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:confused013
Richard

[Keith]

Looks like a big NO! A bit of an explanation here .. http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2007/06/photographing_t.html

[darkmerlin]

Looks like a big NO! A bit of an explanation here .. http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2007/06/photographing_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 :wd:

[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 :D

[campo]

Or in a plane or helicopter :D

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?

[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...:D

A nice articleby Andrew Nemeth BSc (Hons) LLB MTeach BSc (Hons) LLB MTeach http://tinyurl.com/259nhr (Australian Street Photography Legal Issues)
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/library/documents/B1926317-C0B8-8B5D-E1091402F56B7CA6.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/about_Image_and_FilmingFAQ.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/library/documents/DE17DC53-C6D6-45F4-1A9F956E91B1762F.pdf

Not too bad, I would think.