Arts Freedom Australia [Archive] - Australian Land Rover Owners

AJSLRD

30th July 2010, 01:52 PM

clean32

30th July 2010, 01:56 PM

Imagine if you will a law that would prevent you from expressing your views in the way you have here.

i would dread asuch a law here, but we are not talking about such a law and to do so is distorting the facts as well as scarmongering, to do that sort of makes you a low life, like a polition

You are entitled to your views and I think no less of you for expressing them.

But how unhappy would you be be if the law said you couldn't be an ass on a forum?

Would you be unhappy and demand the return of the rights you once had?

What are you going on about?? This thread is about a bunch of camera geeks over steeping the line, disrespecting the privacy of others and as a result a law has been formed.
WHAT has that got to do with freedom of speech??

and you think im an Ass?? i think thats where your head is

Lotz-A-Landies

30th July 2010, 01:59 PM

But professional photographers get paid for their images and their books, why shouldn't the raw materials for those images (the landscape) also be paid for?

AJSLRD

30th July 2010, 02:11 PM

But professional photographers get paid for their images and their books, why shouldn't the raw materials for those images (the landscape) also be paid for?

Then who really owns the "Raw Materials"..... the government, they will take their cut as taxes anyway, maybe mother nature she formed the landscape, or the rainbow serpent who carved out the landscape in the dream time, the parks authority no they are the government, the people of this land Hmmm... their rep. is the government back to taxes again. so in conclusion the government gets a cut anyway image paid for.

Allen

clean32

30th July 2010, 02:30 PM

Didn't think this is about photographing people but landscapes, being able to take a photo of something of natural beauty (err..Ayres Rock) without getting into trouble.

It's about the able bodied going into a National Park take a few photos so the people of this country who have been locked out of these places (ill health, old age...) can view the natural beauty through that image.

If i was banned from taking photos or had to pay a fee, the elderly members of my family and their elderly friends will be the poorer for it. just the other weekend friends of my in-laws (in their 80's with serious illness) expressed some happy emotions in viewing an image I took which was published in a calendar for 2010. Now they have no way of visiting the site of the photo, how else can they feel great in times of pain. these people were stoked to talk to the person that took the photo and listen to the story of how it came about.

I'm an amateur of photography, I'm far from being a 'CAMERA GEEK' and I'm defiantly not a criminal because I like to take a photo.

Allen

Good post and some good points, i don’t disagree with it at all.

The othere point is that, and just like the reasoning behind many 4X4 tracks being closed is abuse. Photographers have abused privileges in the past.
why should any one be allowed to take pictures of private property for example, should some one be allowed to take pictures of your property and the publishing them.
imagine one photographer publishing one image of your business. Some thing you own and rely on to feed your family. this image was presented in a negative manor which in turn had an impact on your income.

your property
your business
your money
yet a photographer is demanding the right to destroy all that.

Nature and natural features, sure, nice pictures, nice calendar for the old folks who cant get there themself’s. Bet the oldies had to pay for the calendar. bet some one some where is making a profit.

What if its your property and you have spent money maintaining the natural aspect or construction or what ever the photo was taken of. Should you not have the right to share in these profits? to have the photographer contribute to your costs?
I think it would be reasonable to at least be asked in the first instance.
But NO this camera geek action group is filling our heads with freedom of speech BLA as if that have a self image of themselves sitting on a horse with a freshly painted blue face.
If I go into a national park and whish to camp, i willingly pay a fee. if i whish to just visit a park then i pay a fee. if i stop at a roadside picnic area i have already paid the fee ver road tax rates etc. None of these are commercial operations yet i am happy to pay.
Why should i not pay for something i can keep?

Cap

30th July 2010, 03:14 PM

My thinking is this... if its open to viewing by the naked eye then it should be captured for free, else it should be enclused away from view.

As for the analogy of paying for stuff to use... dont you pay enough taxes already? Its a crying shame that Tasmanians need to PAY to view our own bloody back yard! Yes I know the money goes towards conservation etc, but in reality it goes towards administration!

I think if we need to pay for everything we see, touch and do then we have gone mad with copyright. We live in this world free, its been given to us freely so why should I pay someone to take a photo of a place I enjoy for my personal use.

Lotz-A-Landies

30th July 2010, 03:53 PM

Good post and some good points, i don’t disagree with it at all.

<snip>

why should any one be allowed to take pictures of private property for example, should some one be allowed to take pictures of your property and the publishing them.
imagine one photographer publishing one image of your business. Some thing you own and rely on to feed your family. this image was presented in a negative manor which in turn had an impact on your income.

your property
your business
your money
yet a photographer is demanding the right to destroy all that.
<snip>

But NO this camera geek action group is filling our heads with freedom of speech BLA as if that have a self image of themselves sitting on a horse with a freshly painted blue face.
If I go into a national park and whish to camp, i willingly pay a fee. if i whish to just visit a park then i pay a fee. if i stop at a roadside picnic area i have already paid the fee ver road tax rates etc. None of these are commercial operations yet i am happy to pay.
Why should i not pay for something i can keep?I have to agree with much of these sentiments, Google Earth and Google Street View have been implicated in burglaries.

Organised criminals use google earth/maps satellite view for identify properties with swiming pools, street view has been used to identify houses with nice gardens, front doors and expensive cars. No one asked for the property owners permission and yet the "freedom" claimed by Google has had had negative financial implications for property owners burgled by criminals using Google as a tool.

mowog

25th August 2010, 10:19 AM

The Rally is this weekend. For those who are interested.

More details have been posted on the web site.

Arts Freedom Australia (http://www.artsfreedomaustralia.com/blog/)

werdan

25th August 2010, 05:37 PM

I have to agree with much of these sentiments, Google Earth and Google Street View have been implicated in burglaries.

Organised criminals use google earth/maps satellite view for identify properties with swiming pools, street view has been used to identify houses with nice gardens, front doors and expensive cars. No one asked for the property owners permission and yet the "freedom" claimed by Google has had had negative financial implications for property owners burgled by criminals using Google as a tool.

So if the criminal drives a Land Rover during the robbery, is Land Rover responsible for providing him with a car?

I can't see how Google can be blamed for not discriminating against arseholes. They look like regular people most of the time.

Tombie

25th August 2010, 06:33 PM

So if the criminal drives a Land Rover during the robbery, is Land Rover responsible for providing him with a car?

I can't see how Google can be blamed for not discriminating against arseholes. They look like regular people most of the time.

And no different to when they just drove around looking for houses.

The convenience of google far outweighs any misuse.

clean32

25th August 2010, 06:44 PM

So if the criminal drives a Land Rover during the robbery, is Land Rover responsible for providing him with a car?

I can't see how Google can be blamed for not discriminating against arseholes. They look like regular people most of the time.

If I took a photo of your wife in the shower because I could, and then published it on the internet, that’s ok with you?

If I took a photo of you business and sold it to your opposition, that would be ok with you?

If I took a photo of your 1//2 naked daughter, published it but called it art? Would that be ok with you?

If you think the camera geeks protest is about being able to take a photo of a hill, think again.
When you take your Kid to child care or kindy, you are asked to sign a bit of paper to give permission to take photos of your kid etc. What these geeks want is the right to take what ever they want and the right to publish it.

werdan

25th August 2010, 07:41 PM

If I took a photo of your wife in the shower because I could, and then published it on the internet, that’s ok with you?

If I took a photo of you business and sold it to your opposition, that would be ok with you?

If I took a photo of your 1//2 naked daughter, published it but called it art? Would that be ok with you?

If you think the camera geeks protest is about being able to take a photo of a hill, think again.
When you take your Kid to child care or kindy, you are asked to sign a bit of paper to give permission to take photos of your kid etc. What these geeks want is the right to take what ever they want and the right to publish it.

What does that have anything to do with Google maps being used by burglars????

Chucaro

25th August 2010, 08:55 PM

My house it is not in Google, only a vacant land and many photos in Hobart are very old, so that idea of going by the type of car in the driveway or the quality of the home it is irrevelant.
Burglars do not need Goolge , just have to drive and look which homes are without people during the evenings and take note of the way that people live during many days and then just walk in when the place is empty.

Chucaro

25th August 2010, 09:00 PM

[When you take your Kid to child care or kindy, you are asked to sign a bit of paper to give permission to take photos of your kid etc. What these geeks want is the right to take what ever they want and the right to publish it.

What happens then with the sucurity cameras in all the shops and in the street in many cyties?
What it is your opinion about the "security geeks"

mowog

26th August 2010, 07:06 AM

Being allowed to have extreme views (however wrong) is one of the joys we have in this country.

The rally is Sunday if your interested turn up be a part of it.

C0L0N3L

27th August 2010, 07:31 AM

To be honest clean32 I think you are trolling but I'll bait cause I don't have much else to do.

I think you are wrongly generalising that all photographers are out to make money any way possible, a generalisation that oddly enough the media has created.

Paying for rights to take pictures..
I am fairly certain, though obviously there are some differences for heritage listed places or whatever Uluru is calssified as. If it is in a public place I can shoot it (we will come back to this). Paying everyone for copyright is just stupid.
If I take a picture of a city street and want to sell it you would expect me to pay the owners of the buildings and cars, and all of the non recognisable people? Would it stop there or should I pay the designers of the building, clothes and cars too?
The things you are talking about would make anything impossible, making a movie would be a nightmare. This is why I think you are just trolling because no one could be that stupid to expect it to work.

If I took a photo of your wife in the shower because I could, and then published it on the internet, that’s ok with you?

If I took a photo of you business and sold it to your opposition, that would be ok with you?

If I took a photo of your 1//2 naked daughter, published it but called it art? Would that be ok with you?

Now I know you are trolling.. there are rules. I can take a picture in a public place of anything, why because in a public place you have no expectation of privacy. The pictures however cannot be defamatory, indecent, offensive or demeaning. Now you strike me as quite an unreasonable person and would probably say that every photo is at least one of those which would make your agument mute as you have quite clearly used examples of what is illegal.

clean32

27th August 2010, 09:14 AM

C0L0N3L
In no way am I trolling.
But a better understanding of what is going on may be in order.

Is the protest against some thing? Or is it for some thing? If so what?
What some thing is sold as may not be what it really is.

Now I know you are trolling.. there are rules. I can take a picture in a public place of anything, why because in a public place you have no expectation of privacy. The pictures however cannot be defamatory, indecent, offensive or demeaning. Now you strike me as quite an unreasonable person and would probably say that every photo is at least one of those which would make your agument mute as you have quite clearly used examples of what is illegal.
The argument of "in a public place you have no expectation of privacy" is old hat and rather redundant. If I was to stick a camera in your face, you WOULD be offended. If you took a picture of me showing affection to my wife for example. Would result in you requiring medical attention. If you were to publish such a picture although not illegal would result in legal action taken against you. "Defamatory, indecent, offensive or demeaning" is open to debate. Unfortunately the camera geeks tend to push the understanding of the preceding terms to, and past there limits of commonsense. No you can’t argue against that.
The rest of your comments are rubbish.

Lotz-A-Landies

27th August 2010, 09:36 AM

<snip>
The things you are talking about would make anything impossible, making a movie would be a nightmare. <snip>.C0l0n3l
I'm not sure your facts on movies are quite correct, before a film unit, or production company for movies or TV take their lens cap off in New York City, they have to have a complete set of permits from the NYC film and television office. If it were a nightmare as you suggest we wouldn't be seeing NYC on the screen anytime soon.

As it is, I can't go for more than a few minutes on cable TV without seeing NYC.

C0L0N3L

27th August 2010, 11:20 AM

I'd like to make it clear that I am not for or against this photography rights because from what I have read the laws are fair and reasonable.

The argument of "in a public place you have no expectation of privacy" is old hat and rather redundant. If I was to stick a camera in your face, you WOULD be offended.
Yeah I would be like wtf.. if you kept doing it I would tell you to stop and remove the photos (even though you don't have to). Then if it went further I would get the cops involved for harrasment.

But seriously has anyone run up and put a camera in your face?

I think you'll find the majority of photographers are very respectful, they understand that people some people don't like being photographed, if someone doesnt want to be in the shot.. they move or ask the photographer to not photograph them, id say 99% would respect their wishes.

It is just self absorbed people like you who think just because someones lens is pointed in your general direction they are taking pictures of you. I bet your one of those assholes who abuse wait staff because your steak medium not medium rare.

If you took a picture of me showing affection to my wife for example. Would result in you requiring medical attention.
And you would have a date with bubba in you 9x12' for assult...

If you were to publish such a picture although not illegal would result in legal action taken against you.
You could, I'm not too sure how far you would get unless I was using it commercially.

But stop making childish arguments of what if..

Your just making up extreme situations based on flase generalisations with no real argument... You think photographers shouldn't take pictures of people... I am fairly certain that none of links even mention people.

C0l0n3l
I'm not sure your facts on movies are quite correct, before a film unit, or production company for movies or TV take their lens cap off in New York City, they have to have a complete set of permits from the NYC film and television office. If it were a nightmare as you suggest we wouldn't be seeing NYC on the screen anytime soon.

As it is, I can't go for more than a few minutes on cable TV without seeing NYC.

I didn't explain my point to well. Yes I know movies/comercial stuff have to get permission to do this stuff they also have to pay big dollars to do it this is how it works now.. and its fine. But what clean32 is suggesting that if someone is making a profit from something simply cause they have it shouldn't who ever created that then recieve the profit too?
No.. because you would never get anywhere.

For movies etc (I do not know, never done it) but they pay and get permission because they are usually inconviencing the public.. much like you have to get aproval for weddings in public places etc.

clean32

27th August 2010, 11:52 AM

I'd like to make it clear that I am not for or against this photography rights because from what I have read the laws are fair and reasonable. .

If think the laws are fair and reasonable then why do you think that there is attempt to change the laws

Yeah I would be like wtf.. if you kept doing it I would tell you to stop and remove the photos (even though you don't have to). Then if it went further I would get the cops involved for harrasment. .

Then we agree

But seriously has anyone run up and put a camera in your face? .

Yes often, who are you in the world?

I think you'll find the majority of photographers are very respectful, they understand that people some people don't like being photographed, if someone doesnt want to be in the shot.. they move or ask the photographer to not photograph them, id say 99% would respect their wishes. .

Agree, the problem lays with the balance of the photographers. and the resulting reaction.

It is just self absorbed people like you who think just because someones lens is pointed in your general direction they are taking pictures of you. I bet your one of those assholes who abuse wait staff because your steak medium not medium rare. .

may you should introduce your self to a mirror

And you would have a date with bubba in you 9x12' for assult... .

As hard as i have tried its seems not to happen to me. But then I would assume im a bit bigger than bubba any way.

You could, I'm not too sure how far you would get unless I was using it commercially. .

2 points of law here, commercially as you have identified. and privacy which are a bit more complex but there is case so quite easy nowadays.

But stop making childish arguments of what if..

Your just making up extreme situations based on flase generalisations with no real argument... You think photographers shouldn't take pictures of people... I am fairly certain that none of links even mention people. .

When you chill down a bit you can pick up your toys, like a good boy

I didn't explain my point to well. Yes I know movies/comercial stuff have to get permission to do this stuff they also have to pay big dollars to do it this is how it works now.. and its fine. But what clean32 is suggesting that if someone is making a profit from something simply cause they have it shouldn't who ever created that then recieve the profit too?
No.. because you would never get anywhere. .

so what is the difference between the making of a TV program in a public place, which they have had to pay for. or a photo geek who is taking pictures for commercial gain. i think nothing!

For movies etc (I do not know, never done it) but they pay and get permission because they are usually inconviencing the public.. much like you have to get aproval for weddings in public places etc.

not only the inconvenience to the public, but also the location for what ever vale that may have. the opposite is also available where a council or government may pay or give incentives for a film to utilize a location for its advertising spinoffs. ie lord of the rings and NZ tourist industry.

AJSLRD

27th August 2010, 12:32 PM

WOW... All this for a protest to protect your freedom to take a photo of a natural feature in a national park.

Clean32, so far I understand you are someone who likes to be affectionate with his wife in in a public place, you have described yourself as bigger than Bubba and you are often photographed in public place.
May i suggest you keep your displays of affection to the privacy of your own home because if i witnessed that i would find it indecent, offensive and demeaning.
You described yourself as larger than Bubba and combined with your public displays maybe this is why you attract the attention of photographers, tone it down a little and you will be ok.

Good luck...

Allen

Lotz-A-Landies

27th August 2010, 12:57 PM

WOW... All this for a protest to protect your freedom to take a photo of a natural feature in a national park. <snip> ...No one is preventing private happy snaps of the environment, the line is drawn at commercial photographers.

Their claim that it was their photographs, given for free, that allowed Kakadon't to gain World Heritage Listing, well, they may have given their images for the WH submission, but I'll lay money they sold those same images in some other forum either as a postcard, calendar or book and they are probably also part of their own collection that are for sale as prints.

No I don't think that architects or landscape designers should get royalties when their buildings or gardens are used commercially, unless of course they have some caveat on the title. But as is the practice now, land owners should have the right to charge rental for the commercial use of their property, it is done with private homes and with public and corporate buildings for film, television and advertising, so why should council parks, foreshores, national parks and indigenous land be any different.

It costs money to run National Parks, even if it is just maintaining the tracks to the place where the photographer sits their tripod. So front up with the dollars for the permit!

No sympathy with commercial photographers.

mowog

27th August 2010, 02:17 PM

No one is preventing private happy snaps of the environment, the line is drawn at commercial photographers.

Their claim that it was their photographs, given for free, that allowed Kakadon't to gain World Heritage Listing, well, they may have given their images for the WH submission, but I'll lay money they sold those same images in some other forum either as a postcard, calendar or book and they are probably also part of their own collection that are for sale as prints.

No I don't think that architects or landscape designers should get royalties when their buildings or gardens are used commercially, unless of course they have some caveat on the title. But as is the practice now, land owners should have the right to charge rental for the commercial use of their property, it is done with private homes and with public and corporate buildings for film, television and advertising, so why should council parks, foreshores, national parks and indigenous land be any different.

It costs money to run National Parks, even if it is just maintaining the tracks to the place where the photographer sits their tripod. So front up with the dollars for the permit!

No sympathy with commercial photographers.

So your in a national park and you get a "Money Shot" that you want to sell. Your not a pro your just joe average who got a lucky shot.

Guess what no permit you cant sell what is your property. If you do sell it you will fined.

This isn't just a commercial photographer issue.

Lotz-A-Landies

27th August 2010, 03:40 PM

So your in a national park and you get a "Money Shot" that you want to sell. Your not a pro your just joe average who got a lucky shot.

Guess what no permit you cant sell what is your property. If you do sell it you will fined.

This isn't just a commercial photographer issue.I'm sure that in the case of an amateur photographer who just happens to get the money shot by chance or even by planning would be able to approach the land owners and apply for the whatever to be able to sell the image.

No problem.

This is not the case with commercial photographers, they plan to be in the environment they are shooting. Why should it not be the same as an artists muse that has to be paid for?

AJSLRD

27th August 2010, 03:43 PM

Those that earn any money in any form of profession pay tax, a commercial photographer is not exempt from the Taxation Laws of this country, then the payment is made from the proceeds of the venture through taxation.

Most National Parks have entry fees that are to cover some of the costs in maintaining these environments, the rest comes from the taxes paid by every Australian, mother nature looks after the rest.

How many times do we need to be taxed????

This is a Democratic country we have a right to stand up and protest in what you believe in.

I can't help it if your opinion is based on fears that someone will profit from something they do well, like I said before where there is profit there is TAXATION...

Allen

Lotz-A-Landies

27th August 2010, 03:57 PM

Those that earn any money in any form of profession pay tax, a commercial photographer is not exempt from the Taxation Laws of this country, then the payment is made from the proceeds of the venture through taxation.

Most National Parks have entry fees that are to cover some of the costs in maintaining these environments, the rest comes from the taxes paid by every Australian, mother nature looks after the rest.<snip>
AllenAllen

So what you are saying is that as a taxpayer but not a professional photographer, my use of national parks should be effectively more expensive than a professional photographers use of the same national park?

Diana

clean32

27th August 2010, 03:59 PM

I'm sure that in the case of an amateur photographer who just happens to get the money shot by chance or even by planning would be able to approach the land owners and apply for the whatever to be able to sell the image.

No problem.

This is not the case with commercial photographers, they plan to be in the environment they are shooting. Why should it not be the same as an artists muse that has to be paid for?

Your on the money, problem is that what you think is "no problem" hasn’t been happening. Hence the strong reaction that intern has created a protest.

A protest that has been manipulated to exceed the understanding of most of its supporters.

clean32

27th August 2010, 04:02 PM

Allen

So what you are saying is that as a taxpayer but not a professional photographer, my use of national parks should be effectively more expensive than a professional photographers use of the same national park?

Diana

How do you defecate between a armature and a professional photographer?
More so since professional photospheres have not had the sort of history that would give them a glow of honesty and integrity.

clean32

27th August 2010, 04:04 PM

This is a Democratic country we have a right to stand up and protest in what you believe in.

Allen

And thank god for that.
But make sure you know exactly what you are protesting for first.

Lotz-A-Landies

27th August 2010, 04:46 PM

How do you defecate between a armature and a professional photographer?
More so since professional photospheres have not had the sort of history that would give them a glow of honesty and integrity.Where the sale of images in any form, forms a regular part of ones income.

werdan

27th August 2010, 05:01 PM

How do you defecate between a armature and a professional photographer?

1. Strip out the armature from a generator and place it to your left.

2. Get a professional photographer to stand on your right.

3. Drop your pants, squat and push.

Hope this helps.

BMKal

28th August 2010, 11:08 AM

1. Strip out the armature from a generator and place it to your left.

2. Get a professional photographer to stand on your right.

3. Drop your pants, squat and push.

Hope this helps.

:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling:

Bugger !!! I was having a good chuckle reading the pure garbage posted on one side of the discussion here - and you've gone and put his posts right into perspective. :p

clean32

28th August 2010, 12:11 PM

:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling:

Bugger !!! I was having a good chuckle reading the pure garbage posted on one side of the discussion here - and you've gone and put his posts right into perspective. :p
Garbage is it? go have a look at that some want as a result from this protest and then decide if its what you want in Australia?

see if its garbage or not, or just be dragged around by your blind nose

if you guys think this about paying to take a photo in a national park, then fool you!

JohnR

28th August 2010, 12:36 PM

1. Strip out the armature from a generator and place it to your left.

2. Get a professional photographer to stand on your right.

3. Drop your pants, squat and push.

Hope this helps.

:clap2::Rolling::TakeABow::Rolling::arms::clap2::t wobeers:

I think this is the funniest post I have read on this forum EVER!!

:toilet::rulez:

Thanks guys keep it up!

Cheers,

BMKal

28th August 2010, 01:34 PM

Garbage is it? go have a look at that some want as a result from this protest and then decide if its what you want in Australia?

see if its garbage or not, or just be dragged around by your blind nose

if you guys think this about paying to take a photo in a national park, then fool you!

Personally couldn't care less about the argument. If I want to take a photograph of something, I will. If I want to take a photograph of somebody, I'll ask first - both as I always have done. No new rules or protests about rules are going to have the slightest impact on how and when I use my camera.

But I was getting a good laugh reading some of the posts in this thread though ............ :D you can't even find that sort of entertainment on television any more these days.

Hint : maybe if you get your hands on a dictionary and look up the meanings of "defecate" and "armature" you might see the humour in it - but somehow, I doubt it. ;)

clean32

28th August 2010, 02:13 PM

Personally couldn't care less about the argument. If I want to take a photograph of something, I will. If I want to take a photograph of somebody, I'll ask first - both as I always have done. No new rules or protests about rules are going to have the slightest impact on how and when I use my camera.

But I was getting a good laugh reading some of the posts in this thread though ............ :D you can't even find that sort of entertainment on television any more these days.

Hint : maybe if you get your hands on a dictionary and look up the meanings of "defecate" and "armature" you might see the humour in it - but somehow, I doubt it. ;)

ok got it, you don’t care, and that’s up to you.

As for the dictionary, LOL had I not already thanked werdan. my mistake fair cop. But as for you well that’s a different story LOL

dullbird

28th August 2010, 06:01 PM

well!!!

This is the first time I have read this thread...Slap on the wrist for me!

So while this discussion continues I would like to say that there are some very boarderline comments in this thread on both sides and some mass generalisations as well.

So by all means have a debate, but lets not make it personal please, or you will leave me no choice but to go kungfo panda on yeah:)

clean32

28th August 2010, 06:26 PM

Read carefuly, if you care that is.

"
Mission Statement

What is Arts Freedom Australia [AFA] and what does it stand for?
Australian photographers, cinematographers, artists, writers and musicians (“artists”) are being impacted by restrictive and prohibitive Federal, State and Territory and Local Government legislation and policies.
Recent amendments to regulations unfairly restrict activities and access to national parks and other open spaces that should be freely available for all Australians to appreciate and share.
Arts Freedom Australia [AFA] believes there should be no need for permits or charges (other than entry fees or other charges similar to those paid by the general public) where artists are not requiring any more access, assistance or creating any more impact on the environment than a tourist or visitor.
AFA believes that the only time permits and fees may be necessary is:
When there is a potential for damage to the environment due to the nature and scale of the activity.
Where there is a possibility that the scale or nature of the activity may infringe on other visitors’ rights.
Where access is required above and beyond that which is available to the general public.
Where there may be some conflict with published park values.
AFA aims to advance and protect the freedom of artists to pursue their creative professions, at all times respecting and conserving the environment.
This is being achieved by:
Inspiring and empowering artists to legitimately pursue their creative mediums;
Identifying and addressing unfair hindrances to artists whilst conducting their profession, craft or hobby;
Collecting and disseminating information to keep artists abreast of relevant issues and in particular legislative changes that will hinder the freedom of artists;
Working to make amendments to or repeal legislation and policies that place additional constraints on the legitimate activities of artists.
What is Arts Freedom Australia [AFA] and what does it stand for?
Australian photographers, cinematographers, artists, writers and musicians (“artists”) are being impacted by restrictive and prohibitive Federal, State and Territory and Local Government legislation and policies.
Recent amendments to regulations unfairly restrict activities and access to national parks and other open spaces that should be freely available for all Australians to appreciate and share.
Arts Freedom Australia [AFA] believes there should be no need for permits or charges (other than entry fees or other charges similar to those paid by the general public) where artists are not requiring any more access, assistance or creating any more impact on the environment than a tourist or visitor.
AFA believes that the only time permits and fees may be necessary is:
- When there is a potential for damage to the environment due to the nature and scale of the activity.
- Where there is a possibility that the scale or nature of the activity may infringe on other visitors’ rights.
- Where access is required above and beyond that which is available to the general public.
- Where there may be some conflict with published park values.
AFA aims to advance and protect the freedom of artists to pursue their creative professions, at all times respecting and conserving the environment. This is being achieved by:
- Inspiring and empowering artists to legitimately pursue their creative mediums;
- Identifying and addressing unfair hindrances to artists whilst conducting their profession, craft or hobby;
- Collecting and disseminating information to keep artists abreast of relevant issues and in particular legislative changes that will hinder the freedom of artists;
- Working to make amendments to or repeal legislation and policies that place additional constraints on the legitimate activities of artists."

So what they want is the same as what the public already have. So Joe blog and family happily snapping away with there Harvey Norman camera it’s a non issue.
they use the word Artist in a liberal sense. If you look at the people behind this organization they are all professional photographers. IE they take photos and sell them ( one way or another).

to show how profestional this organisation is thay quote wiki, LOL try handing a first year uni assinement in quoting wiki. or better still try quoting wiki in court and see what happens.

"
* The definition of national park that is at the beginning of this article comes from Wikipedia."

clean32

28th August 2010, 06:30 PM

so $25 dollars is going to kill your photography business? It looks more like just an administration fee to me and as like every thing else in Australia, insurance is a must so what’s the problem here??

25 bucks, and you are going to a protest over this? Get a life

"The Northern Territory PWS has a system of filming and photography permits. This information comes directly from their website: “If you wish to undertake any commercial or some amateur filming or photography within a Northern Territory Park or Reserve managed by the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport you will be required to obtain a permit. … All applications for a filming permit must be accompanied by a current ‘Certificate of Currency” from an insurance company for Public Liability Insurance. The certificate must be in the applicant’s name and cover the applicant for a minimum value of $10,000,000 (ten million dollars) and must cover the dates that you will be entering the park or reserve. Permits will not be approved without the provision of this document. Some Parks and Reserves are jointly managed by Aboriginal Traditional Owners and permits for these may have to be assessed by a board. Please allow for these sorts of delays when applying. A fee of $25 applies to this permit.”

OHH the shame, the poor Queenslanders have to pay $1.50 more than the territories. But wait there’s more. NO insurance required. Well if that’s if there’s less than 10 of you.

So what’s the problem here?

"Queensland –national parks and other conservation-related reserves are managed by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS). Commercial filming and/or photography in QPWS-managed areas is deemed to be a “commercial activity” – an activity conducted for gain, and requires a permit and the payment of fees. The permit fee for 1 or 2 people involved in either filming or photography is $26.50 per day. There is no application fee. Public liability insurance cover is only required where 10 or more persons are involved in the activity and/or structures are being built. Therefore this insurance requirement would not apply to landscape photographers."

doint be naughty in SA i may cost you 5K, whats the problem then 25 bucks at the many parks offices and your home free.

South Australia – national parks and other conservation-related reserves are managed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Under Regulation 37 (1) of the National Parks and Wildlife (National Parks) Regulations 2001, “A person must not undertake any of the following activities in a reserve except pursuant to a lease, licence or agreement between that person, or some other person, and the Minister or the relevant authority: (a) filming, videotaping or taking photographs for commercial purposes.” The maximum penalty is a fine of $5,000.

They say the most sensible, I think that they mean Free 99.9% of the time

In Tasmania the 19 national parks and over 420 other reserves are administered by the Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS). The Tasmanian park authority has the most sensible photographic policies of any of the state jurisdictions. This is no doubt due to recognition of the positive benefit that editorial and related photography brings to the island state as a vehicle for tourism promotion. The PWS Commercial Filming Guidelines only apply to stills photography that is done for advertising purposes. See Parks & Wildlife Service - Guidelines (http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=927) : “Stills photography which is associated with an advertising agency or is for advertising use, will require approval and a fee will be charged … All other still photography will not require approval.”

clean32

28th August 2010, 06:45 PM

As for the rest, its basically an ask first with no real policy and a case by case assessment. this usually means if your a one man band it will cost you nothing.

So it there is nothing to protest against WHAT is the protest about then? a show of support for an organization? To build up the political profile of certain individuals? To promote another agenda or a more controversial agenda. or just the opportunity to reap the benefits from crating a need to stop something which at this time is just smoke.

I can do that

I am now the president of the “Crisis Against Silly Hopelessness”

This syndrome is affecting 60% of the population. Send money NOW

Make all checks out to C.A.S.H for short

Landy Smurf

28th August 2010, 10:37 PM

dirty130

28th August 2010, 10:43 PM

Seems as though Mr "clean" has successfully done this discussion to an unworthy death with his relentless campaign, and achieved not to much, from a collective perspective, in the process. Maybe it is time to deprive him of his audience and pull the soapbox from under him, and keep a careful watch on any further discussions he may seek to derail. In my opinion it is not in the spirit on this forum or LR owners generally to have to suffer this. I happily acknowledge, with a wave, any passing roverphile, I don't wish people like him to poison this.

dirty130

28th August 2010, 10:53 PM

Been a few minutes now , "clean" is "thinking", conspiring to vindicate his pathetic diatribe.

dirty130

28th August 2010, 11:12 PM

Maybe, for those with some vestige of sentiment, this could be a compelling reason in giving the photographer the same freedom as the addle brained forum correspondent, and the determination to ignore the same.

Russia in color, a century ago - The Big Picture - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/08/russia_in_color_a_century_ago.html)

clean32

28th August 2010, 11:42 PM

ok then if i am fo full of it. answer this

what new restrictions have been placed on photographers?

Landy Smurf

28th August 2010, 11:55 PM

ok im not having ago at you at all but this thread has been a very busy one but could you put in dot point your main points of view that you are trying to get across

clean32

29th August 2010, 12:05 AM

ok some passionate views
i dont want to have to pay for photos but at the same time i have thought i dont want someone taking my photo if they are going to publish it without my permission i like taking photos

As it is at the moment
You don’t have to pay to take photos

Anyone can take your photo and publish it with out your permission.

To give you the impression that you will have to pay to take snap shots of your holiday trips is rubbish. But it is the tactic being employed here.

My argument is that they should not be allowed to take your photo with out your permission, there would be exceptions, IE if you became a crim etc

If you look at the people behind this organization, and there history, and conflicts, all becomes clear. Under the smoke of crying restrictions they actually want more freedoms or liberties. In short reducing your liberties or privacy. Put it another way, increase there freedom and reduce your freedom.

Landy Smurf

29th August 2010, 12:19 AM

ok thanks i understand it alot clearer now
cheers tony

mowog

30th August 2010, 07:18 AM

My point of view.

First I dont photograph people simply because of the attitudes you can see in this thread.

I am not a professional photographer. I am keen hobbyist who would one day like to sell my works.

I took the image below on the weekend and because I didn't buy a permit I can't sell this image.

For me this movement is about my freedom to sell the photos I take without having to pay for permits or submit my work for approval. Go read the fine print on the Sydney Harbour restrictions.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/08/111.jpg

This link will display a larger view.

On Black: Sydney by Night. by mowog [Large] (http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=4938735737&size=large)

Chucaro

30th August 2010, 07:42 AM

Very nice image.
Why you cannot sell the image?
The bridge and the Opera House are not ;) the main subject in the image.
The water and reflection of the light are the main subject and the other are just in the BG.
There are many "grey areas" in the regulations ;)

mowog

30th August 2010, 07:46 AM

I will be getting this printed by the Fuji Flex process at Created For Life.

The first one out will be a 100" print for my wall at home.

clean32

30th August 2010, 08:01 AM

My point of view.

First I dont photograph people simply because of the attitudes you can see in this thread.

Ok so you don’t take photos because some one may give you a bit of a slap for doing so. GOOD. But why should you think that you automatically have the right to photograph someone and that it is only fear that don’t?

I am not a professional photographer. I am keen hobbyist who would one day like to sell my works.

I took the image below on the weekend and because I didn't buy a permit I can't sell this image.

I assume you were alone, or working alone and it didn’t take a team of 10 or more to take this photo.

You didn’t Buy a permit, which is free by the way! And if you do decide to sell the image you can retrospectively get approval

For me this movement is about my freedom to sell the photos I take without having to pay for permits or submit my work for approval. Go read the fine print on the Sydney Harbour restrictions.

What Harbor in the world will let photos be published with out approval? There are security and commercial interests to consider and Sydney harbor is quite lax in this regard.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/08/111.jpg

This link will display a larger view.

On Black: Sydney by Night. by mowog [Large] (http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=4938735737&size=large)[/QUOTE]

Nice photo by the way

clean32

30th August 2010, 08:03 AM

I will be getting this printed by the Fuji Flex process at Created For Life.

The first one out will be a 100" print for my wall at home.

already changed the paper in the printer, and its just starting now.

i use hairspray, helps to keep them looking good

mowog

30th August 2010, 08:12 AM

Clean 32

I don't photograph people....

1. Don't do portraits very well.
2. Have you seem the average Australian? way to ugly to waste my time on.

I like the peace and quiet of remote places, or in the case of the image posted here it was too cold for people to be out.

We did go to Taronga Zoo a very public place but everyone had a camera so there were no issues but again there were far better subjects than people.

Chucaro

30th August 2010, 10:07 AM

Keep it very quite, next thing will be a signed permit by the gorila before you can take a pic :D

Reading posts by some members here I would be very worried if people like them can have senior position on the local and federal Government :(

One of them qualify as very good Dogooder :D

mowog

30th August 2010, 11:19 AM

This little fella didn't complain when his photo was taken.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/08/110.jpg

mrapocalypse

31st August 2010, 09:46 AM

Ordinarily, when working for a bigger organisation like a TV network - we get a permit simply because you are there and they need to know what you are doing. Getting a permit is part of the process. We have had them for dozens of locations all over the place. It's normally just a formality and a nominal fee.

But.... you do run up against local councils who are just plain annoying.

Bondi is the worst, they have made life very difficult for the media and there may be many reasons for this, but usually it's just a money grab by the local council.

You can't film the Sydney Harbour Bridge or the opera house without a permit (We still did though- stick that).

I was bounced off a footpath with my camera the other day for filming a new building in Brisbane. Security guard said it was "Licensed" and could only be filmed with a permit. I already had the footage so was polite and walked away with a "Good luck with that buddy".

I guess my point is what's the difference between a professional taking it's picture and making money out of it and a Hotel having a window that looks out over it. Do they charge tour buses for looking at this stuff.... if you charge more for a building that looks out over sydney harbour, do you have to pay a license. The ferries have windows, why not block all those off. Or if rembrandt came back from the dead and painted it, would he have to pay a license?

What's the point of making life difficult and expensive for the people who's job it is, and these are not greedy or evil people, to capture the location and use their own resources and time and skill to distribute those images to an audience who could drive past it for free anyway!

Wear and tear?

The irony us that the tourism commissions will spend MILLIONS on ad campaigns telling japanese people to PLEASE come back to Australia, but still sting you and drown you in paperwork to take a shot for an internationally distributed program or publication.

As for privacy. You don't have privacy when you are in a public place. Private places=Privacy. Public places=On view to the world. If you ask someone not to film you they may or may not stop, it's up to them. It's the same as people looking at you.

It's just Australia, full of nice people, run by idiots.

I.