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