Sydney Harbour Bridge / Opera House Commercial Photos

[darkmerlin]

Does anyone know if you're allowed to take photos of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House to use for commercial purposes?
I was looking to use a photo of the bridge for use on a website and was told that it wasn't a good idea

[Longshots]

yep it its not- lots lots of leg crap I'm afraid

[rwg717]

I think these scenes might be the "property" of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, commercial use is prohibited without permission. There was a channel 9 (Sydney) story about that earlier this year I think
Richard

[Keith]

Looks like a big NO! A bit of an explanation here .. http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freed...raphing_t.html

[darkmerlin]

Looks like a big NO! A bit of an explanation here .. http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freed...raphing_t.html

Kind of spells it out that using any images of the Opera House or Bridge for commercial purposes is fraught with danger.

Looks like there is no so thing as a photographers copyright where these iconic structures are concerned.

Thanks again for your help

[darkmerlin]

The following comes from the:

Australian Copyright Council Information Sheet G11 Photographers and copyright


Photographs taken of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore
The Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Regulations 1999 (NSW) restrict the taking and subsequent use of photographs for commercial purposes.
The Regulations prohibit any use of a camera for commercial purposes in a public area unless authorised by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority.
“Public areas” are defined as any part of the Sydney Harbour foreshore that the public is entitled to use and include Luna Park, the Rocks and
Circular Quay, Darling Harbour, Woolloomoolloo, Pyrmont, White Bay, Rozelle Bay and the Australian Technology Park.
For further information, contact the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority by phone 02 9240 8500
or see the website: http://www.shfa.nsw.gov.au.

[Xenedis]

Does anyone know if you're allowed to take photos of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House to use for commercial purposes?
I was looking to use a photo of the bridge for use on a website and was told that it wasn't a good idea

I wouldn't do so for two reasons.

Firstly, there is an enormous amount of bureaucratic BS surrounding commercially-oriented images of public landmarks that are for everyone's enjoyment. Ironically in the eyes of the bureaucrats, a commercial opportunity to charge others for making/publishing of commercial images has been recognised and exploited.

Secondly, the SHB/SOH have been shot to death, and these icons have become too cliché; there's far more to Sydney than those over-photographed structures, impressive as they are.

[RaoulIsidro]

What a selfish law...
Give them a taste of their greed.
Give it all away, for FREE!

[Kym]

So... I'm on a boat with my camera ?

[ricktas]

So... I'm on a boat with my camera ?

Or in a plane or helicopter

[campo]

Or in a plane or helicopter

but on a serious note, does anyone know whether the SHF rules apply to taking shots from a boat and/or aerial work??

[RaoulIsidro]

but on a serious note, does anyone know whether the SHF rules apply to taking shots from a boat and/or aerial work??

Google Earth has to pay a lot...
They photographed practically the whole Earth.

[wattsgallery]

These types of laws are infuriating and fundamentally unfair. We paid for (and in some cases are still paying for) those structures. The Google comment is an interesting one.

[bigdazzler]

Ridiculous rules.

[Longshots]

Ridiculous rules.

Go shoot the people who make them


Unfortunately its the SHFA people you should tell that to

Everyone here is probably on the same side.

[fr33lanc3r]

These types of laws are infuriating and fundamentally unfair. We paid for (and in some cases are still paying for) those structures.

Exactally this.

[achee]

Hmmmmm... sounds silly!

A paid wedding or portraiture shoot would constitute 'commercial photography,' wouldn't it? Do professionals who shoot with these locations in the background simply get away with it because they can?

[Longshots]

Hmmmmm... sounds silly!

A paid wedding or portraiture shoot would constitute 'commercial photography,' wouldn't it? Do professionals who shoot with these locations in the background simply get away with it because they can?

Can I clarify whats silly about this ? The people who make the rules (because they can - and they do have an argument of sorts, for producing these rules), or are you saying its silly to oppose the rules ?

And to answer you question in the last paragraph - yes they probably can get away with it while they can, but mainly its because of their ignorance, or they're ignoring the rules. I assure you that they're not getting away with it because of who they are, or what they are. If I choose a location to shoot in the first thing I do, is check to see if there is any reason why I cannot, and if there is a fee or application to shoot, then I go through the right channels.

You dont know how many photographers have been turned away from places like this, and you wouldnt want to be the photographer who has organised their wedding party shots in an area which you're met with a security guard informing you that you would be breaking the law to continue your shoot there - that would be embarrasing and it would be IMHO unprofessional and doing your client a disservice.


Silly, isnt a word I would use in any context when relating to this issue.

Worrying is more applicable.

I dont agree that its right though to have the rules/fees etc - so I would urge you to support the Ken Duncan AFA rally - which covers this and many areas of being to photograph in the open areas of Australia.

[old dog]

I wonder if the TV stations pay a fee every time they include the harbour bridge/opera house/etc, in their news/current affairs programs. Commercial purposes.........what a stupid law this is.

[ricstew]

So where would you stand if you took a pic of Aunty Maud with an Icon in the background and uploaded it to your personal website. Not for sale but to show Uncle Fred?