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 Nonetheless, various reasons were trotted out, like "they might be out of date" or "people include ads with them, and we want a cut of the revenue". Of course, they didn't get any revenue, and the choice was often between a slightly out of date time table or none at all.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