Thread: Arts Freedom Australia

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

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.

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

<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.

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.

Originally Posted by clean32

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.

Originally Posted by clean32

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...

Originally Posted by clean32

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.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

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.

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

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

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

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

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

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

Yes often, who are you in the world?

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

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.

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

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

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

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.

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

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.

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

But stop making childish arguments of what if..

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

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

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

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?

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

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!

Originally Posted by C0L0N3L

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.

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

Originally Posted by AJSLRD

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.