We seem to have here an example of the way government exploits opportunities for establishing power and control OVER the citizenry by using arguments developed quite cynically in the first place for a minority segment of the population who are argued to need special treatment. There are some parallels with the way the US government used riot control gear against the anti-war protester citizens in the 1970's when the riot control chemicals and weaponry - tear gas and worse - had originally been developed to use against the citizens of Vietnam. Goes to show - decency needs to prevail at all times and for all people, and differentiating rules lead to abuse. Regarding photography, in particular, maybe we should use this example to question all government fees and charges. Who gave them "ownership" of the scenery. And why must we move to labeling government personnel as "them" - aren't they supposed to be "us". But Australians are a supine lot, overall. Whatever we are entitled/able to see with our eyes should be available to share with others via use of a camera. Perhaps we'll all end up in blinkers, with a government fee attached to removal of the blinkers on a per day charge basis.

I run a media production and service company in Alice Springs and can verify that more than 80% of all filming permits are refused at Uluru/Kata Tjuta National Park (Ayer’s Rock/The Olgas) due to a mind-numbing bureaucracy dressed as “protecting the environmental and cultural aspects of the Park”. Recent filming refusals include the Royal Ballet, BBC Science and incredibly, the BBC Natural History Unit.

The Park is a nightmare to deal with, We have even had them claim (falsely) that they control the airspace up to 3 kilometres! A Parks Lawyer sent me a threatening letter to remove an image of Kata Tjuta “place of many heads” from my website as I “wasn’t showing enough heads” and that this was “offensive”. I still ponder on which ancient Aboriginal photographic law I breached.

This, despite the fact that Google Earth can take you anywhere in the Park you like (including sacred sites) and that 300,000 visitors a year post their images for all to see on the internet. A Ranger confided that they don’t want to promote the Park for tourism and that the “purpose of World heritage areas is to exclude human beings, not to include them”.

The fact is that you will not receive a permit unless you specifically promote the Aboriginal cultural aspects of the Park. But why? Aboriginal people and people generally have been at Uluru for but a moment in time compared to the Rock itself.

Where is their room for the interpretation of the Geologist, the Artist of all persuasions? What of the billions of Muslims and Christians in the world who believe the Rock was in fact created by God? Sorry, it is not only not permissible to portray these alternative views, the EPBC regulations make it illegal. People go on about things "un-Australian", this truly is.

Good to see this article. I was involved in compiling a book on Australia's national parks some time ago. At that time only the Commonwealth and Victorian national parks had this regulation restricting the use of commercial photography. As it turned out I only used photographs taken before these restrictions came into force, in these two instances.

The fee alone at Uluru would have taken up a fair percentage of subsequent royalties and given that it took close to two years to prepare the book I did not plan to hand over most of my meagre income to a bloated and greedy bureaucracy. The biggest shame is that it is the book, postcard and calendar photographers, most of whom are freelancers operating on tiny budgets, that produce the 'wow' effects that help display and publicise these parks to a wide audience and potential visitors. Nowadays, as far as I am concerned, that is the national parks' loss.

Restrictive revenue raising bureacracy gone mad.

National Parks, towns like Hill End and any number of National Trust listed buildings in country towns throughout Australia belong to the people.

Professional landscape and heritage photographers only enhance the nature and beauty of their subjects for the benefit of us all. Peter Dombrovski landscapes are breathtaking.

http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an24314453

This is one of those times we, the people, should resist against this madness. Ignore it and snap away I say.

I deal with many overseas visitors to Australia, they all complain about the over-regulation and bureaucracy we have here.

I go to Europe and the USA, where they have a fraction of the regulations we seem to need.

It's exciting to be living on the edge somewhere in Europe or the USA, snapping away with no permit or insurance!.

Today the Victorian police were defending themselves against a race driver who accused them of over-regulation. The defence was that it saved some lives and while that is admirable I fear that sort of justification will provide many more regulations not less.

Heaven help us when we all have smart meters on our homes, internet "filtering" (with recording and detection devices) as well as software in cameras and phones to tell where and when we took a photo or movie, for safety and insurance reasons of course.

Many cameras now have in their meta data fields, the facility for Lat/Long positioning and with the accessibility and cheapness of GPS, and Wireless (hopefully cheap wireless) this will all be possible. Imagine, the phones or cameras will know when we're somewhere we need a permit for (everywhere?) and able to tattle tale to a regulator.

So much employment will be available to regulators and inspectors and we'll have massive government.

Perhaps a few lives will be saved by all this regulation, but I don't want to live where there is no free will.

This is so stupid, our money is used to inhibit our activity.

The ALP nationwide is delivering the nanny state instead of services and a better quality of life, e.g. instead of delivering as much water as we need, it's regulated and we should use less - absurd!

Amicus, you say "ignore it and snap away",but you clearly haven't seen the extraordinary list of civil AND criminal penalties listed (in a pdf) under the EPBC

http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/tourism/uluru/download/The%20EPBC%20Act%20and%20EPBC%20Regulations%20at%20UKTNP.pdf

I'll let you and others go through it but let me just list some of the breaches you will receive a CRIMINAL record for in Uluru Kata Tjuta National Park: threaten a Park Ranger, $46,000 fine or 7 years jail, rolling a stone (I am not kidding) $1,100 fine, possession of a metal detector $3,300 fine, Hold or attend gathering of more than 15 people fine $1,100, carry out scientific research $2,200 fine, hinder a Park Ranger fine $13,200 or 7 years jail.

The EPBC is a law that makes China look positively democratic and free, yet this law IS A FACT in our country!

A picture of Bondi has been on my flickr page for five years: http://www.flickr.com/photos/woulfe/35004083/

The NSW Local Government Act 1993 includes the following definition:

>> "filming" means recording images (whether on film
>> or video tape or electronically or by other means) for
>> exhibition or broadcast (such as by cinema, television
>> or the Internet or by other means) and includes such
>> acts or things as may be prescribed by the regulations
>> as being filming, but does not include:
>> (a) still photography, or
>> (b) video recording of a wedding ceremony or
>> other private celebration ...

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/lga1993182/sch99.html?query=photography

This may mean that Waverley Council is overstepping its powers by insisting on a permit for photography: lawyers?

As for restrictions on photography in National Parks, there are at least two important considerations that Ross hasn’t mentioned. First, the distinction between public and private. National Parks are not public spaces in the same way that streets and public beaches are. A National Park is used under licence, not by right. We have to pay entry fees, and observe quite restrictive rules about where we can walk, climb, camp, drive and light fires, for example. If someone needs to get permission to take a photograph in my backyard, it doesn’t seem all that different to require permission to photograph in a National Park.

The second consideration is non-commercial use of the commons. Many amenities, such as footpaths, parks, libraries (to name a few) are available for non-commercial use only, or for a fee if the use is commercial. This makes sense, because if I intend to make a profit through my use of the commons, then some of that profit should go back to maintaining it (granted if the restrictions were consistently applied, every photo of Uluru uploaded to a for-profit site like flickr would attract a fee, but the cost of collecting the tiny marginal return to the site – let alone to the photographer – would presumably outweigh the benefit).

Just because something is publicly owned doesn’t mean it should be available for commercial exploitation.

Oh Woulfe! Comparing libraries and footpaths to a Citizen's rights to freely use our national estate? I don't know about you but my identity as an Australian has never been influenced by concrete walkways and bookshelves.

National Parks need common sense rules to manage the environment, that's all.

I appreciate that commercial photographers should give something back to the maintenance and upkeep of national parks and the like.

But for those of use who take photos for fun, for non-profit artistic purposes or simply to show how beautiful, or ugly, the world can be, to have to pay a fee is something else again.

I live in Waverley, and I actually wish that for a short period of each year the council regulations against photography were enforced: this time is of course 'Sculptures by the Sea'when public land is taken over for a privately run art exhibition. On overflow of people take lots of photos there, but no one is questioned.

I also note that nearby Randwick Council has no such regulatory regime.

It is interesting that I enjoy taking photos of Waverley Cemetery, and other parts of Waverley. It seems that so long as I am Randwick territory - on the southern side of Boundary Street - I can snap away at the cemetery, but I am risking court action if I cross the road. The same goes for taking photos north towards Bondi from near the Clovelly Bowling Club. Technically I can take photos of Bondi from there with a telephoto lens, but not from Waverley turf. Having said that I am yet to hear of anyone taking photos in Waverley being busted, except for offensive behaviour when getting in the faces of topless women, which brings up another issue: should there be an expectation of privacy in a public place?.

OK,

let's say such fees are appropriate.

Given the indefinitely large number of photographs that couild be taken, all without depleting the view....

Are developers within the landscape charged amounts that exceed this when amortised over the likely lifetime of the landscape?

Are miners?

Are they charged in proportion to the area used, despoiled? permanently? Just until it *looks* the same? Or until it enjoys diversity "equivalent" to that before?

Would such questions *ever* be asked outside an actuaries office?

Rusty

oftheinland "Amicus, you say "ignore it and snap away",but you clearly haven't seen the extraordinary list of civil AND criminal penalties listed (in a pdf) under the EPBC"

no I didn't say that at all .. I believe you, the governments have gone regulatory mad.

"This is one of those times we, the people, should resist against this madness. Ignore it and snap away I say.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 29 March 2010 2:24:55 PM"

The governments are so used to telling us what to do rather than delivering what we want and need, that they feel empowered to do things like this.

The problem will be unraveling it, laws are rarely revoked.

We should not be saying well OK professionals should pay, no way - where do they get off levying fees on use of public lands to this extent. It's not like pictures are actually removing photons, or wearing them out.

Next they'll charge you by the hour for how much air you breathe when in a National Park.

Absurd.

I would like to respond to Woulfe who states that: “As for restrictions on photography in National Parks, there are at least two important considerations that Ross hasn’t mentioned. First, the distinction between public and private. National Parks are not public spaces in the same way that streets and public beaches are. A National Park is used under licence, not by right”.

I’m sorry but national parks are not regarded as private spaces by the public but are seen as part of “public open space”, even when some of our national parks have been effectively privatised (as is the case with Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park). And certainly within the Sydney region where both Neilsen Park and Shark Beach – part of the Sydney Harbour National Park – are accessible without the payment of entrance fees then they are utilised as public open spaces in just the same way as Bondi Beach or Manly Beach is.

Additionally no members of the general public use national parks “under licence”. National parks are in effect our collective backyard and the argument that – “If someone needs to get permission to take a photograph in my backyard, it doesn’t seem all that different to require permission to photograph in a national park” – doesn’t stand up to scrutiny because the national parks are just as much my backyard as they are yours, Mr Woulfe.

As for the contention that “many amenities, such as...libraries...are available for non-commercial use only, or for a fee if the use is commercial”; I have yet to hear of any author, journalist or researcher paying a fee to a public library for the use of their facilities. I borrow books from my local public library all the time and sometimes the information that I glean from this reading is used in articles that I get paid for. Should I be paying a fee to council for this “commercial exploitation”?

And by the way, Tim Winton sets many of his novels amongst the beaches and countryside of Western Australia. Perhaps those local councils should send him an "exploitation" fee?

Ross Barnett

>> national parks are not regarded as private spaces by
>> the public but are seen as part of “public open space”

Even if this claim were accurate, how the public regard this country's National Parks is irrelevant. Each National Park is established under its own charter (usually an Act of Parliament), which outlines the ownership and management arrangements for the Park. Just because Sydney Harbour National Park makes most of its resources available to the public with very few restrictions, this doesn't mean that every National Park must be accessible the same way.

Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park is owned by the Ananga people, so commercial photographers working there are literally earning their living in someone else's backyard. Of course the owners should be able to say under what conditions that should happen.

>> Perhaps those local councils should send [Tim Winton] an
>> "exploitation" fee?

This line of argument is rather engaging: if the British Library had charged Karl Marx while he was doing his research, would that have stopped him from writing Das Kapital? However the notion is based on a misleading idea about where the individuals earn their living. I don't think anyone would argue that Tim Winton earns his living at the beach, or that you, Ross Barnett, earn your living at the local library when you borrow materials to (take them home and) do research for your articles. Photographers, on the other hand, are doing their work on site.

In any event, where these resources are privately owned, the owners do have the right to set conditions on how they are used. In the case of library resources, you are indeed restricted on how much of the works you can copy or quote, and you have an ethical obligation to name your sources.

I guess it's expectable for people to protest when the costs of earning their living go up, but the fact is that professional photographers have long had free access to their subject material. When everyone's cost of doing business is going up, why should photographers be left out?

As a film maker and as somebody who facilitates filming permits for mostly international crews I am far more concerned about the nonsensical restrictions than any reasonable fee to shoot. That is not to say that I don't sympathize with pro photographers to which any fee is a relatively greater imposition, particularly when you have come such a long way just on spec. Additionally it would have to be an extraordinary shot of Uluru indeed to top the thousands already available for sale elsewhere.

What I find so irritating as somebody who has worked there regularly, is the oppressive concentration camp atmosphere that permeates the Park through it's totalitarian legislation. This leads to Rangers poncing around with a certain swagger and arrogance born from laws that, incredibly, have a more severe punishment for merely "threatening" them than is the average sentence given for manslaughter in NSW. These people are able to charge you with a criminal offense for just about anything, not the sort of powers I would be handing around to jumped-up Parking Inspectors.

By the way Woulfe you say the "National Park is owned by the Ananga people". But why? The Rock was around way before any people found it, therefore to stop division it should belong to our nation. In any case the word from Aboriginal groups here in Central Australia is that it was given back to the wrong tribe. By the way it is Anangu, not "Ananga" the former literally means people, so you have effectively said the Rock is owned by the people people. OK? (OK?

The issue of Uluru is as much to do with the continuing erosion of a photographer’s right to record the world around them as it is to do with the issue of photography in national parks.

At every turn, for reasons, usually spurious, photographers are hindered from using their cameras. Unenforceable and probably even unconstitutional regulations are waved in their faces in national parks, beaches, parks, recreation grounds, shopping centres, railway stations, public squares, streets. The excuses used are generally catch-all terms: security (used in every repressive dictatorship I’ve ever visited), cultural reasons, or privacy. They are enforced by the uniformed class: police, park rangers, beach inspectors, and so-called “security” guards. The regulations are never formulated or applied with common-sense or thoughtful consideration. They are often enforced from ignorance. They are about the exercise of power.

Veritas, makes the point that Australians are “a supine lot”. I think this understates the case. Supine implies lying down. I think most of us actively collaborate in our oppression. It is said that after a period of time hostages come to empathise with their captors. It’s called the Stockholm syndrome. The trouble is we’ve never won our freedom it has always been a grudging gift of the warders who would prefer it if we continue to see ourselves as “ticket-of-leave” convicts. Australians need to realise that this country has not been a penal colony for 150 years. Most of us are like prisoners who realising that their cell door is open are too afraid to step out into the light.

As far as the Uluru issue is concerned, don’t you find it strikingly odd that regulations that claim to consider the sensitivities of the Anangu, don’t extend to the banning of the climb?

This is a real eye opener. I hadn't realised things were that bad.
I agree with Pelican, however not being a commercial photographer I could probably get away with it as do thousands of happy snappers both local and international.
This is a good example of where a "meta-Law" should apply. If nothing is taken, nothing is altered and no-one is impacted then "the Law" simply doesn't apply. Victimless crimes that cannot be enforced, so can then be used selectively to discriminate or control are inherently destructive...in a "too much power for anyone's good" sort of way.
The Law needs a scope beyond which it simply doesn't apply. Most of us know this intuitively, we all break the law in little harmless ways (mostly unknowingly). But so long as we don't harm, annoy, deprive or otherwise impact other humans or the common environment, most would agree we are not being irresponsible or criminal. Is this not what "Freedom" is? (No one says "we live in a free country" any more...alas, its just not true)
It is common sense not to let "the state" or any other group have too much power, mainly because power corrupts (and stresses, and really annoys), but also because laws are expensive and need to be minimised so resources are not wasted on petty things like mini-tyranny.
What a shame Australia is falling into idiocy on so many levels!

I've retired from posting on forums but can't resist commenting on this article. It was an eye-opener.

I've been a amateur photographer for a couple of years. So far the only flack that I've encountered from bouncing around with my camera is from over-zealous security guards, the occasional grumpy cop and from one real overly browed ridged journo who seemed to think I'm encoaching on his territory.

I make my photos available to people of similar political leanings to myself for free at the moment if they are going to be useful and direct offers of payment to the cause I'm supporting. I figure that I aren't doing the professionals out of a job as the pictures I am taking are of amateur standard. If my standard lifts, I'll begin to charge.

So although I'm making no money from my shots and there is a public interest in people like me taking them (real professional photographers - where were you when the Tibet protest stage was surrounded by grumpy people at 7.40am in the morning a few years ago?) I probably should be looking to get permits and checking the legislation when I take my photos in National Parks.

TBC

This isn't going to happen of course as I have no money to pay for permits. So far too, the Park Rangers that I have always dealt with have been absolutely wonderful in the helpful department and have never raised the issue of permits.

It's also possible to go out to a site or area and a photo doesn't happen. Maybe professionals have more luck but if I was having to continually do paper work everytime I visited with a camera, I would consider other things.

I haven't tried taking pictures at Uluru. I absolutely respect the traditional owners views regarding the rock. But if the people that you are dealing with not the traditional owners, but removed people in uniform you would be wondering if they were really a reflection of the traditional owners. Also are the traditional owners also be subjected to the same over the top penalties as visitors? Might not be good for them is so and hard ot live with on a day to day basis.

>> At every turn, for reasons, usually spurious,
>> photographers are hindered from using their cameras.

You point to multiple ironies, 42south. For example, today when we have the means and the freedom to travel to the world's most remote places, we arrive to find ourselves subject to the most pedantic restrictions. Also, prohibitions on photography are tending to multiply precisely in those locations where we are under the most intrusive surveillance, such as shopping malls, airports and on public transport. Further, limitations on the use of cameras are happening when (and possibly because) most of us are carrying a camera in our mobile phones.

The conflicting interests at play in these ironies are very difficult to reconcile. Sure, initially it seems reasonable that we should have the freedom to photograph whatever we can see. However this claim ignores two crucial differences between what the eye sees and what the camera records: the camera creates a permanent record, and while a living person has control over the contexts in which s/he is seen, s/he has little or no control over the contexts in which a photograph will be displayed (hello, Lara Bingle). The freedom of the photographer needs to be balanced with individual wishes to refuse permission for our children, selves or our property to be photographed by others.

In our rapidly changing culture many freedoms are being limited, but we are also living longer, healthier and safer lives. On exactly which of these should the clock be turned back?

>> This is a real eye opener. I hadn't realised things were that bad.

How bad? The fees for commercial photography in Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park are $20 per day: http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/publications/uluru/pubs/imageguidelines.pdf When a photographer can take several hundred pictures in a day's shooting, and enjoy copyright protection over those images for the next fifty years http://rubens.anu.edu.au/copyright.html twenty dollars doesn't seem very onerous to me.

>> By the way it is Anangu, not "Ananga"

Quite right. My apologies for the spelling error. For your part, oftheinland, you might like to correct the link in your first post above, which isn't working.

Here am I having to reply to Mr Woulfe again (I presume you are a “he”?). Firstly to his post of 30 March 2010 at 7:39:59 AM.

I must admit that I am bit puzzled by your take on national parks – are you unaware that with the exception of those privatised national parks in the Northern Territory, that the overwhelming bulk of the national parks in the remainder of this country are publicly owned lands?

I have at hand a brochure for the Wollemi National Park in New South Wales. On that back of that brochure it says “When visiting your park ... Please help to preserve our precious natural and cultural heritage.” I think I can take it as read that this national park is a public open space. And equally, Sydney Harbour National Park makes its resources available to the public because the public actually own it – although of course, there is a tendency amongst some national park staff to treat our national parks as their private fiefdom.

We have borrowed the national park concept from the Americans, who established the world’s first national park at Yellowstone in 1872. Recently ABC1 Television screened the Ken Burns documentary “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea”. There were a couple of items I remember very clearly from that documentary apart from its wonderful use of historic photographs of America’s natural treasures. One of these was a rhetorical question, put by the former Sierra Club president Carl Pope who asked the audience, “What could be more democratic than owning a piece of your nation … together?”

And another was a statement from Teddy Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States. Roosevelt, a noted nature-lover and a key player in the national park system, is quoted in the film thus: “The rich people always have their playgrounds … A classless America needs to have places in nature for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.”

Can I repeat that last phrase? National parks are for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.

Secondly with regard to Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, this area is also a World Heritage Area and as the one of the Federal Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts’ web pages notes: “World heritage sites are places that are important to and belong to everyone, irrespective of where they are located. They have universal value that transcends the value they hold for a particular nation”.

I should also add that prior to the Handback of October 1985, that this was an area that in effect belonged to all Australians. One of the conditions of Handback was that the area would continue to be used as a national park for “the enjoyment of all Australians and overseas visitors”. I have been unable to find any documentation from the time of Handback which said that the rights to freedom of expression of film-makers, photographers and artists were to be restricted as a result of Handback.

It disappoints me Mr Woulfe, that you do not seem to pay any consideration to Australia’s obligation to uphold human rights. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 16th, 1966. It came into force on March 23rd, 1976 and the Australian Representative to the United Nations presented the instrument of Australia’s ratification to the Office of Legal Counsel at UN Headquarters on August 13th, 1980.

Article 19 of the ICCPR says this: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”.

This is not a treaty or an obligation that the Australian government, state governments or even local governments can walk away from.

- Ross Barnett

Woulfe, Thanks for the tip about the link not working. I am really hoping this one will (it's testing ok here) and I think anyone who has been following this discussion needs to look closely at the offences and penalties in force at UKTNP as at today. Remember that when framing laws we should consider worst case scenarios where they may be abused. Otherwise the possibility of any one of them being misused by a loose cannon in a uniform should make it preferable to omit them altogether.

If UKNTP was within a 50km radius of any of our capital cities I think they would have had Buckleys of passing many of the following:

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:4vI_zBzUCAsJ:learnline.cdu.edu.au/tourism/uluru/downloads/The%2520EPBC%2520Act%2520and%2520EPBC%2520Regulations%2520at%2520UKTNP.pdf+the+epbc+act+and+epbc+regulations&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox-a

Ok, how about this then,

*any* photograph or video footage must pay fees or royalties if taken in public space.

Any image involving me that may be used in court or any legal proceeding, must first satisfy *my* commercial requirements.

I charge $1000000 per phot used in court. Cash in advance. Cheques must clear first.

Rusty

>> Here am I having to reply to Mr Woulfe again

Doubtless everyone realises it's a tiresome job, Ross, but hey, thanks for making absolutely sure that we all know.

>> National parks are for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.

Can't say I disagree with you. Maybe you could now point us to where Teddy Roosevelt said that National Parks are also for the benefit of private commerce.

ICCPR does indeed refer to freedom of expression, and after the one you've quoted, the very next paragraph in Article 19 reads:

>> 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this
>> article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It
>> may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall
>> only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
>> (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
>> (b) For the protection of national security or of public order
>> (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art19

I'm not a lawyer, but when you put your freedom of expression case to the UN Human Rights Committee, I can imagine that the Commonwealth Government's defence will include arguments that regulation of commercial filming and photography is a restriction required for the protection of public order.

In the particular case of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, those government lawyers will no doubt make a big deal of the conflict that ICCPR sets up between Article 19 and:

>> Article 27
>> In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities
>> exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied
>> the right, in community with the other members of their group,
>> to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own
>> religion, or to use their own language.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#art27

Still, if you're really convinced that your rights are being encroached upon, take it to the UN. There's a precedent in Nick Toonen and Rodney Croome's successful challenge to the Tasmanian Criminal Code: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toonen_v._Australia

Woulfe, I'm sorry but what's your point? Article 19.3 is quoted by you but for what reason? By citing it you insinuate you are negating one of Ross's arguments but which one, and how?

Then you proceed to article 27: "such minorities shall not be denied
the right, in community with the other members of their group,
to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own
religion, or to use their own language." Yes....and?

So who has proposed to deny Anangu any of these things? Rather it is a pity that the declaration didn't state "minorities and majorities", then we might have a more commonsense world.

This reminds me bus & train timetables. No kidding.

A few years ago the High Court decided collections of facts, like time tables, were copyrightable. (They have since seen the error of their ways.) To my utter amazement various councils and government authorities immediately began threatening people who produced copies of their time tables. TV stations did the same thing.

What amazed me about this was how utterly nonsensical it was. The whole idea of having time tables is so people can use your bus / train or watch your TV show. So why on earth prosecute people taking the effort to publicizing more useful format? Surely it is something that should be encouraged. Nonetheless, various reasons were trotted out, like "they might be out of date" or "people include ads with them, and we want a cut of the revenue". Of course, they didn't get any revenue, and the choice was often between a slightly out of date time table or none at all.

And now we have National Parks threatening people who photos? I have gone to some National Parks simply on the basis of the seeing a single photograph, and thinking "I would like to be there". Eg:

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/131463

Photography, commercial or otherwise is free publicity for our National Parks. It encourages people to visit them, and to appreciate them even if they don't have time to visit. Restricting it is insane, a sign of bureaucracy and control freaks gone mad.

>>I'm sorry but what's your point?

Ross was arguing that limiting photographers' use of National Parks is an interference with their freedom of expression, as guaranteed under ICCPR. My point is that freedom of expression is not an unconditional right: it comes with "special duties and responsibilities". Further, ICCPR appears to state that the maintenance of public order is a ground for interfering with freedom of expression, and that an individual's freedom of expression is not to interfere with "the rights or reputations of others". Finally, Article 27 states that cultural and religious practices of ethnic minorities must be respected, which in many cases will be contrary to individuals' freedom of expression.

>> This reminds me bus & train timetables. No kidding.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for the view that photographs should be free for everyone to use, just like what we see is free. Particularly landscape photos. All the images on my flickr page have a Creative Commons non-commercial licence (like articles on OLO, incidentally - see the link at the bottom of the article pages), partly because they are not of a saleable quality, but also because I believe quite strongly that we all benefit when there's lots of creative material available for others to mix, mash up or simply use as is. I know that Firefox, Open Office and many other programs are available free for both commercial and non-commercial uses, but I haven't been able to bring myself yet to release my pictures to anyone who wants to make money out of them. Also, the thought that my images might wind up being used for a purpose I don't endorse is a little disturbing. Maybe one day I'll get over these scruples - alternatively, my rights to the pictures will start expiring in just 45 years ...

So I completely understand it when the Anangu say that they want some control over where and how images of their lands are used. I also understand it when cash-strapped National Parks want a piece of the action that someone is making "in their backyard."

Sure, the world would be a much better place if all these things were available for free. However when News Ltd hounds indie film-makers into submission for using images of Homer Simpson, when Larrikin Records can demand extortionate royalties for the use of eleven notes of a much-loved Australian children's song, and when professional landscape photographers are marketing their images at high prices, I find it difficult to blame our National Parks for attempting to get their share.

Photographers welcome in NSW national parks!

To clear up any misunderstanding, the taking of amateur photographs, film and videos in national parks where the main purpose of the activity is for personal or hobby interest does not require a licence in NSW. This includes uploading photos to Facebook and Flickr.

So if you are taking photographs as a tourist or for personal interest, then you are not considered to be a commercial photographer and you do not require prior approval.

News and current affairs filming and photography are also not considered to be commercial and is managed by NPWS public affairs.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service administers a number of licensing systems to manage the use of parks for commercial purposes. These systems ensure that the conservation of the environment, wildlife and cultural heritage within the parks are not compromised.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service

I would like to thank Anonymous Public Servant aka NPWS for their contribution. However if the National Parks and Wildlife Service truly had a policy that welcomed photographers into New South Wales national parks then there would be no need for Clause 21 (1) (d) of the National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009. This clause states that, “A person must not in a park: take any photograph, video, movie or television film for sale, hire or profit”. The maximum penalty for this offence is 30 penalty units, or $3,300.

Clause 21 of the National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009 refers to commercial activities but I have to ask why; if filming and photography are regarded as commercial activities then why isn’t journalism and writing also regarded that way when these activities are carried out in national parks?

Could it be that if the NPWS did regard these practices as “commercial activities” then this would be rightly seen as an attack on free speech if such activities could only be carried out with a permit and payment of fees? However Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - which Australia signed up to in 1980 – clearly states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression and the right to impart information through ANY media. So why then are filming and photography singled out for onerous treatment and penalties?

Apart from a desire to raise revenue, I can see no rationale at all in the noted contention of an NPWS official that I would need a permit from the park service in order to take photographs around Hill End that were to be published in a family history booklet. Indeed at the time, I was literally gobsmacked by the attitude of this person.

National parks are managed in such a way, as to “promote public appreciation and understanding of the park’s natural and cultural values”. That’s what my photographs of Hill End would have done, so why exactly should I have paid the NPWS in order to assist in this public appreciation?

- Ross Barnett

"These systems ensure that the conservation of the environment, wildlife and cultural heritage within the parks are not compromised." NPWS

I'd be delighted to know how the taking of photographs that promote a national park and effectively encourage visitors could possibly compromise "the environment, wildlife and cultural heritage within the parks." Could the NPWS give some examples where this has occured?

Thanks for that point, 42South. However I think both you and I know that the New South Wales NPWS contention that “The National Parks and Wildlife Service administers a number of licensing systems to manage the use of parks for commercial purposes,” is in the case of “commercial photography”, just a smokescreen for gouging money from people.

I have at hand a 1999 letter noting that the NPWS considered an exorbitant charge of $3,000 for an Annual Photographic Licence. It was pointed out to an NPWS bureaucrat in this letter – from the Federal President of a national photographers’ organisation – that “(you) will create an environment in which editorial, personal or book photography (which I suggest you guys badly need to support!) will become financially impossible”.

Just how an NPWS official thought that small-scale photographers – many of whom would be part-time – could afford such a fee beggars belief.

Also, Woulfe makes the following contention in his post of Tuesday, 30 March 2010 10:20:53 PM: “I'm not a lawyer, but when you put your freedom of expression case to the UN Human Rights Committee, I can imagine that the Commonwealth Government's defence will include arguments that regulation of commercial filming and photography is a restriction required for the protection of public order”.

I’d like to thank him for giving me an enormous belly-laugh. The idea that small-scale photography done by people who are basically indistinguishable from tourists and have no more environmental impact than other tourists could be a threat to public order is plainly absurd.

Lastly, here is a cogent example of why these regulations are farcical. I recently visited The Rock Nature Reserve in southern New South Wales. My wife and I made the climb to the top and enjoyed our experience. If I wanted to, I could write an article about that climb for a leisure magazine and be paid – hence deriving a commercial benefit from that public land. However I don’t need a permit to do that or pay any fees. So why should my photography from that area be treated any differently?

Another point that NPWS (the organisation and the person posting here under that psuedonym) hasn't taken into account is that Flickr is, in reality, a commercial application of these photographs...and I don't mean just in the social networking sense.

Flickr is in a business partnership with the high-end photo agency Getty images and a multitude of mainstream publishers use Flickr to source pictures for publication. Many professionals post their work on Flickr (and Facebook) specifically so that the pictures will come to the attention of photo editors.

I doubt that any amateur photographer posting a picture of an Australian National Park on Flickr is going to refuse a fee for the use of that picture.

>> I’d like to thank him for giving me an enormous belly-laugh.

Glad I was able to do so. I'm sure I'll get a good chuckle in return when you take your case to the UN.

Go on, walk the walk.

>> I doubt that any amateur photographer posting
>> a picture of an Australian National Park on
>> Flickr is going to refuse a fee for the use of
>> that picture.

The creators of these Creative Commons-licenced images on flickr have already refused a fee: http://goo.gl/Cv2R

Woulfe, "The creators of these Creative Commons-licenced images on flickr have already refused a fee: http://goo.gl/Cv2R"

And your point is?

Enter the keywords "Australia national park" and Flickr turns up 102,087 photographs Take note of the work of Ilya Genkin and Darren Stones).

The Creative Commons licenced pictures you point to total 494 mostly mediocre photographs. If they are included in the keyword search, that still leaves 101,593 pictures of Australian National Parks within the commercial realm.

I make my point again; Flickr is a commercial operation owned by Yahoo and in a business partnership with Getty Images. Getty's reason for it's partnership with Flickr is that it gains access to a pool of over 2 billion pictures with the deliberate intent of making a profit. A picture uploaded to Flickr is part of a commercial operation whether it is sold or given away under a creative commons licence.

I feel Ross Barnett’s comment on photographing in the Parks to be right on the money. I always thought that National Parks belonged to the people not to bureaucrats. It seems absurd that on one side of a National Park sign it is ok to take a picture yet on the other there is an unjust fee one must pay. Go figure.
Wadi49, Victoria