Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Unexpected price for news article
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TedG954" data-source="post: 410259" data-attributes="member: 9701"><p><span style="color: #000080"><em><strong>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?</strong></em></span></p><p><span style="color: #000080"><em></em></span><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><strong>YES</strong>, <em>if</em> the law and/or regulations state that you are required to have a paid-for permit. The key is this document:</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><p style="text-align: center">[ATTACH=full]136795[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #000000">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. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">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.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><em><span style="color: #000080"><strong>Scott paid $500.00 to have it printed and framed. </strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000080"><strong>No commercial gain to Scott right?</strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000080"><strong></strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000080"><strong>But what about the printer and the commercial framer? </strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000080"><strong></strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000080"><strong>"Ha! What have we here?"</strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000080"></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000080"><strong>"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"</strong></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000080"></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000080"></span></em><span style="color: #000000">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.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><strong><span style="color: #000080"><em>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.</em></span></strong><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><span style="color: #000000">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.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">I DO know that I am <u>not</u> 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 <em>by law</em> to pay a fee for selling that photo, I would pay the fee. Why? Because it's the right thing to do.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">As for whether any photos were actually sold, that makes no difference. Paying the fee does not <em>guarantee </em>a successful business. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><strong><em><span style="color: #000080">What's next? Will they go after some guy who took a photo in the park before 1979 </span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color: #000080"></span></em></strong></p><p><strong><em><span style="color: #000080"></span></em></strong><span style="color: #000000">No, only back to 2000 when the regulation was put on the books.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">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 <em>caught</em>. 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. </span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000">Fact is fact...... there was a regulation. After that, you can stretch the fairy tale out as far as you feel comfortable. </span><span style="color: #000000">To me, the bottom line of this entire discussion is honesty, and integrity.</span><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TedG954, post: 410259, member: 9701"] [COLOR=#000080][I][B]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?[/B] [/I][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] [B]YES[/B], [I]if[/I] the law and/or regulations state that you are required to have a paid-for permit. The key is this document: [/COLOR][CENTER][ATTACH type="full" width="30%"]136795._xfImport[/ATTACH][/CENTER] [COLOR=#000000]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. [/COLOR][I][COLOR=#000080][B]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?"[/B] [B]"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"[/B] [/COLOR][/I][COLOR=#000000]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. [/COLOR][B][COLOR=#000080][I]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.[/I][/COLOR][/B][COLOR=#000000] [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000]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 [U]not[/U] 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 [I]by law[/I] 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 [I]guarantee [/I]a successful business. [/COLOR][B][I][COLOR=#000080]What's next? Will they go after some guy who took a photo in the park before 1979 [/COLOR][/I][/B][COLOR=#000000]No, only back to 2000 when the regulation was put on the books. [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] 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 [I]caught[/I]. 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. [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000]To me, the bottom line of this entire discussion is honesty, and integrity.[/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] [/COLOR][COLOR=#000000] [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Unexpected price for news article
Top