User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  4
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Ken Duncan vs Barangaroo

  1. #1
    Lightbender
    Join Date
    15 Apr 2014
    Location
    Oakhurst
    Posts
    2,069
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Ken Duncan vs Barangaroo

    Read this morning about Barangaroo having a policy that says of you have a tripod, then you are a commercial photographer and therefore have to request permission and pay $330 for a permit to shoot there. http://m.smh.com.au/entertainment/ar...28-gladmz.html

    Whilst I interested that it's privately owned and operated property, therefore they can make any rules they want within the law, and Ken is well known commercial tog, I'm wondering who came up with the idiotic, "you have a tripod and therefore must be a commercial tog idea?"

    I know this sort of thing had been talked about elsewhere, but other than being a money grab, I'm not sure that making publicly accessible private property off limits to togs with tripods without payment is altogether fair and reasonable.

  2. #2
    Lightbender
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    15 Apr 2014
    Location
    Oakhurst
    Posts
    2,069
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I hate auto correct. Second paragraph should start: Whilst I understand...

  3. #3
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,845
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [...a suitably-edited response...]


    Afterthought: If they saw my old tripod they'd think I was a professional pauper and probably pay me
    CC, Image editing OK.

  4. #4
    Who let the rabble in? Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,054
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, a ridiculous broadbrush idea to charge anyone with a tripod a fee to take a photo. If I am at Barangaroo at midday and take a photo, I don't need a tripod due to plenty of light, yet if I decide to take late evening or early morning shot with low light and therefore require a tripod that somehow I suddenly become a commercial photog and need a license fee? How ludicrous. Same camera, same photographer same place yet the rules change? Could only have been a bureaucrat that thought this little gem up.

  5. #5
    Member Cricket's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Oct 2015
    Location
    SW of Brisbane
    Posts
    1,127
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    lol we should organise a "tripod sit in" at Barangaroo
    Last edited by Cricket; 29-11-2015 at 10:57am.

  6. #6
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,845
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Lance. Less a bureaucrat that thought it up than a croney politico as a plutocrat's bidding.
    Bureaucrats after all only enforce what their overlords say.

    Cricket. Yes, and some other less complimentary things
    Last edited by ameerat42; 29-11-2015 at 11:44am.

  7. #7
    http://steveaxford.smugmug.com/ Steve Axford's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Nov 2007
    Location
    About in the middle between Byron Bay, Ballina and Lismore
    Posts
    3,141
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is an example of - Myanmar leads, Australia follows. I was in Bagan in 2000 and they used the same rule with photographing there. So, not even a creative "croney politico" (whatever that is).
    Still, I'd be suspicious of a Ken Duncan with a tripod saying he was taking a happy snap.

  8. #8
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,845
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I cannot use "politician".

  9. #9
    Ausphotography Regular Boo53's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Mar 2010
    Location
    Seymour
    Posts
    1,995
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Having been on one of Duncan's courses I have seen him take lots of shots with a P&S, which I'm sure are not for commercial use, but I'd reckon if the Phase one and tripod came out there's a better than even money bet that either he, or the person he's "giving" the image to would use it for some commercial purpose, even if only the quarry's calendar.

    None-the-less it does highlight the often ridiculously heavy handed and ill thought out policies that a lot of authorities try and impose.

  10. #10
    Lightbender
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    15 Apr 2014
    Location
    Oakhurst
    Posts
    2,069
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance B View Post
    Yes, a ridiculous broadbrush idea to charge anyone with a tripod a fee to take a photo. If I am at Barangaroo at midday and take a photo, I don't need a tripod due to plenty of light, yet if I decide to take late evening or early morning shot with low light and therefore require a tripod that somehow I suddenly become a commercial photog and need a license fee? How ludicrous. Same camera, same photographer same place yet the rules change? Could only have been a bureaucrat that thought this little gem up.
    Even more fun could be had if you post said long exposure/blended shot where prints could be sold, like most of the current on-line photography sites do, does that make you commercial? Or is it only if the work is actually sold? Could they come at you later for contravening their rules?

  11. #11
    Ausphotography irregular Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    magical Mudgee
    Posts
    18,849
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't see any reference to tripods in the linked article??
    I do see this quote though, "So on entering this great new park area with my camera and starting to take some images I was then accosted by two rangers and informed that I was not allowed to take photos without paying a fee and having a permit."
    That is even worse than being spotted with a tripod.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    30 Jul 2015
    Location
    Central Coast
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ok... how amateur am I?

    I didn't even know that something like this was even a real thing.

    A month or so ago, i went to a location to take some shots and had a tripod sticking out of my backpack.
    A couple walked past smiling and the bloke says to me... "You need a permit to shoot here... you can pay me now."
    I thought it was funny and they laughed with me as I thought it was a prank/joke.
    Looking back... perhaps there was an element of seriousness to the suggestion?

    LOL... oops haha.

    Nikon D7200 (still dreaming of a D810)
    Nikkor AF-S 20mm f/1.8G ED
    Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM
    Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM (C)
    Panasonic HDC-HS900 35mm 3MOS 14.2 HD Camcorder.

  13. #13
    Formerly : Apollo62 ApolloLXII's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Aug 2010
    Location
    Montmorency
    Posts
    489
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A so called 'reserve' close to a major CBD is always going to attract this type of insanity because the money grubbing corporation running the show will always be interested in sucking money out of people in complete disregard for the law. The best way that photographers can combat these idiots is to boycott such places and spread the word about the clowns that are running the show. I wouldn't go there and I would encourage others to do the same!

  14. #14
    Lightbender
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    15 Apr 2014
    Location
    Oakhurst
    Posts
    2,069
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L View Post
    I don't see any reference to tripods in the linked article??
    I do see this quote though, "So on entering this great new park area with my camera and starting to take some images I was then accosted by two rangers and informed that I was not allowed to take photos without paying a fee and having a permit."
    That is even worse than being spotted with a tripod.
    This quote comes from the article:
    "They went on to say, 'but you have a tripod so you must be a commercial photographer so you definitely need to pay and have a permit'. I said,#'That is discrimination against me being a professional photographer'."

    But I agree with you just taking out your camera would be even more idiotic.

    The money grubbing I can understand. I don't like it and they are trying to grub a lot of money, but I can understand it.
    Last edited by Grant S; 30-11-2015 at 10:04pm.

  15. #15
    Who let the rabble in? Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    8,054
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ken Duncan was on the radio yesterday discussing this whole saga and he has been in contact with the Premier, Mike Baird about it all. Mike Baird agreed with him that this particular saga was quite ridiculous and was going to "look into it". Ken was highly critical of the fees charged by all manner of bodies especially those around the Harbour foreshore gouging money out of any commercial photog. His main gripe is the over bureaucracy that is infecting much of Australia and the local councils and interest group bodies that seem to think they can just implement laws to suit their agenda, and I must say I agree with him.

  16. #16
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,845
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hmm! [Other thoughts about money-grubbiness]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •