Sydney Harbour Bridge / Opera House Commercial Photos

[achee]

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 ?

Sorry I wasn't very clear, I meant the restrictions on photographing these public icons seemed silly.

[Analog6]

I had a look at the foreshore boundary map on the SHFA site and I have downloaded it. By the information on the other site, they only have authority over areas within their aegis, so if you take a photo from OUTSIDE the area I do not think they could sue you.

And the photo in question on that other site looks like it may have been taken from outside that boundary. One of my favourite images is one I took of the harbour incl the bridge and SOH under an approaching storm, I took it from near Kincoppal on the way to Watson's Bay so I do not believe they could touch me if I wanted to sell it.

[Longshots]

Sorry I wasn't very clear, I meant the restrictions on photographing these public icons seemed silly.

Oh thanks - I completely agree with you

[JohnB5319]

I think you'll find that if you include the Opera House as a feature in your commercial work, then it won't matter where you took the photo from - being on a boat in the harbour won't protect you. If you took a general aerial shot of the city which included the Harbour Bridge and/or the Opera House as a small element and one of many, you'll be OK. My son was organising events at the SOH and they were wanting licence fees to use images of the SOH in brochures - even if the image may only have been a portion of a sail. In the end they didn't use any images! Seem kind of counterproductive to me.

[whatsthatbeeping]

I'm going to open discussion on this topic again based on research i'm doing for copyright law.

My stance is that yes you can shoot and publish/exhibit/sell images of the Sydney harbour bridge, or furthermore, any other iconic building in or around Australia.

The following is the rational that can be applied and is an interpretation of the law.

The Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority administers the authority for the local council that governs and controls Commercial filming and photography in the area .
Nothing in the terms and conditions on the SHFA web site says that there are restrictions on what you can and can't take photos of when you are in the area.

What they do require however is a Filming & Photography Application to be submitted for commercial filming or stills. This in really is only there to cover everyone's arse (local council/commercial entities) for OHS and insurance requirements. Find form here http://tinyurl.com/p2qncww

Of special interest here is the wording of part 6 of the Licence Agreement (pg 5)

The Applicant’s responsibilities and obligations are recognised under The Local
Government Filming Protocol 2009 (Protocol) and Code of Conduct for location
filming in NSW (Code of Conduct).
Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (Foreshore Authority) supports the Protocol and
Code of Conduct and will issue a Licence Agreement (Licence) for associated filming
activities once all requirements of the Protocol and Code of Conduct are met.

The local government filming protocol can be found here...http://tinyurl.com/km7jefn

Of interest in this protocol are the following extracts

"The act of filming does not of itself require an approval by councils, nor is it
subject to fees" (pg8 chap 2)

And

"This Protocol does not cover stills photography – the Filming Related
Legislation Amendment Act 2008 and the Local Government Act 1993
specifically exclude still photography, and it does not require council approval or
attract council fees unless it involves additional activity such as blocking streets,
constructing a set or additional parking. In these cases, the Protocol can
provide guidance for councils in processing high impact stills shoots. Those
contemplating still photography should approach councils for further
information"

So in effect as a stills photographer, you are not required to submit the aforementioned form to shoot images in the area.
If however you where to be planing a shoot that required a 5 head flash lighting setup with cables, generator, gobos, 15 bikini models and a mack truck, you may need to seek approval.

So, that puts to rest the argument of whether or not you are allowed to take photos of any iconic buildings in and around the Sydney Harbour.

What you can do with the images is a completely different complicated matter of copyright law.
For this exercise I will concentrate on the copyright issues of an image of the Sydney Opera House.

Through out the SHFS website they refer to images being used for commercial purposes and the only reference to "Copyright" is to images and material on the website. (found Here http://tinyurl.com/mpxglbp)
The Sydney Opera House's own website is a lot more informative and deals with copyright issues and the use of the likeness of the opera house

The first paragraph of the SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE IMAGE AND FILMING FAQ page sorta sums up where they are coming from. (found here http://tinyurl.com/lc9rfpb)

1 Can I take pictures or film footage of Sydney Opera House?
Yes. SOH encourages visitors to the precinct to photograph or film their visit for personal use. You are welcome to share the memories of your trip to SOH with your friends and relatives. Any photo or film that you take will be your own property. We ask only that you respect the purpose and aims of SOH by asking our permission before your image is used by you or anyone else to advertise any products or services (we consider this ‘commercial use’).

The second paragraph is the more interesting one and can be more than a little confusing in its interpretation as they seem to contradict themselves as to what they consider the "Commercial Use" of images of the Sydney Opera House.

Here are the interesting bits in this text, firstly they tell us what they don't want us to do....

SOH does not approve of the use of an image of SOH to promote goods or services when there is no sponsorship, endorsement or other association between SOH and those goods or services
• professional photographers using photographs of SOH to advertise their photography services
• businesses using images or logos of SOH to advertise their goods or services when they have no commercial or sponsorship association with SOH

In the same paragraph they go on to explain why they don't want us to do it.

You may not use the image of SOH to suggest sponsorship or use it as a trade mark (or in the course of trade) in a manner which may mislead consumers into believing that your product or service has an association with the SOH unless you have been granted a licence by SOH to use the image in this way. Such commercial uses of the Opera House image are exclusive to SOH and its licensed users only.

I have no issue with the way they have worded they "why" part, but i do take issue with the wording of the "What" part. The why part is straight copyright law and can be applied to buildings where the buildings image has become iconic and people can associate with that image.

The sentence that is of interest to us is "professional photographers using photographs of SOH to advertise their photography services" is vague and ambiguous at best.
Firstly, what classifies us as a professional photographer? Gear, shot a wedding for a friend, we have a website? Again this is open to interpretation.
When is it using the image to "advertise photography services" Again, vague and is open to interpretation

Would this mean that in the following situations that i was in breach of copyright:

• If I use an image of the Sydney Opera House on my website in a gallery photo that I am in breach of their copyright? in this instance, no.
• If i was to use the image as the background image of a business card? possibly.
• If i was to run a magazine or TV ad using the image? yes.
• If I had a shot of the SOH in an exhibition of images in a gallery art space? No
• If i was to sell an image of the SOH?. no
• If an image that I sold and relinquished copyright to was used to directly promote a business in an ad campaign? no, however the business would be open to prosecution for copyright breach.

What we must not do with the image is have people believe that we have a commercial association with the SOH. So if there is a direct promotional association with my name/business and the SOH in the public domain there is a clear issue.
This issue is more associated with the Common Law Tort of "Passing Off" or via the The Trade Practices Act (link here http://tinyurl.com/khdxx6w)

As photographers we should all have some basic understanding of copyright laws and our rights and can I strongly recommend (as others before me) the use of the resources such as the AUSTRALIAN COPY RIGHT COUNCIL website (http://tinyurl.com/6v3bfz6)

And the these other links for some light reading...

A nice articleby Andrew Nemeth BSc (Hons) LLB MTeach BSc (Hons) LLB MTeach http://tinyurl.com/259nhr
Article by L. Barry Daniel http://tinyurl.com/l2yt8k7

Again all the above written content is subjective and based on interpretations of researched items, please draw your own conclusions as to the legalities of any issues raised.

Tim

Resource links
http://www.shfa.nsw.gov.au/content/l...02F56B7CA6.pdf

[vk2gwk]

sorry - I posted this before I noticed that there was a second page....
"Whatsthatbeeping" covered more or less what I found on the internet.

May be the posters that talk about "silly" and "greedy" and shooting the authorities (with something else than a camera ) should read up about this and review their opinion This is what the Sydney Opera House has to say about it: http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/abou...ilmingFAQ.aspx I think it a sensible approach by the Opera House Trust to protect its image.
Professional photography on the Sydney Harbour Foreshore requires a permit, but for still photography by a single photographer and their assistant there is no fee: http://www.shfa.nsw.gov.au/content/l...6E91B1762F.pdf

Not too bad, I would think.