It seems photographs of Ayres Rock / Uluru are now prohibited

Mike Harding · Guru

It seems photographs of Ayres Rock / Uluru are now prohibited

TheHeaths · Guru

Reading the article, it seems the photos they wanted removed were from the summit, so I suggest that it is just part of the climbing ban. It will hardly have an impact now with the climbing ban if that is the case.

If they want to stop other photography around the Rock at the base, the National Parks should step in to ensure visitors are still allowed to photograph their trip. If they dont then I can foresee problems coming at many other sites like Kings Canyon, Kakadu, and Katherine Gorge just to name 3.

I agree with restrictions on photos on CURRENTLY nominated Sacred Sites, but agree with you about where will it end if photography is banned at locations on the whim of the local people.

bgt · Guru

What about fly overs? Can we foresee a ban of flying nearby and a ban on cameras on any planes in the area? Drones? Satellites?

Is this the thin edge of the wedge?

Just as an aside. We've been to many places in the world. We've climbed, with blessings, cathedral spires. The Vatican welcomes visitors. We've explored many native American sites with their blessings. The custodians of the rock need to be careful how they manage the entire site. I have no problems with them 'controlling' the site. But they can do themselves a lot of damage if they don't embrace the fact that others want to see and share the experience.

Lozza56 · Member

The "local" will kill the goose that laid the golden egg !!!

Few years back i tried to visit "the lost city" , was told by tour guide the Aboriginals have locked it up now, the only way to see it was by helicopter * which they owned too )

So you can see where this is going, in the wrong direction, i thought we were one, all in it together

.... but apparently not

Santa · Guru

The resort is already in financial strife, now we see this sort of thing, wont be long and there will be screams for a cash bail out.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/ayers-rock-resort-facing-solvency-and-cash-issues/news-story/270b53d6fd2c91132605310fc6cef2a2

Whenarewethere · Guru

They will have to sort it out themselves.

We were there last year & didn't walk up, neither in 2005 when we were there for our previous visit, we walked around.

Looking at religion, I can think of one where you are not allow to show images. I am not the slightest bit religious but I can respect their views.

One could argue that if there are less images everywhere that it may make the place more interesting as we are awash with images on every grain on sand around the world & it has all got pretty boring.

yobarr · Guru

Santa wrote:
The resort is already in financial strife, now we see this sort of thing, wont be long and there will be screams for a cash bail out.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/ayers-rock-resort-facing-solvency-and-cash-issues/news-story/270b53d6fd2c91132605310fc6cef2a2

"....won't be long and there will be screams for a cash bail out" Surely not? Who woulda thought that? Won't the bottomless money pit sort it? Way too many takers,and too few (compulsory) givers for the gravy train to continue much further before it is derailed. Cheers

dogbox · Guru

it thought it was only the google pictures showing the route to the top that was deleted from google maps?

-- Edited by dogbox on Friday 25th of September 2020 12:45:01 PM

Greg 1 · Guru

Many years ago the air strip was right alongside the northern side of the rock. You can still see it faintly on the satellite view. Depending on wind direction, one of the circuits to fly into the strip went over the rock at quite low level and then descended on the southern side with a circle around the rock to the east to come on to the eastern end of the runway. Absolutely fantastic view of the rock particularly in a small Cessna that I flew. That all got banned by the traditional owners when they took over and the taxpayers had to fork out for a new airport some distance away with no low level fly overs or fly pasts any more. I am sorry but I could see this coming. 3% of the population will eventually lock out the other 97% from most of this country. Enjoy it while you can.

yobarr · Guru

Greg 1 wrote:
Many years ago the air strip was right alongside the northern side of the rock. You can still see it faintly on the satellite view. Depending on wind direction, one of the circuits to fly into the strip went over the rock at quite low level and then descended on the southern side with a circle around the rock to the east to come on to the eastern end of the runway. Absolutely fantastic view of the rock particularly in a small Cessna that I flew. That all got banned by the traditional owners when they took over and the taxpayers had to fork out for a new airport some distance away with no low level fly overs or fly pasts any more. I am sorry but I could see this coming. 3% of the population will eventually lock out the other 97% from most of this country. Enjoy it while you can.

"......3% of the population will eventually lock out the other 97%..." Absolutely right.Unless,of course,the money is right,in which case I suspect that restrictions on access wiil be miraculously lifted.Nah,that wouldn't be right,would it?...perhaps I'm being cynical? Cheers

dorian · Guru

Santa wrote:
The resort is already in financial strife, now we see this sort of thing, wont be long and there will be screams for a cash bail out.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/ayers-rock-resort-facing-solvency-and-cash-issues/news-story/270b53d6fd2c91132605310fc6cef2a2

I don't have access to the paid site, but Google's "headline" paints a confusing picture:

The boss of the firm running Ayers Rock Resort says his company will face substantial solvency and cash issues if a dispute with local Aboriginal groups drags on.

So who owns Ayers Rock Resort, or should that be Uluru Resort?

bgt · Guru

Some years back the local tribes took back the Grand Canyon in the USA. Not long afterwards they handed it back again when they figured they didn't have the skills or knowledge to run it. Not long ago, while driving route 66, I stopped to photograph a train coming around a bluff. A local told me in no uncertain manner that ALL photography was banned on tribal land. I could go on. But the point is that Ayres Rock is no different. The change is comming. Will they ban photography in Kakadu? But to be fair. Many places in Australia are no go zones for photography. It's a legal swamp that many lawyers have been bogged in. Technically you can't photograph anywhere in downtown, say, Sydney. All the buildings are "copyrighted". But from a public place it's ok. Or is it? The locals at Ayres Rock are no different. They are protecting an asset. Can they? Well the lawyers will make good money if someone challenges them

Cassie63 · Senior Member

If First Nations want photography banned so be it, no problem. Let's stop throwing good money after bad. Give it 5 years, current policy will be reversed.

Cuppa · Guru

Is anyone else embarrassed that a foreign company like Google appears to have far more respect for the Anangu peoples than many of their fellow Australians?

Mike Harding · Guru

How many Anangu people are there?

Cassie63 · Senior Member

Google are only doing what is politically correct

Mike Harding · Guru

Mike Harding wrote:
How many Anangu people are there?

2276 it seems:

https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA40250

dogbox · Guru

Cassie63 wrote:

If First Nations want photography banned so be it, no problem. Let's stop throwing good money after bad. Give it 5 years, current policy will be reversed.

look up who the first nations people are . the term refers to a very specific people an they are not australian aboriginals

Greg 1 · Guru

Cuppa, what happened in the past to our indigenous people is to our everlasting shame, however the quicker they stop their rearward navel gazing and look to the future, realizing there are now 97% of other races who make up the modern Australia, that that is not going to change, and we are all in this together, the better off they will be. Dwelling on the past does no one any good. History is just that. It makes interesting reading and we should learn from our past mistakes but it doesn't advance your position one iota. Whilst born here, I come from a long line of Irishmen. Irish history makes what happened here look like a Sunday school picnic, and my family suffered as a result, but going there serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever and constitutes a complete waste of oxygen.

Sheba · Guru

dogbox wrote:
it thought it was only the google pictures showing the route to the top that was deleted from google maps?

-- Edited by dogbox on Friday 25th of September 2020 12:45:01 PM

Same here dogbox. Did I misread it ?

landy · Guru

Plenty of photo's out there guess the only thing this is likely to do is put a cash value on them.
Landy

dabbler · Guru

Plenty of places all round the world demand payment for images used for commercial purposes. Sistine Chapel, Eiffel Tower for instance. A larger number of public spaces actually expect you to pay for photography permits whether commercial or otherwise.

dorian · Guru

Are there any other places in Australia that demand payment for photography permits, or where photography is prohibited?

Greg 1 · Guru

I have been to the odd event where it has been banned, but I am unaware of any other public area or tourist spot that bans it.

bgt · Guru

As far as I'm aware you "technically" need a permit to photograph in any NP. But I haven't kept up todate with the laws. There is a grey area between commercial and private photography. You can't photograph the likes of the American Express building. But if you are on public land the law changes. I've done a lot of freelance photography. Museums, magazines etc. I provided an image for a large multinational company. I lost count of the forms, waivers etc etc that I had to provide and sign. Then on the final print the lawyers had every sign of any commercial logo, colour etc deleted or changed. It's a legal swamp. So good luck figuring it all out.

Tony Bev · Guru

The article seems to be behind a paywall, so I will not comment on what the article may/may not have said

But as I have seen Ayres Rock/Uluru up close

Then I can only say, in all honesty, if you want a good photo of that rock, then you should buy a postcard

Up close it is riddled with pockmarks

Cupie · Guru

I can just look at my own vid & photos of the Ayers Rock climb. The ban on climbing doesn't effect me though as I found it a difficult climb in 2003 & certainly wouldn't make it now. No restrictions though on climbing a spire of the Cathedral in Cologne. I chose not to & visited a real beer & sausage joint over the road.

We were warned against filming in the Sistine Chapel but I know that a few fellow tourists accidentally left their video cameras running. Some art galleries prohibit filming. Perhaps in this age of high definition cameras, that's really about copywright issues.

All in all, I'm ambivalent about it. If they don't want people to climb then that's OK. Should this mean that they miss out on revenue then that's OK too. What's not OK is if that leads to another public money bail out.

Whenarewethere · Guru

landy wrote:
Plenty of photo's out there guess the only thing this is likely to do is put a cash value on them.
Landy

There are lots of 3d object files for every format out there to make your own rock. If you have a few photos, project onto the object & do you own UV mapping, or use their textures. Then you can have any angle you want.

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

bgt wrote:
As far as I'm aware you "technically" need a permit to photograph in any NP.

Only for commercial photography or any use of a drone.

Cheers,

Peter

bgt · Guru

Peter the problem with NPs is that if you take an image in a NP as a tourist and that image is then used by a club magazine for say a cover shot then it becomes 'commercial'. I've taken a shot in a NP that was then taken up by a manufacturer and published in a magazine. It's a mine field.

The reality is though that only those with a huge film crew and obviously 'commercial' are subjected to the laws.