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.

I posted this as it seems an example of how it is becoming more and more difficult to practice photography. To a degree I understand the problem at this site, but they have also justly promoted the place as a tourist destination, in an area with few other financial resources.

I'm not sure who "they" is here. The promotion isn't done by the indigenous people. Although, as in all communities, there is a range of opinions. Some members will want the income that comes with tourism. Others won't. This is where we get into issues regarding who has authority to speak on behalf of a community and for how long any agreements might be regarded as valid.
The promotion of Uluru is in the hands of commercial interests and the Northern Territory government. In fairness to the current licencees, at Yulara, they run a brilliant training college program in a wide range of skills for young indigenous people from all over Australia. We have watched shy young trainees from remote areas blossom in this program. We have also watched these kids mixing with other young staff who are often overseas backpackers working their way around Australia travel. The value of this contact to the outlook and confidence of the indigenous kids is beyond $. Yulara deserves a lot of credit for this program.

I will reply to Mike here as well.

I understand it is a sensitive issue, we get to hear about what happens in Australia in our news media now and again. But I picked out this case as it seems it is typical of the results of mass tourism.

I took a virtual trip to Ayres Rock and the desert around it with Google Maps. Steet View is fun for this sort of virtual tourism. I believe this location became famous after featuring in "Picknick at Hanging Rock". My virtual visit showed me that it has been well developed as a tourist location. There is a nice visitor centre and walkways in the desert. A car park in a strategic location allows you to make that iconic sunset photo.

But if you make a place a tourist destination, you are going to get bad behaviour, like people wanting to climb the rocks, litter and all the rest. It is impossible to maintain a mass tourism destination and also pretend that your location remains a sacred site. The big European Cathedrals have the same problem. Stand in a deserted Cathedral, and you experience something special, even if you are not a believer. I hate being in these same places, amongst throngs of people. On my visit to Brunelleschi's Cupola, I was shocked to see some Chinees tourists having a picknick on the summit.

My visit also took me to the very similar Mount Connor. Nobody seems to care about visiting this site, and it still has its European name. Kata Tjuta, seems a little more popular, but just has a car park, and you seem to be able to roam at will.

I have a Celtic religious site near my home. Grooves were cut into a large rock for sacrifices to be performed, and the flowing blood is said to have had a religious significance. It remains in the local folklore to a limited degree. With the arrival of the Romans, the Celts were absorbed into a new culture, and the site was largely forgotten. A cross was carved to mark the change of culture , when the Lombards who came after the Romans converted to Christianity. Human evolution is not static, for better or worse.

Requiring a $20 fee, which likely goes towards the upkeep of the park (at least in part), is fair, so far as I'm concerned.

Not complex at all -- give tourists free access, allow Trump to put a resort on the land (paid for by Australia) or Trump will increase tariffs on Australia's goods to 100%. What's complex about that? 😂

Nah -- most of the world seems to be headed in quite the other direction in a hurry. "It's all about me!" and "Money! Money! Money!" is all the rage, don't you know!

And yet, "this reality" is rather the opposite.

Ergo, the $20 fee. Again, I think that's fair.

Don't see the problem. I mean, everything's great on Mt. Everest, too:

www.pbs.org/newshour/world/mount-everests-highest-camp-is-littered-with-tons-of-garbage-cleanup-will-likely-take-years

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUL0F5boUZQ

Look, all I can tell you guys is don't look up. 😂

its to buy more alcohol 😁 the problem is no one actually tells the truth about the situation. i just paid $9000 in uni fees for my daughter just to be brain washed
into the culture that keeps on repeating itself over and over and over. in every course she studies. its just a money grab. and btw one of my workers is aboriginal and even he says its a joke. Its a rock "period" its been here for 20 billion years

When a population is addicted to alcohol/drugs, but wasn't addicted to alcohol/drugs before European colonization, well, that's a pretty big red flag right there, I should think. Yes, there are those who can readily be assimilated in the invader's culture, but not all, or even most. I mean, imagine if a group of people "moved in" to your house, took your job, and then said, "We upgraded one of the kids' bedrooms, and you can live there rent free! Also, we got you a great janitorial job at your old work, so you can have some money for extras, like food, soap, and clothes." And then one of your kids thought one of the invaders was "hot", hooked up with him, and got treated really well -- maybe even living better than she ever did under your care -- and starts badmouthing your family for being freeloaders.

I'm not saying this is a perfect analogy for what the European colonizers did to the natives, whether in Australia or anywhere else, but I am saying that pointing to alcoholism and/or drug use of a conquered population who are still heavily discriminated against, pointing the ability of some of that population being able to throw away their culture, assimilate into the conquerer's culture, and even thrive, as an example of the conquered just being lazy good-for-nothings trying to "work the system", is, well, there's a word for it, but I'll be kind and not say it.

The reality, of course, is extremely complex. That means it's far from as simple as "Conquered people good, invaders bad". It also doesn't mean that the majority of the conquered people wouldn't have chosen the world of the conquerer given all the conquerer's have going for them -- even preferring to do their best in the conquerer's world despite the descrimination than live in their original culture.

But the existence of such people does not diminish the plight of those who do not accept being conquered. Sure, there are "good" conquerers who help the conquered, and there are "bad" conquered people who take advantage of what the "good" conquerers have done for them. But let's not lose the forest for the trees. Or is it, "Let's not lose the desert for the rocks" in the case [most of] of Australia? : )

drugs 🤔 they used to get smashed on Eucalyptus 😁 also australia was visited centuraries before Cook where cultures were mixed, did you know that there are no original DNA ancestors today, even Erny Dingo has more european in him than aboriginal. i went to school with a few and they were just like everone else, in fact no one gave a sh;t , the stolen generation is just fake news as well , the parents used to just abandend there children "go walkabout" and let them die, thats a civilised culture 🤨 i did a job about 5 years ago when one of my workers couldnt make it to work so he asked if his aboriginal cousin could fill in , i said fine and was paying top money for a hand. we arrived at the job and the guy just disappeared for the whole day and expected to get paid Because he went "walkabout" 🤣 was the last time i employed him. i consider the whole planet 1 nation for everyone to live. heck Australia has about 100 different cultures living here now. you know why ! also Dingos came from indonesia they are not first nation animals like its made out 😎
the funny thing is my daughter wrote a paper for one of her teaching degree assignments a few years ago and chose the same subject as we are discussing, it was very controversal and very well writern , it was that well received that 5 professors marked it and gave it 100% and is now the gold standard for the university, yet last term my daughter is studying medicine (different uni) and the same topic raised its head again and the lecturer gave the whole class the same low mark 70% across the board , its a joke, my daughter did complain to the uni admin as she should with her academic acheivements 😊 you have to live in the country to understand what is fact and what is fiction, Australia voted against the referendum last year with a massive margin against and it has only divided the country more. 😒in all honesty who doesnt want to live in Australia.

Good to see the media in Australia are staring to call out this BS.

And here

Good to see the media in Australia are staring to call out this BS

No, the reports are largely BS. The first video is talking about the "commercial" restrictions. These don't apply to tourists. Further, the commercial restictions apply to all National Parks in Australia. As a media organization,Sky News know this. Sky News has history in covering indigenous matters. You can draw your own conclusions as to why they chose to single Uluru out.
I haven't looked at the second vid yet but the first image is clearly faked.They aren't local police for a start, although I guess whoever put it together might claim to be making a point rather than having a real image. The local police certainly don't have any interest in photographers. Photos are certainly allowed.
Re climbing the Rock. I get to speak to hundreds of visitors to The Rock each year. Firstly, the ban has done nothing to limit visiters. Yulara is almost always booked out for the tourist season. Secondly, almost every visitor I have spoken to who has raised the subject (and I don't raise the subject) has supported the ban. It's an issue only for those who don't go to the Centre anyway and have cultural domination axes to grind.
If anyone wants to discuss this issue seriously and with knowledge of what they are talking about, they need to be discussing access to National Parks and, maintenance and fees in general and rights to photographs taken in National Parks.

[/quote]

Mike, I picked up on this from another forum I visit, and a disturbing point was made, that should worry all of us who photograph the built environment or even landscapes. The sky report has an interview with the couple who sparked this debate. They are not commercial photographers and they were not monetising the content they posted. The people at Ayers Rock, seem to be taking the view that posting to social media is commercial photography, as the social media platform is a commercial venture, and makes money on the content we post. This has implications for many of us.

The historic sites I photograph in Italy and France, are covered by a similar law that prohibits commercial use of any pictures I take. Increasingly copyright law is being used to monetise new Archistar buildings or the lighting of the Eiffel tower. Up to now nobody has challenged the use of amateur photography or video posted to social media, but the Ayers Rock episodes is setting a precedent. Remember, even this forum is social media, and it is a commercial venture for somebody up the food chain.

I have issues too about the obscurantism that states that certain people cannot look at certain landscape features, but I understand this is a delicate argument, in Australia and parts of America, and as a European, difficult to understand, where the replacement of previous cultures has been continuous over thousands of years, and is considered by us, to be a normal mostly positive evolution. I am glad there are no Celts anymore doing human sacrifice at the nearby Monte Lussetto!

[quote="@NCV"]

"The sky report"

There's your problem.
Sky, the most loopy faux right-wing collection of sad old hacks and Rupert's rejects,
bringing rabid rat-baggery to a screen near you. Always loved the "News", bit.
You can seriously hurt you brain hanging around that viper pit.
Might pay to pick this one up when there's some real facts, from a real news service, to report.

Mike, I picked up on this from another forum I visit, and a disturbing point was made, that should worry all of us who photograph the built environment or even landscapes. The sky report has an interview with the couple who sparked this debate. They are not commercial photographers and they were not monetising the content they posted. The people at Ayers Rock, seem to be taking the view that posting to social media is commercial photography, as the social media platform is a commercial venture, and makes money on the content we post. This has implications for many of us.

The historic sites I photograph in Italy and France, are covered by a similar law that prohibits commercial use of any pictures I take. Increasingly copyright law is being used to monetise new Archistar buildings or the lighting of the Eiffel tower. Up to now nobody has challenged the use of amateur photography or video posted to social media, but the Ayers Rock episodes is setting a precedent. Remember, even this forum is social media, and it is a commercial venture for somebody up the food chain.

I have issues too about the obscurantism that states that certain people cannot look at certain landscape features, but I understand this is a delicate argument, in Australia and parts of America, and as a European, difficult to understand, where the replacement of previous cultures has been continuous over thousands of years, and is considered by us, to be a normal mostly positive evolution. I am glad there are no Celts anymore doing human sacrifice at the nearby Monte Lussetto!
[/quote]
If you go back and look at video one again, note the following. The original post from the tourists is barely mentioned. No fines are attempts at fines were actually issued. Uluru is swarming with "influencers" who try to use shots of the rock for what are certainly commercial self promotion purposes and, if they get enough viewers, become real promotional stuff. It's very difficult to codify this kind of thing. As the Sky people well know, this applies to all national Parks in Australia. That they choose to make this sound as though only Uluru does this is blatant and in line with Sky/Murdoch media on indigenous issues in general. Most of the really objectionable stuff here is coming from the commentators, not the original video. I note the male commentator who begins by saying he has never been to Uluru. He should and he should talk to the locals. But the commentators are right in saying its about money. Of course it is. Like any landowners, the local people utilize the resource they have. Doing this is essential if a community is to move from a hand out mentality. Only a small part of the income goes to the traditional owners. Uluru/Yulara is extremely isolated. Energy, water, infrastructure, medical facilities etc to make tourism possible is immensely expensive here.
As I said in the first piece I wrote on this, indigenous relationships in Australia are extremely complex. Anyone who tells you (including me) that they can tell you what the indigenous position is on anything, should be immediately ignored. Indigenous communities, indigenous individuals are all on different journeys and stages along a journey between a 40000+ years (and still in place culture) and the modern world. It is critical that this/these dialogues be conducted with respect if progress is to be made. The complexities of the indigenous skin name system and the responsibilities that go with skin names adds another dimension. It's what I was getting at when I earlier mentioned the problems of determining the authority in a community when any discussions are being conducted. Our governments, even when trying to act with good faith, want to negotiate with a representative who can speak for the community. It ain't like that (but it depends on the community.)

I just spotted Ron P's post re "The Sky Report." Exactly Ron. As I said before, "Sky" has form and other connections. Any report they give on indigenous matters should be treated as suspect, to put it mildly.

If you go back and look at video one again, note the following. The original post from the tourists is barely mentioned. No fines are attempts at fines were actually issued. Uluru is swarming with "influencers" who try to use shots of the rock for what are certainly commercial self promotion purposes and, if they get enough viewers, become real promotional stuff. It's very difficult to codify this kind of thing. As the Sky people well know, this applies to all national Parks in Australia. That they choose to make this sound as though only Uluru does this is blatant and in line with Sky/Murdoch media on indigenous issues in general. Most of the really objectionable stuff here is coming from the commentators, not the original video. I note the male commentator who begins by saying he has never been to Uluru. He should and he should talk to the locals. But the commentators are right in saying its about money. Of course it is. Like any landowners, the local people utilize the resource they have. Doing this is essential if a community is to move from a hand out mentality. Only a small part of the income goes to the traditional owners. Uluru/Yulara is extremely isolated. Energy, water, infrastructure, medical facilities etc to make tourism possible is immensely expensive here.
As I said in the first piece I wrote on this, indigenous relationships in Australia are extremely complex. Anyone who tells you (including me) that they can tell you what the indigenous position is on anything, should be immediately ignored. Indigenous communities, indigenous individuals are all on different journeys and stages along a journey between a 40000+ years (and still in place culture) and the modern world. It is critical that this/these dialogues be conducted with respect if progress is to be made. The complexities of the indigenous skin name system and the responsibilities that go with skin names adds another dimension. It's what I was getting at when I earlier mentioned the problems of determining the authority in a community when any discussions are being conducted. Our governments, even when trying to act with good faith, want to negotiate with a representative who can speak for the community. It ain't like that (but it depends on the community.)

I just spotted Ron P's post re "The Sky Report." Exactly Ron. As I said before, "Sky" has form and other connections. Any report they give on indigenous matters should be treated as suspect, to put it mildly.
[/quote]

its gets worst. my sister wanted to build a deck on the back of there house near sydney. the council required an aboriginal archaeologist $5k cost to sight the digging of the posts footings just incase they discovered someone p--ss there 10,000 years ago 🤣 so my sister did a search as to when the land was reclaimed swamp and it was covered by 1 meter of fill so they put in an objection as there posts only needed to go in the ground 600mm and won. its a joke just a money spin.
look up this one Nigel , Bridge in Adelade that development app was held up by "Secret Women's Business" 😊

I can agree with you totally here, about the devastating effect Facebook, Twitter, X and Ticktoc, have had on copyright and such. Much more worrying is the addiction it causes to many of its users. I read an article in the Spectator that showed evidence of increasing numbers of children, who start school with very poor language skills as well as not being potty trained, because the parents of these children are glued to their phones and do not talk to their children. But I am digressing.

I just worry that in a monetised world, I cannot share my photography with the world as I do now. I also enjoy looking at pictures of places I will never visit seen through non professional eyes.