One can take photographs from an aircraft as a private operation
Understanding this concept I can take a thousand photo's and then "hawke" them around to the owners of said photographed properties via motor vehicle and until I actually sell one. Only then it becomes an offense perhaps even ten years after the event? Does that make the property owner an accomplice? Is this a strict liability offense under the state motor vehicle acts if I sell my neighbor an old aerial photo of his property taken by Charles Kingsford Smith?
Are UAV owners taking photo's of "the enemy"without an AOC guilty of a strict liability offense?
If Dick takes photo's during his round the world helicopter flight, where it is OK everywhere else but Australia, but makes money from Australian magazines in Australia when he returns, guilty of a strict liability offense? Is the ALP, guilty of an offense of strict liability for taking photo's from a F-111 of the Franklin Dam and using them for political advertising?
Hang on a minute, does the RAAF have an AOC? Has the Commonwealth Government got an AOC?
Does CASA have an AOC that allows it to take "educational" photographs from a Navajo? (why do I ask, well they admitted to doing this in the Airtex matter).
Are they guilty of a strict liability offense?
If CASA started looking after the interests of the fare paying public instead of persecuting individuals on nebulous charges, just because they can, the whole place would be much better off.
Problem is it is run by fools.