A Disturbing Photo Ban

I came across an article in a British newspaper, that talks about what might happen if you photograph the famous Ayers Rock in Australia.

According to Parks Australia, many parts of Uluru and Kata Tjuta are culturally sensitive. 'Uluṟu and Kata Tjuṯa have a number of culturally sensitive sites,' the Uluru website states.

The rock details and features at these sites are equivalent to sacred scripture for Aṉangu. They describe culturally important information and should only be viewed in their original location and by specific people.
It is inappropriate for images of sensitive sites to be viewed elsewhere, so taking any photos of these places is prohibited.

Does such obscurantism still have a place in modern society?

Climbing Uluru has been permanently off-limits since October 2019, after the Uluru–Kata Tjuta National Park board voted unanimously to shut down the practice in line with the wishes of the Anangu Traditional Owners.
Anyone who attempts the climb now faces penalties of more than $10,000. The first prosecution came in 2022, when a 44-year-old Simon Day from Victoria was fined $2,500 after illegally scaling the sacred site.
However, since then, huge parts of the rock have been declared unable to be photographed, while other areas require a permit. Fines of more than $5,000 apply.

Ok to ban climbing but a $2500 fine for taking a landscape photograph is absurd.

Anyone wanting to shoot content at Uluru–Kata Tjuta National Park needs to pay for a photo permit, which costs $20 a day for commercial photography or $250 a day for filming.
On top of that, all visitors are required to buy a park entry pass, priced at $38 per adult for a three-day visit.

If you post to Social media they class it as commercial photography. Hope this wheeze does not catch on. A bit of a rip off to have to pay to photograph in a National park.

Photography is becoming ever more difficult, with BS like this on the increase.

This is an incredibly complex issue in OZ and will not be sorted here with a few throw-away Forum lines.
The reality on the ground is as convoluted in OZ as it is anywhere else with a Colonial history.
I suggest abandoning this thread before the inevitable lines are crossed, and instead,
tackle the Planet wide backlash against tourism as a much larger menace to Photography.

I met a political refugee from Iraq when traveling in Asia once. He was stuck in visa limbo as often happens in those situations.
I had some interesting conversations with him especially when he explained their cultural concept of "honour". It wasn't like the old British concept where you might challenge someone who had insulted you to a duel. It was much more about individual character (honesty, integrity, etc). It wasn't that I was unaware of concepts like that - they exist in literature and elsewhere but they are mostly lost in mainstream society today - not normally front of mind.

Like so many native cultures around the world, the original Australian inhabitants not only lost the land they existed on, they have had their culture actively oppressed by the colonists - something that is unfortunately still ongoing today.
One part of their cultural "honour" is respect of the land. They live that. Respect the land that provides for you. Why would you trash that which is necessary for your very existence?

So I understand how any society might get frustrated with unbridled tourism where most of the tourists are lost in la-la land and fail to even begin to comprehend the relevance of the cultural icons they are supposed to be visiting. How would people react if some drunken yobbo took a piss under the Mona Lisa for a selfie with his mates?

I am sure if society in general reclaimed some "honour" in their lives the locals would happily decide to re-open access to Uluru (Ayer's Rock).

I agree with Ron that this is an incredibly complex issue. Probably, I'm in a better position than most to contribute here. I'm a photographer whose work is displayed and sold at the main gallery in Yulara. Additionally, I spent some years designing and managing education programs with traditional adult men in Central Australia. At the same time, my wife worked with the art development programs of remote indigenous communities.
I'm not going to try to give a definitive response covering everything (and I don't think anyone can and I certainly can't) I'm just trying to give some understanding of the complexities, especially when people try to act with goodwill.
Australian indigenous culture developed over 40,000 years and probably goes back at least another 20,000. What makes it unique is that it developed in (almost) complete isolation from other human cultures. The culture is therefore uniquely continuous. As recently as 1984, one group (The Pintupi 9) emerged from the Great Sandy desert having had no knowledge, no previous contact with European Australia. Traditional culture retains its importance for many, many indigenous Australians. That culture is probably the most "different" culture of all the cultures. Concepts like time, counting, authority, family relationships/responsibilities are very different and this just scratches the surface. "Skin Names" (a totally different method of avoiding incest) may determine many critical relationships. Biological parents, for example) may not have the responsibility for child rearing. To add to the complexity, you cannot generalize about Australian indigenous issues. Every individual, every community (and there are many of them), is somewhere along their own path between that 40000 year old culture and today's western culture. Some still live close to traditional culture, some are entirely within European culture. What is appropriate for one individual, or community, may be utterly inappropriate for another. Even when govermnents ot other agencies try to operate with the very best of intentions (and they often haven't) developing and implementing policies is a nightmarish minefield. Even determining who has the authority to speak for a particular community can be full of difficulty. Traditional authority may, or may not, be operational in a community structure destroyed by interaction with an alien culture.
In this reality, it is critical that indigenous people feel individually and culturally respected. That's easy to say but very difficult to do at a policy making level when there are so many variables.
Some aspects of the situation at Uluru. The Rock is on land owned by the Mutijulu people and many of them live on a community settlement close to Uluru but off limits to visitors. Traditional beliefs are strongly held. Broadly, Uluru is a sacred place for women and nearby Kata Tjuta is an area of men's significance. Ceremonies are still held, especially connected to deaths and becoming an adult. In my case, my photos are under closer scrutiny because they are on display at Yulara. A traditional woman for example would be quite distressed at seeing a photo of an area she knew she was not supposed to see. I appreciate that and I'm happy to have all my work checked by a local panel. Those sites are still in active use and may be closed to the public when required.
Re climbing of the Rock. The number of people who died doing that climb isn't widely appreciated. Any death on Uluru was a matter of great distress to the community. In my book, it was a good enough reason to ban the climb.
Exactly who in the community has the authority to speak for the community and whether these people, or agreements made years ago, still have that authority, is an intriguing question. These things change.
Then there is a whole different aspect. The National Park authority, and here I think there are grounds for photographers to complain. The National Parks manage Uluru in a kind of partnership deal with the traditional owners. National Park regulations apply to all Australian national Parks. I object to having to pay to take photos professionally within a National Park. Once I've paid admission, that should be it. In fact, I don't know of anyone who has been prosecuted. The rules seem to apply more to films, advertising and businesses like wedding photographs that use National Park settings. Photographs can only be taken from positions and during hours that are available to the public. I go along with the ban on drones but recently I have seen promotional material made by the resort itself that used drones. While permission was almost certainly sought and given, I feel this is stretching the intent of the regulations. A few years ago I applied on behalf of a French photographer friend of mine. He takes extraordinary photos from kites and designs kites and cameras for the purpose. Permission was denied by the National Park on the grounds that drones were banned. Really?

I agree with Ron P about the complexities of the issue and I'm barely scratching the surface.