[Infowarrior] - Growing Australian ban on public photography

[Richard Forno]

Picture this: city puts photo ban in the frame
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/07/29/1153816426869.html

THE signs may have come down at Southgate but the restrictions remain on
photography in the Yarra River tourist complex.

Public indignation followed Monday's posting of the signs that warned:
"Southgate thanks you for not taking photographs within the complex unless
approved by management."

Management's attempts to control public behaviour have drawn political
criticism from all quarters, including from Prime Minister John Howard, who
described it as over the top.

But it also highlights the problems of laws trying to protect or define
public rights within private space.

"In Australia, our law does not recognise the difference between commercial
and private space," said Professor George Williams, an expert in public law
at the University of NSW. "The law would say that once you own land you get
to control what goes on there.

"The basic problem is that so much of our space these days is out of public
hands and in control of private enterprise."

After acknowledging that the signs' image of a camera defaced with a bright
red slash was provocative, Southbank centre's management, Savills Australia,
removed the signs on Friday.

But Savills' national marketing manager, Loraine Peck, said the company was
standing firm.

"This does not change the policy, but there are many policies and rules in
place to help us manage our centres that are not mentioned on signs in the
centre," she said.

"We don't have signage saying you can't spit in our centres, and yet we
would ask you to stop if you were spotted spitting.

"So the signs have come down, but the policy remains the same and will only
be enforced in a sensible manner."

Civil libertarians were concerned that property managers, venue owners and
security guards were not necessarily good judges of appropriate or sensible
behaviour.

Amateur photographer Val Moss was stopped by a security guard the day after
the signs went up.

"On Tuesday I was outside the Esso building and Langham's Hotel taking
pictures of the Travelodge and Eureka Tower when this Chubb security guard
started giving me the eye," said Ms Moss. "She was glaring at me.

"She told me not to take pictures, and I told her I was in a public space,
then she called her manager."

Ms Moss moved 100 metres down the public footpath when she was asked not to
take photographs "because of the terrorism overseas".

"Do I look like a terrorist?" said Ms Moss. "I am a grandma."

Ms Moss was within her rights because she was standing on public land.

But the law recognises few public rights on private property, says Professor
Williams. "It is a very large debate around the world. It has become a big
issue in the US where shopping centres can ban people wearing T-shirts with
political slogans, and the courts have sought to define quasi-public
spaces."

Southgate and the Southbank precinct are not alone. The Shopping Centre
Council of Australia said it was "fairly common practice" for photography
and filming inside shopping centres to be prohibited without permission from
centre management.

Melbourne Central management says it encourages photography for personal use
of the tourist attractions, such as the shot tower and marionette clock, but
there are limits.

"At no times do we permit photography in our back-of-house areas, in or
surrounding our restrooms and within individual retail tenancies," a
spokeswoman said. "There are safety, security, privacy and copyright issues
which need to be considered with all photography and filming within the
centre, and we reserve the right to ask people to stop filming or
photographing if it is deemed inappropriate."

The Melbourne Tennis Centre, Olympic Park, Telstra Dome and the MCG were
unable to tell The Sunday Age whether they had similar restrictions, or what
was "deemed inappropriate" behaviour.

It all reflects a culture of suspicion, according to Nick Rains, the
spokesman for the Australian Institute of Professional Photographers.

"It is not unreasonable for management to want to control commercial
photography on their premises, we accept that," Mr Rains said.

"But there is an enormous cultural interest in street photography.

"We see this as a valid part of our culture and of Western art, and any
infringement on that we would take very seriously.

"The whole angle of security and terrorism is a bit of a stretch."

According to Mr Rains, the actions of Southbank security guards reflect a
growing culture of suspicion of photographers. "Security guards can hardly
be expected to know the ins and outs of the law, but they are facing people
who do know what their rights are," Mr Rains said.

"There is a big public image problem for photographers when words like
paparazzo, spies and pedophiles are used."