>> 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.