Illegal to photograph tree's in NSW Nat Parks?

Submitted: Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 19:57
ThreadID: 78266 Views:5199 Replies:21 FollowUps:16
This Thread has been Archived
There was a story on A Current Affair tonight regarding all the rules that councils & government impose these days. I'm sure they mentioned it was illegal to take photo's of tree's in NSW National Parks without a permit , surely I was hearing things and this can't be right? Anyone heard anything about this? aren't National Parks owned by the people of Australia anyway.

Cheers
Mark
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Gazal Champion - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 20:32

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 20:32
Mark, I have no idea if that report is true or not but it would not surprise me, living in this state of extortion. I am surrounded by national parks and there would be no one to stop you from just driving in and photographing anything you wanted. There are no gates, no rangers just forests and trails.
Bruce.
At home and at ease on a track that I know not and
restless and lost on a track that I know. HL.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 415657

Reply By: Member - Redfive - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 20:37

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 20:37
Gentleman

I know one thing if its illegal to take a photo of a tree in a national park im in a lot of trouble and one more thing it isnt going to stop me doing it

Glenn...
AnswerID: 415658

Reply By: john&thejayco - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 20:41

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 20:41
g'day Mark,
You heard right, they did say you need a permit to film or photograph in the national parks, but when i looked at the National Parks website it only specifies that you need a permit for commercial filming and photography, so i think we should all be safe just taking a few happy snaps.
Cheers John.
AnswerID: 415659

Follow Up By: Mark - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 20:46

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 20:46
Thanks John,
They didn't mention 'for commercial reasons' in the ACA story but you know how they exaggerate things.

I did a bit of googling & could only find reference to commercial photography such as;

Photos taken for commercial purpose are subject to copyright laws and the laws of the Commonwealth or State.

For example:

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 (Cth) on photographers who take and commercialise photographs of Commonwealth reserves.
A Commonwealth reserve is defined as one proclaimed by the Governor-General and includes places such as
Kakadu National Park, Uluru–Kata Tjuta National Park, Booderee National Park, Australian National Botanic
Gardens, Christmas Island National Park, Pulu Keeling National Park, Norfolk Island National Park and
Commonwealth Marine Parks and Reserves.

To take photographs in a Commonwealth reserve for commercial purposes, a photographer should:
• Contact the Commonwealth reserve and obtain a permit to take photographs for commercial purposes by
paying the specified fee and entering into a Location Agreement; and
• Abide by the conditions imposed upon commercial photographers in the reserve by the Director.
If a photographer breaches a Location Agreement (or does not enter into one), a ranger or warden may require
him or her to hand over all copies of any photographs taken and any camera or other device used to take them.
For further information, contact the National Park you wish to visit. You can also contact the Commonwealth
Department of Environment and Heritage by phone 02 6274 1111 or see the website:
http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/index.html.

Similar legislation applies in States and Territories, such as:

The Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Regulations 1999 (NSW) restrict the taking and subsequent use of
photographs for commercial purposes. The Regulations prohibit any use of a camera for commercial purposes in a
public area unless authorised by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority.
“Public areas” are defined as any part of the Sydney Harbour foreshore that the public is entitled to use and
include Luna Park, the Rocks and Circular Quay, Darling Harbour, Woolloomoolloo, Pyrmont, White Bay, Rozelle
Bay and the Australian Technology Park.
For further information, contact the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority by phone 02 9240 8500 or see the
website: http://www.shfa.nsw.gov.au.

Yes it may be hard to 'police' but most commercial photographers would rather have a permit than risk having their equipment taken.
0
FollowupID: 685765

Follow Up By: Zebra400 - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 04:53

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 04:53
John

I dont think the filming of a tree is the main issue here.

How current affairs programs like to distort the facts. My guess it has more to do with commercial organisations coming into NP's and trying to take over an area for filming, effectively stopping the general public from accessing that area while they are filming. Having seen a filming group in action, it is very hard to access the area they are in as they have vehicles, cameras & wires running everywhere.

I say, keep filming your trees and the law will leave you well alone.

Laurie


0
FollowupID: 685791

Follow Up By: Member - Leave_enough_space - Sunday, May 09, 2010 at 09:25

Sunday, May 09, 2010 at 09:25
More likely it's just another opportunity for a Governement organisation to extract money.

In Sydney most Councils, and any of the big bureaucracies (like RailCorp, Sydney Water) all try to control any photography or filming on their properties, and there is an application process to be gone through, and fees to be paid.

LES
0
FollowupID: 686033

Reply By: Fatso - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 20:50

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 20:50
That would be right.
It would be because it would be an invasion of the trees privacy.
TREES HAVE RIGHTS TOO YOU KNOW.
It follows on from that pommy bloke in the media last week complaining that animals rights were being infringed by documentary makers filming them during what he regarded as private moments. These include dying, mating & defecating.

AnswerID: 415660

Reply By: Wilko - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:02

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:02
Hi Mark,

Sounds exactly like A current gossip er I mean affair's mo.

The show deals in scandal gossip and generally makes up news or stretches the truth to get ratings.

One of the reasons I dont watch the dribble they serve up .

Cheers Wilko
AnswerID: 415663

Reply By: Fiona & Paul - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:02

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:02
I looked into this a number of years ago Mark when I couldn't believe what I was reading either. Wanting to do the right thing I forwarded an application to obtain a permit, but I didn't want to be doing this every time I visited a NP as we never know where we will turn up next.

I received or obtained from one of their websites a number of forms to complete, they were submitted and over a period of many months I spoke with many different individuals. Eventually I was informed I could have a blanket permit with some conditions - the formal approval never arrived.

Subsequent enquiries (extending over 12 months) failed to locate my file or any reference to it. Now they have renamed NP to another Super Department lots of stuff will go missing.

I still visit and photograph our NP's - I was warned not to use a generator in a NP a year or so ago (only the ranger and us present). Next morning the road was blocked by a fallen tree, no mobile communications - just the ranger and us, so I chopped the tree up (saved a very long walk for the ranger) and reminded him that I wasn't supposed to use a chain saw in a NP either.

We are pretty good mates now so that was a win win situation for me. I had let the tree situation get away from me a bit and haven't revisited the situation for some time but now I will.

They have used a number of my photos previously and I don't have an issue with that as most of their stuff is very ordinary anyway. I'll keep you posted.

I am in a remote NP tonight - taking pics.

Regards
Paul H



Paul H
OZ Downunder

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 415664

Reply By: Michael ( Moss Vale NSW) - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:27

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:27
Funny HUH!! I though we owned the National Parks.. How wrong i must be.. Michael
Patrol 4.2TDi 2003

Retired 2016 and now Out and About!

There's time to rest when you're dead,
Get out and do something instead!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 415669

Follow Up By: Fatso - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:34

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:34
Sorry to say Michael, we only pay for them.
0
FollowupID: 685770

Follow Up By: Michael ( Moss Vale NSW) - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:34

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:34
Just thinking, who would bother telling those fools anyway, even if you were a professional... How would they know where the photo came from.. How dumb are they to think anyone would pay a fee... and how dumb would someone be to pay for something he was already paying for through his hard earned taxes.....I think when people enter govt and politics, their brains must fall out.... Just look at Big Kev and his team!!!! Really... Michael
Patrol 4.2TDi 2003

Retired 2016 and now Out and About!

There's time to rest when you're dead,
Get out and do something instead!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 685771

Follow Up By: Michael ( Moss Vale NSW) - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:36

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:36
True Fatso!! They just squeeze as much as they think they can get away with... Michael
Patrol 4.2TDi 2003

Retired 2016 and now Out and About!

There's time to rest when you're dead,
Get out and do something instead!

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 685773

Reply By: Hairs & Fysh - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:33

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 21:33
Hi Mark,
I heard that segment on ACA start, and in the first couple Of sentences I felt like throwing my stubbie at the telly.

So I switched it off.

I thought the same Michael, obviously we can't these days.
The world has gone completely bonkers.


AnswerID: 415671

Follow Up By: Dave(NSW) - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 08:33

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 08:33
Quote:
" I felt like throwing my stubbie at the telly" BAHAHAHA only after your finished it. ROFLMAO

Cheers Dave..
GU RULES!!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 685799

Reply By: Member - Dunworkin (WA) - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 22:40

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 22:40
OK I'm gobsmacked, I guess I have never taken photo's for commercial reasons but hey who knows where they end up, how about the comps that we have had on here???? technically????
A couple of scenarios:

1, I am standing in a paddock, private property and see a lovely tree to photograph in the NP over the road, would look great in one of my books I'm writing:

2, Standing on the same property have a lovely scene of the Stirling Ranges, NP, if I was to take a photo of them , (remember I'm standing on private property)
could I put that in my said book.

These scenario's are sights that I grew up with, what if I decided to paint the picture of the tree or the scene of the Stirlings, I wouldn't have to go down there, (SW of WA) the pictures are firmly entrenched in my memory from childhood therefore I wouldn't be in the NP.

For you Lawyers out there, how would I go?????????????

Cheers

Deanna


Simba, our much missed baby.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 415681

Follow Up By: Mike DiD - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 11:32

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 11:32
They can't do a thing if you're not in the National Park.

Sydney Opera House can't do a thing if you're taking the photos from outside their property.

I can take a photo of you in your yard (provided I'm on public land) and publish it in a book and I needn't pay you a cent. It's only Commercial Use if use the photo to sell something e.g. the cover of a book. That's the law currently about photography in Australia.
0
FollowupID: 685809

Follow Up By: Gazal Champion - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 19:36

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 19:36
Deanna, you would say if challenged "I was taking a photo of the boundary fence and that damned National Park in the background got in the scene uninvited".
Cheers, Bruce.
At home and at ease on a track that I know not and
restless and lost on a track that I know. HL.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 685841

Follow Up By: Member - Leave_enough_space - Sunday, May 09, 2010 at 18:08

Sunday, May 09, 2010 at 18:08
You might be overstepping the mark under the Privacy Laws though. Look at the rubbish Google went to with Street View!
0
FollowupID: 686097

Reply By: The Explorer - Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 23:21

Thursday, May 06, 2010 at 23:21
If its true Google Earth (and/or suppliers) maybe in some trouble, like lots of trouble. They better hope they dont get fined per tree :)

Image Could Not Be Found

Hang on, now Im in trouble as well....

Cheers
Greg

PS Assuming of course they didnt get a permit.
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message
Moderator

AnswerID: 415686

Reply By: Mr Pointyhead - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 07:18

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 07:18
Saying it must be true because I saw it on "A Current Affair" is like saying it must be true because I read it on the internet !

ACA these days is just a combination of Advertorials and Journalistic rubbish.



AnswerID: 415695

Reply By: Rob! - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 10:14

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 10:14
The world has gone mad.

I can't believe there are people who not only watch the "current affairs" shows but they actually repeat the rubish that is shown there.

Birds of a feather.
AnswerID: 415713

Reply By: Member - Barnesy - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 10:29

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 10:29
Mark
It should be illegal to air a program as useless and deceiving as ACA.

I usually watch ABC for news and current affairs but occasionally watch these shows to see what messages they are putting out. The level of rubbish and misinformation they spin is pathetic.

My advice would be to watch ABC news and 7:30 report instead, or if you must watch ACA or TT then take it with a grain of salt.
AnswerID: 415714

Reply By: Nargun51 - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 12:00

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 12:00
Years ago I used to work in an area where decisions and actions regularly made their way to the media; both as news items or the source of commentary or opinion pieces. Very quickly you learnt that the reporting/editorial process has huge problems; it is reliant on the reporter actually understanding the issue, its breadth and complexity, being able to describe it accurately and simply and then write an understandable piece. It is also dependant on the biases of the reporter, publisher or broadcaster of the news. The piece appearing in the media may have little resemblance to what actually happened, sometimes by honest error and sometimes by conscious distortion.

A Current Affair and their ilk are broadcasters of 30 second sound bites without offering a transparent and balanced reporting and editorial process. Conflict, tension and appeals to viewer biases attract viewers and ACA can sell advertising space to appeal to a selected demographic. They would have their viewers calculated down to the postcodes, incomes, savings, education, political beliefs, religion and ethnic background. The program is targeted at the demographic market of the largest paying advertisers

The shows you watch say a lot about you! Some of the responses to date would appear to confirm stereotypes

Who was complaining? Were they a professional photographer? What was in it for them? None of these simple questions appear to be answered by those who saw the program

I wonder whether those in this post complaining about these actions will be willing to have a photograph of their vehicle appear in a book/magazine when the photographer did not ask permission and then received payment for the photograph and placed restrictions on its use.

What’s the difference?
AnswerID: 415721

Reply By: Member - Matt M (ACT) - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 13:33

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 13:33
Always look for the self interest angle in these sorts of stories.

Why would ACA misconstrue a story like this?

Well, try this experiment. Film a tree for five minutes, then film an ACA correspondent for the same time. Watch the two clips consecutively then add up the total intelligent output from each. I'll bet the sums are the same (the tree might even come out ahead).

Once the Channel Nine bean counters realise they could replace them with trees, the ACA team would be out of a job.

Simple really.
AnswerID: 415726

Reply By: ChipPunk - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 20:34

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 20:34
For Pete's sake! It was on A Current Affair! Is anything on it credible. (Isn't that the one that started off with a former Big-M girl?)
AnswerID: 415773

Follow Up By: chris ma - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 21:15

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 21:15
Have a read of the latest 4X4 Aus mag there is an article regarding Uluaru-Kata Tjuta NP (Ulurules), it says it all. EPBC Regulation 12.24. Then let us know what you think.
0
FollowupID: 685858

Reply By: chris ma - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 21:16

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 21:16
Have a read of the latest 4X4 Aus mag there is an article regarding Uluaru-Kata Tjuta NP (Ulurules), it says it all. EPBC Regulation 12.24. Then let us know what you think.
AnswerID: 415784

Reply By: ChipPunk - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 21:56

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 21:56
Geez, Matt M (ACT) had me worried with his "Why would ACA misconstrue a story like this?".
But what worried more was even questioning whether "the tree might even come out ahead"!!
(That trees can be more intelligent than humans became obvious when someone wrote "Surely we can invent a way of splitting carbon dioxide an releasing oxygen, hence overcoming the "greenhouse effect". Trees invented that several million years before us.)

And thanks to chris ma for the reference. Ignoring the DRAFT status etc, what is the problem?
I see nothing about it being illegal to photograph trees in NPs.
There is the usual sensitivity issues regarding photography (as with copyright etc).
And as to permits, where does that apply to non-COMMERCIAL interests?

Not that I have been thorough.
And not that I do not underestimate the stupidity of legislators - whether they make DIY water-tap repairs illegal, Sunday arvo observation runs illegal, and a few car dashboards illegal. (Not to mention that it is still AFAIK illegal in Victoria to have more than 2L of liquor in a vehicle; be out after 10pm at night in Melbourne etc.)

But to think that journos & ACA & TT are capable of NOT misinterpreting laws and regulations (even if a correct interpretation was their aim) - that's a bit far fetched. It's been nearly 20 years since "current affairs" programs in Australia were rated BELOW comedy shows for accuracy and relevance.
They are like the AMA - reality is probably the opposite of what they say.... (LOL).

Besides, how would you explain "trees" to that Hun contributor (about splitting CO2) without pictures? Oh yeah - chop it down...
AnswerID: 415791

Reply By: chris ma - Friday, May 07, 2010 at 23:17

Friday, May 07, 2010 at 23:17
I think the biggest issue is Garret and Cochrane have not a clue when they support these stupid Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation regulations (EPBC) there are a lot of better ways to go about keeping our country pristine without the need for these crap restrictions, this is our country not there's! By the way i havent seen the episode of ACA or any (egTT for a long time) im too busy watching Nieghbours it much more factual.
AnswerID: 415805

Reply By: get outmore - Saturday, May 08, 2010 at 10:55

Saturday, May 08, 2010 at 10:55
Just in case people actually want to know the actual regulations here they are


Regulation 12.24 (1) states that, “A person must not capture an image in or of a Commonwealth reserve in contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by the Director under subregulation (3).”


12.24 (3) states that, “For subregulation (1), the Director may prohibit or restrict the capturing of images:
(a) generally or to a class of persons; and
(b) at all times, at specified times or for a specified period; and
(c) in all or part of the reserve.”




AnswerID: 415837

Follow Up By: get outmore - Saturday, May 08, 2010 at 10:56

Saturday, May 08, 2010 at 10:56
sorry missed the best part

Further, EPBC Regulation 12.24 (5) states that, “The Director, a ranger or a warden may, at any time, require a person who has captured an image in contravention of subregulation (1) to surrender the following:
(a) all copies and forms of the image;
(b) any device or means used to capture the image.”
0
FollowupID: 685899

Follow Up By: 3GoBush - Saturday, May 08, 2010 at 11:19

Saturday, May 08, 2010 at 11:19
This LINK shows all commonwealth parks and reserves that require a permit for commercial filming or photography.
As for ACA and TT I would rather watch paint dry.

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 685905

Follow Up By: get outmore - Saturday, May 08, 2010 at 11:45

Saturday, May 08, 2010 at 11:45
I gather according to those regulations the director can impose restrictions on Private photography

for any reason and either specific parts or people or an entire park

now you would hope such powers dont get abused but the potential is there.

now such restrictions are already in place in some parks for the general public.
Much of the significant geological features around the base of Uluru the general public are forbidden to photograph comercial or not
0
FollowupID: 685907

Reply By: Member - Royce- Saturday, May 08, 2010 at 22:59

Saturday, May 08, 2010 at 22:59
Illegal to put an apostrophe before an 's' when you don't need one! :-]]
AnswerID: 415900

Follow Up By: Member - Leave_enough_space - Sunday, May 09, 2010 at 18:11

Sunday, May 09, 2010 at 18:11
Why> - you just did!
LES
0
FollowupID: 686098

Follow Up By: Member - Royce- Sunday, May 09, 2010 at 18:51

Sunday, May 09, 2010 at 18:51
'so I did 'silly me I mu'st 'stop it 'sorry
0
FollowupID: 686106

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (14)