DSLRUsers.com

Hi All

I was researching developments in online educational delivery today and happened to find the Australian Copyright Council website:

http://www.copyright.org.au

Interestingly, they have a copyright handbook written for photographers for sale.

They also have a downloadable Information sheet as well.

I downloaded the Information sheet and found that commercial photography is restricted in Commonwealth reserves and the Sydney Harbour Foreshore.

The Sydney Harbour Foreshore Regulations 1999 (NSW) prohibit the taking of and subsequent use of photographs taken in the public areas including, Luna Park, the Rocks and Circular Quay, Darling Harbour, Woolloomooloo and a few other places.

Given that we are supposed to live in a 'free' country, my immediate thought is that regulations such as this are, on the surface anyway, transgressions on our freedom surely.

I mean, what if other Authorities decided to implement their own regulations prohibiting commercial photography? how long would it be before something that we can see for free, if photographed by someone making a living doing so is prohibited from doing so.

If you are confused; Consider the Sydney Harbour Foreshore people prohibiting say, taxi drivers from earning an income while driving on the foreshore, or a police officer from earning wages while on patrol in foreshore areas, etc. But a photographer is not allowed earn a living while photographing on the foreshore.

Oh well, I've had a rant and feel like a Coopers sparkling ale. (Hello to Phillip Cooper, wherever you are these days mate)

Am I out of line here?
Did you know about this regulation?
What do you think about it?

Cheers

Graham

Bagoo,
That regulation/ laws/ rules applied everywhere in the world with all the landmarks of that country, you can't take any photo/ video and use it for any purposes of commercial without applying the license/ permit and all the permits/ license always with restricted timing.
I had to do that years ago to take photos over the Golden gate bridge in SF with a helicopter for one of my buddy in the States, his company use the photos for advertising. Even the beach and surrounding in Santa Barbara and UCLA campus.
Nothing you can do about it, I'm sure it's applied overhere too!

Graham,

Interesting topic, especially the contrast you draw between a photographer and, say, a policeman, although one possibly also needs to ask about how one defines "commercial" photography.

For instance, a photographer doing an ad shoot sounds to me like what I would call commercial photography.

But what about shooting a portrait under commission? What is the nature of that portrait? A wedding might be described as commercial, but what of a portrait for a magazine? If for the magazine cover, of, say, something like People, would that be commercial?

What about the cover of an art-focussed magazine? Is that commercial or art?

How about a tv interview shot at Circular Quay? Clearly that would seem (to me) to be commercial photograpjy; do the tv studios have an exemption?

Anyone want to go fishing? I think we've just found a can of worms!

I love an active democracy.

So much for me spending part of last year fighting (well, not quite) for our freedom from tyranny on the other side of the planet and i can't even take photos of my home city and sell them for money. (Not that i am likely to do that any time soon)

I'm not concerned about policemen walking their beats, but if my ship is parked at Garden Island at Wooloomooloo (as it is now) should i be earning a salary?

Now there's something for me to fight for. YAaaarrrhhhhh!!!! (pirate voice)

Steve.

Why can one take a commercial photograph in say Kings Cross or Liverpool, but not in the Rocks or Woolloomooloo?

I can't see any difference but I tell you what, I'm going to ask the next politician I see begging for my vote and him or her why the freedoms that we take for granted, are being gradually eroded away without fanfare or protest and what he or she plans to do about it.

The copyright handout also talks about photographing such things as buildings, people, and portfolio inclusions among other things. All in all, an interesting Information sheet.

Cheers

Graham

Thanks Graham, ripper of a subject and one which peeves me no end as I live about a kilometre from the bridge and Luna Park and have taken lots of shots there. Maybe we should all protest.

Anyone want to go fishing? I think we've just found a can of worms!

You need a license to do that too

I'll be having a read of that information sheet, I had no idea they had all these restrictions stuck on things???

Cheers
Ray

How on earth do the paparazzi get away with what they do? (In the context of this discussion).

Are news photographers restricted in what they can shoot (for the profit of them and their publisher)

The whole world has gone to hell in a handbasket.

I photograph, and therefore I am.



Greg

I think newspaper reporters have editorial privilage or freedom of the press...

I have heard something similar for National parks... I will continue to shoot until some one tells me not to and then I will kick up a stink... The media is your friend... I'm sure they will be interested in a little guy vrs the big bad government...

It, once again, is all about the almighty dollar...

Thats why I love taking photos in NZ... does not seem to be as much garbage there...

All the papers (Fairfax, News Ltd. etc....) They got their license granted, all PJs, when they pass their photos/ media/ film to the papers then their photos will be under control of the papers(Ownerships) PJs just do their job and get pay from the Media firms, they did not care whether their photos have been posted or display.
They do have to sign an agreement with the Media firms that they are working. Same as NPA has to sign NDA, that why you never hear any word from NPA about testing etc....
The same thing applied when you sell stock (photo), I had to sign an AP & NPA agreement at the first place.

Need acronym help here!

NFI MHD.

But I love the TLA.

OK?

TLA are great. Jargon makes one sounds smart. I'm all for it.

NPA = Nikon Prof. Agreement
NDA = Nikon Dealer Agrement
AP = Associated Press

ahhhhhhhh thanks!

Hi MHD

MHD wrote:I have heard something similar for National parks... I will continue to shoot until some one tells me not to and then I will kick up a stink... The media is your friend... I'm sure they will be interested in a little guy vrs the big bad government...

Be sure to let us all know when your little one arrives!!

I recall reading in the copyright handout - ah yes...here it is Quote

.... a ranger or warden may require him or her to hand over all copies of all photographs and any camera or other device used to take them"

I'm not sure what their powers are if you refuse to hand your camera or photos are though.

Also don't know if the Sydney Foreshore Authority has the same powers though.

Oh well, I'll just have another Coopers while you ponder about giving up the grog and possibly surrendering your yet to be bought D70 as well!!

Cheers

Graham

Does this really mean that we - citizens of this country - are not permitted to take photographs in our own goddam National Parks????????

Tell me it isn't so.

And that some trumped up public servant in khaki pants might endeavour to take the photographer's camera??????????

What the hell will be next - invade Poland maybe.

Good grief, I am writing to my local member/candidate seeking clarification (unless you are only jerking my chain, please say you are)

We need an emoticon for pissed off.

Greg B wrote:Does this really mean that we - citizens of this country - are not permitted to take photographs in our own goddam National Parks????????

Tell me it isn't so.

And that some trumped up public servant in khaki pants might endeavour to take the photographer's camera??????????

What the hell will be next - invade Poland maybe.

Good grief, I am writing to my local member/candidate seeking clarification (unless you are only jerking my chain, please say you are)

We need an emoticon for pissed off.

Hi Greg

We are talking about commercial photography here, not photography for private or hobby perposes. The information sheet says if you intend to take commercial photographs in a Commonwealth reserve such as a National Park, you'll need to obtain a permit to do so. Info can be found at http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/index.html

As far as I know, the Commonwealth Reserves regulations were introduced in 2000 but I'm not sure if there we any regulations in existance earlier than that.

Personally, I couldn't give a toss about commercial photographers having to pay fees or whatnot, but the erosion of just another part of traditional Aussie life, pisses me off. I mean, what is stopping the Sydney Foreshore Authority fencing off the beaches and charging people an entrance fee, just like they do in France?

It's the same darned thing when public liability insurance premiums skyrocketed a few years ago. Suddenly, organisations closed all sorts of things that the community took for granted - tennis courts for instance, and because of government inaction, everybody lost and now kids growing up are hard pushed to find a tennis court anywhere.

Extrapolating the commercial photography argument further, how long will it be before we have to have a photography licence? In the same way, one has to have a fishing licence and we meaning the public, didn't fight that one hard enough.

Oh well, this is not the forum for my argument about how we need to be vigilent and protect our freedoms but nevertheless, photographers, especially commercial ones, should be aware of laws that affect them and that's why I raised the topic and raised my eyebrows about the Sydney Foreshore Regulations as well

Cheers

Graham

Thanks Graham, useful response.

I would probably differ slightly on the fishing licence analogy given that taking a photograph should have no impact on that being photographed, whereas fishing removes a fish (if everything goes to plan).

Your differentiation between commercial photograhy and hobby photog is important, although of course the comm photog levy/fee could be argued both ways.

Anyhoo, I am calmer now than when I ranted earlier, very pleased that tomorrow is friday, and looking forward to the weekend.

cheers