* Wed C&C "No Theme" Thread #697 on 2021 09 01 *

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Messier Object Forum Pro • Posts: 11,009
Re: Fireworks

Mike Fewster wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Mike Fewster wrote:

This is one we could discuss forever. I dont see a case for copyright for any photos etc of a piece of art placed in a public space. That is a space that belongs to all of us. You can't claim a bit of it as your personal property. Making a copy of the object as in another sculpture is a different matter and even then, debatable.

In Australia, the National Parks claim copyright over all photos taken within the park. I'll accept their right to charge an entrance fee but having paid that, I'd argue my right to take photos without copyright restriction (unless there are cultural sensitivities involved.)

That is certainly not correct for the state of New South Wales.

In NSW approval is required for commercial filming and photography within NSW National Parks with the basic reasons being protection of the conservation values of parks - control of the impact of commercial activities within the park etc.

Regarding copyright: "NPWS does not own the copyright over any features within parks, including well-known features (such as the Three Sisters in the Blue Mountains) and built structures (such as Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour). As a result, filmmakers or photographers do not have to seek approval from NPWS to take of such features from a location outside a park"


refer environment.nsw.gov.au

The only limitation is that commercial film and photography conducted within a park is subject to an approval process


I need to rephrase that a little. Note that last sentence about approval not being needed "if the photo is taken from outside the park."

yes, but that has nothing to do with the copyright or ownership of the images.
"NPWS does not own the copyright over any features within parks . . ." they make no qualifications to that statement.

Within the park, yes you have "copyright" but there are provisios which I'd argue mean in fact they are asserting the copyright and sublicencing the photographer.

no, I don't agree with that at all. The license/approval is purely for the activity of conducting commercial photographic operations within the park and has no relevance to the video content or images recorded or captured.

The regulations vary.

I'm sure they do but my comments are specific to what I know about national Parks within NSW

A particularly complex set of regulations is at Uluru. Some of these regulations are to protect cultural sensitivities and I have no argument at all with this.

Apart from the red tape of application, a photographer who wants to use shots for any commercial use, needs to apply in advance and pays $20.00 per day. All photos for commercial use need to be submitted for approval (fair enough in view of the cultural issues.) However a fee is then charged for each licenced image and that licence only lasts three years.

Confession. It has been some years since I looked at the regulations. They appear to have been moderated. Some ten years ago ther was considerable anger in international photographer circles at the fees demanded for professional shooting in Australian National Parks. There was some talk of an international boycott on shooting here and much discussion about negative effects on the tourist industry. It is possible that things have been rethought.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow