PWS and social media (YouTube etc) - crack down?

[Minty]

Is it an outdated law though? How so?

The legislation and Parks' interpretation of it is completely out of touch with the reality of how media is produced and published these days. The cat is out of the bag in terms of social media, and while it's easy to point at "influencers" making big money with exploitative clickbait, most people who are producing and disseminating content publicly exist in a grey area that the current policy is completely inappropriate for. The categories for a commercial filming permit are: "Commercial Filming (advertisements), Feature Filming (cinema, video/DVD and TV), Documentaries, Stills Photography for advertising purposes, Government Tourism Dept. Sponsored Filming and Educational or Tourism Productions". Is a youtube video a documentary? If a sponsored adventure that raises money for a environmental cause does publicity on Facebook, does that count as advertising? Are the photos published on an online article "Stills for advertising purposes" if that site runs ads?

[north-north-west]

I agree that the laws need to be brought up to date to deal with the various uses and intricacies of social media, but that doesn't absolve Parsons from his egregious and deliberate illegal behaviour. There are better ways to bring the issue to the attention of legislators, without blatantly politicising it and screwing TasPAWS (and our entire reserve system) over in the process. You don't go gangbusters on civic disobedience until working through proper channels fails. Parsons himself has made it plain that he was never interested in even trying to do the right thing until he got caught.
Also, don't minimise his use of these videos. This is a steady stream of income for him; it most definitely is sufficient to qualify as a commercial venture.
And that's just the licencing issue. Then you have the fires and the drones ...

[Tazz81]

Drone use is selfish/arrogant and disrespectful to all other uses of the Park/Reserve. Ignorance is not an excuse because simple human decency dictates that you don’t destroy the solitude for others. As I’ve said before on this site - how hard is it for people to just go into the bush, enjoy it, leave it and not have to tell the world “look at me I’ve been on a walk”.

[ILUVSWTAS]

how hard is it for people to just go into the bush, enjoy it, leave it and not have to tell the world “look at me I’ve been on a walk”.

I'm afraid the dumb generation don't care about climbing the mountain. It's far more important to get the shot, rush to the nearest cafe and order an almond milk latte with smashed avo and sit back and see how many "likes" they can accumulate.

[Robparsons]

how hard is it for people to just go into the bush, enjoy it, leave it and not have to tell the world “look at me I’ve been on a walk”.

I'm afraid the dumb generation don't care about climbing the mountain. It's far more important to get the shot, rush to the nearest cafe and order an almond milk latte with smashed avo and sit back and see how many "likes" they can accumulate.

I vaguely remember you sharing some s#itty YouTube videos not that long ago..

[Robparsons]

In fact no one here is innocent. Unless you have never shared any information about your trips, where you have been, what you saw, you have no right to judge others.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Hmmm.
Unless someone is acting under my name I've never had a YouTube channel old mate.

[doogs]

In fact no one here is innocent. Unless you have never shared any information about your trips, where you have been, what you saw, you have no right to judge others.

I think it is a long stretch to compare sharing trips with small groups of friends to actively promoting a YouTube channel that regularly sticks two fingers at what is acceptable acceptable practise in Tasmanian National Parks. For example, the sharing of the location of Kutakina Cave, with tens of thousands is an absolute disgrace.

[Robparsons]

Do you forget Parks and Wildlife had a sign there that said anyone was welcome to visit the cave?

[Tasbc]

According to the permit system photographers and videographers must apply for a permit at least 28 days in advance. Given the impossibility of forecasting weather that far out any weather related objective such as skiing, landscape photography, paragliding etc will not be planned at this stage. Therefore the application would look something like; I plan to go photograph/vid a ski descent somewhere in Tasmania at some point in the next 6 months, maybe. The location is impossible to know as are the dates. Of course, this would be rejected. Then the cost of the permit. $440 per expedition plus public liability insurance (say another 1k per year).

Seriously how much do they think we are making here!? A double page spread in a magazine is $150. That won’t even cover the cost of petrol. The photography component of a feature article is $400- still less than the cost of the permit. Adventurers may get given gear in exchange for photos/a story. Are these people expected to fork out the equivalent cost of the gear in permit fees? Why would anyone even bother taking a photo in a national park as the legislation also stipulates ‘other consideration’ requiring a permit. Not just being paid. Share a photo with grandma? Better have your permits in order.

Too assume that content creators are raking in cash is a ludicrous suggestion- as a photographer I very rarely make any money off an expedition and even if so when you account for all expenses and gear it’s always a loss. Furthermore it’s a massive gamble if you even have the right conditions. How can I be expected to pay a huge sum for such a permit? I would say it’s PWS profiteering of young adventurers who like to share their story. The thing that I really hate about all this is how PWS selectively applies these ridiculous rules to those they deem they don’t like. PWS should stick to protecting and educating.

They absolutely should update this ridiculous antiquated legislation from 2002 as their ethics are questionable regarding its implementation and they can no longer be trusted to make balanced decisions. I remind those that 2002 was time where most still shot film and digital SLRs had 4megapixels.

[Robparsons]

In fact no one here is innocent. Unless you have never shared any information about your trips, where you have been, what you saw, you have no right to judge others.

I think it is a long stretch to compare sharing trips with small groups of friends to actively promoting a YouTube channel that regularly sticks two fingers at what is acceptable acceptable practise in Tasmanian National Parks. For example, the sharing of the location of Kutakina Cave, with tens of thousands is an absolute disgrace.

It is not a long stretch, you either do expose or you don't. Even the wilderness photographers who do not disclose locations are still exposing the sites to the public. Even if it wasn't your video ILOVESWTAS you still post blogs of your trips for the internet to see. If you want to claim innocence do your sharing in private chats or shut your hypocritical mouths.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Mate I don't know what you think you know but I don't have YouTube.
I don't have SM
I don't blog.

It's not me ok??

And sharing locations is one thing sure. But itl not illegal....

[Robparsons]

Mate I don't know what you think you know but I don't have YouTube.
I don't have SM
I don't blog.

It's not me ok??

And sharing locations is one thing sure. But itl not illegal....

Go to the Gallery Tab on this website and scroll down about halfway to find evidence of you (ILUVSWTAS) creating blogs.

[Robparsons]

''Postby ILUVSWTAS » Tue 26 Oct, 2010 6:14 am

We had a trip to the Travellers over the show weekend, I was going to write up a trip report, but it's off track and a somewhat sensitive area, so a few pictures will have to tell the story...'

[ILUVSWTAS]

15 years ago? Seriously?

Yes I used to post on this website, when it was a local community site...
In fact this thread is the first post I've participated in for several years. When I saw your video I knew there'd be a thread here and it looked like too much fun not to be involved in

I'll say it again though, it's not illegal unlke your multiple charges

That's the best you got?

[crollsurf]

Wondering when the admins will step in regarding the first rule of Bushwalk:
Keep all content friendly, polite and clean. 'Flaming', hostility, insults, obscenity, abuse and personal attacks are not permitted.

I'm not talking about other breaches (fires, access etc.). The PWS rules do need to be updated to accommodate the changing media landscape, specifically in regards to social media. The thing that concerns me is that enforcing the current rules regarding publishing media, are being applied depending on if PWS like or dislike the content. Correct my if I'm wrong, but I'm not seeing Parks right to apply the rules arbitrarily. They need to be applied to everyone equally.

So as the current rule stands, and the definition of "or other consideration" is open to legal debate, it is conceivable that posting on any site that contains adverting, is in breach. i.e: I post photos on my Facebook page and here as well. Both sites containing adverting and while I'm not the recipient of and advertising revenue, the owners of these sites are.

Hence my belief that the rule(s) do need to be revised. Knowing how public service works, they'll probably just update the rules to say that PWS have the right to ignore any breaches. A better, more amicable solution, would bring some common sense to bare, and rewrite the rules to take into account the changing Media Landscape.

[doogs]

Do you forget Parks and Wildlife had a sign there that said anyone was welcome to visit the cave?

It is not Parks land. They may have a sign, but that's probably outdated.. you probably shouldn't have filmed nor disclosed the location without the proper permissions.
I hope Parks have some editorial control over your future endeavours as they do with most guidebooks.

[Robparsons]

15 years ago? Seriously?

Yes I used to post on this website, when it was a local community site...
In fact this thread is the first post I've participated in for several years. When I saw your video I knew there'd be a thread here and it looked like too much fun not to be involved in

I'll say it again though, it's not illegal unlke your multiple charges

That's the best you got?

I don't care if it was '15 years ago' or yesterday. It sits today as fresh and accessible as the day it was shared. If you really stood by your morals you would of removed it over time. You haven't.

[Biggles]

Wondering when the admins will step in regarding the first rule of Bushwalk:
Keep all content friendly, polite and clean. 'Flaming', hostility, insults, obscenity, abuse and personal attacks are not permitted.

I[...]

Yes, I agree. I think this thread has run its course and needs to be actioned.

[north-north-west]

In fact no one here is innocent. Unless you have never shared any information about your trips, where you have been, what you saw, you have no right to judge others.

Another one who seems to think there's no difference between a playful smack on the behind amongst mates and dropping a bomb on a city. I'm surprised you didn't go full bore with the "you go there so you can't criticise" line.
Minimal impact. Ever heard of it? That applies to sharing information as well as what you do out bush.

Have I done trip reports? A few. Any from sensitive off-track areas? One. How much detail on the route that might encourage someone else to go there? Nothing. In fact, much of the writing was emphasising the difficulty of the route and its unsuitability for those without a high level of experience in off-track SW Tas.
Yes, I put up photos here and on FB, even from sensitive areas. Sometimes I'll identify the place. I don't post any information publically about how to get there that isn't already published in other places. Any detail I do give is only given after I''ve made sure the person will treat the place properly. Mostly that means a small core group whose attitudes, experience and behaviour I already know. That's fairly common here. In fact, that's the ethos of the person who started this site and who wrote the rules that still apply.
As for "15 years ago still counts" ... edit function here has a limited time. Any deletion of posts from that far back would be extra work for the admin team who already have more on their plate than they can deal with. A lot of us have changed the way we use social media because of the issue of overuse of sensitive areas. We've learnt. Pity others have difficulty with that.

Getting all defensive when you've been rightly called out isn't going to win you friends. A little humility and honesty would go a long way to mending bridges, but that seems to be a step too far.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Thank nnw. Put much better and in a better spirit than I care to.

Anyway the post Robbo put up with my quto clearly says as it was off track I'm not going to comment on routes. So I'm really not sure what point hes even trying to make.

And I repeat, I didn't do anything illegal. I'm not the one on trial here.

[north-north-west]

Thank nnw. Put much better and in a better spirit than I care to.

I've been practicing not losing my temper. Harder at some times than others, and this one is now officially in the "too hard" basket, so I'm out. Just hope the admin locks the thread because I can't see anything constructive coming from it any more and there's no point all of us just arguing around in ever decreasing circles until we disappear up whichever backside is most convenient.

[ILUVSWTAS]

If anyone is interested Levi (Tassie boys prospecting) has a YouTube video up with his version of events. He's seemingly a bit more honest than Rob and owns his mistakes claiming complacency rather than ignorance.
He even contradicts his mate a bit with the details around the standing wood at the Spero river.

[Rione]

It's a delicate balance between preserving the integrity of these natural spaces and allowing creative freedom. The situation with Rob highlights the need for clearer guidelines that accommodate modern content creation while still prioritizing the conservation of these areas.

[Nuts]

John Chapman's unending spoiler-sprees of publicity that brought millions of people into the Tasmanian wilderness at the cost of the environment itself.

It was Tyrone Thomas for me, I craved a decent image or useful map

We did buy maps, then filled in the highlights of his novel for ourselves, like giddy explorers.

[doogs]

It's a delicate balance between preserving the integrity of these natural spaces and allowing creative freedom. The situation with Rob highlights the need for clearer guidelines that accommodate modern content creation while still prioritizing the conservation of these areas.

I think the guidelines are quite straightforward:
1. If you are planning on trying to make some money from 'content' you produce, then get a commercial licence.
2. You will only be granted a licence if you are filming on a marked track.

There is obviously a line to be drawn, that is currently absent, on what constitutes making money. Some folk makes films for themselves and share on YouTube for friends to see, and make a handful of dollars over time. Do they need a licence? Maybe they should declare it to Parks and donate it to wildcare?

In saying that, the biggest problems that social media creates tends to be on marked tracks. This summer I have heard stories of very over-full toilet pods on the Western Arthur's and at Lake Rhona due to numbers. Recommendations to treat water in places have been introduced too.These are issues that have been partly caused by social media, mainly photographs and not 'content', which the majority of visitors have shared online. It would be good for people to adopt a more considered approach when sharing, by limiting their audience rather than chasing 'likes' to the detriment of the environment.

[phATty]

It would be good for people to adopt a more considered approach when sharing, by limiting their audience rather than chasing 'likes' to the detriment of the environment.

There's a simple rule I adopt with social media posts and that is just don't say where you are. People are generally too nervous to ask and not knowledgeable enough to recognize the photos so they don't flock to wherever you were. I am guilty of a couple posts here and there, but with this rule, (and no geotagging), I think I haven't contributed all that much to the issue.

[Nuts]

It's a delicate balance between preserving the integrity of these natural spaces and allowing creative freedom. The situation with Rob highlights the need for clearer guidelines that accommodate modern content creation while still prioritizing the conservation of these areas.

Assuming a spam-bot using AI, I wonder if the ultimate answer generated is either- an accurate photo-location app, do it now! or
to limit AI, at least that affects National Parks (do it now!)