>> 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