Unexpected price for news article

[Eduard]

Scott lives inside a national park. Is he supposed to pay 30 bucks every time he steps outside his house with a camera?

I didn't make the rules and they've decided to enforce them. As I said previously, the only other option I can see is to separate potential commercial and personal activities / images and pay the fee as required. Since he lives there, he may be able to negotiate an annual or post activity fee. Seems to be there should be some sort of exception but I doubt a full waiver would be acceptable.

​

 

[Eyelight]

I think there is a bill being considered in the US that would do away with the restrictions and fees on public lands. It probably won't clear and it probably shouldn't. For every photographer that would respect the properties, the lands and the critters that live in them there are 100 that will/do not and that's why there are fees, to control those who don't care.

Scott does have a unique situation though and seems they could reach some sort of equitable solution. My idea would be that if it has the affect of promoting the park, there should be no fee. If someone wants to use the park as a backdrop, charge away.

 

[Moab Man]

It's the "Ansel Adams" bill.

I can see it now, The Department of Photography. Their job? Sift through the geo-tag info on photos to collect a greater revenue than the person who made the product. Oh wait, I think that might just be the definition of government.

 

[TedG954]

I don't believe that the Park or the government is in any way unfair in this situation. As a matter of fact, it appears that they are being very forgiving.

If someone is going to open a business, it is that person's responsibility to investigate all the avenues of that business, including rules, regulations, and required permits for conducting that business.

Being "unaware" is not a defense. If someone is going to profit from something I pay to maintain (taxes & fees), then I expect that profiteer to pay more than I do. That's what permits are for.

I see people on various photography sites rant about someone using their photograph without "permission" when taken off the internet. That's not much different than this situation.

If someone wants to use your house or your car in a movie, would you expect to be compensated? A Park belongs to all of the citizens that pay for the upkeep and maintenance of that Park. If someone goes beyond the normal uses of the park, and they profit from that use, why shouldn't the citizens be compensated? (Or, why not donate the profits to the Park as a gesture of appreciation? I doubt that whatever the "profits" are, they are life-changing.)

I'm amazed that the authorities aren't issuing a fine or calculating charges for other photos of the Park being sold.

If you want to play....... you have to pay. That's certainly not a new concept.

 

[AC016]

I don't believe that the Park or the government is in any way unfair in this situation. As a matter of fact, it appears that they are being very forgiving.

If someone is going to open a business, it is that person's responsibility to investigate all the avenues of that business, including rules, regulations, and required permits for conducting that business.

Being "unaware" is not a defense. If someone is going to profit from something I pay to maintain (taxes & fees), then I expect that profiteer to pay more than I do. That's what permits are for.

I see people on various photography sites rant about someone using their photograph without "permission" when taken off the internet. That's not much different than this situation.

If someone wants to use your house or your car in a movie, would you expect to be compensated? A Park belongs to all of the citizens that pay for the upkeep and maintenance of that Park. If someone goes beyond the normal uses of the park, and they profit from that use, why shouldn't the citizens be compensated? (Or, why not donate the profits to the Park as a gesture of appreciation? I doubt that whatever the "profits" are, they are life-changing.)

I'm amazed that the authorities aren't issuing a fine or calculating charges for other photos of the Park being sold.

If you want to play....... you have to pay. That's certainly not a new concept.

However, Scott's intention at the time he took the photo, was NOT to sell it. According to the parks rule, if you go into the park with the intention of taking photos for commercial use/selling them, you need the permit. Again, that was not Scott's intention when he took that photo over a year ago. In this case, the park would have to prove that Scott had the intention of selling the photo at the time of pressing the shutter button. The letter they sent him, seems to be a "hail mary" kind of letter, in that they are hoping that he will just cough up the money without a fight. Just think of how much time/money they are wasting going after $30 AUD..... i am pretty sure they will just drop it and have the letter serve Scott as a warning/reminder.

Stealing a photo from someones website is entirely different. Copyright laws dictate that once your press the shutter button, that photo belongs to you, it is your "property". When someone takes a photo from my blog, it is theft. Plain and simple. Scott taking a photo of nature, is not stealing.

 

[Blade Canyon]

She wrote "Please don't hesitate to contact myself"... big pet peeve of mine.

I think this is a case where you will be better off just paying the AUS$30, then changing the EXIF on all future pics to whatever date you had the one day permit.

 

[Moab Man]

And shut off geo-tagging as well. I too would pay that fee to get them to go away before they go on a hunting expedition, audit, to see what else they may be able to bill for.

 

[TedG954]

However, Scott's intention at the time he took the photo, was NOT to sell it. According to the parks rule, if you go into the park with the intention of taking photos for commercial use/selling them, you need the permit. Again, that was not Scott's intention when he took that photo over a year ago. In this case, the park would have to prove that Scott had the intention of selling the photo at the time of pressing the shutter button. The letter they sent him, seems to be a "hail mary" kind of letter, in that they are hoping that he will just cough up the money without a fight. Just think of how much time/money they are wasting going after $30 AUD..... i am pretty sure they will just drop it and have the letter serve Scott as a warning/reminder.

Stealing a photo from someones website is entirely different. Copyright laws dictate that once your press the shutter button, that photo belongs to you, it is your "property". When someone takes a photo from my blog, it is theft. Plain and simple. Scott taking a photo of nature, is not stealing.

When you label yourself as a "PRO", or even "SEMI-PRO", every click of the shutter is to be considered "for profit". When you are a "PRO", every photo is assumed to have the potential to be a money-maker. As soon as I cross that line, my intention is clear.... to make a profit. Not every photo is worthy of sale, but when one becomes evident, the PRO will sell it. It's not the state's responsibility to determine which click is for profit. As a businessman, it is my responsibility to be sure all the details of my business is within the guidelines.

As for whether it is stealing; a photo of nature, is not stealing... other people are paying to keep the park in a condition worth viewing, not just the photographer. Why shouldn't the profit be shared with those who's dollars provided the scenery?

You are either a professional, or you aren't.

 

[Pretzel]

The photo in question was taken over a year ago now, I had no intention of selling it at that time. So are you saying that all photos that are taken and someday maybe sold randomly is a commercial act? How am I supposed to determine when I am out taking photos that I am operating at a commercial level or tourist level?

We have the same thing here with our city parks... and all I can say is "it's in the rules". Once I do sell a pic taken there, if I do, they've got the right to their fees. TECHNICALLY, they can fine me much more than the cost of the permit, but they typically take the same stance of offering a "retro" permit for the day. Of course, I haven't had to go through all of that as of yet, but I've known a few folks that have.

I *HAVE* shot family portrait sessions, etc. in the parks, and unlike many photog's in the area, I paid for my permit up front. While I was in there, I got to chat with all the nice folks and found out that the money all stays in the park. Beautification, landscaping, tree care, the works. The "government" funding for the park doesn't cover quite enough to cover the actual AMAZINGNESS of the area, so the little permit fees, covered table reservation fees and donations cover the rest. Granted, I'd rather not pay it, but knowing it keeps my area photo-worthy, I don't mind.

Ours, even just for the city park, is $25/day, or $250 for the year. Thinking of going yearly for 2015, as 10 shoots covers that, and I've got the rest of the year for free. (I'll still add the surcharge for clients, of course. )

All of that to say this... 1) They are being friendly, as I'm sure there's something that allows for a healthier fine. 2) Now you know, so you can earmark all future photos as "Not for Sale" or "Donated for use with permission of...xxxxxx Park". 3) Surely, somehow, some way, you're helping to maintain that small bit of nature?

Now, back to work I go, wishing I had a photo that was widespread and popular enough to even draw that kind of notice!

 

[TedG954]

Give Pretzel a cigar......


(I'll still add the surcharge for clients, of course. )

 

[Pretzel]

Give Pretzel a cigar......


(I'll still add the surcharge for clients, of course. )

LOL! Last year, I did a whole 5 shoots there, so I think I'll still fall "short" of the total fee, but then I've got the bonus of knowing I helped preserve the area for future shoots AND have the freedom to "market" any random shots, like the squirrels/flowers/wildlife/randoms. Plus, I won't have to go through the whole process every time.

Wait... maybe I should market a "I'll stand in line to get your permit FOR you" service, add a small surcharge to the surcharge, and...

Never mind, I'm just gonna take pics!

 

[Horoscope Fish]

It seems to me some of us would like to have it both ways, but we can't enter national parks as "hobbyists" (so we can bypass the required fees for commercial photography) just long enough to to get home and "discover" we got some really great shots that we could probably sell on our website. If our original intent is to shoot the park as a hobbyist then we need to keep those shots off our commercial websites. If we decide to sell them after the fact then we need to pay the fee. It's really just that simple. As photographers I feel it is incumbent upon us to know the genesis our photos and obey the law. If we don't like the law then when either change it, appeal for an exception, or we don't shoot those locations.
....

 

[Lawrence]

I don't believe that the Park or the government is in any way unfair in this situation. As a matter of fact, it appears that they are being very forgiving.

If someone is going to open a business, it is that person's responsibility to investigate all the avenues of that business, including rules, regulations, and required permits for conducting that business.

Being "unaware" is not a defense. If someone is going to profit from something I pay to maintain (taxes & fees), then I expect that profiteer to pay more than I do. That's what permits are for.

I see people on various photography sites rant about someone using their photograph without "permission" when taken off the internet. That's not much different than this situation.

If someone wants to use your house or your car in a movie, would you expect to be compensated? A Park belongs to all of the citizens that pay for the upkeep and maintenance of that Park. If someone goes beyond the normal uses of the park, and they profit from that use, why shouldn't the citizens be compensated? (Or, why not donate the profits to the Park as a gesture of appreciation? I doubt that whatever the "profits" are, they are life-changing.)

I'm amazed that the authorities aren't issuing a fine or calculating charges for other photos of the Park being sold.

If you want to play....... you have to pay. That's certainly not a new concept.

I have to disagree with both counts.

Stealing a photo off a website is theft and entirely different as someone said.

Based in the argument given here (which certainly has merits) is one then expected to pay for say hopping on a municipal bus, for which you have paid your fare, and having to pay an additional fee if you happen to take a photo from within that bus? Likewise on a ferry or a train or any other quasi government municipal facility?

Next thing we'll be paying for all photos taken within a city because the citizen's pay there taxes to have the garbage taken away weekly (thereby making the suburbs more photogenic).

Just plain crazy and stupid in my opinion.

And it DOES NOT deter in any way those who would are hell bent on abusing the rules of care.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

I think a fee is appropriate for shooting on public lands BUT only if you are setting up lights and have assistants like you are carrying a bridal party there and are blocking areas off for shooting. I have been in public areas where this is happening and it always pisses me off that I can not go where I want and shoot where I want in a public park. NOW it my wife and I are walking around with our cameras shooting what we see and like and not impeding others from their enjoyment of the area then I think that is what I pay taxes or admission to the park for.

I will get off my soap box now.

 

[AC016]

I have to disagree with both counts.

Stealing a photo off a website is theft and entirely different as someone said.

Based in the argument given here (which certainly has merits) is one then expected to pay for say hopping on a municipal bus, for which you have paid your fare, and having to pay an additional fee if you happen to take a photo from within that bus? Likewise on a ferry or a train or any other quasi government municipal facility?

Next thing we'll be paying for all photos taken within a city because the citizen's pay there taxes to have the garbage taken away weekly (thereby making the suburbs more photogenic).

Just plain crazy and stupid in my opinion.

And it DOES NOT deter in any way those who would are hell bent on abusing the rules of care.

In my opinion, it's a money grab and the government is paying peoples salary to go after $30 AUD ( $23 American and 15 British pounds if anyone cares) a year after the photo was taken and the photo was taken with no intent to use it commercially. Hindsight is 20/20. Though, if you go back a year, Scott was not able to tell the future and he was merely taking photos as any other regular person would. If any "fees" were to be collected, they should have been collected at that point in time. But since Scott was not there in any "commercial" capacity (the guy lives in the damn park for crying out loud), no fees needed to be collected. A year later, some pencil neck thinks it's a good idea to waste tax dollars on trying to wrongly collect a measly $30 AUD because he thinks that because the photo was bought by someone over a year later, he can put Scott in a circumstance he was never in to begin with. What's next? Will they go after some guy who took a photo in the park before 1979 (before the park became a park) and sold it a few years later? Give them an inch, they will take a mile.

 

[Lawrence]

Where does it end?

Let's say:

Scott (or you or me or anyone) takes a photo for his own use and has it framed. It takes pride of place hanging on his wall in his den. It is stunning and all his friends who come over for his numerous BBQ and beer evenings "Oooh" and "Aaaahh" over it.

Scott paid $500.00 to have it printed and framed.
No commercial gain to Scott right?

But what about the printer and the commercial framer?

"Ha! What have we here?"

"These businesses have clearly gained from a photograph taken in a public reserve and as such they should pay something towards the reserve. After all it is every businesses responsibility to check the rules and not for the rule makers to ensure that they are aware of the rules"

FFS you may as well charge the folks who came to the BBQ!

Oh and BTW peeps I don't think Scott said he actually sold any of the photos. Miss Congenial simply happened to see they were on his website and could be bought.

 

[AC016]

Where does it end?

Let's say:

Scott (or you or me or anyone) takes a photo for his own use and has it framed. It takes pride of place hanging on his wall in his den. It is stunning and all his friends who come over for his numerous BBQ and beer evenings "Oooh" and "Aaaahh" over it.

Scott paid $500.00 to have it printed and framed.
No commercial gain to Scott right?

But what about the printer and the commercial framer?

"Ha! What have we here?"

"These businesses have clearly gained from a photograph taken in a public reserve and as such they should pay something towards the reserve. After all it is every businesses responsibility to check the rules and not for the rule makers to ensure that they are aware of the rules"

FFS you may as well charge the folks who came to the BBQ!

Oh and BTW peeps I don't think Scott said he actually sold any of the photos. Miss Congenial simply happened to see they were on his website and could be bought.

Hmmmm, you are right. Don't know why i got the impression that he had sold one. So in essence, they are trolling the web for people who just may be selling photos of the park. Wow, i am sure the taxpayers in Australia would be so happy to hear this.

 

[fotojack]

Ya know, I have to completely agree with Lawrence. OK, here's my take on this: National Parks are maintained by the Federal government, correct? OK, the federal government has a parks budget, paid for by the nation as a whole (we the people). So...if tax dollars are being used to maintain said park, why are these extra fees being collected? Seems to me it's just an extra tax grab; it's like double dipping.
We have the same thing here in Canada, where the government tried to charge fees to photographers for taking and selling their photos...particularly wedding photographers. From what I remember, it was directed at "out of town" photographers, due to the local photographers complaining of 'losing business' to outsiders. The town I'm referring to is Banff National Park, about 90 miles west of Calgary, Alberta...Canada's largest national park.
I'm not sure, but, I think there was a big kerfuffel about it all, and the government backed down on that idea.
In short, if it's already being paid for by tax payers, then there should be no need to charge an extra fee for 'maintenance and upkeep'. The park belongs to the people, paid for by the people.

 

[480sparky]

I think us Americans should deduct $300 from our income taxes every year for having to file a 1040.


That should even things out.

 

[TedG954]

Based in the argument given here (which certainly has merits) is one then expected to pay for say hopping on a municipal bus, for which you have paid your fare, and having to pay an additional fee if you happen to take a photo from within that bus? Likewise on a ferry or a train or any other quasi government municipal facility?

YES, if the law and/or regulations state that you are required to have a paid-for permit. The key is this document:

Note the PERMIT FEES...... this regulation has been in effect for 14 or 15 years. It is a regulation that was passed by legislation. It is law. If a similar law is passed that says taking photos from trains requires a permit, then you are required to have a permit.

The regulation is very clearly stated. Fair? That's not the point. If you don't believe it's fair, take it up with the congress or park commission. In the meantime, pay the fees as required.


Scott paid $500.00 to have it printed and framed.
No commercial gain to Scott right?

But what about the printer and the commercial framer?

"Ha! What have we here?"

"These businesses have clearly gained from a photograph taken in a public reserve and as such they should pay something towards the reserve. After all it is every businesses responsibility to check the rules and not for the rule makers to ensure that they are aware of the rules"

No doubt the commercial framer has a permit to operate his business. The framer pays business fees and taxes as required by law. Business permits are pretty much standard practice. If the framer doesn't follow the proper regulations, then he should be treated accordingly. Within the Kacadu permit information, there's no clause for the framer, only the photographer. Moving this argument on to the framer is quite a stretch.


Though, if you go back a year, Scott was not able to tell the future and he was merely taking photos as any other regular person would. If any "fees" were to be collected, they should have been collected at that point in time. But since Scott was not there in any "commercial" capacity (the guy lives in the damn park for crying out loud), no fees needed to be collected.

Only Scott knows what was going on inside his head at the time. Was he "merely taking photos" or was he hoping to find a zinger with universal appeal? Only he knows if he had a glimering thought of "selling" one of his photos if the opportunity presents itself. I don't know when he decided to open a website to sell his photos. I don't know how many photos he has taken of his neighbor's dog or how many he has taken of the outback. I've never visited his website. Only Scott knows those answers. I don't pretend to think for him.

I DO know that I am not a PRO and I don't advertise photos for sale, but...... if someone offered to pay me for a photo, and the regulators followed up and told me I was required by law to pay a fee for selling that photo, I would pay the fee. Why? Because it's the right thing to do.

As for whether any photos were actually sold, that makes no difference. Paying the fee does not guarantee a successful business.

What's next? Will they go after some guy who took a photo in the park before 1979

No, only back to 2000 when the regulation was put on the books.


The regulations have been in effect for years. Whether anyone was aware of them is meaningless; the fact remains that they were lawfully enacted. Taking and selling photos is fine and good as long as no one regulates the activity. No harm, no foul. Well, this time someone got caught. He hasn't been sent off to a penal colony (pun intended). He was merely told that what he was doing was contrary to enacted regulations. No body is telling anyone they can't take photos from trains, or taxing some frame shop for a regulation that has nothing to do with it.

Fact is fact...... there was a regulation. After that, you can stretch the fairy tale out as far as you feel comfortable. To me, the bottom line of this entire discussion is honesty, and integrity.