Nonsense. This is the only fitting adjective for a recent Ministry of Information advert in the Daily Nation, which practically said that it is illegal to take pictures in Kenya without a licence.

The advert, in the paper’s February 22 issue, said in part, "This is to notify the Kenyan public or anyone wishing to make a film or take still photographs about the rules guiding filming in Kenya." It went on to say that "it is mandatory under CAP 222 of the Laws of Kenya to first obtain a Film licence."

It is not clear why this government felt the need to bring this to public notice — the advert doesn’t say. But it is significant to note that this is part of the much criticised Films and Stage Plays Act, which the Kanu government pushed down Parliament’s throat at the end of 2001.

Ok, the tone of the advert leaned heavily on filming, which in itself triggers a separate Press Freedom debate. But this column wants to address the threat this advert poses to still photography.

Clearly, it is absurd for any government to demand that anyone wishing to take a picture in public obtain a licence. For one, camera equipment would be extinct. Banter aside, a lot more is at stake here.

Consider why people take pictures. We take pictures to record events. Others take pictures for artistic reasons, for expressive and interpretive purposes. Yet others do photography purely for commercial reasons. Considering that these are all the reasons anyone could want to take a picture, why would society demand permission for each case? Why would a government — let alone one elected on a platform of reforms — insist on rules to guide anything the public is allowed to see?

This is the point. A camera can be an extension of the public eye. What the public cannot legitimately see, any witness with a camera can record for publication — whether or not he is accredited by a licensed news organisation.

Basically, whatever is okay for people to see using the naked eye is okay to photograph. It is a mere record of the event. If it weren’t, we would need a licence to watch someone fall on the street, a licence to watch a cop taking bribes, even a licence to watch a traffic jam. This is as simple as it can get.

Comes in the photojournalists, the people who risk all to show us what’s going on in the world. From the above principle, it is sound logic to argue that wherever the public can go, no one should stop the photojournalist, broadly speaking. On the other hand, it also follows that wherever the public needs permission to venture, the photojournalist may require authorisation.

Yes, there must be limits as to where the camera can go. And these can be determined by only two concerns — security and privacy. In this regard, there are plenty of good reasons to shut the door on the camera.

Security reasons ordinarily cover the protection of a greater good from public prying. But privacy is a murkier area.

When people talk about privacy, they usually mean the right to be left alone. Yet the Kenyan Constitution doesn’t quite recognise this, prohibiting only "trespassing". Whether we protect it by law or not, however, there are occasions when intruding is wrong.

Intruding where privacy is expected is wrong. Homes, in particular, are people’s castles. Without stepping on a person’s property, it would be okay to photograph a man on his yard, on the veranda, or even inside his house if you can see him. You don’t need the owner’s permission to see him from the streets. But stepping on the property or using a telephoto lens to do it would be crossing the line. Stepping on the property would be trespassing, and a telephoto lens would capture more than the naked eye could see.

Using a picture to sell a product without consent is wrong. There are no problems publishing the picture of President Mwai Kibaki missing a golf stroke by a whole foot — like he did recently. But without the President’s written permission, that photo should not appear in an ad selling good golf clubs. It doesn’t matter that the President is a very public figure.

Unfairly causing someone to look bad is wrong. Photos, eve if taken in a public place, should not ridicule or embarrass a private person unless the situation is clearly newsworthy. The photos should not be highly offensive to a reasonable person and must be of legitimate concern to the public. It was lawfully questionable, therefore, when a few years ago a newspaper in this country published the picture of Wangari Maathai holding her dress way above her knees as she crossed a river on foot.

Finally, taking truthful but private or embarrassing photos is also wrong. In this regard the law may frown if one publishes the picture of a patient in an awkward hospital setting without his or her permission.

These, really, are the kind of rules we need for the guy holding a camera. Not a government licence.