Photographers rights in Aust..

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Mark, Nov 19, 2003.

  1. Mark

    Mark Guest

    Mark, Nov 19, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Carsten Bauer, Nov 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I have no problem in paying fees if I'm using a national park for
    commercial photography - ie: photography I expect to earn an income
    from.

    Yes, it's there - Yes, it's free to walk around - and Yes, it costs
    money to administer those lands and ensure they're there in years to
    come.

    If you're not a commercial photographer, and you're not earning from
    your photos, then there's no problem. No fees, no charges, away you
    go.

    If you are earning, then factor the shooting fees into your costs (as
    you do every other expense you have), and there you go. You're
    helping ensure the parks are there in the future, and that some furry
    little critter has a home.

    don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to shoot for free anywhere &
    any time I want. I'd also like to be able to ride my horse into the
    city & tie him up in the street while I grab a bite to eat... but
    times change (sometimes not for the better!)

    Cheers,
    Andrew :eek:)
     
    Andrew Hennell, Nov 19, 2003
    #3
  4. Mark

    Scott Coutts Guest

    Yeaah, it is. Look at the parks and wildlife page. This is where you
    need to go to find out all about it

    http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/1process_content.cfm?section=45&page=7

    Here's a link to the google newsgroup archive where it was discussed before:

    http://tinyurl.com/vr0x

    By the way, for some reason last time I posted about this I got flamed
    like crazy because people thought I was trying to stir up trouble. Well,
    now they can go for it all over again, this time pointing at you :)
     
    Scott Coutts, Nov 19, 2003
    #4
  5. Mark

    Chris David Guest

    Could someone just take photos (say they were an amateur or just a hobby)
    and if they do decide to sell their photographs aftwards then purchase the
    annual licence?
     
    Chris David, Nov 20, 2003
    #5
  6. Mark

    Scott Coutts Guest

    Hi Chris,

    See my previous post.. it has the link to all the regulations. They will
    tell you what you can and can't do - if they dont, then give them a
    call. The phone number is listed there.

    Scott.
     
    Scott Coutts, Nov 20, 2003
    #6
  7. Mark

    Seb Guest

    I'm sorry but to me this is a completely backwards train of thought. It is
    generally accepted that the people run the government therefore the people
    own the land. As long as the photographer is an Australian citizen it is
    totally unreasonable to expect him to pay to use it. This very much reminds
    me of the new "fishing licence" in NSW. Yes it's cheap. Yes it can be bought
    anywhere with minimal paperwork. That however doesn't change the fact that
    we have no responsibility to pay to use our own land.

    One could argue that all we are doing is paying for the maintenance of our
    land much like a house cleaner. The difference is however this maintenance
    was not commissioned by us and we have no input as to what is done with our
    money or our land, so in essence, we are permanently leasing the land and
    the government is the landlord.

    If the government asked for my donation when I went to buy bait or send me a
    ballot to decide on the development of the land I would happily pay the
    money.

    Australians all to often often accept the excessive intrusion into our
    personal liberty in this country by the government as part of some
    over-riding greater cause, if only there really was anything more important
    that freedom.

    ~Seb
     
    Seb, Nov 20, 2003
    #7
  8. Mark

    Scott Coutts Guest

    I am in two minds about it - I agree with both of you. Also, it means
    that photographers are subsidising the use, maintenance and upkeep of
    the land by everyone else. But I think I'd prefer not to see a big fence
    put around it and a toll gate at the front :)

    PS: As usual, in Victoria, we've had fishing licences for long, long time.
     
    Scott Coutts, Nov 20, 2003
    #8
  9. Mark

    Ray Smith Guest

    So you'd be happy to let professional photographers go make a nice tidy
    profit :) ... out of a resource that your taxes help to maintain?
    Should people have to pay a small fee for camping in a national park?
    why should be pay to use it? We own it?
    Should we all be able to drive on the roads without paying registration fees?
    We own the roads, why should we pay to use them?
    It costs money to keep these "things" maintained. Why shouldn't we pay a
    small fee to use them?

    We all have input into what happens to our country ... by electing a goverment.
    Many people disagree with decisions that govenments make ... but through our
    democratic society we voted them in.

    Don't confuse using a resource without paying any money and "freedom".

    Regards,

    Ray Smith
     
    Ray Smith, Nov 21, 2003
    #9
  10. Mark

    Greg Guest

    You mean like the snowy mountains??
    Not only do you have to pay daily entry, if you plan to take photos,
    you have to have a permit!!

    I think if it a "user pays" system, then why are photographers being
    singled out? And who syas that the money from the permits goes
    straight back into the system directly for up keep?

    Parking fines these days don't pay for more parking or better parking
    spots. It pays for cleaning, new pavements, festivals, grants and a
    million other things.

    It is all just revenue raising. Call it what you will. I think the
    honesty policy is the best and donations are a fairer system if
    implemented correctly. I would have no problem in making a donation,
    but I do have a problem with someone telling me I can't take a photo
    of a rock or an ice covered snow gum without paying the fee.

    Maybe I should set up a fee and issue permits for when people want to
    talk to me, including the government. Surely I still own myself don't
    I? What? You want me to vote? Here fill out this application form for
    a permit to talk to me and we'll revue it after you pay $241
    application fee. Should take 6 to 8 weeks.

    Have a nice day.

    Greg
    The only good thing about the American constitution, the 5th
    ammendment (freedom of speech from memory). Oh, and the right to bare
    arms.... "who's gonna stop me from taking this photo?" click...
    click...
     
    Greg, Nov 21, 2003
    #10
  11. *LOL*

    Idiot. Not only was your troll a complete waste of my valuable time but you
    obviously you have never watched a television cop show. Here are the U.S.A
    Bill amendments to the Constitution. Or the Bill of Right as it is commonly
    known. Of course the bit I love is the first bit of number two which gun
    nuts convenmiently leave out. 10- points if you can quote Australia's Bill
    of Rights.

    Amendment I
    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.

    Amendment II
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment III
    No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
    consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
    by law.

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
    effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
    and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
    affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
    persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
    crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
    cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual
    service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
    the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
    compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
    deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
    shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
    and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the
    crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
    ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
    accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
    compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
    assistance of counsel for his defense.

    Amendment VII
    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
    dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by
    a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States,
    than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
    and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
    construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
    prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
    to the people.
     
    David in Perth, Nov 21, 2003
    #11
  12. Mark

    Woody Guest


    I'll take the 10 points thanks David - Australia doesn't have a Bill of
    Rights :)

    Woody
     
    Woody, Nov 21, 2003
    #12
  13. Mark

    Ken Guest

    And what if I want to walk on the footpath. I can't remember paying for
    that. Or crossing at traffic lights. And if I drive more I don't pay any
    more rego. Maybe I should pay more when I drive to work. And maybe I
    should pay to take photographs that include a road, or a government
    building.

    Actually the answer is that I do pay. Through taxes. Income tax, GST etc
    to fund these things.

    The whole point is that some groups seem to be singled out for special
    payments.
     
    Ken, Nov 21, 2003
    #13
  14. Yes it does. You lose. :p

    OUR Bill of Rights (which the USA bill of rights are based on) was enacted
    in 1689 when William the Third took the Crown. It is carried over into our
    Common Law and State Law :)
     
    David in Perth, Nov 21, 2003
    #14
  15. Mark

    Greg Guest

    Ermmm... I think you missed a vital point...

    I was being sarcastic.

    Who is the idiot now?

    Do you really think America has anything to do with Australia? My post
    was a waste of time? Lol, I only read the first paragraph of yours! I
    hope you got writers cramp.

    Greg
    ps may your camels piss on you and you die a thousand deaths.
     
    Greg, Nov 21, 2003
    #15
  16. Mark

    Greg Guest

    Well, Common Law is unsaid, it is not written, therfor cannot be used
    as there are no proofs to uphold, and State lAw is written under
    certain Acts.

    So, Woody wins, give him his 10 points back. Bill of rights is not
    written or used in court.
     
    Greg, Nov 21, 2003
    #16
  17. Mark

    Seb Guest

    Incorrect, it no longer has a bearing on our legal system due to the
    Australia Act. Laws can be made without public referendum contrary to the
    rights specified there. And David, "gun nuts" (which is really just a
    derogatory term used by morons who know they can't use logic to push gun
    control), leave the first part out because it is not on the whole relevant.

    A vast majority of constitutional scholars agree that the 2nd ammendment
    guarantees the rights of a citizen to bear and keep arms. They know this as
    for several hundred years before modern litigators got their hand on it this
    was the accepted interpretation. They know this because the well documented
    contempt the founding fathers had for a standing state run army. They know
    this because no-one ever questioned this right until the soviets starting
    spreading their socialist tripe in the 20th century.

    So, although I value your condescending interpretation, it's fairly obvious,
    you don't matter.

    ~Seb
     
    Seb, Nov 21, 2003
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.