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

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Mike Fewster Veteran Member • Posts: 8,624
Re: Fireworks

Messier Object wrote:

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"

images

refer environment.nsw.gov.au

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

Peter

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.

I used the word "copyright" very loosely and I was incorrect to do so.  We are really talking about the rights of photographers in regard to what they shoot (taking up a point from minniev's post)

"National Park" is a confusing term here. There are designated "national " parks that are in fact state responsibilities and there are designated "National Parks" that are Commonwealth administered. The Commonwealth National Parks have more restrictive controls.

Spurred on a bit by Peter's post I went out a bit to look at some images. The situation seems to have become blurred in recent years. there are lots of images around that I think technically might be illegal but because they have been "painted" rather than straight photographs (even when almost certainly taken from a photograph), they don't seem to have a problem. Then there are shots blatantly outside guidelines as to the time when it is legal to take shots, or photos where night skies are probably composite shots (also illegal under Commonwealth guidelines). I get the feeling that the technology has been changing so fast that it has become very difficult to frame enforceable legislation.

I also found sequences obviously taken from drones being used in official advertising at places where use of drones is banned for regular photographers.

-- hide signature --

Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia

 Mike Fewster's gear list:Mike Fewster's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony a7R II Sony a7R III
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow