question regarding 'public'

[Longshots]

Well despite your comments, you are actually arguing a side. One of interprettation, and again you are ignoring the facts. Have you checked any other related information before you came to your conclusion as to what you saw that phrase "implying". Because, again, you are wrong, and misleading.

Sometimes its simply not worth responding with actual information when the information sourced, given, or actually experienced is then diluted by a sequence of arguments from those who havent bothered to check their facts, or imaginatively interpreted with a heavy bias towards people personal preferences.



I'm sure no-one is interested in my personal views on the matter, I'm simply answering with facts, based on knowledge & experience, which is easily sourced, easily read, and easily understood.

So after checking - twice with the actual council referred to. I can confirm that again, what Redgum and myself have stated is correct. As I said earlier, ignore the quite honestly facile, and pointless arguments, about what each person think their personal world should be governed, and check the facts with each local council or managing authority.

Once you'e ascertained the facts, then by all means, join Arts Freedom Australia's lobbying voice, and try and lobby changes in your areas. However, first of all you need to check the actual facts.

[James T]

Calm down William, I'm not wrong.. what I posted is precisely what that booklet implies, and that's all I stated, what it implies. I wasn't presenting legal facts or offering advice of any kind.

I said using that booklet as the example, and then quoted the pertinent phrases from it. I haven't checked 'other related information' as I said, 'taking that booklet as the example.'

I think it was established pretty early on in the thread that simply contacting the relevant body is the way to go before shooting anything commercially (as common sense would dictate anyway). I don't think I've posted anything misleading, even if I did, anyone who chose to take it as legal advice and act upon it without sorting it out for themselves would deserve any hassles they got themselves into as a result.

[Longshots]

I'm nothing other than calm James.

Which ever way I look at this; drawing a conclusion from the booklet, without reading it properly, is incorrect.

What I was saying is that this shouldnt be an argument based on each individuals own personal viewing of a small booklet, or two quoted lines. But suggesting what something implies without finding out the full information, seems such a pointless exercise. That was my point - which has been clearly missed.

[James T]

I read all of the booklet that I could see to be relevant to this. Anyway, I was only saying that's what the material linked to implied, which it did through the choice of language used.

It's not an important point, but possibly one that could lead to confusion. I would assume though that before anyone acted on it they would research further, as I and pretty much everyone else has already said. And I think that was the whole point of the thread in the first place before it went off on a tangent.

Now, back to work...

[jasevk]

Geee, at 1500 to shoot a wedding..... how many photographers are running at a $1000 loss per wedding on the beach?

[farmer_rob]

I've just looked through the fees and permits sections of our local council's website and there is NO mention of photography - either permits, fees or restrictions.

[Redgum]

Geee, at 1500 to shoot a wedding..... how many photographers are running at a $1000 loss per wedding on the beach?

Jasevk, you need to read the posts. Fees are for permits, not photography. You can add in somersaults and skydiving if you like and it won't cost you anymore.
Rob, that's the point, permits aren't required everywhere. Like William said, you gotta ask.

[farmer_rob]

...
Rob, that's the point, permits aren't required everywhere. Like William said, you gotta ask.

I know, but just felt that a counter example was needed .

[jasevk]

Jasevk, you need to read the posts. Fees are for permits, not photography. You can add in somersaults and skydiving if you like and it won't cost you anymore.
Rob, that's the point, permits aren't required everywhere. Like William said, you gotta ask.

Red, I know... I can read.... But someone needs to find their sense of humor

[Longshots]

Hardly any need for a counter example Rob, because I could bore you solid with a time wasting experience of listing all the different places that have different permits, or different rules; which is what I've been saying all along - Ask. Dont assume.

And no offence to anyone here, but talking about how individuals interpret what's written down in a booklet, is seriously pointless, and then counter arguing, how something could be perceived, without reading all the information available is as useful as trying to push a wet cow pat up hill with a sharp pencil. Information was what was sought here, not opinions based on insufficient knowledge. Dont ask here, ask your local council or authority, (who ever you think may manage the area) because they will have the relevant and correct information.

[Longshots]

Red, I know... I can read.... But someone needs to find their sense of humor

The humour was understood from my point of view Jasevk.

The trouble is that in the next couple of responses, others wont read your humour and then think that OMG I have to pay $1000 for a permit to shoot a wedding on a beach. Which is not correct in the particular Council example we've been discussing.

Which, while I could see the humour, others might not, and thats how misinformation is circulated.

[kiwi]

I'm waiting for an email reply from council. I don't think personally their publicly accessibke documents are at all clear...plus some interesting reading about re waverley council and this particular topic too

So, I apologize that I state my opinion without facts to William and red gum. I guess I assumed that no photographer would be paying 1500 for a few beach snapshots on the way to the reception....and I bet none do. But yes quite likely they need a permit and quite likely need to pay a fee of by looking maybe up to $300....but I don't think it's clear.

[jasevk]

Which, while I could see the humour, others might not, and thats how misinformation is circulated.

Yeah fair call.... Maybe we need a standard AP joke disclaimer William? Hehe

[Longshots]

I dont think they're clear either. But, and this is an important but, the information was easily sourced by a simple phone call to that council.

Yes many people, photographers do not apply for permits. And its because of people "taking over" areas to do their business, that council's react to public opinion/complaints, and introduce permit application systems.

While noting your sarcasm Kiwi, what I've been trying to do is answer the OP's question with the facts. So in the same spirit of gentle sarcasm, sure, go ahead and keep posting your opinions. But how about pre-empting it with something like, "well I have little experience on this topic, but plenty of views, and even when someone posts the information, or their actual experiences, I will continue to argue on the basis that I interpret differently to the managing authority that has produced the written information". The managing authority are not going to give a dam what you think, or what I think about how well they're written guidelines, local laws, local T&C's are (or whatever they're going to call them); if they say you cant do something, you cant. And if you want to ignore that, then do so at the risk of having the police called. And the police will remind you that ignorance of a law is not a valid defence. And it then gets messy. The laws are different everywhere you go.

I used to shoot for Yellow Pages, "Get About Guides" which was in the front of all city/towns/areas Yellow Pages. I'd visit plenty of different regions, councils etc etc; and I can assure you that it was a real nighmare trying to get permission to shoot in so many different locations. And I couldnt "wing it", because as the images were going to be used in such a highly recognised publication, they (Yellow) didnt want to be dealing with complaints that I shot somewhere without permission.

For what its worth, the Moreton Bay Councils response to me, (which was consistently delivered back to me when I checked with a 2nd phone call), photography in their parks beaches did need a permit. Wether there was a cost or not, was dependant on many different factors. So you're right that its not clear in the written information, but it does indicate that you should call them, and when you do that, they appear to be quite willing to clarify it, once they know everything involved. And while I did not specifically record all details of the conversation, as it was not the aim of my enquiry; as Moreton Bays booklet clearly says, yes you need a permit for photography; but is there a substantial cost ? My recollection (so this is my opinion) was that there was NO cost on something thats a simple "less than 2 hour" shoot. But that should always be checked prior to the event.

And have I, do I apply for permits - most of the time, yes, because its less embarrassing to have a production crew, of photographer, assistant, model, client, etc (in my case of commercial photography) thrown off the location I would have planned the shoot on - most of the time there has been ZERO costs to gain a permit - its just like some beach driving/national park permits that cost nothing. And if I were a wedding photographer, where important timing is the order of the day, the last thing I would want to do is to have to find an alternative location because I and the 10 or so in the wedding party have all been thrown off the beach by an official, and I'm then having more of that time wasted by giving my details to the official/police.

[kiwi]

There was no sarcasm intended actually. My original reply meant to cast doubt on the 1500 more than the necessity for the permit. But sure facts are always better than opinion. Roma st I did know as i did check prior to a shoot i did there recently. So valid point re checking with council re beach too.

[Longshots]

Oh, sorry. thought it was sarcasm/humour - mine was meant in the vein of humour then - no offence intended


What I can tell you is that the amount is a moveable feast according to the Moreton Bay Council, and the amount depends on what's involved.

While we're discussing this, what I would urge is many to join Arts Freedom Australia to lobby against unnecessary charges and restrictions to photography.

[kiwi]

Yes, and I guess based on the op's first post i made an assumption, dangerous I know, about the type of shot likely.

The point I guess in all of this is your point re moving feast.

[Redgum]

Yes, and I guess based on the op's first post i made an assumption, dangerous I know, about the type of shot likely.
The point I guess in all of this is your point re moving feast.

No, the point is you didn't know or have experience of what you were talking about when it comes to permits and you confused the matter.
I feel sorry for Matilda (OP) who asked a simple question and got a relevant answer (phone the Council). Informed opinion is fine but rather than uninformed answers a poll would have been better.

[Speedway]

Longshots wrote
Weddings & photo sessions on parks and foreshores
A site booking is available for functions of short duration (up to 2 hours) such as wedding ceremonies and photo sessions

Longshots you also are misleading and as you say read the booklet as a little further you will see

Weddings and Photo Sessions on parks and foreshores
Council does not charge a fee for these bookings. However depending on the scale and type of event, a refundable bond and park hire fee charges may apply. Approved applicants will be sent an assessment letter and invoices detailing the amounts to be levied (if any). Approvals will be provided via email where possible.

So if it was just a few photos on the beach or in the park and there were no signs prohibiting photography I'd go for it, anything more and it would pay to contact the relevant authority's
My 2 cents worth,
Keith.

[jasevk]

The other point to remember is that a wedding shoot is performed under some form of domestic agreement. It's not commercial work, it's domestic..... Now somebody please correct me' if I'm wrong!