[zkarj]

Is there any good info on the net or anywhere about the law here?

Found this (haven't read it yet, but section 10 looks like what you're after): Clendons - Photography Law in New Zealand

I've taken some pics of people around Wellington, usually without their knowledge (it's more authentic that way). I've been walking down Lambton Quay recently thinking some interesting shots could be had from odd angles.

[Arpe]

Thanks. That's all about copyright and privacy, interesting nonetheless.
I didn't know this:

Copyright is the right to copy.

That right exists in every photograph from when it is taken and lasts for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the photographer dies. (Section 22 (1) of the Copyright Act, 1994)

I was more wondering about the right to take photos in public places of public buildings etc. blah blah. Or is it not written anywhere, just up to the courts to decide?

This on the police website: What are the rules around taking photos or filming in a public place? | New Zealand Police
Photography in Public Places and the Privacy of the Individual (pdf): http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=photo%20photography%20law&source=we...ai2gCg&cad=rja

[Class A]

Arpe, I found something on the hellophoto forum (not that helpful, though).

Issue #16 of the "NZ Photographer" magazine had an article about Photography and Copyright that also included the issue of which photos you are allowed to take. IIRC, there is no privacy in public.

EDIT: Just remembered that the back issues aren't that easy to find. You should be successful using the respective facebook page.

[CWyatt]

Should ask NZ Photographer or F11 to do an article on rights like this, has been a big issue in photography for a while now.

As far as I know there is no issue with shooting any NZ buildings from a public place.

Important additional point is that anything that can reasonably be seen from public is also fair game (this can still be a grey area, as using a 1000mm lens to look in a window isn't exactly what's on view to the public). So if you happen to be Robert Frank that counts too. Although when you go onto private property you're much more restricted, which I think is how railway stations, museums etc can prevent photography. And of course a major issue is use of the image, and commercial versus editorial use.

[zkarj]

...using a 1000mm lens to look in a window isn't exactly what's on view to the public

I remember Adam Curry talking about dramas he had with paparazzi in the Netherlands. There, you cannot take a photo of someone inside a building if you are outside. It seems a reasonable rule.

[Class A]

I remember Adam Curry talking about dramas he had with paparazzi in the Netherlands. There, you cannot take a photo of someone inside a building if you are outside. It seems a reasonable rule.

Makes sense. Curtains are a rarity in the Netherlands.

[Arpe]

Agree, kind of creepy taking pics of people inside.

[CWyatt]

I don't think I agree, I don't see that photographing it is wrong if it can reasonably be seen from a public spot already.

[pixelsaurus]

I don't think I agree, I don't see that photographing it is wrong if it can reasonably be seen from a public spot already.

I don't think the police/legal system will back you on this one.

[zkarj]

I don't think I agree, I don't see that photographing it is wrong if it can reasonably be seen from a public spot already.

It is, I believe, the matter of "expectation of privacy." Is your bedroom in the second story of your house and facing away from the street? If so, would you consider walking around in there naked? After all, you cannot reasonably see anyone outside so they shouldn't reasonably be able to see in.

But what if a neighbour climbs a tree in his back yard with his camera and manages to snap you through your window? Is that an invasion of privacy? I think it is. Granted if your bedroom fronts on to a busy street at ground level and you choose to leave the curtains open you may invite the intrusion. But where do you draw the line? What if you close the curtains but there is a small gap which a photographer manages to exploit?

I think the general idea is that "inside is private, outside is not." That makes it very easy to judge all of the above situations, even if sometimes it errs on the side of caution. Better that than the other way around. If you want to take a photo of someone inside you have to be inside with them. Then they have the trespass laws to defend their honour.

In fact, photographing someone on private property IS arguably a form of trespass.

[CWyatt]

I don't think the police/legal system will back you on this one.

They should, it's not considered a legal breach of privacy if it can reasonably be seen from public.

Might find this Otago law student paper interesting. I'm only part way through it but they seem to be arguing there should be recourse to the individual if a photograph or publication is 'harmful' more than there is under current law. I don't agree with some of the ideas but there are a few interesting points on the law on privacy, relevant tort and criminal law as it is though:

The expression "public place” includes places
that are accessible or visible to the public, although privately owned. Examples include
shopping malls, swimming pools, and even people’s backyards that are visible from a
public place. An exploration of common law and statute shows that only in very limited
circumstances will there be any legal protection against photography in public, or
publication of photographs, even where they are offensive or otherwise harmful.

In New Zealand law there is currently little protection against photography in
public without the subject’s consent, or publication of those photographs.

[CWyatt]

I think the general idea is that "inside is private, outside is not."

I think the current law gives far more scope to the photographer than that.

In fact, photographing someone on private property IS arguably a form of trespass.

Perhaps in a very extreme case it may be harassment, but it's not legal trespass.

[Arpe]

I don't think I agree, I don't see that photographing it is wrong if it can reasonably be seen from a public spot already.

Glad I don't live near you!

I think each situation must be treated on its merits really. I do think it's morally wrong photographing someone in their house, even if there windows face the street and their curtains are open. An office - not so much.

I think the general feeling of people is that inside is more private than outside, whether or not it's true in law.

[CWyatt]

I'm not talking about shooting through a window with a 1000mm lens, and I believe the law does, and should, apply there.
I'm talking about things reasonably visible to the public, even if they're on private property.
Henri Cartier-Bresson
Brassai
Lee Friedlander
Garry Winogrand
Willy Ronis
Robert Frank

I'm very happy that none of these photos are illegal.

[pixelsaurus]

I'm very happy that none of these photos are illegal.

These were taken before the world went gaga.
I had a mid eastern type car dealer in Otahuhu bail me up for "taking photos of his car yard " several years ago. The fact that I was on a public footpath and actually taking pics of clouds over the back of Sturges Park was a completely foreign concept to him. He threatened to sue me as I told him to bugger off. Apparently I am very arrogant for pointing out my rights. You have to be real careful these days because of the looney element. Why invite trouble?