JohnL
Very confused
Great photos, Kim.
I'd agree entirely that charging for the right to take photos is reasonable (at least if the amounts charged are reasonable) on private or other properties that require maintenance expense, and where photography may reasonably be or become a worthwhile source of revenue that will justify its own adminstration costs.
I do not think it is reasonable to charge for photography in public places (such as Trafalgar Square, for example) where maintenance expense is a normal inevitable cost, and usage for photography is a tiny fraction of total usage, and an even smaller fraction of total wear and tear.
I do think it is reasonable to charge for professional photography of private properties and certain artistic or architectural sites, but I feel the right way to do this is not to arbitrate who is professional by virtue of the equipment they are using. Trust them to be honest and if they are not then go after them for the rights they have usurped. I think this is the way Miami Seaquarium does it. They have (or had, at least) notices posted that photography is permitted for personal non-commercial purposes. Perhaps they also allow journalistic use, I'm not sure. But if you want to shoot for stock, or calendars etc, then you are supposed to get permission, and presumably would have to negotiate some sort of arrangement.
I'd agree entirely that charging for the right to take photos is reasonable (at least if the amounts charged are reasonable) on private or other properties that require maintenance expense, and where photography may reasonably be or become a worthwhile source of revenue that will justify its own adminstration costs.
I do not think it is reasonable to charge for photography in public places (such as Trafalgar Square, for example) where maintenance expense is a normal inevitable cost, and usage for photography is a tiny fraction of total usage, and an even smaller fraction of total wear and tear.
I do think it is reasonable to charge for professional photography of private properties and certain artistic or architectural sites, but I feel the right way to do this is not to arbitrate who is professional by virtue of the equipment they are using. Trust them to be honest and if they are not then go after them for the rights they have usurped. I think this is the way Miami Seaquarium does it. They have (or had, at least) notices posted that photography is permitted for personal non-commercial purposes. Perhaps they also allow journalistic use, I'm not sure. But if you want to shoot for stock, or calendars etc, then you are supposed to get permission, and presumably would have to negotiate some sort of arrangement.
Sparrow
Veteran
Kim Coxon said: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
And the US craft?
Sorry Kim I’m not arguing for the sake of it, you’re lucky to have a 20 year old set rules to work to, I think where I have a difficulty is this “perceived threat” being used to modify my behaviour is wrong, Rules of Engagement should not be changed without everybody involved being aware of the changes, to allow some security guard to decide what is properly the politicians domain is unfair.
PS That’s politician with a small pee, don’t want to offend anyone
regards
gb hill
Veteran
Kim Coxon said:
I don't think it should be forced upon me to have to pay the owner,but a nice jesture would certainly be in order I would think. Edward Steichen took a photograph 70+ years ago called "On Pond Moonlight". Last fall Sotherbys sold it at auction for a record 2 million dollars. Some photographers went looking for the pond and determined the pond is now on a golf course. Should the golf course get a percentage of the 2 million dollars?
Kim Coxon
Moderator
In this case, the photographer didn't sell the photo nor is he around to offer to pay. So it is perhaps a different case in the same way if an old painting is sold, should some of the proceeds go to the estate of the subject. I think not but that's only my opinion.
It does raise another question though. You go to a country estate and pay an amateur fee for the privilage of taking photos. One of those photos wins the prize. Does the estate have the right to ask you for the extra that you would have paid for a commercial fee. I would be tempted to say no as it is no really commercial use.
Kim
It does raise another question though. You go to a country estate and pay an amateur fee for the privilage of taking photos. One of those photos wins the prize. Does the estate have the right to ask you for the extra that you would have paid for a commercial fee. I would be tempted to say no as it is no really commercial use.
Kim
gb hill said:
gb hill
Veteran
Kim Coxon said:
Like you I would say no because I feel once you pay the fee for the privilige to take the photos, the photos & copyright belong to you.
sirius
Well-known
I just read this thread on the magnum photography blog. It's quite interesting! I had no idea that there were so many restrictions on photography in France. It's basically the end of photo-journalism in France.
Here is the Magnum article:
http://blog.magnumphotos.com/2007/03/pixelated_youth.html
...and here is the discussion on lightstalkers.org that explains the rules that France has instituted.
http://www.lightstalkers.org/pixelated_french_suburb
Basically, in France the individual has complete ownership of their image. Sure, anyone can take pictures but the commercial uses are severely restricted. You can get waivers, but people can still change their mind once they've signed!
I hope that things don't move this way in my country. I can see the importance of combating paparazzi but to limit artistic and legitimate photo-journalism? Humphf!
Here is the Magnum article:
http://blog.magnumphotos.com/2007/03/pixelated_youth.html
...and here is the discussion on lightstalkers.org that explains the rules that France has instituted.
http://www.lightstalkers.org/pixelated_french_suburb
Basically, in France the individual has complete ownership of their image. Sure, anyone can take pictures but the commercial uses are severely restricted. You can get waivers, but people can still change their mind once they've signed!
I hope that things don't move this way in my country. I can see the importance of combating paparazzi but to limit artistic and legitimate photo-journalism? Humphf!
