ARE YOU BREAKING THE LAW ?

[Rusty2]

If youv'e been in a national park or state forest and taken a photo or video , WITHOUT PERMISSION , the answer here in N.S.W. is YES .
I'll be the first to admit it . Yep , I take photo's , video's and recording's from state forest's and national park's . This could be a real problem for any of us here , that love the outdoor's with camera gear in our hand's . This , I think , is boardering on nazi germany style law enforcement . Not to mention a blaitent grab for cash . Fines are applicable . It's not right and someday "soon" we'll have to do something about it before it becomes entrenched . We may have to bombarde our local MP's to get this ridiculous law overturned . This is part of the law -
For still frame photography , $100 application fee + $200 per day .
Filming , depending on intensity , $100 application fee + $500 - $2000 per day
An appropriate research authority .
Permit holder's required to provide a written report on their finding's .
Notice , prior to comencement of activities and evidence of current public liability .
This is just part of the bull@%#t that you are expected to swallow "if" you want to do the right thing .

Check out Department of primary industry for detail's .

DISGRUNTLED Rusty2....................

[Mike Williams]

Hi Rusty

If youv'e been in a national park or state forest and taken a photo or video , WITHOUT PERMISSION , the answer here in N.S.W. is YES .

Only If you are doing commercial work...

The NPWS recognises that commercial filming and photography in national parks and reserves can benefit both the NPWS and professional film-makers and photographers. The NPWS will try to accommodate filming and photography activities where appropriate.
If you are interested in using a national park or reserve for commercial filming or photography, you need to complete a filming or photography application.


http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/comme ... ission.htm
Mike

[Rusty2]

Hey Mike ,
Have been on the phone this morning to National Park's and State Forest and your right . After thoroughly explaining my situation ,
National Park's done a bit of head scratching and couldn't see any raeson why I would need a permit to have a ir camera out in the bush . On the other hand they showed a lot of interest in the footprint I'd found .
State forest was a different matter . I rang the 1300 number and after explaining what I was doing , was told that I needed a research permit . The receptionist referred me to a local guy who said , unofficially , "as long as the research is out of personal interest , there shouldn't be a problem" . Technicaly , If I was to go to head office , I think I would need one but if the local guy's haven't got a problem with it , then so be it .

Thank's for making it clear for me Mike . Iv'e heard a lot of story's saying , I "am" breaking the law and Im "not" breaking the law .
I suppose I should have done a little more research .


Cheer's Rusty2..................

[NoPolys]

Rusty2;

Just a bit of an add on here, the permit process is applicable to more than state forests. A "commercial shoot" at the Opera House also requires a permit, as an example. The use of a tripod has been reason enough for some to be required to explain their intent; and subsequent request to stop taking pictures. Further, I'm told there is an effort by some department to review publications to make certain photos used were properly permitted. Recently there was a large group of photographers that gathered to express their "concern" of these rules.

As an older person who enjoys taking the unusual kinds of photos of iconic stuctures and "nature" style photos a tripod and monopod are a common requirement for me and one that has been questioned. In my case the folks have always been understanding when I lean on my cane and start to snivel....

I have no real problem with the government attempting to develop a revenue stream .... I do have a problem with the required level of tariff for the odd shot. I'm not Ken Duncan by any stretch and the return on the investment would break the bank account...lol


Cheers

[Rusty2]

Hey Nopoly's ,
I think this is still a little unclear or a grey area . The woman I spoke to on the phone , although friendly , was quite clear when she told me I neede a research permit . I also saw the photgraphers on tv kickin up a stink . Those of us who are out in the bush "are" technicaly researching even if it is at a personal level . If we came across an unfriendly ranger , there could be a problem . If it came down to a vehicle search , I would have some explaining to do from the amount of equipment I have . I just think that it may end up as a removal of our right , to photograph in the bush and let's face it , we're there for a purpose , not just aimlessly wandering around out there .
Maybe someone "here" can try ringing national parks and state forest , just to see what answer "they" get .

????????????? Cheer's Rusty2................

[hairy lad]

Thanks guys, that was great work! Well done

[NoPolys]

Rusty2;

Good luck in dealing with the folks. I took a bit of time to trawl and came up with the following that may help you and us when or if you talk to folks behind various desks or in the field.

The current overview for photo and filming in NSW parks
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/polic ... Policy.htm

The full policy for photos and filming in NSW parks published this year. Pay particular attention to page 8 if you do not intend to gain commercially from your imaging in parks and it is a "small scale" activity. This may be retroactive. Meaning if you took the picture 5 years ago and get money for it now, you will have to pay fees. This is a dense piece of writing 45 pages long, so be prepared !
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resou ... hy2010.pdf.

For your research permits you may want to check out the following link;
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/wildl ... cences.htm
The criteria are based on damage and harm. You can decide from that. If you use these documents to frame the discussion with people, it may help. Just some random info I hope assists all of us.

Please post what responses you get.

Cheers

[Rusty2]

Thank's Nopoly's , nice work ,

Look's like I've got some reading to do .

Cheer's Rusty 2..............

[Rusty2]

Hi everyone ,
Didn't read the whole lot but here's the gist of it "if" you haven't seen it .

" Approval" under the FA or part 2 of the National Park's and Wildlife regulation is "NOT" required for the taking of amateur
photograph's , film and video's in a national park , other than a marine park where the principal intent of the activity is the pursuit of personal or hobby interest's and "NOT" commercial gain ."

You can't get much clearer than that .
I suppose this mean's , "if" one of us get's the video or shot of a lifetime , we can't sell it . I guess we'll just have to share . lol

Thank's for the help with this one .
Rusty2...........................

[Buck]

Great thread

If you do get the shot of a lifetime, you can absolutley sell it.

That's if you get the shot

The commercial TV stations are often getting footage and pictures without all the hoopla and clearance that we GP are supposed to.

Currently with the advent of mobile phones, people are sending in videos and snapshots of anything and everything that occurs to newsrooms without permits. Sure legal might go over it but you can bet there's no permit involved.

Having had to get permits to shoot before for short films I've found that various councils don't care, some will enquire and other will insist on outrageous permits.

I think the individual could argue that Google Earth has millions of photos from places all around the world, free to look at but no-one is checking the paperwork for permits. It would be a good point to make if you went to court over it.

No tourist pays any fee to take photos of our national parks and plenty of proffesionals dont pay any fee as well. It's a near impossible thing to police.

If that shot comes along grab it. No-one will know unless you show it around

Snap away shutterbugs!

[NoPolys]

Buck,

You're right, take all the pics and video's we can handle. Just make certain you are polite to the nice Mr Ranger when he says you cannot unless you have the links printed out in your back pocket.

As for the sale, there is a retro aspect to the fee structure, if I were to get the million dollar pictures, I think I would allow a news source to buy the license for me, and retain copyright as part of the negotiation..... but that's me and not likely to happen.

My bigger concern is how the public interface end of the legal enforcement sector reacts to things like game cams being left to remotely record activity. I'm not convinced they would leave it in place..... but that's my cynical side being exposed.

Cheers

[Buck]

NoPolys : Absolutely right about the game cams, I hadn't even thought about that. There's plenty of game footage on the net. Manufacturers use it to sell their product so I wonder how that works?

With the retrospective payment, I have no idea how they could enforce that. They would have to know that you made money from it in the first place. I doubt their have been any retrospective payments paid to them.

Just a bit of nutbag policy cluttering up someones intray.

Thanks for the links. They are a turgid read. Good cure for insomnia though.

Cheers Buck

[Rusty2]

Hey everyone ,
I talked to the head honcho of national park's down here and he said something like " as long as your not photographing people without their knowledge or consent , bolting or nailing your camera to a tree is a big no no , strap's are the go to preserve the flora and
he was concerned I would loose my trail cam in a fire .

Cheer's Rusty2.........

[NoPolys]

Buck;

It's thick read. Someone felt they had to earn their pay that week I'm afraid. Like politicians and technocrats the world over, the belief some things should be common sense seems to make little sense. All that said, I'm certain someplace, someone thinks this policy will generate a revenue stream and at the same time keep those pesky guerilla production companies out of places they don't belong...... *shaking my head and moving along*.....

Cheers

[lil foot]

Hey everyone ,
I talked to the head honcho of national park's down here and he said something like " as long as your not photographing people without their knowledge or consent , bolting or nailing your camera to a tree is a big no no , strap's are the go to preserve the flora and
he was concerned I would loose my trail cam in a fire .

Cheer's Rusty2.........

due to the privacy act i had to blur out this hairy mans face, whats the chances of finding him again to ask for his permission????
the world is crazy on rules, my rule is to make my own rules while also keeping to my high morals.

[Buck]

The look of suprise on his face. Excellent work

[Rusty2]

HOLY CR#P !!!
If that's real LIL FOOT , THAT'S FR#%KIN AWSOME . Your a LEGEND !!


Rusty2 .............