, no matter the subject matter, is defence all by itself.

Those upskirt guys are a bit of a laugh though. The photo is, funnily enough, always completely anonymous! :shout:

Anyone taking photos of people and being a nuisance is only going to get photos of people looking annoyed. A self-defeating exercise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sextus

Those upskirt guys are a bit of a laugh though. The photo is, funnily enough, always completely anonymous! :shout:

---

True that. So I wonder, unless the guy was caught in the act, how can it proven in court that they harmed a particular person? If they get caugt with a bunch of those pictures surely you could argue you just downloaded them from the internet.

I think a bus driver got done for this earlier this year or last year.

Careful Sextus, you're sounding awfully like you expect a bit of commonsense to prevail.

The Sydney Harbour Rangers and the attempts to control use of all foreshore images is absurd, but does highlight the inadequacy of copyright laws; which are so clearly outdated, outmoded and useless. I believe the copyright law that those rangers are applying (and on which all the big music and film corporations rely) were over devised 150 yeas ago.

And I think that is why this issue of seeking permission to use an image is so fraught. There are several aspects to this. One is that any reasonable person can say that the image is widely available (of the music rift, of the idea) but then some corporation comes along, places a commercial value of it and brandish a team of expensive lawyers. I'm thinking about the Men at Work song, but it can equally apply to a photo of the Opera House, of some other silly thing.

Another aspect, which is more pertinent to the title of this thread, is that a reasonable person might say an image is harmless; while another can say it invades privacy or exploits another. That bloke I mentioned at Coogee fell foul of the law because of this. He is a bit of an idiot who feels the world doesn't understand his brilliance, so he wanted to make the definitive documentary about Sydney. He is full of himself and I can well imagine him rubbing the cops up the wrong way. I suspect that's why he got himself arrested then charged.

The other side of the issue is public safety. This is the rationale the UK government has been using for their installation of cameras everywhere. It's also the reason brothels have surveillance cameras. The camera owners argue that they are ensuring public safety. But then who owns the images and what responsibility does the owner have toward the subjects of the images? If those arcane copyright laws are applied then the government/brothel owner can do what they like. Commonsense says that such images won't be published. But is commonsense always applied? And then there all those ex-girlfriend and such like shame websites. Whose stopping some aggrieved wife setting up a website with recordings from men entering brothels?

Commonsense again says any clandestine recordings can not be published. But then again, where is the commonsense once a recording is in the public domain?

Copyright laws were developed to protect the interests of a few rich people before the notion of cameras, let alone computers, were even dreamt of. Until those laws are brought into line with technology then there will always be someone or some corporation that can come down on you with a ton of bricks. So ends my rant for the day.

I believe there are some sort of laws or regulations governing the use of CCTV. Like if you are walking into a shopping centre or hotel, and they have CCTVs in the premises, they must display a visible signage by the entrance advising visitors of such recording devices.

Now in terms of who actually owns the rights of those footages and recording, I have no idea. You may need a law degree to answer that............haha

Well thought out and presemted Wayne.

I always shudder when I see phrases such as what 'a resonable person' expects in laws.
The end result is gangs of lawyers to fighting it out, the little guy has no chance, the lawyers and big corps win.
For example the pharma industry, or copyrights on genetic code....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayne

Careful Sextus, you're sounding awfully like you expect a bit of commonsense to prevail.

The Sydney Harbour Rangers and the attempts to control use of all foreshore images is absurd, but does highlight the inadequacy of copyright laws; which are so clearly outdated, outmoded and useless. I believe the copyright law that those rangers are applying (and on which all the big music and film corporations rely) were over devised 150 yeas ago.

And I think that is why this issue of seeking permission to use an image is so fraught. There are several aspects to this. One is that any reasonable person can say that the image is widely available (of the music rift, of the idea) but then some corporation comes along, places a commercial value of it and brandish a team of expensive lawyers. I'm thinking about the Men at Work song, but it can equally apply to a photo of the Opera House, of some other silly thing.

Another aspect, which is more pertinent to the title of this thread, is that a reasonable person might say an image is harmless; while another can say it invades privacy or exploits another. That bloke I mentioned at Coogee fell foul of the law because of this. He is a bit of an idiot who feels the world doesn't understand his brilliance, so he wanted to make the definitive documentary about Sydney. He is full of himself and I can well imagine him rubbing the cops up the wrong way. I suspect that's why he got himself arrested then charged.

The other side of the issue is public safety. This is the rationale the UK government has been using for their installation of cameras everywhere. It's also the reason brothels have surveillance cameras. The camera owners argue that they are ensuring public safety. But then who owns the images and what responsibility does the owner have toward the subjects of the images? If those arcane copyright laws are applied then the government/brothel owner can do what they like. Commonsense says that such images won't be published. But is commonsense always applied? And then there all those ex-girlfriend and such like shame websites. Whose stopping some aggrieved wife setting up a website with recordings from men entering brothels?

Commonsense again says any clandestine recordings can not be published. But then again, where is the commonsense once a recording is in the public domain?

Copyright laws were developed to protect the interests of a few rich people before the notion of cameras, let alone computers, were even dreamt of. Until those laws are brought into line with technology then there will always be someone or some corporation that can come down on you with a ton of bricks. So ends my rant for the day.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayne

The other side of the issue is public safety. This is the rationale the UK government has been using for their installation of cameras everywhere. It's also the reason brothels have surveillance cameras. The camera owners argue that they are ensuring public safety. But then who owns the images and what responsibility does the owner have toward the subjects of the images? If those arcane copyright laws are applied then the government/brothel owner can do what they like. Commonsense says that such images won't be published. But is commonsense always applied? And then there all those ex-girlfriend and such like shame websites. Whose stopping some aggrieved wife setting up a website with recordings from men entering brothels?

---

Great post Wayne I think you've given a great run through of the problems with this stuff. Especially raising the UK putting so many surveilance cameras up, it's insane.

I do believe surveilance can be used for public safety but in the UK I feel like they are going full 1984.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snot77

I always shudder when I see phrases such as what 'a resonable person' expects in laws.

---

I had to do some law subjects when I was at uni and I was shocked that tons of common law relies on what we called "reasonable person test".

After learning about it I understand why they use these tests but still, it's kind of like an abstract idea, the "reasonable person". In life we probably meet less reasonable people than we can count on our fingers lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juicykeyboard

I had to do some law subjects when I was at uni and I was shocked that tons of common law relies on what we called "reasonable person test".

After learning about it I understand why they use these tests but still, it's kind of like an abstract idea, the "reasonable person". In life we probably meet less reasonable people than we can count on our fingers lol.

---

I've never studied law or even any related subject. But I have had more than a few interactions with our legal system. And it is obvious that there is no such notion as right or wrong. There are poles staked in the ground - mostly based on Judeo/Christian/Islamic ideas; such as thou shall not kill, steal or covet thy neighbour's wife. But even these are open to interpretation according to circumstance. If we were to literally accept the 10 commandments, for example, there would be no armies killing and no governments stealing (those 150 big companies that didn't pay tax last year are stealing from the Australian community).

So everything comes down to an opinion. And this is where this notion of reasonableness, or commonsense, comes in. It is so bloody arbitrary. Everyone has differing notions of reasonableness according to their own individual background and education. An obvious example are our current and immediate post Prime Ministers. Both Sydney boys, GPS educated, lawyers, privileged, Rhodes scolars, members of the Liberal party. But then their sense of reasonableness could not be further apart. I know which one I would want to appeal to if they were my judge. Really, the law is an ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayne

Really, the law is an ass.

---

Yep, sometimes I think it needs a good butt fuck!

There is a section under Crimes Act which prohibits recording footage for sexual gratification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corvus

There is a section under Crimes Act which prohibits recording footage for sexual gratification.

---

There you go, thank you ! ;) ;) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corvus

There is a section under Crimes Act which prohibits recording footage for sexual gratification.

---

What if somebody gets turned on by something really mundane like a landscape?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juicykeyboard

What if somebody gets turned on by something really mundane like a landscape?

---

Landscape is not a " footage " !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilisno

Landscape is not a " footage " !

---

Well you could certainly film a flowing river or something like that lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juicykeyboard

What if somebody gets turned on by something really mundane like a landscape?

---

Well there is the mundane and then there is the supermundane*.

And I reckon landscapes are supermundane.

Ken Duncan must think so too, because that is what he was trying to take when the council goons threatened to call the police on him - for taking pictures of the scenery. Can you fucken believe this? As Thomas Jeffersen said, resistance sometimes becomes a civic duty.

*Dictionary? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sextus

Well there is the mundane and then there is the supermundane*.

And I reckon landscapes are supermundane.

Ken Duncan must think so too, because that is what he was trying to take when the council goons threatened to call the police on him for taking pictures of the scenery. Can you fucken believe this? As Thomas Jeffersen said, resistance sometimes becomes a civic duty.

*You might need a dictionary for that. :D

---

Yeah councils are such bullshit.

One other thing that comes to mind is the porn where women smoke have you seen it? It's bizarre, basically a woman just sits there talking and smoking. Some guys get off on it apparently so I guess this could be considered illegal as well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juicykeyboard

What if somebody gets turned on by something really mundane like a landscape?

---

someone will 'grass' on him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juicykeyboard

Well you could certainly film a flowing river or something like that lol

---

You can get a hard on watching that ??? ;) ;) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shinobi

someone will 'grass' on him?

---

Lol, well played

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilisno

You can get a hard on watching that ??? ;) ;) ;)

---

Haha, I wish. Life would be so much simpler.

Something funny happened to a friend of mine yesterday that reminded me of this thread.

He had taken a Japanese girl for a bit of country life and, being a hot day, skinny-dipping in a farm dam. There he was swimming lazily backwards in the warm upper layer when he noticed little brother just break the surface, probably more from buoyancy than excitement. A few more strokes and he noticed j-girl taking a movie with her new Sony waterproof phone.

He said that his first reaction was to think that she had not asked, but then he remembered that Japanese often like to make a record of their adventures down under and if he did not want to be filmed then he should not be associating with them. Then he thought chuffed at the idea that she thought this old fella's old fella was worth recording.

I agree, but imagine the reverse situation.