Ken Duncan vs Barangaroo

[Grant S]

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/art-and-design/what-a-ridiculous-day-landscape-photographer-ken-duncan-prevented-from-taking-photos-at-barangaroo-20151128-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.

[Grant S]

I hate auto correct. Second paragraph should start: Whilst I understand...

[ameerat42]

[...a suitably-edited response...]


Afterthought: If they saw my old tripod they'd think I was a professional pauper and probably pay me:rolleyes:

[Lance B]

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.

[Cricket]

lol we should organise a "tripod sit in" at Barangaroo :D

[ameerat42]

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:rolleyes:

[Steve Axford]

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.

[ameerat42]

I cannot use "politician".

[Boo53]

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.

[Grant 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.
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?
:scrtch:

[Mark L]

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.

[JDuding]

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.

[ApolloLXII]

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!

[Grant 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.

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.

[Lance B]

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.

[ameerat42]

Hmm! [Other thoughts about money-grubbiness:rolleyes:]