I can't speak for other countries, but in Australia you are free to take photographs in public spaces. Defining public spaces is difficult, and I would certainly call anywhere government owned as a public space, with restrictions as defined by government law.
Our Spencer Street Station Southern Cross Station is privately operated but it is certainly government owned, so I reckon it is fair game for the public to take photos. After checking, personal and amateur photography is fine.
What about Museum Melbourne Central Station? The same as Southern Cross.
Well, to my surprise this post is going nowhere. My suspicions about photography at private company operated railway stations seems unfounded.
Even at a car service station where you might fill your car with petrol, while privately owned on privately owned land is considered a public space by Victoria Police.
This was inspired by an article in an English electric newspaper, https://amateurphotographer.com/latest/photo-news/use-a-dslr-in-a-railway-station-you-get-questioned-use-a-smartphone-youre-ignored-why/
Speaking of English newspapers, their free versions are hideous. The Telegraph had an ad over the text of a news story that didn't disappear, and nor had any usual method to close the ad. Only by refreshing could I read the article. Other electric English papers are just as bad with overwhelming advertising, and the pages jumping around on the screen as you try to read something. If I lived in England and wanted to read newspapers, I think I would buy a hard copy at the corner shop.
And I thought our own advertising was intrusive enough.
.png)
.jpg)
It's the same here, we can take photos of anything at any time, although in saying that not so much of anyone, most people seem to be worried about their privacy which I can understand, have a great weekend :-)
ReplyDeleteThanks Amy. You shouldn't put a camera directly into someone's face, but they can still be in a photo in a public space. I don't care if I am included, or edited out. I was photographed by the Google Street View car and so I am online.
DeleteI agree with you on those irritating online newspaper screen ads. I don't bother trying to read them now, apart from one that I have a gifted subscription for that at least means it's reasonably legible.
ReplyDeleteJayCee, advertising is fine if it not too intrusive. Intrusive or not, I take no notice.
DeleteAdvertising is nasty because they don't know who will be exposed to the contents eg imagine a pacifist seeing an ad for a gun, or a vegetarian seeing animals being cut up into steaks :(
DeleteHels, once the algorithms quickly pick up that someone is vegetarian, they will be offered vegetarian food to buy, not animal based. The algorithms will already know a person is in Australia and has no interest in buying guns.
DeleteDon't bother with online newspapers.
ReplyDeleteIn Ontario, street photography is completely legal in public spaces. You can photograph anyone and anything as long as you are standing on public property (like a sidewalk or public park) and you do not interfere with police at an emergency scene.
That sounds the same as here for photography, Jackie. I pay for our local, non populist, The Age, about $30 a month and I donate about $100 a year to The Guardian.
DeleteLaws like this can be so confusing. Be well!
ReplyDeleteYes, they can.
DeleteI love how you refer to Southern Cross Station as Spencer Street Station. I still do the same and always will. :)
ReplyDeleteBenny, I just hope it returns to its former name in my time. I can imagine it would be advantageous to a political party to make the announcement.
DeleteI have used camera and phone in our Adelaide Station and no one said anything to me. Probably they noticed I was photographing the ceiling and stairs, but not aiming the lens at people. I read the article you highlighted and love the image there of Spiderman busking. I have also used the camera when taking photos around the city and even taken photos and video of the "dancing lady" in Rundle Mall, she smiled and nodded while I did so. I am careful to not take photos of children. I don't know why smartphones would get ignored but cameras cause a fuss.
ReplyDeleteI never read newspapers online.
I think you can do that at the station River. Did you photograph the dreaded ramps? I don't really get this children photo thing. It is unlikely I would ever focus on one, but if they are in a scene I want to photograph, too bad.
DeleteWith children the parents worry about pedophiles seeing the photos and maybe tracking down ther kids for kidnapping. This is why I rarely post photos of the twins now.
DeleteSince everyone, including myself, finds such pop-up ads so annoying, I wonder if they actually succeed in getting people to buy any of the products they're hawking. I usually don't, though name recognition--a primary goal of advertising--sometimes gets the best of me.
ReplyDeleteKirk, while I don't really notice the ads, you are smart in mentioning brand recognition, and I am sure I receive that message.
DeleteTaking photos in areas where there are people can be confusing. I never take children in those areas.
ReplyDeleteI hate ads and I often read the news online mainly free newspapers as I refuse to pay for items to read that I'm interested in and pay for them when you can easily find the same for free. I used ad blockers for which I don't pay for either. It all stems from years ago when everything was free online for me.
I dunno Margaret. I think if children are incidental in a photo, I would take the photo. If they are wearing a funny costume, I might take a photo. If they are busking, I will and have taken photos. You've put discreet photos of your grandchildren online. What is the difference? If children are in a scene you want to photograph, why not?
DeleteMy camera sometimes draws unwanted attention, where my phone totally blends in. In some settings, such as on public transit, it is easy to take photos with my phone, that has three lenses and a 48mp sensor, but my camera draws disapproval from others. The attention on the device is misplaced. Print newspapers - how I miss them.
ReplyDeleteYes TP, a camera, especially with an extended lens does feel threatening. Comments have confirmed the difference between a phone and a camera when taking photos.
DeleteI can't see that an iPhone is any less intrusive than a designated camera. The law is an ass, especially in UK.
ReplyDeleteJB, it seems to all about the level of threat, which unreasonably seems greater from a camera than a phone.
DeleteI had to quit with one Portland news station because the page wouldn't load or work it was so ad laden and overlaid in ads. How do they not know?
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I feel hesitant taking pics in some train stations or airports. I once had someone tell me I couldn't take a pic of the outside of a building at U of T.
ReplyDeletePat, that's a very public space. I hope you stood up for yourself.
DeleteGood point, Andrew ... My understanding is that even if it's a private property, it's perfectly fine to photograph something that is publicly visible. It might be objectionable to photograph something that's inside and visible only to people who have to take permission to get inside. That I think is a logical way to looking at it.
ReplyDeleteRegarding actual cameras not being allowed but mobile cameras being ignored is because of anachronistic rules. Either both should be allowed; or both should be banned.