Reading mode: Light Dark

Photography banned Soutbank - Melbourne

Go to last post
Lance B said:
pjv wrote:
That's fine, but the very fact that you are allowed on private land
means that there shouldn't be a reason for you NOT to take pics. It
is different to when you come onto my land as I have not opened it
to the public, but they have and therefore it should not bother
them that you take pics.
Click to expand...
So you believe that someone (or a company) can only allow the public onto private land unconditionally? Do you also ignore the 'no flash photography' or 'no tripods' rules in museums?
Lance B said:
Lance B said:
Imagine if they wanted to do it to increase sales of their own
photos from those locations... wouldn't they have a right to do
that? What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Ahh, so it's all about revenue raising and not terrorism. Why lie
about it and not just come out and speak the truth, "we do not want
you to take pics on our land as we want to get the revenue from the
sale of OUR photos". Quite simple and not misleading. It has
NOTHING to do with terrorism.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said, and I find it largely irrelevant. If it is private land, then I truly believe they have a right to prohibit photography from within that land (as long as they clearly indicate it), no matter how feeble their reasons may be.

Pete

--
http://www.magpiementality.org/gallery
 
Ivan Glisin said:
Because almost everything is a private property, so if you let
owners set their own rules you eventually loose your freedoms.
Click to expand...
You can't have unlimited freedoms anyway. Every freedom you exercise will conflict with (or at least lessen the value of) someone else's freedom.

In this case -- do they not have the 'freedom' to ban photography on their own private land (again, that's an assumption)? I mean, they could bar you from their land completely and then you'd have no way to take a photo. Should I not have the 'freedom' to allow people onto my land conditionally? Without giving up any say in what actions they may and may not take while there?

Pete

--
http://www.magpiementality.org/gallery
 
The question that we should be asking ourselves is this:
"is the sign legal?

Many of these crazy ideas juat aren't backed by the correct legislation and the sign may have been put up as a "I hope that we don't get challenged on this" type of mentality. It would be interesting to see what the human rights bill has to say about personal freedoms in a public area.
Any Aussi Lawyers got a few hours free?

Gareth
--
http://www.pbase.com/gazzajagman

'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with' Douglas Adams
 
Ohhh! That's a great point! Hehehe, I'd love to try that one on a security guard in a shopping mall in Swindon UK. Even if it goes to court they wouldn't have a leg to stand on with that argument, especially if the security CCTV cameras are run by the same Security group.

Gareth
--
http://www.pbase.com/gazzajagman

'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with' Douglas Adams
 
Or how about setting up a stall with a DSLR and a little printer, selling portraits of people who want to be snapped? There's the victm's...sorry punter's permission AND it's a public place.

Gareth
--
http://www.pbase.com/gazzajagman

'Science is what we dream of, technology is what we are stuck with' Douglas Adams
 
I've always been a big fan of going for walks around the city of Melbourne (especially Southbank) with my camera and taking snaps of the unique life and architecture it has to offer. Sometimes I'll whip out the tripod to get nice panoramic shots. Having moved to Washington DC recently I've continued to do that around the city, taking pictures of the popular monuments. I was extremely annoyed that at certain areas I was prohibited to carry my tripod around and required a permit to do so. At that point, I thought to myself "I can't wait to return to Melbourne where I can carry my tripod around with no worries." So, to hear the news that photography is banned altogether at Southbank is devastating. If they can approve such a ban, I can think of at least a dozen more places which will employ similar ridiculous rules. Very very sad!
 
Indeed. I regularly refuse to visit museums and the like which do not allow photography. I can understand "no flash", and "no tripods" rules. Those are fine, but people limiting what I can photograph and saying "Here's a book you can buy instead" anger me, not so much because I begrudge them their profit, but because I may want a close-up of a certain artifact, or take the photo from a different angle, or whatever.
Lance B said:
The whole Southbank saga smacks of either a publicity stunt or some
reason to limit photographical opportunities so they themsleves can
sell pics to you rather than you be able to take your own for free.
--
Lance B
Click to expand...
 
Seems like the kerfuffle may be over after criticism by the PM and the Victorian A-G:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,19913331-2862,00.html

The key line is the last:

"Ms Peck said Savills would now consider removing the signs."

Our office in Melbourne tells me that the Herald-Sun newspaper made this issue a cause celebre because their office is on Southbank and they do their vox pops there - a journo wanders out the door with a photographer and ask passers by such questions as " should Melbourne's pigeons be fed or shot etc etc"....A ban would have meant they would actually have to walk 100 meters more...

--
Thommo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jthommo101/

 
Told them about all the good publicity they were geting on the worlds largest photography forum!

I wonder if they will reply!
 
pjv said:
Lance B said:
pjv wrote:
That's fine, but the very fact that you are allowed on private land
means that there shouldn't be a reason for you NOT to take pics. It
is different to when you come onto my land as I have not opened it
to the public, but they have and therefore it should not bother
them that you take pics.
Click to expand...
So you believe that someone (or a company) can only allow the
public onto private land unconditionally? Do you also ignore the
'no flash photography' or 'no tripods' rules in museums?
Click to expand...
Not at all. The no flash photography in a museum is a reasonable request, the no photography at Southbank is not a reasonable request. There is a 100x more chance of somebody blowing up the Sydney Opera House, The Sydney Harbour Bridge, Melbourne's Rialto Tower, Sydney's Centre Point Tower, railway yards, airports, electricity grids ets or any number of buildings in any of these cities so what makes Sotuhbank think they're special? None of these buildings have a no photography ban on them.
The ban on photography at Southbank is RIDICULOUS.
pjv363689 said:
pjv363689 said:
pjv363689 said:
Imagine if they wanted to do it to increase sales of their own
photos from those locations... wouldn't they have a right to do
that? What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Ahh, so it's all about revenue raising and not terrorism. Why lie
about it and not just come out and speak the truth, "we do not want
you to take pics on our land as we want to get the revenue from the
sale of OUR photos". Quite simple and not misleading. It has
NOTHING to do with terrorism.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said, and I find it largely irrelevant. If it is
private land, then I truly believe they have a right to prohibit
photography from within that land (as long as they clearly indicate
it), no matter how feeble their reasons may be.
Click to expand...
It's not irrelevent. I guarantee that they are NOT worried about a terrorist attack as I indicated above, and if they are they are fools. NOBODY would be interested in making a terrorist attack on Southbank Melbourne, so it can only be a publicity stunt or some OTHER reason. So, if it is some other reason then don't lie about it, tell the truth. It is all b*ll*cks.
pjv363689 said:
Pete

--
http://www.magpiementality.org/gallery
Click to expand...
--
Lance B

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
GMT +10hours

 
Lance B said:
Lance B said:
So you believe that someone (or a company) can only allow the
public onto private land unconditionally? Do you also ignore the
'no flash photography' or 'no tripods' rules in museums?
Click to expand...
Not at all. The no flash photography in a museum is a reasonable
request, the no photography at Southbank is not a reasonable
request. There is a 100x more chance of somebody blowing up the
Sydney Opera House, The Sydney Harbour Bridge, Melbourne's Rialto
Tower, Sydney's Centre Point Tower, railway yards, airports,
electricity grids ets or any number of buildings in any of these
cities so what makes Sotuhbank think they're special? None of these
buildings have a no photography ban on them.
The ban on photography at Southbank is RIDICULOUS.
Click to expand...
So you only obey the conditions people place on you when you are on their property, if you find them reasonable? What gives you the right to make the decision, but not them? If they do own the property, should their reasoning matter?

For that matter, what exactly is the reason for banning flash photography in museums (I've even seen it in modern art galleries that couldn't possibly contain work that can be affected or harmed by flash, which is the normal reasoning I come across) -- would the reasons have to be explained before you agreed to abide by it?
Lance B said:
Lance B said:
That's not what I said, and I find it largely irrelevant. If it is
private land, then I truly believe they have a right to prohibit
photography from within that land (as long as they clearly indicate
it), no matter how feeble their reasons may be.
Click to expand...
It's not irrelevent. I guarantee that they are NOT worried about a
terrorist attack as I indicated above, and if they are they are
fools. NOBODY would be interested in making a terrorist attack on
Southbank Melbourne, so it can only be a publicity stunt or some
OTHER reason. So, if it is some other reason then don't lie about
it, tell the truth. It is all b*ll*cks.
Click to expand...
If they own the land, my feeling is that they can place whatever restrictions they like on your use of it. You can always go elsewhere.

I really don't get this whole attitude of them having to have a good reason to make such a ban. The people who own the block of flats where I live have banned barbecues in the courtyard outside (which is also their property) -- I don't need to know their reasoning to abide by that decision (though I am aware of their reasoning and happen to agree with it). If the reasoning was poor, it would (and should) make no difference -- it's their right.

Pete

--
http://www.magpiementality.org/gallery
 
pjv said:
Lance B said:
pjv363689 said:
So you believe that someone (or a company) can only allow the
public onto private land unconditionally? Do you also ignore the
'no flash photography' or 'no tripods' rules in museums?
Click to expand...
Not at all. The no flash photography in a museum is a reasonable
request, the no photography at Southbank is not a reasonable
request. There is a 100x more chance of somebody blowing up the
Sydney Opera House, The Sydney Harbour Bridge, Melbourne's Rialto
Tower, Sydney's Centre Point Tower, railway yards, airports,
electricity grids ets or any number of buildings in any of these
cities so what makes Sotuhbank think they're special? None of these
buildings have a no photography ban on them.
The ban on photography at Southbank is RIDICULOUS.
Click to expand...
So you only obey the conditions people place on you when you are on
their property, if you find them reasonable? What gives you the
right to make the decision, but not them? If they do own the
property, should their reasoning matter?
Click to expand...
Yes.
pjv363689 said:
For that matter, what exactly is the reason for banning flash
photography in museums (I've even seen it in modern art galleries
that couldn't possibly contain work that can be affected or harmed
by flash, which is the normal reasoning I come across) -- would the
reasons have to be explained before you agreed to abide by it?
Click to expand...
Yes.
pjv363689 said:
pjv363689 said:
pjv363689 said:
That's not what I said, and I find it largely irrelevant. If it is
private land, then I truly believe they have a right to prohibit
photography from within that land (as long as they clearly indicate
it), no matter how feeble their reasons may be.
Click to expand...
It's not irrelevent. I guarantee that they are NOT worried about a
terrorist attack as I indicated above, and if they are they are
fools. NOBODY would be interested in making a terrorist attack on
Southbank Melbourne, so it can only be a publicity stunt or some
OTHER reason. So, if it is some other reason then don't lie about
it, tell the truth. It is all b*ll*cks.
Click to expand...
If they own the land, my feeling is that they can place whatever
restrictions they like on your use of it. You can always go
elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Not if it is basically a public thoroughfare which this is. It is freely open to the public.
pjv363689 said:
I really don't get this whole attitude of them having to have a
good reason to make such a ban. The people who own the block of
flats where I live have banned barbecues in the courtyard outside
(which is also their property) -- I don't need to know their
reasoning to abide by that decision (though I am aware of their
reasoning and happen to agree with it). If the reasoning was poor,
it would (and should) make no difference -- it's their right.
Click to expand...
But the reason wasn't unreasonable, was it?
pjv363689 said:
Pete

--
http://www.magpiementality.org/gallery
Click to expand...
--
Lance B

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
GMT +10hours

 
Lance B said:
Lance B said:
For that matter, what exactly is the reason for banning flash
photography in museums (I've even seen it in modern art galleries
that couldn't possibly contain work that can be affected or harmed
by flash, which is the normal reasoning I come across) -- would the
reasons have to be explained before you agreed to abide by it?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Seriously!? You wouldn't just abide by their chosen rules out of courtesy or good manners, or at least a healthy respect for their security guards?
Lance B said:
Lance B said:
If they own the land, my feeling is that they can place whatever
restrictions they like on your use of it. You can always go
elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Not if it is basically a public thoroughfare which this is. It is
freely open to the public.
Click to expand...
It sounds as if it may be public property. But if it isn't, and they have signs up banning photography, then surely it's their right to enforce those bans by having security guards remove you from the property. Just like a museum would if you broke their regulations. Or a night club (heheh, how well I know that).

Or the shopping centre down the road from me that banned smoking (even though it is huge and extremely well ventilated, and I'd never seen anyone smoking in there before). Or the university grounds where walking on the grass is prohibited (even though the provided path just doesn't follow an efficient route to most destinations). Or the shopping centre car park with disabled-only spaces (even though they always seem empty and the rest full). Etc.
Lance B said:
Lance B said:
I really don't get this whole attitude of them having to have a
good reason to make such a ban. The people who own the block of
flats where I live have banned barbecues in the courtyard outside
(which is also their property) -- I don't need to know their
reasoning to abide by that decision (though I am aware of their
reasoning and happen to agree with it). If the reasoning was poor,
it would (and should) make no difference -- it's their right.
Click to expand...
But the reason wasn't unreasonable, was it?
Click to expand...
I assume it wasn't. Their real reason may not be the one they told me -- and it really wouldn't matter. Reasonable is entirely irrelevant -- I'm here at their sufferance and they can impose whatever rules they wish. No-one forced me to be here, and the rules were in-place (and I was made aware of them) before I moved in.

Pete

--
http://www.magpiementality.org/gallery
 
The trouble is that Southgate's "private" land abbutts against public land, that being part of the riverbank promenade, the bicycle track & parkland alongside the footway on the riverbank....& it is not made clear, even by the City of Melbourne, exactly where that is. It becomes a legal minefield.

Southgate's property has been designed this way to seamlessly blend with public land to facilitate funnelling the public to their business tenants.

Legally retail properties offering public access from public land & in this case inviting it, cannot/should not infringe on personal rights normally accorded on public land.

So if Southgate management use private security guards to physically abuse this freedom one can take them to court....if one has the resources.

Who do you sue? the guards or Southgate. According to Vic Police & City of Melb it is a civil issue.

There is no public advocacy or protection for this sort of corporate bullying & that is not right.

--
A collection of images posted by me on this forum can be found here:
http://pentax.pixelcritic.com/user.php?id=100&page=user_images
 
This whole discussion is about what is reasonably expected about the photogaphy ban at Southbank. If you want to blindly accept what this company says about banning photography, then fine that is up to you, but every respondant to this thread thinks that it is NOT REASONABLE. Therefore we are expressing our freedom of speech to disagree with this stupid ban.

So, it seems that you are quite happy to just go along with any directive that anyone gives just because they say so. I am sorry, I do not agree with this and so it seems does 99% of the forum members on this thread.

It also seems that neither does our Prime Minister and most of the public and so this pressure has resulted in the "owners" of Southbank deciding to recant thier decision and remove the signs banning photography. What have you got to say about that?

This was free speech having it's say about a ridiculous decision. If you do not agree with a decision about something, do you just blindly accept it? If you do, I cannot fathom this. In this case, the majority of people obviously didn't think the banning of photography was warranted and they voiced their opinion and the decision to ban photography was shown to be a ridiculous one.

I am afraid if we blindly accept decisions like this then we are surely in for a police state or privately owned everything where the government is powerless to stop them, but then maybe this is what you want? More and more companies buying up public land and then dictating to the public what they want even though it is a public thoroughfare which is needed for normal access.

I will NOT be dictated to by unreasonable requests and I therefore express my opinion as has everybody else, except you, on this forum.

--
Lance B

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
GMT +10hours

 
Everyone man and his dog will be down there with a Fuji, Canon, Pentax and Ricoh P&S, snapping away to their hearts content. You might even find a few DSLR's owners getting in on the fun. I tell you, if i was living near there, i would be shooting there everyday.

And can you believe the wally spokesperson for centre management said "Actually i don't know where the line is" as he didn't know where you could shoot and where you couldn't! Basically the shopping centre is selling prints of the Yarra and they don't want YOU saving your money by printing your own!

Also when our alledged leader says something is a nonsense in the way that he has, whatever's been ruled tends to get thrown out. Finally something i can agree with little Johnnie on!

Ben
--

 
Seven Melbourne ran it last night Thommo, same deal, asking passers-by about it. The stand-up also featured the reporter taking a shot of the news cameraman with a P&S.

Ben
--

 
pjv said:
Lance B wrote:

So you only obey the conditions people place on you when you are on
their property, if you find them reasonable? What gives you the
right to make the decision, but not them? If they do own the
property, should their reasoning matter?
Click to expand...
Of course it matters. If I own a property and insist that everyone who visits my house has to walk on all fours and bark, is that reasonable? Its a matter of what's considered reasonable where a potential cost or damage could be done to property or the public.
pjv363689 said:
For that matter, what exactly is the reason for banning flash
photography in museums (I've even seen it in modern art galleries
that couldn't possibly contain work that can be affected or harmed
by flash, which is the normal reasoning I come across) -- would the
reasons have to be explained before you agreed to abide by it?
Click to expand...
Tripods poorly placed are a health hazard. Flashes in dark interiors can cause temporary blindness. Artists have the right to protect copyright of their work in a museum. Smoking is a the very least an irritant and at worst, harmful.
pjv363689 said:
If they own the land, my feeling is that they can place whatever
restrictions they like on your use of it. You can always go
elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Not true if the lasd is part of a public utility. They cannot place restrictions on you that unreasonably affect your statutory rights. Companies that manage public areas do so under covenants from the local councils and other bodies that restrict what they can and must do in the interests of H&S etc. They do NOT have carte blanche at all, and they have no legal right to prevent photography either since it is not an illegal activity.

Nor can they unreasonably change rules to force the raising of revenues, for instance by forcing photographers to buy permits. This is extortion. Photography is NOT a prohibited actitivity by law, and causes no harm, so they cannot justify this position and would have to sue each case individually through civil courts. Similarly none of the security guards would be able to molest you physically, touch your person or equipment etc. so this whole thing is pointless.
pjv363689 said:
I really don't get this whole attitude of them having to have a
good reason to make such a ban. The people who own the block of
flats where I live have banned barbecues in the courtyard outside
(which is also their property) -- I don't need to know their
reasoning to abide by that decision (though I am aware of their
reasoning and happen to agree with it). If the reasoning was poor,
it would (and should) make no difference -- it's their right.
Click to expand...
So you think a private residence is comparable with a space open to the public? I dont. What happened if your owners decided you couldnt flush the toilet after 9PM, or you were not allowed to wear teeshirts on the grounds? Would that be reasonable? Owners of private residences can be taken to court for unreasonable demands and rules, especially if they involve unreasonable costs.

Its all a matter of degree. Nothing is black or white. When WOULD you start protesting?

--
Steve
Measurebating makes you short sighted.
http://www.pbase.com/steve_jacob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top