Peter,
I think most keen photographers use the location in the title of the pic.
Without a location being given, the photograph could have been taken in a zoo
or similar location. Location turns an animal portrait into a wildlife study,
which has a bit more cachet. But then, one could lie about the location, which
has been done before, more than once.
Cheers,
Carl Clifford
On 31/08/2012, at 12:35 PM, Peter Shute <> wrote:
> On a practical note, how would anyone ever know a photo was taken in a
> national park if it only shows a bird and a bit of foliage? I'm assuming it's
> a species that also occurs in that type of foliage outside of parks.
>
> Peter Shute
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [birding-aus-
>> On Behalf Of Cheryl Ridge
>> Sent: Friday, 31 August 2012 12:24 PM
>> To:
>> Cc: ; Robert Inglis
>> Subject: [Birding-Aus] Using call playback in bird watching and bird
>> photography (photography illegal?)
>>
>> 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/Commercia
>> l-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
>> ===============================
> ===============================
>
> 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
> ===============================
===============================
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
===============================
|