terence_boylen

terence_boylen

Joined on May 31, 2011

Comments

Total: 2, showing: 1 – 2
On The story of a picture - Sydney Harbour Bridge article (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

Geoff Helliwell: Carrying out professional photography in public places in many major city centres/places of interest very often requires a licence and fees to be paid if a crew/props/models/interuption to free movement by others etc are involved. Walking around with a camera round your neck (as a rule) does not. It would be completely un-enforcable as hundreds of thousands of tourists do it all the time. For the same reason, I can't see how anyone could claim copyright on a location. (JimBob has got it right, I think)

Should qualify - this 'general' location. I agree with Jimbob. However, I remember reading at some stage that the public presentation of a building may be copyrighted. Haven't ever come across an instance though.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2011 at 08:30 UTC
On The story of a picture - Sydney Harbour Bridge article (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

Geoff Helliwell: Carrying out professional photography in public places in many major city centres/places of interest very often requires a licence and fees to be paid if a crew/props/models/interuption to free movement by others etc are involved. Walking around with a camera round your neck (as a rule) does not. It would be completely un-enforcable as hundreds of thousands of tourists do it all the time. For the same reason, I can't see how anyone could claim copyright on a location. (JimBob has got it right, I think)

Australian pro here. In Australia, copyright is enforceable for this particular location. It is qualified under the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Regulations 1999 Legislation. It restricts commercial photography unless sanctioned by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. It applies to the use of a camera in a public area.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2011 at 08:26 UTC
Total: 2, showing: 1 – 2