On 20/10/2010 3:48 AM, Bob W wrote:
G'day all
I came across the following article on yet more photography bans:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/photography-bans-
leave-ordinary-life-out-of-the-picture-20101017-16p0v.html
http://tinyurl.com/2a6j9te
they've got this sort of thing arse about face. If we accept, for the sake
of argument, that people should not be able to make money out of photographs
of their own public land without a permit (and I for one do not accept
that), it is an entirely different matter from taking pictures of said land.
The authorities should be chasing unauthorised commercial use of pictures,
rather than trying to stop people taking them, but that would be too
expensive so instead they crack down on innocent people. I'll bet for every
1,000 people who take a camera to that place there's only one professional
photographer. But really, it's public land - it's your land. Tell them to
shove their regulations up the hole in their culture, to paraphrase Leonard
C.
All very true. And if the authorities were really concerned about
commercial photography profiting from public land, they would ask for a
percentage, rather than just a peppercorn flat fee to apply for a permit
(around $30 a day), not that I would want that to happen. It is
obviously just an abuse of power. And worse, they place those powers in
the untrained. No one wins.
In related yocto-minded news from elsewhere in the Commonwealth...
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/19/english-heritage-cla.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/17/g20-toronto-cop-who.html
(Can someone in Canada keep an eye out if Officer Bubbles gets anywhere
with his lawsuit?)
--
[email protected]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
