An interesting question from an RFS volunteer:
I’m a volunteer with the NSW RFS and also an avid photographer. During the recent fires I got some impressive shots while on duty and in uniform that were instant hits with the news agencies. AAP offered to pay me for the photos but I was advised by our fire control officer that accepting payment for the photos would be illegal and the ICAC could come down on me. Are you able to advise if this is the case, and if you have the time, elaborate on the point a little? 🙂
That’s a surprisingly complex question and the answer will take me to areas that I claim no expertise in, but I’ll see what I can do. I also note that the issue of taking photos by emergency service personnel has been raised before and is quite controversial in the USA – see “US legislation on taking photos at emergency scenes” 24 August 2012; and “The use of photos taken at accident and emergency scenes” 6 August 2011.
The first issue is to identify who owns the photo. A person who creates a work, like a photo, owns it (assuming a photo is ‘artistic work’ (Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 35(1)). The exception to this rule is that if you produce the work as part of your employment, so if you were employed by the RFS as a photographer, then the employer owns the copyright in the photo (s 35(6)).
Copyright is a form of property (what we lawyers call ‘intellectual property’). The copyright in an artistic work allows the owner to reproduce it, publish it or communicate the work (s 31(1)(b)). Because it is a form of property, the copyright owner can sell it and that is the point of the above question. What AAP want to do is buy the copyright.
The Rural Fire Service Service Standard 1.1.19 on Intellectual Property says at [2.9] “Any IP made or created by an RFS volunteer in carrying out their role or service as an RFS volunteer will vest upon its creation in the State.” It is not clear whether taking a photo while volunteering as a fire fighter is creating IP whilst carrying out the volunteer’s role or service. The RFS would create substantial IP and much would be contributed by volunteers eg when developing training materials, writing press releases, perhaps creating new inventions of fire fighting equipment. As they do that with the RFS, perhaps they have volunteered to be part of a working group on some new idea, then they are creating the IP for the RFS and the RFS owns it. Someone who has volunteered to be the RFS photographer rather than a fire fighter is also creating photos in their ‘role or service’. It is not so clear for a fire fighter. I’m sure many RFS volunteers would be unwilling to accept that any photo they took whilst they were in uniform was owned by the RFS – eg taking a photo of their own kids in a fire truck at the school fete?
So, the short, first part of the answer is if you took the photo, and it was not done as part of your employment (and I also assume you weren’t acting as a volunteer photographer for the RFS) then I think you own the photo and you would think you could sell it for whatever you can get for it. Even without the complexity of the IP Service Standard, I don’t think the answer is that simple, as there are far more issues involved.
The next thing to consider is does the RFS have a photo policy? A quick search of the RFS Service, Standards and Policies does not reveal one, but it may exist. The State Rescue Policy has a photographic policy. That policy says:
Members of accredited rescue units are to comply with the directions of this policy in relation to the taking of photographic images or film at a rescue incident.
That is of no application to RFS volunteers who are responding to a fire or even if they are responding to a motor vehicle accident to provide fire protection. They are not ‘members of accredited rescue units’ but the point I wish to make is if there is such a policy it should be adhered to. The photographer may be able to sell the photo, but if taking the photo is contrary to service policy, the member could expect to face disciplinary action which could, in extreme cases, include exclusion from the service (Rural Fires Regulations 2013 (NSW) Part 2, in particular ss 7 and 9).
There are other issues relating to taking photos and that depends on what is photographed and where. There is ‘no property in a spectacle’ which means you can photograph anything that is happening in public view. In Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479, Taylor built a tower on his property so he could see over the fence into the race course run by Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds. A person stood on the tower and reported on the races to Sydney radio station 2UW. The plaintiff race-course owner wanted an order to stop the practice in order to encourage people to come to, and pay to enter, the race course. In the High Court of Australia, Latham CJ said
I am unable to see that any right of the plaintiff has been violated or any wrong done to him. Any person is entitled to look over the plaintiff’s fences and to see what goes on in the plaintiff’s land. If the plaintiff desires to prevent this, the plaintiff can erect a higher fence. … The defendant does no wrong to the plaintiff by looking at what takes place on the plaintiff’s land. Further, he does no wrong to the plaintiff by describing to other persons, to as wide an audience as he can obtain, what takes place on the plaintiff’s ground. The court has not been referred to any principle of law which prevents any man from describing anything which he sees anywhere if he does not make defamatory statements, infringe the law as to offensive language, &c., break a contract, or wrongfully reveal confidential information. The defendants did not infringe the law in any of these respects.
The shorthand from that case is that ‘there is no property in a spectacle’ so if you can see it you can report it or photograph it (subject to any express law to the contrary). This principle caused Channel Nine some problems when they sought the exclusive rights to broadcast the 1999 Sydney News Year Eve Fireworks (see Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corp [1999] FCA 1864). Of course Channel Nine could not stop the ABC broadcasting what was happening around Sydney Harbour.
What follows from this is that a person, whether a fire fighter or not, can film and photograph what is going on at a fire. We have seen that during the current Sydney fires with no shortage of footage on TV and the Internet from people near the fires and video and photos taken by fire fighters. That right extends to any bystander at any event including a house fire or a rescue at a motor vehicle accident. For example, my own book, Emergency Law, has recently been published in its 4th edition. On the cover is a photo taken at a fatal accident. It’s an excellent photo showing a multi-agency response. A journalist in the course of his employment took the photo, so the copyright owner was the newspaper for which he worked. My publisher (the Federation Press) approached the newspaper for permission to use the photo. The photo is also well known as it was entered into, and was highly commended, in the Professional Category of the 2005 Emergency Management Volunteers in Action Photo Competition. We’ve used the photo, but the people in it were never asked if they consented to having their photo taken or its use in the newspaper, the competition or my book.
The members of the RFS may have the power to cordon off areas and exclude people (Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) s 22A). That section says:
An officer of a rural fire brigade … may cause to be removed any person, … the presence of whom … at or near a fire, incident or other emergency might, in the officer’s opinion, interfere with the work of any rural fire brigade or the exercise of any of the officer’s functions.
Merely taking photos is not interfering with the work of the Brigade. You may recall video from the 2013 Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras that involved a confrontation between police and a young man and which was widely reported as an example of police brutality. During the filming a police officer is seen to direct the person shooting the video to stop filming which he, rightly, refuses to do. The response of the police to that issue, ie the right of the citizen to film the event is informative. Assistant Commissioner Mark Murdoch
… told a press conference an officer was wrong to order members of the public to stop filming and will be spoken to.
“It is contrary to our media policy,” he said.
“I would suggest that unfortunately, it shows a degree of naivety of the police involved who made those comments.
“We understand and accept, and in fact support the right of the community to film anyone in a public space. We do it ourselves as part of our operational duties.”
(Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop ‘Police investigate Mardi Gras brutality claims’ ABC News Online, 6 Mar 2013).
It follows that as an RFS volunteer you can photograph that which you see just like anyone else; but it can become problematic. Assume for example that the public are being excluded from an area due to the risk posed by the fire. A fire fighter will be allowed to go in as they are meant to performing their duties as a fire fighter. If they stop to take a photo they may well get a photo that no journalist could get as the media, like everyone else, have been excluded for legitimate operational reasons. That would give the RFS volunteer/photographer an unfair advantage. (For more on the relationships between the media and the emergency services, see Michael Eburn, ‘Media Access to Emergencies – Command, Control or Co-ordination?’ (2010) 25(1) Australian Journal of Emergency Management 13-17).
We now need to return to the RFS Service Standards and Policies. The Code of Conduct and Ethics tells fire fighters to engage in ethical conduct. The Code tells you (at [2.1])
In discharging your responsibilities you should consider the following points: …
Do these outcomes raise a conflict of interest or lead to private gain at public expense?
Further , at [4.1]:
A conflict of interest arises if it is likely that a personal interest could conflict, or be reasonably seen to conflict, with the impartial performance of our official duties and the public interest.
And at [4.7]:
You should not use your position in the RFS for personal business benefit.
Finally at [7.5]
The RFS’ resources [and] equipment … must not be used in any circumstances, in relation to a second job or business.
You can see the potential. You are responding as part of the RFS, you may access areas that are out of bounds to others because you are in the RFS, if you get a private gain from selling the photo you have obtained that by using your position as an RFS volunteer. You have used your position for that gain and arguably their resources when you rode in on the RFS truck. If you took time off from your duties to take a photo you were putting your private interest above the RFS. Even worse if there was a perception that a cordon was established or media ‘moved on’ not for legitimate operational reasons but to allow an ‘avid’ RFS photographer to get the photo no-one else could get, but everyone wants.
As the code says [at 12.1]:
Breaches of this Code… may constitute a breach of discipline and may be actioned accordingly.”
Another issue arises for an RFS volunteer and that is privacy laws. Generally there is no right to privacy and no tort of ‘breach of privacy’ (ie you can’t sue someone for a breach of privacy – see Simpson’s Solicitors, No Privacy Tort For Australia… Yet, 21 March 2013) but there are state and federal privacy laws. These laws relate to government agencies and how they collect, store and use private data (see Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988 (NSW) and Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)).
Under the NSW law, personal information “information … about an individual whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained …” (Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988 (NSW) s 4). Let us assume that can include a photo – if you have taken a photo of a person that is not usually covered by privacy law if done in a personal capacity (see Australian Government, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, “Photos and Surveillance” (accessed 26 October 2013)). But if you’re an RFS volunteer, and you have access to personal information in that capacity, say you take a photo of fire that shows a person, or their home which can be used to identify them, then it may be argued that this has been collected by a ‘public sector agency’ in which case the relevant privacy laws would apply which would impact on how the information can be used, stored etc. If that did apply that would certainly stop you being able to sell the photo, but it would not apply if the photo had no ‘personal information’ ie it was a photo of a fire on public land.
As for the allegation of corruption, a public official includes who is a member of a public authority, which would include the RFS (Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) s 3) and a volunteer is a member of the RFS (Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) s 8).
Corrupt conduct is defined in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) s 8(1), as, amongst other things:
(a) any conduct … that adversely affects … the honest or impartial exercise of official functions … or …
(c) any conduct of a public official or former public official that constitutes or involves a breach of public trust, or
(d) any conduct of a public official … that involves the misuse of information or material that he or she has acquired in the course of his or her official functions, whether or not for his or her benefit or for the benefit of any other person.
Merely selling the photo would not be corrupt. But if (as discussed when talking about cordoning off areas to exclude the media) you had exercised your authority in order to advance your own position, or somehow abused the trust of the public (for example if the public allowed you access to an area where say, people were dead or injured because you are a firefighter and you started taking photos for private gain) or you take great photos for post event learning but sell them; then that may be corrupt.
I do think, however, that’s drawing a long bow and is far removed from the original fact situation and, further, the ICAC has far more important issues to consider and is not going to be interested in pursuing a volunteer fire fighter – so in some extreme circumstances there could be corrupt conduct, but I doubt it. Selling the photo would not however be corrupt conduct.
We are now at the stage that we can conclude as follows:
1. There is no right to privacy and no property in a spectacle; you can photograph what you can see (subject to specific laws about indecency, filming for sexual gratification and child porn etc, all of which I assume don’t apply in the circumstances).
2. The person who takes the photo owns the photo and can sell the rights to the photo, unless they took the photo in the course of their employment (and perhaps, also, if that was part of their volunteer duties).
3. If the photo was taken in circumstances that could be seen as giving rise to a conflict of interest between your private interests, the RFS and the public service, taking the photo, and more importantly selling it for profit, may be a breach of the RFS Code of Conduct.
4. If the photo contained personal information and was taken by a member of the emergency services in circumstances where they only got to be there because of their work, then it could be argued that it was collected by a public sector agency and the privacy laws would apply.
5. In extreme circumstances where you abused your office and powers to make sure you had an advantage in taking a photo; that could be corrupt conduct. Merely selling the photo is not and even if it was, it’s hardly the stuff ICAC inquiries are made of.
I hope that helps.
Michael Eburn
26 October 2013.
Australian Emergency Law 
Michael, you probably also need to consider the RFS’s service standard (written under the Act) on intellectual property (SS1.1.19) which states:
“Creation of IP by RFS Volunteers
2.9 Any IP made or created by an RFS volunteer in carrying out their role or service as an RFS volunteer will vest upon its creation in the State.”
Michael….
If the RFS Volunteer in question wishes to have his position clarified, then I believe that the Service Standard 1.1.3 – Grievances – would be an appropriate reference. Despite the title, it includes (if my memory serves correctly) provision for dealing with just such issues. IE, a superior has given a direction that may or may not be in accordance with the appliccable law. The “grievance” would be a request that the basis for direction – the Service Standard or Regulations – be made available and made clear by an appropriate authority.
I would encourage the volunteer in question to take advantage of this SS, and request a ruling.
Peter
Peter, good point, the Grievance Service Standard 1.1.3 says: “Grievances can concern the interpretation and application of legislation, service standard, policy, SOP or other relevant documentation …” so it could be used to get the Services view on the IP Standard and whether it applies in the circumstances described.
Fog Nozzle – that certainly throws up an extra spanner in the works. The IP Standard also says at 2.11 “RFS members are not authorised to grant permission to any third party to
use, distribute or copy any RFS IP for any purpose, except with the approval
of the relevant Director.” So if the photo is taken “by an RFS volunteer in carrying out their role or service as an RFS volunteer” then the volunteer can’t sell it as they don’t own it.
In my post I had steered away from the question of a person who has volunteered to be a photographer for the RFS as I did imagine that would put one in a similar position to an employee and this standard would appear to achieve that purpose though I’m not actually convinced it would override the Copyright Act. The Act says the photographer is the ‘owner’; that can be modified by agreement (hence you can sell the copyright) but a Service Standard isn’t really ‘an agreement’, on the other hand people probably ‘agree’ to comply with those standard when they join.
Putting that aside, the Standard’s application is also unclear, in our context, because if a firefighter simply takes a photo (even a good one) are they ‘carrying out their role or service’ if their role does not include taking photos? Its hard to imagine that the RFS claims ownership, or that fire fighters would agree that the RFS owns, of all the photos fire fighters take whilst ‘on duty’ including social photos, but the rule has to be the same. If the RFS want to ‘own’ a photo my correspondent took because it’s worth money, they also own photos another fire fighter takes of his and her mates during a training session or poor quality images out the truck window that wont go anywhere but a person’s own photo album, and I can’t imagine the volunteers actually think the RFS does own those photos.
Sometimes it will be clear you are creating IP in your role – helping to write training materials, taking photos when you’ve agreed to be the photographer, writing new stories for the press etc and all those are rightly owned by the RFS. When your role is a fire fighter and you are lucky, or talented enough, to snap off a great photo, then I think that’s much more questionable. The sort of thing that could tie up the Federal Court for a day or two.
Thanks for bringing this one to our attention and I’ve amended my original post to take account the IP policy.
Michael Eburn
Michael, an excellent and comprehensive posting – excellent work. I got a lot out of that.
Could I ask for a discussion on a similar but different topic to extend the discussion – those television shows of roadside police random breath test units, or highway patrol shows. If a television crew is accompanying a police crew on a shift and pulls someone over allegedly speeding, or films someone at a random breath testing unit, although the film crew is not a police media team, they would surely be ‘approved’ to accompany the police, by some sort of ride along policy or agreement. What are the rights afforded to the ‘customer’ in these cases?
So my question is, are these scenarios a case of “there is no right to privacy and property in a spectacle”, or is it a case of media operating under police authority and therefore a public sector agenciy, which as a consequence they have a responsibility to protect the identity of the individuals depicted unless they consent to being identified?!?!
That’s a good question but I’m afraid far too outside any claim I have to expertise and would depend on much more knowledge of the facts and the terms of the agreements with the services and the tv channels. I do note I was coming into Australia earlier this year and there was a sign in the customs hall saying that ‘Customs’ was being recorded that day and to let the custom’s officer know if you did not want to be filmed. I didn’t see a film crew, but I can’t imagine why anyone would let themselves be filmed in those circumstances if they had the option to object.
I agree with the comment above.
It would seem that your initial search did not reveal the Standard referred to.
It’s publicly available here: http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/file_system/attachments/State08/Attachment_20101231_4511BBDF.pdf
Further, I respectfully disagree with the view that it is unclear whether or not photography while on duty is “carrying out their role or service”. I suggest that a simple “but for” test clarifies that question.
I respectfully suggest that taking photographs is no different to making written notes,
or producing any of the other myriad documents that volunteer rural firefighters produce or
in the course of duty.
Tim, that’s a fair point and may well be correct; but equally completing documents is I suggest very much part of one’s duties if so instructed – so if there is a log book to be completed etc that is part of the duty.
I agree with you about ‘making written notes’ that is I agree it’s no different, but I would not be sure that the RFS owns the IP in one’s own notes, either. Having said that, I did say at the start of this post that “this answer will take me to areas that I claim no expertise in” and I suspect the interpretation of this provision requires a detailed knowledge of IP law and the cases on what’s been created in the course of employment by which analogies could be drawn and that’s going too far out of my comfort zone.
But Tim, I note you are also a lawyer so if you have any authority you can point to I’m sure that would help us all, because if the IP in the photo, the subject of the question that started all this, is owned by the RFS, then that makes the rest of the discussion irrelevant, if the RFS owns the photo, the photographer can’t sell it.
A couple of quick searches have found some papers relating to ownership and the most relevant that I can find relate to issues of ownership of the IP produced by academics in the course of their employment (such as this blog, do I own it, or does the Australian National University?). In Monotti, Ann — “Who Owns My Research and Teaching Materials – My University or Me” (1997) 19(4) Sydney Law Review 425 the author says “For existing staff, the position is more difficult again. Their employment contracts set out the duties of employment. Therefore, an interpretation of these will identify the intellectual property that they create in pursuance of the terms of the contract of employment. The originator owns anything that falls outside their scope.” The same author in “Ownership of Copyright in Traditional Literary Works within Universities” [1994] FedLawRw 13; (1994) 22(2) Federal Law Review 340 says “copyright ownership vests in the university, but only if the work is made “in pursuance of the terms of his employment”. The term “in pursuance” implies a concept of obligation to do something. In the context of s 35(6) this may mean either distinguishing between a work that is a useful accessory to the contracted work but not part of it or enquiring whether the employer can order or require the employee to make the work under the terms of employment.”
By analogy, the duties of a fire fighter may include fighting the fire, and the RFS may have certain paperwork it requires its members to complete (log books etc) and, if that is intellectual property (and I don’t think putting your name or the mileage in a log book is creating work that copyright can vest in but leaving that aside) then the RFS own that as it’s part of what it requires members to do. Taking photos (unless you are the volunteer photographer) is not part of the role or service of the volunteer, it is not part of their ‘duty’ or obligation.
These are not of direct application but certainly suggest the ‘but for’ test (ie but for the fact you were on a fire truck you would not have taken the photo) is enough. It may be if, say, you’re a team leader and you take a photo on the fire ground as you think it will be a useful training aid and that is part of your duty; but, whilst it’s arguable, I’m not convinced the argument extends to a fire fighter on a truck who also has a camera with him or her.
Thinking about this overnight, I’m more convinced that any photo taken whilst on duty is in the course of carrying out one’s role or service. Imagine a person who is in a regular habit of keeping a detailed diary/journal and so they record all that they do each day including the days they are volunteering for the RFS. Their diary cannot belong to the RFS nor photos that they take simply to record, for their benefit, what they’ve been up to. That can’t change if it turns out one of the photos should win a prize for photo-journalism. What of a fire fighter with Fire and Rescue NSW who may have ‘downtime’ on a station and is writing a book or taking photos, just because they are ‘at work’ can’t make what they are producing the property of NSWF&R. What if you are an RFS volunteer who takes photos of flowers and whilst doing your volunteering you see a particularly nice flower that, before you set alight as part of the backburn, you photograph it. That can’t really be related to your role or service even though you are in uniform.
There must be a link between the activity and the ‘role or service’ and that’s the sort of thing that varies case by case, so as I’ve noted, if you are the volunteer photographer then that’s one thing; also I can see the link if you’re taking photos of a scene that you can access only because you are a volunteer firefighter, but if you are a volunteer fire fighter who happens to take photos, I can’t see the RFS owns them just because you took them whilst on duty even if the photo is a photo of the fire or fire fighting operations.
As a practical matter, I do not believe that it would be in the interest of the Service to assert ownership of a private photograph taken by a volunteer, unless it was for very good reason.
Doing it, “just because” would be hard to explain to the media and would not go down well with the many volunteers who regard firefighting as an interest, not merely a job.
Michael – very interesting article. I am a volunteer RFS fire-fighter, who routinely carries a pocket camera, mainly because I’m responsible for my brigade newsletter. I have been told, but not authoritatively, that motor vehicle accidents are ipso facto “crime scenes”, and that photography is therefore a matter for the police only. Does this hold water? Any incident which needs further investigation (eg who lit the fire? who left the gate open?) could come under this definition. Of course, MVAs raise other issues, mostly covered by common sense, tact, and need-to-know.
Nico
If you carry a camera for the purpose of taking photos for the brigade newsletter, then, given the earlier discussion about the IP policy, it may be that the RFS owns those photos – but I say that just to work on examples of when that policy may apply and when it may not.
To your question, motor vehicles may or may not be crime scenes but they are the responsibility of the police (see “Body recovery, the police and the SES in NSW” 29 December 2012) but that doesn’t mean one can’t take photos of them. In the discussion in this post I made reference to the fact that my own book uses on its cover a photo taken at a motor vehicle accident and the Assistant Commissioner’s response to the video shot at the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras demonstrates that they, too, recognise that they don’t have the right to stop photographers. Just because it’s a crime scene doesn’t mean people can’t photograph it and that’s why police but up barriers to hide such things.
There may be issues for rescuers. I’ve already quoted the State Rescue Policy which says that members of accredited rescue units should not take photos. The policy also says, at [B.07] “All photographic images taken at a rescue incident are considered to be the property of the NSW Police Force in the first instance…” It doesn’t say considered by who or on what basis that is said to be true. It is inconsistent with the Copyright Act which, as Commonwealth law would prevail over any inconsistent state law (Australian Constitution, s 109) but, more importantly, it’s not clear this is a state law. It doesn’t say the photos are the property of the police only they are considered to be the property of police in the first instance, that is ‘prima facie they are owned by the police until otherwise established…’ but even that’s not correct. Prima facie a photo is owned by the person who took it. This could apply on the argument that a member of an accredited rescue unit agrees, and is required to comply with the State Rescue Policy so may, by implication, agree to give up their rights in a photo but even that’s problematic. Agreeing is one thing but if you have a requirement to comply with a policy the policy cannot simply dictate that your rights and ownership are changed. The state rescue policy can’t say for example, that other private property owned by a rescuer becomes the property of the police if they, say, take it to a rescue scene.
In any case the State Rescue Policy only applies to members of accredited rescue units, which as I understand it does not include the RFS even if they are attending the accident to provide fire protection.
As you say most of the issues should be governed by “common sense, tact, and need-to-know”. At an event the officer in charge may direct you not to take photos – can they do that? If it’s your commander there are issues of internal discipline and there may be issues that relate to whether it’s interfering with the performance of your tasks. At an MVA there is the control issue where the police may ask you not to take a photo and given inter-agency relationships you may want to comply – but to go back to the Mardi Gras image, just because police tell someone to do something doesn’t mean they have to unless the police have lawful authority to give that direction and as the Deputy Commissioner noted, and as I’ve argued in my paper in AJEM (see the link in the original post) you can’t stop people taking photos just because you would rather they did not.
Those with an interest in this subject may be interested in this post from Curt Varone, US lawyer and firefighter – ‘Photos, HIPAA, and the First Amendment’ (see http://firelawblog.com/2013/10/photos-hipaa-and-the-first-amendment/).
The “HIPAA” is the (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996 (US). As part of that Act there are provisions to protect private health information so it may be said to be comparable to the Health Records and Privacy Information Act 2002 (NSW) or the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988 (NSW).
The ‘first amendment’ is the first amendment to the US Constitution that says (emphasis added): “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
We have no bill of rights in Australia so we have no equivalent provision, which does not mean we don’t have an historical freedom of speech, but it’s not protected against federal intervention.
Michael, thanks for the very interesting article and I apologize for digging up a 5 month old post. In your conclusion (point 4) you state that photos containing personal information and taken at a location in which the RFS volunteer was allowed to be as part of his or her role is subject to copyright laws. Does this include the situation where a RFS member is granted access to private property – either by permission of the land owner or by exercising the power of an officer under the Rural Fires Act – exclusively to perform their role as a fire fighter?
Alex, what I said at point 4 was
I think that absolutely refers to and includes the situation ‘where a RFS member is granted access to private property – either by permission of the land owner or by exercising the power of an officer under the Rural Fires Act – exclusively to perform their role as a fire fighter’.