DSLRUsers.com

and have you filled out one of these..........

http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/resources/16_0698.pdf

http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npw ... permission

If I said yes, would you believe me?

Hmm, while the NSW rules require permits only for commercial activity, the Vic rules seem to be excessive. There, you need a permit even as amateur/hobbyist if the images are displayed on a website

Remind me to leave my camera at home next time I visit Victoria

I wonder what other states are like?

Cheers
Steffen.

Phew. Thank Bob I'm in NSW and I don't go to parks or use them for commercial activity.

The only time I'm not honest is when I'm on stage and I don't intend on filling out forms for a hobbyist frame.

Steffen - remind me not to visit Victoria

What these Government departments really fail to remember is in their initial statement "Managed by" I'm sure they are forgetting that these areas are "Owned by" the Australian people, photographers included.

How would they police it?

Unless you have some kind of identifiable landmark in your image, a pic of a park or bush may have been taken anywhere.

Steffen wrote:Hmm, while the NSW rules require permits only for commercial activity, the Vic rules seem to be excessive. There, you need a permit even as amateur/hobbyist if the images are displayed on a website

j

It does NOT say that.

How do you guys get off in interpreting legislative bullshit?

"Photography Permits are NOT required for:
Individual amateur photographers taking photographs for personal interest. However if photographs are used for publication, public display or possible future sale, a permit or licence may be required."

I don't know about you guys, but as an amateur photographer, I never know if every image I take is going to be deleted. Much less sold. In fact, as an amateur, non of my photos get sold. So I can go into anywhere managed by Parks Victoria and take photos without worrying about anything.

Forms like this are for plausible deniability on the behalf of the management of ANY facility. If anything happens, they can point to the form and ask why it wasn't filled in.
Government departments are just like anyone else in terms of human nature. Probably because they're full of people.

whiz wrote:

Steffen wrote:Hmm, while the NSW rules require permits only for commercial activity, the Vic rules seem to be excessive. There, you need a permit even as amateur/hobbyist if the images are displayed on a website

j

It does NOT say that.

How do you guys get off in interpreting legislative bullshit?

"Photography Permits are NOT required for:
Individual amateur photographers taking photographs for personal interest. However if photographs are used for publication, public display or possible future sale, a permit or licence may be required."

whiz - posting a photograph on a website is generally considered to be "publication", and would certainly be on "public display"

So it actually does say what Steffen has stated. (One small note, the statement is that a permit "may" be required rather than "will" be required)

The fact is that Parks Victoria is highly unlikely to take any interest in an amateur photograph posted on a hobbyist website, but that is a different issue to what the document says.

NSW is (surprisingly) both sensible and clear (bold face by me):

You are considered a ‘commercial photographer’ if the photographic activity is principally undertaken as a commercial venture (ie if you are taking photographs with the intention of selling them). If you are taking photographs principally as a hobby, as a tourist or as a personal interest then you are not considered a commercial photographer (and not required to pay fees), even if some of your images may occasionally be sold or used commercially.

Yes Peter, that is far more reasonable/sensible.

Interestingly, the Victorian document also wrote:Photography Permits are NOT required for:

• Small scale* editorial photography
• Wedding / portrait photographers.

*Small scale is defined as a maximum of one photographer and one assistant with low level equipment (such as that which fits into a backpack or a single tripod) and uses no props or talent. This category includes most speculative and editorial work.

"Editorial photography" is a fairly large loophole, although you couldn't use the images for advertising for example. I think you could easily be in this category if the images you took for your personal interest (speculative) were eventually used in the context of a newspaper, magazine, or even a book. Depending on the way you structure your website that may also fall into this category. Unfortunately selling prints of your images doesn't really fall into an editorial context. BTW, the relevant Parks Victoria pages have more detail than just the application form linked above.
The "Annual" Landscape Photography Licence does cost $70-275 per financial year (depends on what time of the year you start it) but does remove even those restrictions.


Not that I entirely agree with the process for "small scale" photography: don't we already pay taxes??? Grumble, grumble, grumble...
But for what Parks Vic call "Medium Scale" and "Large Scale" I think there is a lot of merit in the system, as these can involve significant disruption to public park access, and place extra loads on the environment.

It pretty clear that it does not affect the majority of members in the forum whether NSW or VIC.

Greg B wrote:So it actually does say what Steffen has stated. (One small note, the statement is that a permit "may" be required rather than "will" be required)

Greg, that "one small note" is precisely the difference between Steffen and Whiz's interpretation.

In my experience, this type of sloppy drafting is a hint that they have no authority to enforce it and are simply bluffing. I haven't checked the legislation and regulations (and won't bother, as I'm not in Victoria) but personally if I did find myself in a Victorian park, I'd happily click away and post images on my website.

thaddeus wrote:

Greg B wrote:So it actually does say what Steffen has stated. (One small note, the statement is that a permit "may" be required rather than "will" be required)

Greg, that "one small note" is precisely the difference between Steffen and Whiz's interpretation.

In my experience, this type of sloppy drafting is a hint that they have no authority to enforce it and are simply bluffing. I haven't checked the legislation and regulations (and won't bother, as I'm not in Victoria) but personally if I did find myself in a Victorian park, I'd happily click away and post images on my website.

I handle OHS for our lab. Basically

may- indicates an option for the statement and is optional.
shall- indicates that the statement is mandatory.
should- indicates a recommendation.

How can any organisation, inlcuding the government, even think that they can put a copyright on something that is naturally occurring, such as rocks and trees, and then expect us to conform to it's regulations. They can all get stuffed!!!

nito wrote: may- indicates an option for the statement and is optional.
shall- indicates that the statement is mandatory.
should- indicates a recommendation.

The use of "may" within the conditions is very deliberate. It provides an option for the department in the event there is any shift in policy. A policy shift could come about for many reasons such as, revenue or an unforseen impact on the park.

The use of "may" also puts responsibility back on the photographer to check if they do or do not need a permit.

Fair enough requirement for large scale operations such as a 4wd advert.

Craig

thaddeus wrote:

Greg B wrote:So it actually does say what Steffen has stated. (One small note, the statement is that a permit "may" be required rather than "will" be required)

Greg, that "one small note" is precisely the difference between Steffen and Whiz's interpretation.

In my experience, this type of sloppy drafting is a hint that they have no authority to enforce it and are simply bluffing. I haven't checked the legislation and regulations (and won't bother, as I'm not in Victoria) but personally if I did find myself in a Victorian park, I'd happily click away and post images on my website.

I work for the Federal Attorney-General's Department.
I'm WAAAY good at interpreting things to my advantage and picking holes in legislative drafting.