bruce mason 's artical in hearld
bruce mason 's artical in hearld
bruce mason 's view have made there way into today hearld , with a picture of a fj 4o and a cruiser axle deep mud flying check it out
89 safari, pto winch, 33x15 simexs. sliders,75mm lift . turbo intercoolered
The article .... Who is Bruce ??? apart from a complete stirrer ???
What a complete crock of shite ... most people do not go mud slinging and rut making on public access roads
What right has anybody to say what people should be alowed to do on their own land ... or what you can let others do on your land
What a complete crock of shite ... most people do not go mud slinging and rut making on public access roads
What right has anybody to say what people should be alowed to do on their own land ... or what you can let others do on your land
NZ Herald newspaper article
Bruce Mason: Why the off-roader crowd's name is mud
5:00AM Monday September 03, 2007 Copyright 2007 APN Holdings
There is wide dismay at the damage being caused by recreational vehicles to New Zealand's protected areas, and unformed and poorly surfaced rural roads. There are also strong objections to the presence of vehicles in many natural areas that detract from quiet recreational activity.
The rapid expansion in the number of 4WDs, trail bikes, and other off-road vehicles has implications for many areas used and appreciated by others. The potential for damage to the environment from wheeled vehicles is immense; trail bikes are increasingly removing limits to the terrain that can be traversed.
Restraint, or any perceived need for such, is considered by many riders and drivers to be a fundamental infringement of personal freedom, no matter what the environmental cost.
The thrills and excitement of off-road driving, as advertised by manufacturers and retailers, are expressed by "thump", "splash", mud and spinning wheels, feeding on an ever-present desire to speed unrestrained across the countryside. Television and the print media are full of it.
Four-wheel-drive clubs have formed national associations with the object of promoting and protecting their interests through lobbying for access to, and vehicle use within, public lands.
To lessen criticism of their activities most clubs have adopted an imported American code of "Tread Lightly" ethics that projects an environmentally responsible face, with the slogan of "travel and recreate with minimum impact". However, realities on the ground can be very different.
Any codes of ethics appear more honoured in the breach. "Tread Lightly" codes of practice have not discernibly moderated overall driver behaviour or attitudes.
Wet conditions are the draw for many. Conquering mud, ruts and other obstacles provides an underlying, primeval attraction. Large spinning wheels and "heaps of grunt" will propel vehicles through most bogs and wet terrain, with maximum environmental effect. The more mud-caked the vehicle, the better to show off back in town. An exponential increase in damage to many rural roads has created potential liabilities for local authorities. Contrary to the beliefs of many drivers, the right of unhindered passage over roads does not extend to creating damage.
If a driver ruts or muddies the surface to the extent that this becomes an "appreciable interference" with others' use of the road, then, under common law, legal action can be taken. Likewise, adjoining land occupiers inhibited from accessing their properties can sue.
Local authorities have plenty of statutory and bylaw powers available to them to prevent damage, and to prosecute offenders. So too does the Department of Conservation, for land under its control, but bewilderingly DOC seems reluctant to do so.
It appears that the department is under instructions to be more "popular", even if the natural values under its protection are degraded by off-road vehicle use.
Conservation and environmental protection, per se, are not primary considerations for roads. It is the prevention of "nuisance" to public passage that must, by law, preoccupy the minds of councils.
The primary issues requiring attention are matters of strategy and policy. What are the most effective measures for preventing road damage on unmetalled rural roads generally, and on specific sections of road?
To what extent can education or codes of conduct assist?
In the absence of fencing and gates, to physically bar vehicle entry, how practical is it to rely on prosecution as a basis for legal action and as a deterrent?
Should bylaws be devised, for instance to prohibit vehicle use in wet ground conditions, rather than have blanket or seasonal vehicle bans? And to what extent can information from members of the public be used for successful prosecution?
Should members of the public be encouraged to instigate legal action, under common law, against drivers of road-damaging vehicles?
Then there is the question of whether the police be used to a greater extent to deal with unregistered vehicles and dangerous driving? Could other state agencies be given powers to prosecute?
Both common law and statute are well equipped to deal with damage to roads and to prevent damage of any origin. The primary need is for local authorities to assess the extent and scale of damage occurring to roads under their control, resolve to take action, then devise comprehensive remedies.
The "displacement factor" must also be anticipated - isolated restrictions transfer problems to other areas. Protected areas' managers have been caught off guard, often too slow in perceiving the magnitude of adverse vehicle impacts and too prone to half-measures. Local authorities have generally been more proactive in managing such impacts on public reserves and parks than DOC.
At a national level, key public policy issues need to be addressed such as whether areas protected for their natural values, including quiet, be sacrificed to whatever technological demands are placed on them. And should other, more benign, forms of recreation be allowed to be discouraged and displaced by machines?
Should land in private ownership be the primary place for off-road vehicle recreation? Allowing mechanised onslaughts over supposedly protected areas is anathema to the public purposes for which they are held. Attempting to make all areas all things to all people is a recipe for degradation.
As the desire of men to play with machines appears to be genetically immutable there is clearly a need for outlets for such activity. The industry-backed off-road sector should make their own arrangements, either by purchasing their own land, or negotiating access with private landowners who are willing to accommodate such use. Two-thirds of New Zealand is potentially available.
* Bruce Mason is a former National Parks and Reserves Ranger. He is a researcher for Recreation Access NZ, promoting minimum impact recreation and secure access to public lands and waters.
There is no mechanical problem so difficult that it cannot be solved by brute strength and ignorance.
-
PeterVahry
- Hard Yaka
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
- Location: Auckland
Unfortunately the truth is that while "most people" don't wreck the countryside, there are enough who do make wrong choices and provide the ammunition for writers like Bruce Mason.
He is right that some alpine areas won't recover for a significant time and the visual scars can be a blot on a landscape.
He's wrong to imply that vehicles are the only damaging influence to the terrain and that walking should prevail. The question is ...do we respond and challenge him in the media or simply let it fade?
The NZFWDA executive meeting last week agreed to ignore the claims because the media had appeared to as well.
He is right that some alpine areas won't recover for a significant time and the visual scars can be a blot on a landscape.
He's wrong to imply that vehicles are the only damaging influence to the terrain and that walking should prevail. The question is ...do we respond and challenge him in the media or simply let it fade?
The NZFWDA executive meeting last week agreed to ignore the claims because the media had appeared to as well.
PeterVahry wrote:The NZFWDA executive meeting last week agreed to ignore the claims because the media had appeared to as well.
Well said Peter, I sense that this Bruce Mason has interviewed his typewriter for most of his research. It implies a lot but backs it up with little hard facts.
However having worked for a Government Department that was publicity adverse for a number years and just ignored all bad PR on the hope that it would go away, well it didn't and soon the media learnt that they could say what ever they wanted. There was a change of policy and they challenged every article by correcting them when the reported facts were wrong, owning up when they were wrong. This took the steam out of media's sails and they could no longer embellish the story to make good reading. Within months they moved on to easier prey
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin
-
Steve_t647
- Hard Yaka
- Posts: 998
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:00 pm
- Location: Christchurch City, In front of the computer
I think there has to be some form of reply in the Media including the cans rubbish fires and poorly buried waste that trampers and walkers create.
I have been on 4wd tracks and walking tracks I enjoy both and while he has some valid points he also glosses over the attitudes of walkers and trampers that bury (occasionaly) and burn their rubbish as they go, leave food behind and deficate just off the track.
Most trampers do not carry a shovel or carry out empty gas canisters none remove the rubbish from huts (in groups I have been with) yet I have been in two 4wd groups that have removed all these items having not brought them in. Also the waste footprint a 4wd leaves in a day trip is far less then the bleached toilet paper over the 4 day tramp left in the forest.
There is enough forest for everyone just because we use our access rather than leave it for the elite few trampers and mountaineers, look at the number of search and rescues and the cost of them for trampers walkers or even hunters! Why because they go off track! compared with the number for 4wd drivers? we look after ourselves carry GPS's and radios spare batterys (which I gave to a tramper once) camera's and more food than we can eat, we also have shovels to fix the track so we can pass and drain water from the track.
When the weather turns Trampers are happy to get in my 4wd and come out with me. The issue should be areas for motorised traffic and areas for non motorised traffic (Mountain bikes and trampers) we can share huts as long as there is separate access routes.
I have been on 4wd tracks and walking tracks I enjoy both and while he has some valid points he also glosses over the attitudes of walkers and trampers that bury (occasionaly) and burn their rubbish as they go, leave food behind and deficate just off the track.
Most trampers do not carry a shovel or carry out empty gas canisters none remove the rubbish from huts (in groups I have been with) yet I have been in two 4wd groups that have removed all these items having not brought them in. Also the waste footprint a 4wd leaves in a day trip is far less then the bleached toilet paper over the 4 day tramp left in the forest.
There is enough forest for everyone just because we use our access rather than leave it for the elite few trampers and mountaineers, look at the number of search and rescues and the cost of them for trampers walkers or even hunters! Why because they go off track! compared with the number for 4wd drivers? we look after ourselves carry GPS's and radios spare batterys (which I gave to a tramper once) camera's and more food than we can eat, we also have shovels to fix the track so we can pass and drain water from the track.
When the weather turns Trampers are happy to get in my 4wd and come out with me. The issue should be areas for motorised traffic and areas for non motorised traffic (Mountain bikes and trampers) we can share huts as long as there is separate access routes.
bruces thing
this is what walkers do to a track.
89 safari, pto winch, 33x15 simexs. sliders,75mm lift . turbo intercoolered
This whole topic regarding Bruce Mason has really got me rather irritable!
[Rant]
First off, thanks to Dazza85 for posting the full article here on ORE for us to all read, it avoids having to visit the NZHerald site and creating a false illusion that the article is publicly more popular than it actually deserves.
I thought the article was pretty bad really. Very little facts were produced, while a lot a questions were asked, though this would be what I have come to expect as the standard arsenal of tactics used by promoters. I would like to be clear here and state that the role of a promoter is to create the illusion of truth, usually where little or no truth exists, In a similar way as 'McD's is healthy food to eat' or 'phone companies caring about their customers' promoters are used to create a 'public image', whether that image is true or not. This is what Mr Mason's privately funded crusade seems to be about, which has cumulated in this latest public media article regarding 4x4 access.
I feel that the general agenda he is promoting is that of zero tolerance of vehicles in the outdoors, even going so far as to ban them totally from all public areas altogether, should he ever get the option. I personally think that 4x4 use (specifically) should be allowed access to public areas as a unilateral right of the members of the public who use them! I can accept that driving a 4x4 on a track will spray some mud and churn up the ruts (though most try to be responsible in that manner) and may cause some ecological damage to the environment, but doesn't merely existing as humans pose the same sort of risks? how about the Highways running the length of NZ, the constant onslaught of new housing subdivisions, power generation, home heating, etc. etc. Are they not causing constant ecological environmental damage also? Should we not invest anything in these things, should we start imposing limits on procreation itself, controlling our population? The fact is, we as humans will always have an impact on the environment, I think it's grossly unfair that 4x4 use should be singled out, especially since we try so hard to 'play by the rules', minimise damage and offset any damage that is done by cleanup work or other means.
Mr Mason would have us believe that continued use of 4x4's will ruin the environment. Just how long has there been 4x4's using The Waimak, The Ashley or any other host of tracks throughout NZ? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Just how much damage has really been done to these areas in the long term that isn't constantly in the process of being repaired, naturally or un-naturally? Can anyone show me where the damage from that young fella 'ripping it up' in the 1950s still exists?
If you want to completely stop damage to a road, let no-one travel on it! The fact that councils have budgets for roading repairs is indication that damage must happen even in spite of the lack of 4x4's using it. As for the argument that walkers and trampers are low impact on the environment, I suspect that DOC's budget for routine maintenance and repair suggests otherwise.
More information can be found about Bruce Mason here;
http://www.recreationaccess.org.nz/
Interestingly enough, the RANZ website is full of grammatical and spelling errors that would provide a wealth of ammunition for any interested party wishing to lower themselves and attack Mr Mason's credibility as a writer.
I think this is probably the best course of action to take, just as with people who 'flame post'; it's usually best just to ignore them...
[/Rant]
Disclaimer: The above statements are nothing more than my personal opinions and not intended to be taken seriously in any way.
Az
[Rant]
First off, thanks to Dazza85 for posting the full article here on ORE for us to all read, it avoids having to visit the NZHerald site and creating a false illusion that the article is publicly more popular than it actually deserves.
I thought the article was pretty bad really. Very little facts were produced, while a lot a questions were asked, though this would be what I have come to expect as the standard arsenal of tactics used by promoters. I would like to be clear here and state that the role of a promoter is to create the illusion of truth, usually where little or no truth exists, In a similar way as 'McD's is healthy food to eat' or 'phone companies caring about their customers' promoters are used to create a 'public image', whether that image is true or not. This is what Mr Mason's privately funded crusade seems to be about, which has cumulated in this latest public media article regarding 4x4 access.
I feel that the general agenda he is promoting is that of zero tolerance of vehicles in the outdoors, even going so far as to ban them totally from all public areas altogether, should he ever get the option. I personally think that 4x4 use (specifically) should be allowed access to public areas as a unilateral right of the members of the public who use them! I can accept that driving a 4x4 on a track will spray some mud and churn up the ruts (though most try to be responsible in that manner) and may cause some ecological damage to the environment, but doesn't merely existing as humans pose the same sort of risks? how about the Highways running the length of NZ, the constant onslaught of new housing subdivisions, power generation, home heating, etc. etc. Are they not causing constant ecological environmental damage also? Should we not invest anything in these things, should we start imposing limits on procreation itself, controlling our population? The fact is, we as humans will always have an impact on the environment, I think it's grossly unfair that 4x4 use should be singled out, especially since we try so hard to 'play by the rules', minimise damage and offset any damage that is done by cleanup work or other means.
Mr Mason would have us believe that continued use of 4x4's will ruin the environment. Just how long has there been 4x4's using The Waimak, The Ashley or any other host of tracks throughout NZ? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Just how much damage has really been done to these areas in the long term that isn't constantly in the process of being repaired, naturally or un-naturally? Can anyone show me where the damage from that young fella 'ripping it up' in the 1950s still exists?
If you want to completely stop damage to a road, let no-one travel on it! The fact that councils have budgets for roading repairs is indication that damage must happen even in spite of the lack of 4x4's using it. As for the argument that walkers and trampers are low impact on the environment, I suspect that DOC's budget for routine maintenance and repair suggests otherwise.
wjw wrote:For those of you like me, who don't know who he is:* Bruce Mason is a former National Parks and Reserves Ranger. He is a researcher for Recreation Access NZ, promoting minimum impact recreation and secure access to public lands and waters.
More information can be found about Bruce Mason here;
http://www.recreationaccess.org.nz/
Interestingly enough, the RANZ website is full of grammatical and spelling errors that would provide a wealth of ammunition for any interested party wishing to lower themselves and attack Mr Mason's credibility as a writer.
The NZFWDA executive meeting last week agreed to ignore the claims because the media had appeared to as well.
I think this is probably the best course of action to take, just as with people who 'flame post'; it's usually best just to ignore them...
[/Rant]
Disclaimer: The above statements are nothing more than my personal opinions and not intended to be taken seriously in any way.
Az
Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?
-
isuzumudman
- Hard Yaka
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:00 pm
- Location: Auckland
Too often we read of 4wd incidents/accidents in our newspapers where a 4wd is involved but clearly not at fault. There are also many 4wd drivers who act foolishly. It seems to me the newspapers latch on to '4wd' as it seems to have become a useful word in the hope readers will read some scandal into any phrase which contains it.
I don't know this person and have only read what is in this forum and what he has written in the newspaper.
In my opinion he should be responded in like manner to by someone who knows the facts about clubs & individuals etc. and can do it with eloquence and persuasion.
My 10c worth.
I don't know this person and have only read what is in this forum and what he has written in the newspaper.
In my opinion he should be responded in like manner to by someone who knows the facts about clubs & individuals etc. and can do it with eloquence and persuasion.
My 10c worth.
bruces thing
this is the photo heading the peice
89 safari, pto winch, 33x15 simexs. sliders,75mm lift . turbo intercoolered
Four-wheel-drive clubs have formed national associations with the object of promoting and protecting their interests through lobbying for access to, and vehicle use within, public lands.
Is he trying to say its a bad thing that groups of people with similar interests get together to promote what they like.If he does...then good bye to the Forest & Bird Society....good bye RSPCA...good bye to political parties..good bye to Girl Guides & Scouts...i could go on but id be here all day.
Please don't wade in !!!
There is much at stake here, not least of which is fanning flames that need no assistance within the eco-movement.
Bruce has been an amazing advocate for all recreational issues for years, and does some really good work which actually benefits us all.
I have known and worked with and alongside Bruce for years, and I just have to accept that at times he can tend to be outspoken.
Remember though, this is the same Bruce Mason who tore into DOC a few years ago because he wasn't allowed to take his 4WD along a lawful road up to a ski-field so he could go skiing !!
All in all, we are better off with Bruce than without him. His research is of immense value to the NZFWDA, and the Paper Road Society - as well as all manner of other National recreational bodies.
A couple of years ago, Bruce parted company from Public Access New Zealand (or PANZ), an organisation that the NZFWDA were affiliated to - and still very much are via a higher-level organisation CORANZ. This parting of the ways was brought about through differences of opinion in policy between Bruce and the trustees of PANZ - he thought they were being too restrained in their approach to Government.
Both these organisations are monitoring Bruce's new venture - RANZ - simply a reincarnation of PANZ - but with Bruce in command.
Seems Bruce's outburst was very carefully choreographed to coincide with Otago's 4WD conference - well I say coincidence - you decide.
But - don't react to anything please. It will suit Bruce's purpose if you do.
Cheers
Andy
Pommie Lightweight Land Rover IIa
Hybrid IIa, RR Chassis, P76, Bigfoot
3 x Range Rover
HSE Disco
6x6 Project underway
Hybrid IIa, RR Chassis, P76, Bigfoot
3 x Range Rover
HSE Disco
6x6 Project underway
how about some good pr for 4wdrives the next time any of us pull a car from a river bed or local domain take there number and name and send them to the nz4wd then they can put an article in the nz herald about the good they do as long as the people who have been saved agree
my 2c worth may only be an idea but good press may help
my 2c worth may only be an idea but good press may help
-
niblik
- Sausage Shack
- Posts: 3305
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 12:00 pm
- Location: erm.. out in the shed for a mo...
hiriklux wrote:how about some good pr for 4wdrives the next time any of us pull a car from a river bed or local domain take there number and name and send them to the nz4wd then they can put an article in the nz herald about the good they do as long as the people who have been saved agree
my 2c worth may only be an idea but good press may help
not bad for a newbie...
keep it up youngin..
hiriklux wrote:how about some good pr for 4wdrives the next time any of us pull a car from a river bed or local domain take there number and name and send them to the nz4wd then they can put an article in the nz herald about the good they do as long as the people who have been saved agree
my 2c worth may only be an idea but good press may help
Good call, how about the individuals and clubs who have volunteered and/or, been asked by DOC/Police etc, to help rescuing/searching for lost/injured/stranded hikers/trampers/climbers/MTBikers etc, because said 4WDers have the experience, knowledge and means to get to these people in need quickly and effeciently.
I wonder how many lives 4WDer's have saved doing these duties?
my 2c
Got a Daihatsu Something, hasn't got a Daihatsu engine.... or diffs.... and it doesn't have windows.... or doors.... but its got tyres....
bruces thing
has anyone noticed the photo the 40 looks like wopass's
89 safari, pto winch, 33x15 simexs. sliders,75mm lift . turbo intercoolered
Bruce Mason has lost the plot, he could not convince PANZ to do it his way and now seems to want to change the world. Do not give him the time of day, nor give him any comments, that just make him credible, which he is not. He is using old data, old stories and a person agenda obviously.
It is not worth even trying to reply via the media as they will twist everything to support what Mason is trying to justify.
Andy’s comment on this thread is great, and sums it up well.
If you feel that you must take action then do this:-
Spread the gospel to your mates and peers that 4WD people are like most motorists respectful of NZ law, we do try and create minimal impact on the environment and we do not just use the countryside as a great sand pit or mud hole.
But we are aware that there are a ‘hoon element’ out there and we want those hoons out of our recreation, just like some street citizens want boy racers off the streets, but that will never happen, so we just try and do our bit to try and educate and create good will.
If we all follow Treadlightly, and respect our environment then Mason can create no debate!
Cheers
Paul
It is not worth even trying to reply via the media as they will twist everything to support what Mason is trying to justify.
Andy’s comment on this thread is great, and sums it up well.
If you feel that you must take action then do this:-
Spread the gospel to your mates and peers that 4WD people are like most motorists respectful of NZ law, we do try and create minimal impact on the environment and we do not just use the countryside as a great sand pit or mud hole.
But we are aware that there are a ‘hoon element’ out there and we want those hoons out of our recreation, just like some street citizens want boy racers off the streets, but that will never happen, so we just try and do our bit to try and educate and create good will.
If we all follow Treadlightly, and respect our environment then Mason can create no debate!
Cheers
Paul
-
skid
- Tyre Man
- Posts: 6311
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:00 pm
- Location: WELLINGTON-0272417757
- Contact:
Jerry wrote:Probably...this guy has been using photos without permission for all of his articles and documents...
If it was Wopass's then this guy might be finding some deep ruts thru his front lawn and a few new tracks thru his geraniums
I'm not sure whose vehicle he has put in the article, but it reiterates the fact that we all have pics on this website and others that can easily be obtained by other people to use as they wish.
In light of this, it would be advisable to be vey careful what kinds of pics/vids you post in your albums or anywhere else.
Those people who are wishing to continue thier attack on us can easily use our innocent pics against us.
If for example you placed a pic or vid of yourself running through scrub beside the track rather than on it, then people can use that as arsenal in thier fight against 4wds. I know we all do it and we know the land is going to be harvested or something, but they can still show our pics to those who dislike us and use them against us.
Its just another little thing to remember when you're taking pics and posting them.
Cheers
SKID
80 Series on 35" creepies, manual with twin factory lockers.
0272417757
*CHILLAX BRO.*
0272417757
*CHILLAX BRO.*
Yep understand that but to use a photo in a magazine or a newspaper then you need permission from the person who took the photo, the same would apply to any images on ORE* or on the NZFWDA* website as the copyright of the material belongs to them (or the person who submitted it) not Bruce.
* This is assuming that the person uploading abovesaid photos are being uploaded by the photographer or with permission.
* This is assuming that the person uploading abovesaid photos are being uploaded by the photographer or with permission.
Last edited by Jerry on Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
70 series prado (KZJ78) and 90 Series Prado (KZJ95)
bruces thing
loaded a bigger bigger for those who don't have access to the peice
89 safari, pto winch, 33x15 simexs. sliders,75mm lift . turbo intercoolered
-
PeterVahry
- Hard Yaka
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
- Location: Auckland
-
Sadam_Husain
- Angry bird
- Posts: 5164
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:00 pm
- Location: WELLINGTON
Re: bruces thing
coxsy wrote:
loaded a bigger bigger for those who don't have access to the peice
Looks to me like its a couple of guys playing on private land, note the new Pine Trees growing, and the pasture.
If you have permission to be doing that on private land, then all power to them. It most definately doesn't look like doc land or public land, its obvious in my mind that its either a foresty block or farm land.
Its not Bens cruiser, the one in the pic has got full doors and full side bars.
From what i have observed over the last few months, the support, curiosity and awareness that has been generated from the Suzuki Extreme 4x4 series on TV has shed 4 wheelers in a positive light showing we are not just a band of environmentally destructive rabble rousers, but a highly organised group of enthusiasts who care greatly for their recreation in all of its different guises. The feed back has been nothing but positive, every one is talking about it and how they had no idea 4x4s were used in this mannor and what 4 wheeling actually was.
Food for thought, as its seen by a much wider audience than that article in the paper
lax2wlg wrote:Is that like saying 'she's hot, for a crackwhore??
Jerry wrote:Yep understand that but to use a photo in a magazine or a newspaper then you need permission from the person who took the photo, the same would apply to any images on ORE or on the NZFWDA website as the copyright of the material belongs to them (or the person who submitted it) not Bruce.
Sorry to burst your bubble Jerry, but the copyright owner of a photograph is the person who took the photo, not the person uploading it...
So, if I borrowed you camera and snapped a pic while out on a club day and then you uploaded it to ORE, I would still own the copyright and you would be in a world of legal anguish (not that I would do that though
)
If the owner of the truck in the photo comes forward and states that it was not his intention for the image to be used in that manner, and can prove that damages have occured (like being disadvantaged by being associated with those who cause environmental fopar's, when in fact it was an organised club day), Mr Mason would be legally liable for 'damages' to be paid to the driver of the truck, regardless of who owns the copyright on the photo... if Mr Mason has not got permission to use the image (in writing) from the person who took the image, Mr Mason would also be liable to the copyright owner.
NZ Legislation regarding phoptographs can be found here;
http://www.aipa.org.nz/archive/clendonfeeney_copyright.pdf
NZ Copyright Act 1994 can be found here;
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=16068025&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1994-143&softpage=DOC
Az
Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?
Yep understand that but to use a photo in a magazine or a newspaper then you need permission from the person who took the photo, the same would apply to any images on ORE or on the NZFWDA website as the copyright of the material belongs to them (or the person who submitted it) not Bruce.
My statement is under the assumption that the person taking it is the same person uploading it or giving permission....Yes I am aware if that.
70 series prado (KZJ78) and 90 Series Prado (KZJ95)
Jerry wrote:Yep understand that but to use a photo in a magazine or a newspaper then you need permission from the person who took the photo, the same would apply to any images on ORE or on the NZFWDA website as the copyright of the material belongs to them (or the person who submitted it) not Bruce.
My statement is under the assumption that the person taking it is the same person uploading it or giving permission....Yes I am aware if that.
I assumed you would of known that
just wanted to clarify it to any other members that might take it out of context and think that because they uploaded it, they own it
Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?
I've just edited it..... is this better
Yep understand that but to use a photo in a magazine or a newspaper then you need permission from the person who took the photo, the same would apply to any images on ORE* or on the NZFWDA* website as the copyright of the material belongs to them (or the person who submitted it) not Bruce.
* This is assuming that the person uploading abovesaid photos are being uploaded by the photographer or with permission.
Yep understand that but to use a photo in a magazine or a newspaper then you need permission from the person who took the photo, the same would apply to any images on ORE* or on the NZFWDA* website as the copyright of the material belongs to them (or the person who submitted it) not Bruce.
* This is assuming that the person uploading abovesaid photos are being uploaded by the photographer or with permission.
70 series prado (KZJ78) and 90 Series Prado (KZJ95)