DSLRUsers.com

Interesting article on The Age website today - Photography bans leave ordinary life out of the picture

I can see the point of needing to control film crews or large scale still photography, but one guy with a camera should be allowed to photography whatever natural feature they like, and do whatever they like with the resulting image.

As an amateur/semi-pro who sells the occasional image, am I supposed to have a permit for every national park on the off chance that I take an image that someone wants to buy?

Just when we thought we were getting somewhere with that rally last month!

I think we should all get T-shirts printed....

"I'm a TERROIST, NOT a PHOTOGRAPHER"

yes it's not good news everything is getting too regulated these days
i had to pay $600 bucks for a shooting permit for bondi beach for a day and the client only spent 2 hours shooting there
it was hardly worth it

of course i you had a leica m9 i dont think you would be stopped at all

I did hear recently some one say on a T-shirt the words should read; As a TERROIST I’m tired of being treated like a PHOTOGRAPHER!

Kevin,

thanks for the link to the article. It is a big problem to decide when a permit is required or not. Certainly for NSW parks managed by the , if you are planning to sell anything, big or small, 1 or a 1000, theoretically, you need a permit. Have a look on the AFA site, they have lots of info, look for the links down the right.

http://www.artsfreedomaustralia.com/blog/

André

Here's a real life example as of this morning.

Some of you will know that I write a historical blog about Brisbane, with old archived photos compared with today's images that I take.

Last week one of our oldest swimming pools reopened after a major facelift. I happened to have an old photograph of the pool from 1943:

(Photo: John Oxley Library #157643; copyright expired)

I sent an email to the lessees of the pool, including the image, explaining what I wanted to shoot. I actually asked if I could take my photographs before opening day so that there wouldn't be any problems.

I got an email back from them saying "wouldn't you rather include some people like the original photo? Why don't you come on opening day?"

Well, I couldn't go on opening day because I was out of town, but I rocked up this morning and introduced myself, saying that I was here to take the photos. "No mate, we've got the kids' learn-to-swim class this morning. No photographs!" Trying to be as calm as possible, I asked if they had seen the original. Yes, was the reply. So they knew that it would be a harmless medium-distance shot where nobody could be identified or embarrassed.

My guess is that in the interim period, the lessee has checked with the owner of the pool (Brisbane City Council) and was told "NO PHOTOGRAPHY!"

It appears that our history of recording civilisation in photographs is going down the gurgler at an enormous rate.

I'm hoping to go back after hours to take a photo. If successful, I will be no worse off than my initial request. But I really had my hopes up for a while!

I went on a walk down North Terrace with my son recently - he was taking some photos for a tafe course and needed photos of historical buildings and statues. All went well until we happened to walk past a security guard at the railway station (Casino) who followed us into the festival centre grounds and started hassling us with questions about who/what /why.

We played along for a bit, but then I pointed out that didn't he work for the Casino and we were on Festival Centre Grounds and what business is it of his if we took a photo of parliament house anyway? Had a good pointed look at his badge and he made a rapid exit.

Give a jerk a badge and most can't help themselves but to bully anyone who steps near a rule, imagined or real.

Michael

I get this a lot when out and about, now I just play games with them for my own amusement (as Fozzie can vouch for) as I know where it is legal and where it is not to take photographs. I try to convey to those who are incorrect why they are and point out to them that no harm is being done. It is annoyning that more privately owned places are placing restrictions on photography, fortunately through my work I get access to places where it may not be normally allowed, so when I do I make sure I take advantage of that.

radar wrote:Kevin,

thanks for the link to the article. It is a big problem to decide when a permit is required or not. Certainly for NSW parks managed by the , if you are planning to sell anything, big or small, 1 or a 1000, theoretically, you need a permit. Have a look on the AFA site, they have lots of info, look for the links down the right.

http://www.artsfreedomaustralia.com/blog/

André

Actually, this was raised in my bushwalk thread, which would be going through a National Park. The policy is that you need a permit unless you are an amateur where your primary intent is not to sell the photographs. Therefore, a reasonable person would assume that if you do not intend to make your photography a commercial venture, you are free to take photos in National Parks even if you sell some of the photos.

This topic has been done to death on other forums, probably why not many response here..

I think teh key aspect is the definition of the pro and amatuer, with the advent of 'enthusiasts' with some pretty serious gear the obvious line on who is a pro and who is a amatuer is very blurred - this makes it hard for NPWS (or equiv.) staff to determine whos who.
At the end of teh day national parks and like will and have required permits for commercial photography, these arose probably to keep a oversight and management on large commerical operations, like for example photography crew for tourism shoots, movies etc. From my discussion with a ranger you can do what you like provided its not a commerical venture - just how you prove that is an interestign one.

The whole national park thing got blown up like a nuke when Ken Duncan jumped up and down about the uluru photography fees issue.

the foto fanatic wrote:Well, I couldn't go on opening day because I was out of town, but I rocked up this morning and introduced myself, saying that I was here to take the photos. "No mate, we've got the kids' learn-to-swim class this morning. No photographs!" Trying to be as calm as possible, I asked if they had seen the original. Yes, was the reply. So they knew that it would be a harmless medium-distance shot where nobody could be identified or embarrassed.

yeah, its a shame its gotten to this point, however the blokes probably done the right thing since on can only imagine the flack he would cop from over zealous parents who saw a middle aged man taking pictures kids at a pool. I think its not him or the pool to blame, more society and the atittudes of a small, paranoid minority.

photohiker wrote:Give a jerk a badge and most can't help themselves but to bully anyone who steps near a rule, imagined or real.

applies to all levels of people with a badge (yes I am pointing at the fuzz)...one must remember just because some is meant to be a pillar of society certianly does not mean thay are

Just an observation from personal experience ...I think sex has a lot to do with it !
I take my camera along to just about everywhere (including kids sport, and the pool) even with a 300 2.8 have yet to receive any negative comments- in fact I get approached and asked to take photos of their kids, and I also get a lot of friendly (overly sometimes) conversations from complete strangers. I also wander into buildings, museums etc and there have only been 2 times I was asked not to take photos - the Casino(but told I could shoot the architecture during a quieter day) , and a kids concert (but only because they had sold the photographic and video rights) - on both occasions still had the trusty mobile if I was desperate for a shot.

It's all about perception ...and it's sad the public perception is that a 50 year old Mum with son nearby poses no threat and is regarded more as a curiousity. If I want a photo of anything I only need to have my some nearby and they assume that I'm taking happy snaps - quite patrionising and insulting actually.
His Dad on the other and has given up photography simply because of comments and hassles he receives in exactly the same situations.

I think it's really sad where society is heading.
DebT

biggerry wrote:
imagine the flack he would cop from over zealous parents who saw a middle aged man taking pictures kids at a pool.

Middle aged - I resemble that!

Actually, I'm fucking old!

People are a bit paranoid. I was walking with my kids when they went ahead and I sat on a seat and with my 14-24 decided to take a shot of a beautiful scene. Just before I took the photo, a small kid, maybe 100metres away started to play on the sand in the foreground. As soon as I took the photo, mum came up to me demainding why I was taking photos of her kid.....I was there first....kid wrecked my photo....kid was the size of a flea in my photo....

I guess if you take a photo of the whole of Sydney from a plane, someone somewhere can say....why are you photographing me?

the foto fanatic wrote:Middle aged - I resemble that!

Actually, I'm @#ing old!

Trevor, take it as a compliment , plus, 50 is the new 30 nowadays