On 2010-08-26 08:05 , William Robb wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: OT More local photogs rights controversy
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2993756.htm
Not unusual. I've run into that a few times in National Parks in the
USA, though not Canada as of yet.
i did not know there were any such restrictions in US national parks,
but looking around i see for example in Denali there are special access
permits for professional photographers -- they allow use of a private
vehicle which is otherwise not permitted, so in contrast to a
restriction, this seems like special access that others don't get
<http://www.nps.gov/dena/parkmgmt/propho2.htm>
in Capitol Reef NP, Utah, i see a different type of rule -- only
commercial photography which may "interfere with normal park visitation"
requires a permit
<http://www.nps.gov/care/planyourvisit/comfilmphoto.htm>
obviously this is a small sample; are there national parks where
photography is restricted in less reasonable ways?
the situation is different on some US Native American reservations; for
example i have visited Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico; while this is a
beautiful natural area, and contains also amazing historic structures,
it is also still the active residence of a large number of people who
also collectively own the land; so i fully understand that camera
permits are required as a way to make sure Acoma has a contract with the
photographer making clear rights and responsibilities
in the case at hand, Ulura-Kata Tjuta National Park, seems to be a bit
of a hybrid -- respect for indigenous people is clearly the objective,
but the article questions whether the Australian government is the
perfect steward for that respect
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
