Photo Permits and the Right to Take Photos

One answer would be that you are exercising a reciprical agreement that US tourists can photograph such things as the Houses of Parliament that are funded by the UK taxpayer. Alternatively, you are adding to the US economy with the money you spend over there including State Tax.

Kim

Sparrow said:
OK then I’m visiting the US and there’s this Shuttle launch…….that’s going to be one big ticket price? Or I’m freeloading on the US taxpayer?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kim Coxon said:
Hi Stewart,
Not really. Although the thoughts/questions here came about from the other threads, I started a new one because much of it is about morals as well as legal. There are cases where, although we may have a legal right to take a picture, there may be a conflict with the moral right.

We tend to be very quick to shout about our legal rights (sometimes even when though don't exist) but you see very little about our responsibilities. Sometimes it is not easy to draw a distinct line. Unfortunately I have more questions than answers. 😕

Kim
Click to expand...
Hi Kim, I’ve always understood one must discharge the duty before enjoying the rights, this and the other thread has also made me re-examine things.

in the 80s the press in Ulster seemed to cause riots just by their presence and while that was uncomfortable for all concerned I now think it was probably necessary they had that freedom, I wouldn’t have said that at the time.
 
Kim, I'm not sure that there's any reason to object to photography restrictions on private property.

Public property is another matter, but even then I can understand it in some instances to prevent tragedy of the commons. After all, we're not allowed to live on national park land either, and I'm not sure there are many who claim that their taxes should allow that.
 
OK that statue is in a very beutiful garden that someone has spent many years of effort developing at some cost. A national gardening magazine runs a competition to find the best photograph of a garden. You enter that competion and win first prize of say $1000. Should you give any of that to the owner of the garden? Without his time, effort and skill, you would not have that $1000 but without your skill as a photog, the photo wouldn't exist.

Kim

gb hill said:
If your standing on roadside and shooting, say a statue on private property I feel as long as your not tresspassing you have the right to take the picture.
Click to expand...
 
Kim Coxon said:
OK that statue is in a very beutiful garden that someone has spent many years of effort developing at some cost. A national gardening magazine runs a competition to find the best photograph of a garden. You enter that competion and win first prize of say $1000. Should you give any of that to the owner of the garden? Without his time, effort and skill, you would not have that $1000 but without your skill as a photog, the photo wouldn't exist.

Kim
Click to expand...

Taking that hypothesis further, these days the magazine will assume copyright for the photos submitted (it's in most competition small print). How much subsequent use, and thus revenue will the magazine garner from that photo for no effort beyond opening an envelope and appreciating your picture?
 
dazedgonebye said:
Wow...I figure I already own the national parks so I decided not to charge myself for the use of my land.
Click to expand...

well, I own the national parks here, and have decided to charge for commercial use. Otherwise, Hollywoood would film all their movies here, tear up the land, and basically destroy the environment that all my co-owners have set aside for preservation. If your usage is not commercial, shoot away after paying your entry fee to cover costs of maintenance, clean-up, and various other costs associated with administering a national park system.

If you don't want to pay a fee, feel welcome to shop around for a place where you can shoot for free. I'd even let you shoot from my apartment, but the view might leave something to be desired. If you want to do a commercial shoot from my place, that's cool too, I'd just request you help defray the cost of maintaining the property 🙂
 
Last edited:
40oz said:
well, I own the national parks here, and have decided to charge for commercial use. Otherwise, Hollywoood would film all their movies here, tear up the land, and basically dstroy the environment that all my co-owners have set aside for preservation. If your usage is not commercial, shoot away after paying your entry fee to cover costs of maintenance, clean-up, and various other costs associated with administering a national park system.

If you don't want to pay a fee, feel welcome to shop around for a place where you can shoot for free. I'd even let you shoot from my apartment, but the view might leave something to be desired. If you want to do a commercial shoot from my place, that's cool too, I'd just request you help defray the cost of maintaining the property 🙂
Click to expand...

Very silly...comparing my use of the land with that of a Hollyweird film crew.
There are degress of use (and all other things). I'm pretty sure my impact is less than what might occur with 50 crew members and 2 semi-trucks worth of gear.
Even sillier is a law that has park rangers determining if an individual's use constitutes "professional."
 
Give the current bunfight over fair and reasonable charging by banks in the UK I wonder how enforcable a punitive charge by a private landowner would be. If you're roaming all over a country estate (private property but accessible under right to roam laws) what is the cost to the landowner? Effectively zero and its god/nature that's providing the subject matter. Similarly there are no real per photo costs attached to taking a photo of a building - most buildings weren't built for the purpose of having people photograph them so there are no costs to recoup. I'm interested in how British Waterways can charge given that towpaths are a right of way (well, they are in Reading as far as I know as I live over one).

In my opinion all photography should be free (and I know that that will upset the pros here). Pay for the photogs time by all means, and pay material costs if prints, etc. are required, but the idea of paying for a stock shot is bizarre in the digital age where production costs are effectively zero (other than time expended of course)
 
Kim Coxon said:
OK, take it one stage further. Some of the railways have special photographic events. Instead of running passenger trains (where they gaina revenue to cover the cost) they run goods trains. Obviously, there is no "direct" revenue for this and the cost is covered fron Photogs paying to take pictures. Now you can overlook the event from public property. Do you feel you have the right to photograph freely exercising your freedom of expression or would you contribute to the event? If you don't contribute, would you consider that you are "freeloading" on the photogs who do?

Kim
Click to expand...

If they're putting out a special effort to create something I want to photograph, I have no qualms at all about putting some money in the bucket to make it happen. Nice thing about the 'photo freight' events is that they draw a more courteous crowd than the usual special fan trip melee. Things like steam railways can be hideously expensive to maintain and few of them are government-supported ventures.

People must be careful to separate out recreational hobby snapping from a full-blown commercial shoot which may involve assistants, models, a certain degree of staging and probably a fair amount of disruption.
Taking hobby snaps, which most of us are, and running a commercial business are two different things.
 
Last edited:
I live in a old grade II listed house. It does not just "stand there". It costs me alot more than a modern house to maintain. It is the gatehouse for an old hall. Untill 3 years ago, it was a nursing home which shut. It was very pleasant to walk around the grounds and take pictures. In just 3 years, the grounds have become extemely overgrown and it is difficult to wander round in fields of stinging nettles 5' high. 😱 I accept that the cost of maintaining my house is the same whether or not you take a photo of it but it is there. 😉

As to the towpath. Aa far as I am aware, right of access does not give right of use. The towpath is maintained not from the taxpayers but boat owners like myself, fishermen and others. Again sometimes at not small costs. Without that, you would not have the photo opportunities. As has been mentioned, the canals in Brum were not a place you would have wanted to visit that many years ago. You havea right of access to the canal path but you can't put up a tent there and camp.

Regardless of how you look at it, someone has to pay for many of the objects you photograph. Why should you have the right to take advantage of that at zero cost and perhaps even make a profit from it?

Kim

Terao said:
Give the current bunfight over fair and reasonable charging by banks in the UK I wonder how enforcable a punitive charge by a private landowner would be. If you're roaming all over a country estate (private property but accessible under right to roam laws) what is the cost to the landowner? Effectively zero and its god/nature that's providing the subject matter. Similarly there are no real per photo costs attached to taking a photo of a building - most buildings weren't built for the purpose of having people photograph them so there are no costs to recoup. I'm interested in how British Waterways can charge given that towpaths are a right of way (well, they are in Reading as far as I know as I live over one).

In my opinion all photography should be free (and I know that that will upset the pros here). Pay for the photogs time by all means, and pay material costs if prints, etc. are required, but the idea of paying for a stock shot is bizarre in the digital age where production costs are effectively zero (other than time expended of course)
Click to expand...
 
Terao said:
Give the current bunfight over fair and reasonable charging by banks in the UK I wonder how enforcable a punitive charge by a private landowner would be. <snip>
In my opinion all photography should be free (and I know that that will upset the pros here). Pay for the photogs time by all means, and pay material costs if prints, etc. are required, but the idea of paying for a stock shot is bizarre in the digital age where production costs are effectively zero (other than time expended of course)
Click to expand...

That bunfight is going to be the end of free banking in the UK. They'll get the money somehow! I'm happier that those who go outside their terms and conditions pay.

Maybe stock photographs will be the next thing once the DMR kerfuffle is resolved. Well, you never know. Who is this bloke Corbis anyway? He gets an awful lot of bookjacket credits 😉
 
dazedgonebye said:
Very silly...comparing my use of the land with that of a Hollyweird film crew.
There are degress of use (and all other things). I'm pretty sure my impact is less than what might occur with 50 crew members and 2 semi-trucks worth of gear.
Even sillier is a law that has park rangers determining if an individual's use constitutes "professional."
Click to expand...

fees are a way of limiting use. Someone who plans to shoot for a day and sell the images should have no problem being willing to pay the fee, seeing as they are going to make money utilizing a publicly funded area. Complaining that you shouldn't have to pay a fee to profit from a publicly funded resource is not going to fly with most people.
 
40oz said:
fees are a way of limiting use. Someone who plans to shoot for a day and sell the images should have no problem being willing to pay the fee, seeing as they are going to make money utilizing a publicly funded area. Complaining that you shouldn't have to pay a fee to profit from a publicly funded resource is not going to fly with most people.
Click to expand...

My family and I camp in state and national parks several times a year. I always include photo related hikes on those trips. My impact on the area's resources are not affected by whether or not I sell the resulting images.
I have no problem with usage fees (though they have been going up quite a bit in recent years). I just don't see the logical connection between those fees and my actions after I leave the area.
If I sell an image taken on city streets, should I pay a fee for use of the publicly funded area for a profit?
 
I don't think selling a few prints qualifies as "commercial use." I would think that the term refers to advertising, calendars, or other such endeavors. I really have no desire to split hairs over this. If you consider yourself a commercial photographer making a profit off national parks, you need to pay whatever fees they ask. Or don't photograph from national parks. Pretty simple, and more than fair, to boot.

You could argue that you and your family don't leave a mess behind, and shouldn't have to pay access fees. But your beliefs and reality don't always mesh, no?
 
40oz said:
I don't think selling a few prints qualifies as "commercial use." I would think that the term refers to advertising, calendars, or other such endeavors. I really have no desire to split hairs over this. If you consider yourself a commercial photographer making a profit off national parks, you need to pay whatever fees they ask. Or don't photograph from national parks. Pretty simple, and more than fair, to boot.

You could argue that you and your family don't leave a mess behind, and shouldn't have to pay access fees. But your beliefs and reality don't always mesh, no?
Click to expand...

Well, we don't leave a mess behind...but even so, I don't mind the use fees. The park system makes water and pit toilets available and they pay a contractor to supervise/maintain the area. I have no problem contributing to that above and beyond my taxes, since I'm the one using that service.
My point is that what I do with my photos does not add to that load, and therefore should not be charged for.
If I sell images of the park lands I'll pay taxes on that income. If I pay a fee, I'll deduct that from my taxes. What a lot of shuffling of paper and accounting!
The underlying problem is that the park systems are chronically underfunded and desperate for revenue sources.
Usage fees are all well and good, but if they are required to cover all expenses and make the parks self-sufficient, then park access will become out of reach to large segments of the public, who have as much right to use the land as those that can afford the fees.
I'm drifting too far off topic I think, so I'll end here.
Thanks for the well reasoned discussion.
 
The whole subject came up about 20 years ago. Originally it was the MOD's contention that if a photo was taken by someone on duty, the photo and all it's rights belonged to the MOD. This was subsequently tested and proved to be wrong. If an MOD photog takes a picture on duty using MOD equipment, then the photo does belong to the MOD. However, if it is taken by someone incidental to their duty using their own equipment, then the rights belonged to the photog.

I have re-imbursed the MOD in kind. Many of my photos have been used for official publications and other purposes by the MOD "free of charge". I had done some air-air prior to flying the Shack but the first "official" shoot on the Shack came about because the Sqn had launched a dedicated trip 3 times with the station photog on board to get some shots for PR. None of them worked. On the fourth attempt, the photog got called away so I did them. The boss wasn't convinced before I took them and was somewhat bemused by my setups in the air. However, when he saw them, he changed his mind. 😀 The Air Force made good use of the prints. The Sqn members were also sufficiently impressed with them that by the time I finished my first tour about 9 months later, I had a brand new Pentax LX.

Kim

Sparrow said:
Do you feel the need to reimburse the MOD, or the taxpayer, or the Defence Department?

regards
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom