http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rights.shtml
--Graham
Yet to hear of it having an impact on folk like us. The Ulhuru
example is poor - there is the additional concept there that it is a
sacred object and the publishing of particular aspects or details of
it could be considered culturally offensive. The owners would prefer
that people didn't climb it either but tourists insist. At the
Apostles, the main image on the site, I've seen people take risks by
leaving the viewing platform and futtling around on the cliff top to
get a nice photo angle. They damage fragile vegetation, get in the
way of people doing the 'right' thing and risk a 100m+ fall to the
beach with consequent, expensive corpse removal at public expense.
There are several classes of public land too, covered by different
levels of restriction. Any kind of commercial activity is seriously
restricted in National Parks although I'd be amused to see an attempt
to prosecute someone taking a commercial image of a park from
neighboring land. However, a great deal of Oz is 'Crown Land' and
numbers of regulations can be enacted to control activities there.
For instance, schools are not on 'public property' but Crown Land -
thus people can be prosecuted for trespass. That legislation was
enacted to control protestors on logging coupes but a school can use
the same law by extension.
Amateur and even pro-am photogs are unlikely to strike trouble, I
suspect, unless they drag in a truckload of gear and go off-track to
get the image and all the usual insensitive behaviour..
AndrewF
(Who fears that he might be very, very wrong but will keep going
until he gets arrested. Take nowt but photographs, leave nowt but
footprints).
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|