Sydney Airport photo "restrictions"

[Mark Newton]

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.

 

[Keith009]

I had a similar experience at the SYD T1 QP with a lounge agent, apparently on the grounds of 'privacy concerns' and 'september 11.' But she backed off after I read her the riot act.

 

[russ]

I had a similar experience in Western Australia: an air operator employee told me it was illegal to take photos of their aircraft! Naturally, I laughed, pointed my camera at their aircraft popped off a few shots. I suggested that if they had a problem, they call the police. They never did...

 

[possumoz]

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.

 

[BAM1748]

Yes, even when the private security guards come over about something I always ask them to call the police so I can deal with a professional security service.

Never had anything happen, even when shooting some tele shots out the window of the Qantas lounge.

Even was asked not to take photos at Central railway station in Sydney once by a transit policeman. I simply said he didn't have his facts straight and he wandered off and came back later saying he checked and I was indeed right. Apologised and said just no tripods allowed.

I was gobsmacked actually that I got an apology, but it gave me a new respect for them so they get once chance now before I tell them to call the police.

 

[Nigelinoz]

Have heard about this before and found this on theor website.
http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/NR/...85-C9AA0A8B5EDD/0/filmingguidelinesJan061.pdf

 

[futaris]

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.

4020 Φ NSW Photographer's Rights

 

[coco50]

I have a lovely photo taken out of the window of the Admiral's Club at LGA of AA metal on the apron, the runway and the buildings of Manhattan in the distance. No one stopped me (in a crowded lounge). And we call them the LOTFAP!! Maybe these cowboys at SYD have been watching stupid Johnny Howards terrorism ads too much or they suffer too much from being over officious

 

[Alanslegal]

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

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

 

[BAM1748]

A technique I've used when wanting a pic is to look like you are taking a photo of someone, but zoom straight past to the subject.

Handy in places like Iran.

 

[anat0l]

Try the SYD T1 FL. That place is awash with cameras all the time. I was there less than a month ago, guilty as charged with photographing lots of things in the lounge!

I did get pulled up the same afternoon at the MEL T1 JL. We took a photo of ourselves with Freddie Jr, then was promptly told by the JL manager that, due to privacy concerns, we are not allowed to take photos. Granted, there was a toddler in the area, but we made sure he was not going to be in any photos. Nevertheless....

I had a similar experience at the SYD T1 QP with a lounge agent, apparently on the grounds of 'privacy concerns' and 'september 11.' But she backed off after I read her the riot act.

What is the riot act and how did that relate to your argument?

 

[Dave Noble]

What is the riot act and how did that relate to your argument?

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

 

[Keith009]

What is the riot act and how did that relate to your argument?

It's a figure of speech:
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/read+the+riot+act

 

[markis10]

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.

4020 Φ NSW Photographer's Rights

Sydney Airport is still Crown land AFAIK, hence its not rateable or required to conform to normal planning requirements with local government, the sale was for the lease, not freehold title.

 

[codash1099]

Has anyone considered that this is a plot by airport owners to allow them to gradually introduce a Photography Fee?

 

[dajop]

Has anyone considered that this is a plot by airport owners to allow them to gradually introduce a Photography Fee?

Or even better an income generator for airlines. After you have your BP scanned, as you board the plane you will have to stop in front of a white screen to get your photo taken, which will be superimposed on the background of the aircraft and ready for you to purchase when you land at the destination.

 

[MikedOut]

Macquarie Bank probably haven't worked out how to charge a fee for it yet. As soon as they do we'll all be encouraged to "photograph the day away"

On a less tongue in cheek tone though, I was recently at DFW and had no problems taking pic's in both the Admirals Club (of both internals and metal at the gates, on runways etc) and the terminal proper, although in both cases I did ask if it was OK and got looks of astonishment that I'd even feel the need to ask such a stupid question

 

[Nigelinoz]

Macquarie Bank probably haven't worked out how to charge a fee for it yet. As soon as they do we'll all be encouraged to "photograph the day away"

On a less tongue in cheek tone though, I was recently at DFW and had no problems taking pic's in both the Admirals Club (of both internals and metal at the gates, on runways etc) and the terminal proper, although in both cases I did ask if it was OK and got looks of astonishment that I'd even feel the need to ask such a stupid question

There already is a fee for commercial photography but not for private.
This is from the Sydney Airport website.
Filming and photography – fees

A fee is levied in advance for filming and photography activity undertaken for commercial gain. The full
amount of the fee will be notified by SACL after an application is received and before the activity
commences. No filming or photography will be permitted until the applicable fee is paid, unless prior
arrangements have been made with the Community Affairs Officer. Fees are as follows:

Photography (still) terminal: $300 per hour + gst
Photography (still) airside: $650 + gst first hour, $600 + gst per hour thereafter
Filming terminal: $500 + gst first hour, $450 + gst per hour thereafter
Filming airside: $650 + gst first hour, $600 + gst per hour thereafter

Should specific SACL personnel or services be required to undertake the activity, a further fee may be
levied. Depending on location and duration of the activity, an additional fee may also be imposed to
cover the additional deployment of security or safety personnel.

Non-commercial filming or photography

Fees are not charged for the following activities:

• Airline companies and airport tenants collecting material for independent internal use within their
organisations eg training films etc. Normal fees apply for airlines and airport tenants filming for
advertising purposes;
• Media use eg breaking news stories and library footage

 

[Mark Newton]

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.

Well, that's not true in Australia, and if anyone tries that line on you then they're on a hiding to nothing.

"In Australia the taking and publication of a person's photograph, without their consent or knowledge, but within the limitations outlined below, is not an invasion of privacy, nor is it in contravention of case or statute law. Privacy advocates may disapprove, but in this country it has always been, and for the moment remains, a perfectly legal thing to do.

"Unauthorised" photography in Australia has in fact been authorised since the 1937 High Court decision in Victoria Park Racing v. Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479 (at p.496). This was reaffirmed recently in ABC v Lenah (2001) HCA 63, where the Court ruled that despite the passage of decades since Victoria Park, any concept of a "Tort of invasion of privacy" still does not exist in Australia.

As Justice Dowd put it with blunt clarity in R v Sotheren (2001) NSWSC 204:

A person, in our society, does not have a right not to be photographed."

Cheers,

Mark.

 

[Mark Newton]

Have heard about this before and found this (link) on theor website...

Interesting that you should post that link. When I returned home I contacted SAC and spoke to Ms Harrigan - a very pleasant and helpful lady, I might add - and she assured me that there were no conditions or restrictions placed by SAC on non-professional or non-commercial photography for personal use, which was what I was doing.

(If I ever find myself in this position again I'll be straight on the phone to her! )

Cheers,

Mark.