Sydney Airport photo "restrictions"

[Mark Newton]

Technically, since it is private land you don't have the right to take a photo if the owner (or their agent) tells you not to.

Agreed, but as the nice lady from SAC pointed out, they have no restrictions on personal photography, and the individual from Virgin isn't their agent, or authorised to act on their behalf.

Cheers,

Mark.

 

[Mark Newton]

Welcome to AFF Mark Newton - glad your 1st post is a good one

Glad you (and others) stood your ground and won!

Thanks for the welcome!

I think it's important that people stand up to this sort of pettiness and intimidation, wherever it occurs, and whatever spurious reason is given.

Cheers,

Mark.

 

[Mal]

As it came time for her to board her flight, I went to take a last photo of them together. At this point, I was accosted by an individual in a Virgin Blue uniform who very abruptly told me that taking photos in the terminal wasn't allowed.

Yeah, if you know the individual's name, then escalating to Virgin Blue customer care is probably warranted.

I actually like what you did and how you handled it. If I thought/knew I was in the right, I would bluff them and/or request that they escalate it. I would have held off on personal insults lest they come up the ability to charge you with assault etc.

But yeah, as has been discussed here - you were in the right, the numpty was in the wrong and probably on a power trip. Hopefully they'll be retired soon and get a better job being a security officer where they can really push their authority :shock:

 

[tuapekastar]

Riot Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has no bearing given that they have every right to refuse the taking of photos. I spose it is a good way to get evicted from the lounge and airport though

Dave

A little OT, but ISTR many (maybe 20) years ago the Victorian equivalent of the riot act was either read, or at the very least, very seriously considered one night when a large group of youths in Frankston became somewhat rambunctious.

Only time I have ever heard of it being used here (or considered).

And welcome also from me to AFF, Mark Newton.

 

[Groundfeeder]

There's an interesting sign on the southern fence of Townsville Airport beside Ingham Road saying "photography not allowed" or similar words.

It's usually a popular spot to see what RAAF metal is in town just to the south of the domestic terminal.

Not sure what an illegal photo of a just-about-to-be-retired Caribou or King Air might do for security.

 

[browski]

I know we are a bit coccooned here in Oz, but worldwide, wouldn't it be the exception rather than the norm to take photos of aircraft/runways at airports? (I understand that the OP was probably just taking family/friend snaps). A similar scenario is when we take pictures of visiting navy vessels. In Australia, maybe OK. Overseas, expect to be detained and questioned.

 

[straitman]

There's an interesting sign on the southern fence of Townsville Airport beside Ingham Road saying "photography not allowed" or similar words.

It's usually a popular spot to see what RAAF metal is in town just to the south of the domestic terminal.

Not sure what an illegal photo of a just-about-to-be-retired Caribou or King Air might do for security.

It's just so that you will go to a web site somewhere and get a GOOD photo :!:

RAAF Aircraft Photos.

 

[nlagalle]

A similar thing happened in Cairns before Xmas. News paper reported that a tourist couple were ejected from a shopping centre for taking pictures of the Xmas tree. Privacy concerns were apparently cited because passers by have the right not to be photographed without permission.
Sadly sometimes it can be an ugly world making everyone think ugly thoughts.

The banning of taking photos all depends on where you are when the image is taken. In the case of a shopping centre, it may be privately owned and they are legally allowed to ban the taking of photographs. However standing in Public land (or crown land) you are entitled to take photos as you please. The only exception to this is where they have signs banning photography. Customs at the airport is an example of that (They usually have signs up saying no photographs).

 

[Flashback]

The banning of taking photos all depends on where you are when the image is taken. In the case of a shopping centre, it may be privately owned and they are legally allowed to ban the taking of photographs. However standing in Public land (or crown land) you are entitled to take photos as you please. The only exception to this is where they have signs banning photography. Customs at the airport is an example of that (They usually have signs up saying no photographs).

Yep, and on my last arrival into MEL with Skoogle, anat0l, Bundy Bear we saw someone who had a stern talking to, for exactly that. The Customs officer also made sure the photo(s) had been deleted.

 

[anat0l]

Yep, and on my last arrival into MEL with Skoogle, anat0l, Bundy Bear we saw someone who had a stern talking to, for exactly that. The Customs officer also made sure the photo(s) had been deleted.

In other cases it's more hazy.

When I reboarded JQ19 at OOL some time ago, a Japanese man was taking photos of the JQ Airbus that was going to fly us to KIX. (He was taking photos as we walked out onto the tarmac.) He was caught by one of the ground officials and told "no photos".

He understood the "no photos" part but the ground official then (luckily) had to call one of her colleagues who was fluent in Japanese to tell the man to delete the photos.

Personally I was going to take a photo until I saw this man being told otherwise, despite having asked ground staff whilst inside the terminal and they said it would be OK. Oh well.

 

[jakeseven7]

Agreed, but as the nice lady from SAC pointed out, they have no restrictions on personal photography, and the individual from Virgin isn't their agent, or authorised to act on their behalf.

Cheers,

Mark.

how do they enforce the no photography restrictions in the international terminal then? are the customs and immigration areas exempt?

 

[nlagalle]

how do they enforce the no photography restrictions in the international terminal then? are the customs and immigration areas exempt?

They have signs up stating no photos allowed.

 

[Alanslegal]

And also the Customs and Immigration areas are specific areas, with defined boundaries, that clearly state that certain things aren't allowed (such as photography) at point of entry as well as reminders within those exclusive areas.

 

[possumoz]

Which is all a bit silly really considering they put it on the tv in that (sorry to say) riveting border control reality program.:shock:

 

[straitman]

Which is all a bit silly really considering they put it on the tv in that (sorry to say) riveting border control reality program.:shock:

You don't want to end up in competition with same said program do you :!:

 

[WTL]

I don't know how many of you have had this sort of experience, but it was something new for me.

I went to Sydney airport with my wife and 2 1/2 year-old son today to see a relative off on a flight. We arrived about 1130, and spent the next hour or so having lunch and chatting, all the while taking photos of my son and his great aunt.

As it came time for her to board her flight, I went to take a last photo of them together. At this point, I was accosted by an individual in a Virgin Blue uniform who very abruptly told me that taking photos in the terminal wasn't allowed. Why not, I asked. He replies that it's against the law. Really?, sez I - what law would that be?

The idiot's one-word answer was "Terrorism"!

When I had stopped laughing, I told him that he was talking utter rubbish, and that his answer didn't even make sense. He then got quite aggressive, and told me that if I didn't stop taking photos my camera would be seized and the photos deleted. I laughed a bit more, and suggested that if he was really concerned that I was breaking the law, he should call the police in and we could determine what law was actually being broken. In the meantime, I suggested he go away and mind his own business, and added if he thought he was going to browbeat me into submission he'd picked the wrong person.

We argued a bit more, but he seemed oddly reluctant to contact the police, so after a few well-chosen insults I turned my back on the clown and wandered off to take some more pictures. Needless to say, no police appeared, and I left the airport without any further incident.

As I said, I don't know if this sort of thing happens often, but I'd be interested in knowing whether others have had similar experiences there.

Cheers,

Mark.

Mark - you're entirely right, and as a further point of interest, there are no circumstances where a police officer can confiscate your camera equipment short of arresting you. You might choose to surrender it if arrest is on the cards (or a court might later subpoena your pictures for some reason) but you are never compelled by law to hand it over on the spot because someone tells you to, unless you are arrested first. In the UK there are many recent cases where false arrest has been used to achieve this, but it has made a couple of photographers a lot richer so probably won't be happening again soon.

 

[Soundguy]

And if I decide I don't want the airport taking photos of me.....?

Oh, you mean it doesn't work that way? Then clearly there is no problem with me taking photos also.

There has been quite a bit of discussion about the legal aspects of photography on Instapundit over the years; seems many of the Police get very edgy and threatening if you photograph them but if it is in public it is all legal and they have no right to take your camera.

In legal proceeding the power is always in the hands of the person holding the recordings / photographs & many authorities get a bit freaked when the tables are turned. This is because they have completely lost the concept of democracy and the fact that they are the publics servants of course.

Just remembering a forensic case I worked on where I never did find those missing two shots from the Police handgun on the audio recording.....

 

[Flashback]

There was a case that finished just this week in WA that you may have heard about (the cop basher one....) and as you said in a public place, no problem. It was the bystander's footage of the incident on his mobile phone that let the b*stards come out of it not guilty.

 

[oz_mark]

There was a case that finished just this week in WA that you may have heard about (the cop basher one....) and as you said in a public place, no problem. It was the bystander's footage of the incident on his mobile phone that let the b*stards come out of it not guilty.

I dare say that there may be some changes to the law after that one.

 

[Flashback]

I dare say that there may be some changes to the law after that one.

I sure hope so. Can you believe that since then, there has been another brawl involving a few police officers (outside Carnegies, on Murray St) and "rumour" has it, the people have already claimed to have acted "in self defence" aka the excuse that just got these other 3 people off. It sure has set a precedent, and they really need to do something about it.