Photo Permits and the Right to Take Photos

Kim Coxon

Kim Coxon

Moderator
Local time
5:52 PM
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
3,360
Location
Lincoln, UK
View My Gallery
A couple of other threads starting me thinking in broader terms. Do you feel that it is right for the owner of private land to charge for permission to take photos? Alongside the canals in the center of Birmingham are notices that say you must pay the water authority for a permit before carrying out filming or photography for commercial purposes. Many of the preserved railways also charge for a permit if you wish to take photos on some of their property.

Kim
 
Although I would rather see photography widely permitted, I sort of accept the right of owner to refuse photography on their property. If however maintenance or construction of the facility is fully or partially funded by public, I am not going to care.
 
It's a difficult one to answer. On the one hand, the owner of private land has every right to charge for the privilege of you entering his land and untertaking an action that will ultimately benefit you financially. However, it could be construed as a limit on artistic freedom of expression.

How far do you go - do you stop at photography, could the owner of private land charge for paintings that were painted on his land and subsequently sold for profit, or an extreme example could be a writer who describes in detail their experiance of a visit and publishes this as a written piece of work for profit.

Most private landowners I have had occasion to come across (shopping malls, museums etc) draw the line in regards to photography with the restriction that the taking of photographs is fine if they are hand held, but if you wish to use a tripod, you will have to gain permission, (and most probably be charged a fee for the privilege!) the distinction being that only 'professional' photographers use tripods?
 
I think it's fine, the canals and the railways need money to keep them in good repair (I remember how utterly crap the canals in Brum were when I was little).

No problems with people using the assets of the private property to make money paying something to keep it that way.
 
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
 
About tripods - you can fall over them so shopping centres need a process to ensure reasonable management of you in the sense that you are not a danger to others (I know, petty isn't it?), however slight. If someone sues them after falling over your tripod, they will use in defence that you had permission, you had been told the restrictions and all reasonable steps had been taken to ensure safety. It is then your fault if you haven't managed your equipment safely and not theirs. It is quite reasonable for you to contribute towards their administration costs since they don't have to put up with you at all if they don't choose to.

As to other situations - I think you can ban photography on your own land and any other activity if you see fit without any reason whatsoever.

I like the attitude of St Albans Cathedral - you don't need a permit and they only ask that you don't get in the way. There are lots of helpful staff to ask if you need anything. If only everyone was this sensible.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about the laws in Old Blighty but in Oz photographing in national parks involves fees based on how you intend to use the photographs. If you're doing it for profit you pay accordingly!
 
If I'm shooting for an ad campaign - I have no problem whatsover paying the owner of the property for the right to photograph there. I'm actually in serious trouble if I don't , in addition to the required property releases, etc.

For my own fine art - I get a little more put off. But still, it is private property, and I have to respect the wishes of the owner. There are many lovely public properties if I can't get permission from the owner.

In the second instance, if I knew that it was organized - I would probably contribute before photographing. No because I don't have the right to shoot, but because I would *feel* like a jerk.
 
Hmm - I think you have freedom to take a chance and be prepared to desist if someone asks you firmly enough. I always stop taking pictures if I am asked, but I chance it up to then.

I have found a rangefinder camera makes you more anonymous.

The Barbara Hepworth sculpture garden in Cornwall poses an interesting challenge. They permit general views of the garden but stop people sytematically photographing the sculptures. They can do this but where is the line? I took some pictures there that were only for private use, but they objected.
 
Keith novak said:
I don't know about the laws in Old Blighty but in Oz photographing in national parks involves fees based on how you intend to use the photographs. If you're doing it for profit you pay accordingly!
Click to expand...

Wow...I figure I already own the national parks so I decided not to charge myself for the use of my land.
 
I woulnd't call it freeloading at all, paying for the permit would grant better access taking photos from afar would be a compromise.

Actually, thinking about it has uncoverd a knot in my mental logic.

I don't agree that anyone should be able to own what you see with your own eyes (next they'd be charging for the air that may have wafted from their land into your nostrils). And I feel quite strongly about this as far as land and the things humans make on it goes.

But, then things get flaky with other humans. I think everyone has a right to their privacy and agree that anyone has the right to ask that a photo of themselves not be taken or printed.
 
Kim I think you’re conflating a legal right/duty and a moral one, I donate to Save the Children but I would have to think long and hard before I photographed one starving, the payment would not absolve the duty of my moral position.
 
I think it's probably reasonable for organisations such as the National Trust to restrict photography on the properties it manages (but see Flickr discusssion ttp://www.flickr.com/groups/nationaltrust/discuss/72157594146840866/) although one could argue that it performs this managerial function on behalf of the general public who should therefore be allowed to enjoy photographing NT sites.

I've been asked to "check in" camera bag & tripod at a National Trust of Scotland stately home but was allowed to wander around Chartwell with M2 & lenses photgraphing at will.
 
Kim, as someone who has paid as much as $400 to attend what on my side of the pond are called "photo freights" on heritage railways, if they don't pay, they are freeloaders (IMHO).

While I don't think that they should charge for a permit on normal operating days, I do purchase a ticket on any railway I photograph even if I choose not to ride it on the day I'm photographing.
 
I think it's just like hunting on someones land. They have a right to charge you.

On public or state owned property I don't think you should be charged because you already pay taxes.

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.
 
Al Patterson said:
Kim, as someone who has paid as much as $400 to attend what on my side of the pond are called "photo freights" on heritage railways, if they don't pay, they are freeloaders (IMHO).

While I don't think that they should charge for a permit on normal operating days, I do purchase a ticket on any railway I photograph even if I choose not to ride it on the day I'm photographing.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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

Sparrow said:
Kim I think you’re conflating a legal right/duty and a moral one, I donate to Save the Children but I would have to think long and hard before I photographed one starving, the payment would not absolve the duty of my moral position.
Click to expand...
 
Keith novak said:
I don't know about the laws in Old Blighty but in Oz photographing in national parks involves fees based on how you intend to use the photographs. If you're doing it for profit you pay accordingly!
Click to expand...

Keith,

There are now similar laws regarding fees for pro photography in the U.S. National Parks. The park rangers can make an on-the-spot determination as to whether you are a pro based on your equipment. So, if you are a medium format shooter and have your camera on a tripod you may be charged a fee.

I am ok with that when the photography is commercial. No problem. But the manner in which you can be asessed a fee is bothersome. I don't think the average park ranger has the backgroung to determine your intent based on your gear.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom