>>4345390If people object then sure, legally you can't have charges pressed against you or sued in small claims or whatever, but it's still a considerate thing to do. Even when I'm out doing landscapes or whatever I'll cover my lens if people are walking by or just wait until they're gone. I'm not doing it for a job, but I don't know why this is a hill you'd want to die on, as even if *legally* you're fine, you can still annoy or even anger people like this. Do I think it's retarded? Kind of. If someone with a camera is going out of their way to snap photos of you when you're clearly uncomfortable I'm almost certain that goes under harassment laws, but most people are understanding so long as you're not being a creepy austist neckbeardy faggot. Idk, I'm white and look like a well-adjusted person so most people that talk to me in public are actually trying to make sure they aren't fucking up a shot of mine which is nice, but I always say that's a problem for me to work around, not them.
>public landRelates to government owned areas. Be it local council, state, federal. Even if the area is freely accessible to the public, it can still be privately owned. This is what your venues are more than likely, so it's their rules or fuck off. It's the same energy as the people I see in Coles getting mad about cameras in the checkouts when it's privately owned premises and you can just be told to pound sand because it's their rules. If the venue has these rules in place, it might just be out of courtesy which I can appreciate. If you're being paid to photograph an event, I feel like part of the job is working around the obstacles.
>>4345455We are not allowed to use photographs of anyone for commercial use without concent. In fact, the council I'm in won't even allow you to legally use photos for commerical use even if there's nobody in it and it's just *within* the council area; you have to pay a fee and get a permit.
