It was 2/8/03 9:19 am, when Tim Wheeler wrote:
> Good to see the issue on the front page of the Weekend Australian newspaper.
> http://www.newspix.com.au/aus/20030802.pdf
>
> The ACMP here recently uncovered restrictions on commercial photography on
> land controlled by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. Apparently, I
> can't shoot the Bridge / Opera House without making an application.
Tim
Will read the article later but I have to say I personally find this one of
the most insidious bylaws and am surprised major photographic institutions
and organisations haven't got together to repeal it. It makes a mockery of
the word Copyright: the right to copy.
If you are photographing a building, a monument or a landscape, you are NOT
copying the effin' thing, you are PHOTOGRAPHING it and in the process
creating something that is unique and THAT's what should be copyrighted. If
I was to build a replica of the Sydney Bridge/Opera House on the banks of
the Thames, I would be infringing the architect's copyright (or whoever
he/she's assigned it to).
If someone doesn't want their precious baby photographed, they should build
the effin' thing in a private ground and NOT in public view. The view should
surely be owned by ALL the citizens. If you take a photograph of it, that
should be owned by the photographer. If the view is in a National Park, it
should belong to all the visitors.
I would happily join a movement to repeal the law...
--/ Shangara Singh
:: Adobe Certified Expert ~ Photoshop 7.0
:: Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Essential Tips
:: Exam Aids for Photoshop, Illustrator & Dreamweaver
:: Http://www.shangarasingh.com
===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
