Thread: Arts Freedom Australia

Originally Posted by AJSLRD

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?

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.

Originally Posted by clean32

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.

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

More details have been posted on the web site.

Arts Freedom Australia

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

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.

Originally Posted by werdan

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.

Originally Posted by werdan

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.

Originally Posted by clean32

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????