Photographer’s Rights

Posted by Philip Northeast Sep 7, 2007

One of the sub plots to the security measures in place in Sydney Australia for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference is the reported treatment of ordinary people taking photographs.

The security force is nervous about photographs of the “rabble proof” security fencing closing off Sydney’s iconic landmarks, such as the Opera House. Even photographing U.S. President George W. Bush’s hotel is forbidden.

Many Sydney residents are more concerned with the disruption to traffic and local businesses, as well as the cost to the taxpayer of the whole affair.

It would seem that documenting the extent of this intrusion and disruption is somehow a threat.

However, in the middle of an election campaign where one of the ruling party’s favorite tactics is to conjure up threats, have they gone too far by attempting to demonize photographers recording public events?

Many constitutions were written before the popularization of photography and the realization of the role it plays in political debate. The general concept of free speech should be considered a general term, giving citizens the right to express opinions and communicate ideas.

Photographs are a powerful form of communication and iconic images have helped sway public opinion and influence the course of wars and elections. Dorothea Lange’s images influenced public policy regarding the poor and disposed in the Depression, while Peter Dombrovkis helped bring down a government by showing the beauty of a wilderness area intended for destruction.

Another powerful image came from the Vietnam War where the U.S. military lost control of the press and images such as a child running down the road after a napalm attack, helped sway public opinion and stop the war.

The suspicion is that the intention of the security troops is to limit the spreading of information about the measures necessary to insulate unpopular leaders from their citizen’s protests.