Hi Bob and others
As a small scale photographer I consider my activities/impact/intentions to be
like those of a general tourist.
BUT keeping in mind some of my images MIGHT be sought for use at some stage I
like to know I am covered by the appropriate photography permits.
Especially when commercial can equal 'any financial gain', even $5
(yes to "you would be surprised").
I had to pull the plug on one of my images being used in a book one time. I was
NOT being paid but as the book itself was being SOLD it was considered
commercial use and the publisher would have received a nice fat invoice
instead. If I'd already had a 'commercial photography' permit I might have been
spared the drama. The interesting thing is at the time the fees would have been
higher than that of even a wedding photographer!
Some places, fortunately, are relaxing a bit with regard to small scale
photography.
With regard to National Parks and parks managed areas I know that Victoria and
NSW are now waiving their fees for the annual photography permits BUT still
require a permit.
When I attempted to renew my Qld permit this year was told that Commercial
Activity Permit is no longer required if it is only 1-2 people and they aren't
using structures.
I will include some links for those who are interested in knowing about the
permits/fees situation around the country for small scale photographers.
However I tend to seek clarification before I embark on a trip if I don't
already have a permit for the area (in case websites are not up to date).
QPWS Queensland Parks and Wildlife service -
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p01439aa.pdf
NSW National Parks - requires an annual registration certificate
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/commercial/FormPhotography.htm
Parks Victoria - eg Annual Landscape Photography Licence
Parks Vic has removed the annual fee for small scale/landscape photographers
but you still have to have a permit.
http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/park-management/applications,-licences-and-permits/filming-and-photography
Northern Territory incl Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu - various permit
processes/fees:
http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/uluru/visitor-information/permits-commercial.html
http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/permits/kakadu-photography.html
http://www.nretas.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/122724/Commercial-Filming-and-Photography-Guidelines.pdf
http://www.nretas.nt.gov.au/national-parks-and-reserves/permits/filming#.UD1RBKC2eSo
South Australia
http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Do_It_Online/filming-photography-in-parks
Western Australia
http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/view/30/941/
Tasmania (Parks and Wildlife Service)
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=924
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 19:27:24 +1000
> From: "Robert Inglis" <>
> To: "David Stowe" <>,
> "Carl Clifford"
> <>
> Cc: Birding-Aus <>
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Using call playback in bird
> watching and
> bird photography.
>
> In this case, I have been warned that the 'local' (at least)
> Parks and
> Wildlife personnel are of the opinion that photography in
> National Parks
> (and this Conservation Park is claimed by those people) is
> ILLEGAL. I
> apologise for the capitalisation there but it must be
> emphasised. Plainly
> they are wrong as it is often emphasised in the notes about
> particular
> National Parks that one of the encouraged activities in the
> park is
> "photography". However, it is illegal to take photographs in
> national parks
> for commercial purposes; it is also illegal to take a photo
> in a national
> park initially without a commercial purpose in mind but to
> later use that
> photo for commercial purposes. I will not go into what
> constitutes "a
> commercial purpose" but it should be sufficient to say "you
> would be
> surprised". The short of it is that a park warden is
> probably authorised to
> determine on the spot if a commercial photographic process
> is being
> undertaken and you would have to go through a tortuous
> process to prove
> otherwise.
>
> The point of the immediate above is that I have been advised
> that the
> 'local' parks and wildlife representatives are quite likely
> to 'come down
> hard' on photographers using this hide for photography if a
> complaint is
> made about activities where it could reasonably by
> considered that the
> wildlife is being unreasonably disturbed. Once again, it is
> in the power of
> the local Parks and Wildlife representatives to determine
> what is
> "unreasonable".
> Would that be a good thing as far as birdwatchers and bird
> photographers are
> concerned? Would that help to increase the numbers of
> birdwatchers?
>
> And, how can a case be made to prosecute members of the
> general public for
> deliberately or carelessly disturbing shorebirds and terns
> if
> birdwatchers/photographers are also deliberately disturbing
> wildlife for a
> photograph?
>
> Dave, as a bird watcher of considerable experience and a
> bird photographer
> of considerable talent do you really need 'scientific proof'
> that a bird you
> are watching is undergoing stress as the result of call
> playback?
>
> Certainly, deforestation is one of the major curses of our
> collective
> lifetimes but does it help if some birdwatchers are only
> interested in their
> personal enjoyment at the moment and are not concerned about
> what their
> 'now' actions mean for the future?
>
> I thank everyone who has responded to my initial posting,
> for or against,
> however, I think it is probably time to close the discussion
> and I will not
> comment on this topic again.
>
> Bob Inglis
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Stowe
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 5:19 PM
> To: Carl Clifford
> Cc: Robert Inglis ; Birding-Aus
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Using call playback in bird
> watching and bird
> photography.
>
> Carl you obviously have too much time on your hands.
> Seriously, (not condoning this particular incident at
> all) are there
> honestly no bigger issues that we should be focussing on
> that this?
> Surely the world and politicians have alot more important
> things to think
> about??
> Let's focus on the fact that National Parks are being passed
> back to grazing
> and half of them turned into game reserves rather than
> worrying politicians
> with people at least trying to enjoy the outdoors without
> killing them!
> As has been asked for many times - lets see the scientific
> proof that call
> playback has a detrimental effect. If it indeed does, let's
> compare it to
> the damage done by deforestation and the points mentioned
> above.
> Honestly its no wonder there aren't many birdwatchers - as
> soon as people
> get into it they are judged like never before by people with
> far superior
> morals. Even just birdwatching for ones own personal
> enjoyment isn't good
> enough for some on this forum.
>
> Cheers
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> birding-aus mailing list
>
> http://lists.vicnet.net.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus
>
>
> End of birding-aus Digest, Vol 77, Issue 39
> *******************************************
>
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
