No right not to be photographed - councils overreact

Unfortunately, in resorting to stereotyping and name-calling that could link genuine photographers (who could be parents) to pornographers, Brownlee stooped to gutter politics. A person in her position should have been a little more articulate and sophisticated in addressing the issue. She ignored the rule of law that people in our society are innocent until proved guilty in a court of law - that is, the presumption of innocence. To turn her statement around, Brownlee’s comment is tantamount to alleging that because some school teachers have been arrested on child sex charges, all teachers should be regarded as potential molesters.

Brownlee, it seems, really was in information control mode: “She sees the policy extending to school productions, with ‘no candid shots or footage from rehearsal’.”

“The Department of Education and Training remains neutral, saying children's guardians should be allowed to decide whether or not they appear in a video or photograph”, the Herald reported. It quoted NSW Council for Civil Liberties President Cameron Murphy on the P&C proposal: "Parents have been videotaping their kids at school events for the better part of two decades without problem". Claiming that NSW is one of the “most governed states in the world”, the Herald again quoted Murphy on the photography issue: "What we don't need are regulations which impose a confinement of a legitimate activity."

Again, Nemeth was quick to comment: “Can we presume similar permission was also obtained by every parent for every child in the string of thumbnail images across the top of the P&C home page?”

Greens and civil liberties - a reason for alarm?

Alarmingly for a political party that one would think supports civil liberties, the Greens were apparently happy with their mayor’s proposed ban. A February 25, 2005 item on their website comments on the move to display the proposal as draft policy.

“Council has a duty to reconcile pool-users’ genuine concerns that their children's privacy may be violated against protecting the civil liberties of other parents to photograph their children”, says the posting. Very fair-sounding, but legally, nonsense. Like the topless women issue, the Greens also appear to be ignorant of the reality that there is no “right to privacy” in public places; that it is not unlawful to use a camera in this country and that photographers - whether parents or not - also have civil liberties.

Murray Matson appears not to have properly considered this and nor, apparently, did his party advisers. This can only raise alarm about Green governance and reinforces the notion that, despite claims of supporting civil liberties, the Greens have an authoritarian streak not far below the surface.

Practice based on tradition

The right of photographers - professional, amateur and tourist - to take photographs in public places is not only a legal one, it is one based on decades of practice. Without the work of the Dupains in Australia and numerous other street photographers in the US and Europe - Eve Arnold, Rene Buri, Cornell Capa, Walker Evans, Elliott Erwitt, George Roger, Henri Cartier-Bresson and the others - we would be without a record of the way people dressed and behaved and of the social mores, street ambiance and concerns of those decades.

Street photography - the making of images of our environment and the people that inhabit it - without obtaining anyone’s “authorisation” and the publication of images or their retention in commercial and private collections is important to documenting the times we live in. With the passage of time and as personal memory of those times fade, even the snaps of amateurs take on documentary significance.

The boundary between street photography and documentary is blurred, but documentary photography is another well established form of image-making that eventually forms a historic record. Think about the photo-journalistic images in once-popular journals such as Life. Whereas street photography may be unplanned and opportunistic in practice, documentary is often planned and, at times, done with the knowledge, indeed the co-operation of those being documented.

At best, the mayoral proposals can be seen as an attempt to deal with the unanticipated challenges of new communications technologies. At worse, they appear as cheap populism and a form of preventative “Luddism”. However they are seen, more than a gut reaction response is required - something more intelligent, perhaps - which would not reinforce the belief that local government management is bumbling and frequently inept. We need a more thoughtful response to dealing with the impact of new communications technologies, such as camera-equipped mobile phones and the proliferation of digital still and video cameras. Local government apparently has neither the knowledge nor process for making informed policy on these new, convergent technologies. Simple bans can easily be got around by ignoring them.

Most photographers want to stop the pornographers and pedophiles as much as anyone else. Childish name-calling and quick-fix, gut reaction bans are unenlightened ways of dealing with these issues. They will generate only discord and resentment.