Unexpected price for news article

A

Allan LJ

Senior Member
It would never have occurred to me that you would need a permit in a national park even if you were to sell your pictures- I don't know what the common practice is here (in UK/ rest of Europe?) to be honest.

I can see the arguments both for and against in this thread, but personally I would have thought the National Park would benefit from the publicity you are giving them.
Arguably your are helping them attract more paying visitors (@ $25/person) which would generate an additional income easily exceeding the $30 fee, and I think their approach is too 'aggressive' and a bit short sighted even if they are right to charge ;)
 
S

skater

New member
wud said:
Sorry for OT, but what? You (and others) live inside a National Park? Or is it an entire area, no fences and all?
Click to expand...

That happens in the US, too, though it's rare. For example, when Shenandoah NP was opened, there were still a few people living on the land that refused to be kicked out. Also, I know a guy that lives in a similar situation: It's private land, but the only way to get to it without a boat or a helicopter is to drive through a national park. It was all kinds of fun for him when the government was shut down a few years back.

On topic: I'm glad it came to a friendly resolution. Setting aside the unusual situation of living in the national park, I understand why the parks charge professional photographers, but hobbyists and semi-pros get caught up in the wash. When the law is passed, the politicians are probably thinking about "big shot" Hollywood money, and the fee would just be a cost of doing business.
 
E

Englischdude

Senior Member
i think it great that they took the time to write directly in a friendly manner. In many countries in the world you would have had notification of these requirements from a lawyer, possibly with a free invitation to court!
 
Top