Unexpected price for news article

L

Lawrence

Senior Member
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.
Click to expand...

You missed an important part of my post which started off with "Where does it end?"

I'm not saying its fair or unfair - I said it is stupid (that is my opinion) and further more a waste of money to pursue it, money and time that could be better spent on something more important. We can discuss this all day and forever more and we won't change anything.

And I am sure Scott has fees related to his site and pays his taxes.

I will be with Scott later this year and will take a photo, or photos, in the park, maybe of his private residence, and then come back to New Zealand and try to sell it or them.

Oh dear I do so hope that they don't have extradition laws for criminals such as me.

And I hope Scott doesn't get in the poo for knowingly harbouring and abetting an international criminal. That wouldn't be fair!
 
AC016

AC016

Senior Member
TedG954 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?

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

View attachment 136795

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.
Click to expand...

We will just have to agreee to disagree then ;) No need for any heated discussion that ends up with someone storming out with a farewell post, lol:p
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
Ok , let's see! I pay taxes to maintain the parks that we all can enjoy. fair enough.
I drive up to a National park, like Yosemite, and now I pay another 25-30 dollars to enter this park. Fair enough
I take a photo of El Capitan, and then sell it. Now I have to pay taxes on that income. Fair enough.

So now on top of all these fees and taxes, I have to pay 30 dollars for some permit? Bullsh*it!
 
T

TedG954

Senior Member
Lawrence said:
I will be with Scott later this year and will take a photo, or photos, in the park, maybe of his private residence, and then come back to New Zealand and try to sell it or them.

Oh dear I do so hope that they don't have extradition laws for criminals such as me.

And I hope Scott doesn't get in the poo for knowingly harbouring and abetting an international criminal. That wouldn't be fair!
Click to expand...


Now you've gone and done it! They're going to be waiting for you.


33.jpg


The guy in the back is asking the other, "Does this rifle make my butt look big?"
 
Last edited:
L

Lawrence

Senior Member
Blacktop said:
Ok , let's see! I pay taxes to maintain the parks that we all can enjoy. fair enough.
I drive up to a National park, like Yosemite, and now I pay another 25-30 dollars to enter this park. Fair enough
I take a photo of El Capitan, and then sell it. Now I have to pay taxes on that income. Fair enough.

So now on top of all these fees and taxes, I have to pay 30 dollars for some permit? Bullsh*it!
Click to expand...

Now the IRS want to know if you used "before" or "after" tax money to buy your camera gear.
 
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Ok just to clarify a few things, I am not against paying for a permit. I am against paying per day...

I have been speaking with Kakadu Parks regarding this and they have informed me that they are in the process of changing and streamlining the permit system. They also have been issuing permits on a case by case basis for longer than a day.
Today I have filled out the permit and paid $30, I am hoping that this will be valid until March. After that they will be bringing in new permitting system (takes time), which will be fair on everyone and take into account residents.

I am organising a meeting with Parks so that we can have a meet and greet.
 
W

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
Lawrence said:
Now the IRS want to know if you used "before" or "after" tax money to buy your camera gear.
Click to expand...

And what political party you belong to, and whether you shoot a Nikon, Canon, or other brand of camera. Oh, and we charge more for your use of a DSLR than a mirrorless camera, which is more than a point-and-shoot camera, which is more than a cell phone camera, which is great because my DSLR looking camera has a cell phone in it so I'm actually using a cell phone, and I read it on the internet that real professional photographers wouldn't use a cell phone to take pictures, so therefore, I'm not actually a professional and therefore I don't need a permit for this image since I only thought that I might have taken the image inside the park boundaries, but now that I've had time to think about it, I'm certain that I took it on my way to the park and not inside the park.

Questions? :rolleyes:

WM
 
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Ok sat down with the Parks permit officers and we discussed how to go forward and what their intentions are after March in regards to how they will issue the permits. They also stated that they are willing to bring myself and two other photographers in for their input as they want it as fair as possible. All in all a good outcome. I have paid $60aud, $30 for the Leichhardt Grasshopper which was sold to Australia Post and another $30 for a permit which will cover me until March.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Well done Scott,you will be a lot happier taking pictures than spending all your time fighting the system,a compromise is often the answer.
 
I

Ironwood

Senior Member
Ok, this is my second attempt to reply this afternoon, the first one got lost when my screen greyed out when I tried to add a smiley at the end of the post.

Sounds like a more reasonable outcome to this that what it first appeared to be.
I would still feel uncomfortable having to pay to take photos in my own surroundings though.
We live in arguably the freest country in the world, to have something like this thrust upon us is unAustralian in my book.

I am glad I have been using a computer all day that I couldn't reply on, I would have posted things that I would have regretted if I could have posted throughout the day.

I got home after work, mowed the lawn, had a cold shower and a very cold beer, then I sat down to write this post, I am glad I waited. No smiley this time. :)
 
Last edited:
wud

wud

Senior Member
So people pay money to see you too :-D

Sounds good you talked to them, hope you'll find an agreement which is appropriate.


Sent from Tapatalk
 
Top