Fee for photography in all national parks

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Scott Coutts, Oct 9, 2003.

  1. Scott Coutts

    Scott Coutts Guest

    Here's something that might be of interest:

    http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/1process_content.cfm?section=45&page=7

    You have to pay a 'photography fee' now, if you intend to take
    pictures that will be used for publication or sale in national parks
    in australia.

    This is the scheme for Victoria.

    The price varies depending on the 'scale' of photography you're
    doing. If it's 'small scale', as defined below,then it'll cost you
    $88/day.

    'Small scale' is defined as:

    "A maximum of one photographer plus one assistant with
    low level equipment (ie fits in a backpack or single
    tripod) and no props or talent are used. This category
    includes most speculative and editorial work"

    If you have two photographers or more, then it will cost $220 per
    day and/or $55 per hour (not sure if it's and/or).

    If they deem that you should be supervised (at their discretion)
    then it's another $55/hour or $72 outside of working ours for each
    person they assign to supervise.

    If you give them less than 7 days notice for getting your permit,
    then it costs you an extra $110. Also, if they do deem that you will
    be supervised then

    "accommodation and transport costs associated with
    supervision or management of the activity will be
    charged to the photographer".

    With regard to insurance, this is included in the terms and
    conditions of the granting of the licence:

    "a public, and if relevant, products liability insurance
    policy for not less than $10 million (or any greater
    amount required by Parks Victoria)"

    Surely they dont require this of every photographer who enters the
    park?! They specify that you should attach the evidence of your
    insurance cover, but then the specify "where required". I couldnt
    find any paragraphs stating when it is or is not required.

    I'm all for supporting national parks, but I think it's a bit steep.
     
    Scott Coutts, Oct 9, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. You know, if you read what you yourself wrote, you answer your own question

    Question
    in national parks


    Is this a troll? Or you trying to get some idiotic reaction? Are you bored?
    Are you stupid? Is this an irrelevant post? Yes. See, I can ask and answer
    my own questions too. I am not normally that acerbic but really: what an
    idiot.
     
    David in Perth, Oct 9, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Scott Coutts

    koob Guest

    Originally posted by David in Perth
    You know, if you read what you yourself wrote, you answer your own
    question

    Question
    Surely they dont require this of every photographer who enters the
    park?!

    Answer
    You have to pay a 'photography fee' now, if you intend to take
    pictures that will be used for publication or sale in national parks in
    australia.


    Is this a troll? Or you trying to get some idiotic reaction? Are you
    bored? Are you stupid? Is this an irrelevant post? Yes. See, I can ask
    and answer my own questions too. I am not normally that acerbic but
    really: what an idiot.

    I think you'll find the 'question' was rhetorical. He was simply
    explaining his genuine disbelief at the article. As a landscape
    photographer I found his post extremely interesting and something I
    wish to follow up and monitor in the future.

    The post subject was simple and straight to the point. If you don't
    like it, don't read it. The lowest thing you can do is make fun of
    someone and call them names for sharing information with fellow
    photographers.

    Good on you Scott. Thanks for the info and keep us all up to date.

    KB
     
    koob, Oct 9, 2003
    #3
  4. Scott Coutts

    snaps.. Guest

    Scott two
    David one
    Lets make it two all eh?
    Scott's a troll... OK?
    Doug
     
    snaps.., Oct 9, 2003
    #4
  5. Scott Coutts

    Ken Guest

    That'd be an interesting challenge.
    Good point Dmitri, big camera and big lenses somehow infers you are a pro in
    some peoples eyes. Maybe because non-addicts find it hard to believe that
    someone would spend so much $$$ on camera kit without earning a quid from
    it.

    KC (fellow 'addict' 10D and "L" owner)
     
    Ken, Oct 9, 2003
    #5
  6. He was not being rhetorical
     
    David in Perth, Oct 9, 2003
    #6
  7. Scott Coutts

    Scott Coutts Guest

    You can believe what you will, but this was not intended as a troll
    message. I'm really genuinely surprised (and somewhat disappointed)
    that it was interpreted that way.
     
    Scott Coutts, Oct 9, 2003
    #7
  8. Scott Coutts

    Scott Coutts Guest

    You are right. I was not being rhetorical, I was being misunderstood.
     
    Scott Coutts, Oct 9, 2003
    #8
  9. Scott Coutts

    Scott Coutts Guest

    Hi David!
    If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I don't answer my own
    question. I would not have asked it otherwise, other than as a means
    for expressing my surprise.
    OK. I have three things to say about this.

    Firstly, I realise that these statements and regulations apply to
    commercial photographers and/or those shooting with the intention of
    publication. I never stated otherwise. As you pointed out, I opened
    my message by stating that all of this applies to commercial
    photographers or those intending to publish. I had assumed that the
    readers of my post would also assume that I was talking about this
    subset of photographers for the remainder of the post. Evidently
    not. When I said 'every photographer' I was referring to every
    photographer intending on shooting for commercial or publication
    purposes.

    Secondly, if you go back to my post and read it again, rather than
    removing a single sentence and taking it from it's context, you will
    see that question of paying a photography fee is NOT the question
    that was raised. Let's examine my original post again, this time in
    context with the rest of the paragraph attached:

    "Surely they don't require this of every photographer
    who enters the park?! They specify that you should
    attach the evidence of your insurance cover, but
    then the specify "where required". I couldn't find
    any paragraphs stating when it is or is not required"

    Thirdly, and finally, this was question was intended partly to
    express my amazement and disbelief, hence the presence of both the
    question mark and exclamation mark present at the end of the sentence.

    I can see how the question was ambiguous if the statement about
    commercial photography was disregarded.

    Now that these issues have been dealt with, perhaps you (or someone
    else) can now answer the question. Here it is again, rephrased for
    clarification:

    Surely they don't require every photographer who is intending to
    sell and/or publish his/her work to hold public liability insurance
    to the value of AU$10,000,000? I find this hard to believe.
    Certainly not. I have never posted anything to troll a group.
    I was not *trying* to 'get some idiotic reaction' but perhaps I have
    gotten it regardless. Well, perhaps you're being a bit harsh. I
    think it is more of an over-reaction.
    Here is my explanation of the relevance of my post.

    I sell stock photography and I know there are other commercial
    photographers that read this group. I was highlighting an issue of
    which I was, until recently, unaware. I know that it is an issue of
    which lot of other people were also unaware. The post was intended
    for commercial photographers and those intending to publish and I
    stated that.

    I simply posted some information that I thought was of interest to
    photographers. Having looked at some of the other responses, I see
    that I was right.
    I think you should calm down. I was surprised to read this response
    from you, David. We don't normally see this kind of venom from you.
    Shall I call you an 'idiot' for misunderstanding what was written or
    for over-reacting in such a manner? No, because it would be
    pointless, disrespectful, unnecessary and finally untrue.


    Scott.
     
    Scott Coutts, Oct 9, 2003
    #9
  10. Scott Coutts

    Scott Coutts Guest

    See my reply to David's post for a clarification of what I wrote.
     
    Scott Coutts, Oct 9, 2003
    #10
  11. Scott Coutts

    Lionel Guest

    Gotta love government departments who want to charge us money to shoot
    on OUR OWN LAND.

    Here's the details:
    -----------------
    WHO NEEDS A FILMING OR PHOTOGRAPHY PERMIT?
    Who Does
    • A company, institution, group or
    individual conducting filming or
    photography as part of a trade or a
    business requires a permit in areas
    managed by Parks Victoria. Permits
    may also be required for some
    student productions. Contact Parks
    Victoria to determine if a permit
    is required.
    Who Doesn’t
    • Amateur photographers or people
    taking film or video for personal or
    hobby interest do not require a
    permit. However, if photographs are
    used for publication or public display
    purposes a permit may be required.
    • News or current affairs programs do
    not require a permit but producers
    should liaise with Parks Victoria staff.
    • Wedding and portrait photographers
    do not require a photography
    permit. However, a special event
    permit or booking may be required.
    This may involve a fee. See
    www.parkweb.vic.gov.au
     
    Lionel, Oct 9, 2003
    #11
  12. Scott Coutts

    koob Guest

    Originally posted by Lionel

    • Wedding and portrait photographers
    do not require a photography
    permit. However, a special event
    permit or booking may be required.
    This may involve a fee. See
    www.parkweb.vic.gov.au
    -----------------

    In other words, if you might make money from your shots, they want a
    cut. Arseholes.

    I wonder if this applies to all the portraits I've taken of plants in
    rainforests.... or the portraits of the sun at dawn... or the pictures
    with people at the corners that I later crop...

    ;)

    KB
     
    koob, Oct 9, 2003
    #12
  13. Scott Coutts

    Ken Guest

    Koob, hi

    Does posting via eyo's forum allow you to automatically insert a ">" or
    other character to differentiate your text from the person you are repyling
    to?

    I have noticed that several of your posts run on from the original message
    with no easy way of telling what text is yours and what was the person you
    were replying to.

    Regards, Ken
     
    Ken, Oct 9, 2003
    #13
  14. Scott Coutts

    snaps.. Guest

    Here's my 2 cents worth.
    Amateur photographers are still allowed to photograph on Government property
    as they have always done provided they are not from a reputable terrorist
    organisation.

    All you need to do to vouch you amateur status is carry your builders
    labourer's union card or a business card saying you are a brain surgeon.
    Bring on all you poverty stricken Japanese relatives and friends with their
    1Ds and D1s with lenses costing as much as my car... No charge here.

    Professionals have always had to share their unbelievably huge income with
    poverty stricken property owners. Have a look at the Ayres Rock situation
    since it was handed back. If you were attempting to use a copyright song as
    a theme for your business and play it as your customers flocked in their
    thousands to your studio to view your incredibly unique photography... You
    would have to pay a fee to a department who claim to support the music
    industry but mysteriously never give musicians any money.

    I don't have a problem with paying for the raw materials that I use. Once it
    was film but now it is harder to define. I would define a fee to use a
    location for the purpose of making my living, a cost which I can claim as a
    legitimate business expense. I can use the GST I pay as an input credit and
    generally balance the cost of the shoot against the return on the pictures.
    What has changed? The fact the Victorian Government is the property manager
    or are you all just Amateurs in drag? And what is the dilemma over public
    liability insurance? Everyone... Amateur or Professional should have it.

    Doug
     
    snaps.., Oct 9, 2003
    #14
  15. I wonder if this will cause park officials to start asking to provide some
    sort of proof
    that people with decent cameras do not intend to profit from the pictures
    they are planning
    to take... I'm a bit worried, what with my 10D and L glass. :(( This
    utterly sucks. :(
     
    Dmitri Kalintsev, Oct 9, 2003
    #15
  16. Scott Coutts

    Dennis G Guest

    Here's the details:
    Excuse my ignorance, but would this include placing these pictures on a
    personal website? Technically, that could be considered as a public display,
    whether is was non profit or for profit.

    Dennis
     
    Dennis G, Oct 9, 2003
    #16
  17. been like that in NSW for many years.
    Bottom line is:
    Permits aren't expensive if you're earning money from your work.
    Permits aren't required if you're not.

    and if you don't like that, NSW State Forests are still free, and
    encourage photography... at least until either:
    a) the rabid greenies of NPWS take over remaining forests, or
    b) Carr govt sell them off to private enterprise.
     
    Andrew Hennell, Oct 9, 2003
    #17
  18. Scott Coutts

    Andrew Mc Guest

    Yep, and it's been the same way in Vic for quite some time too.
     
    Andrew Mc, Oct 10, 2003
    #18
  19. Scott Coutts

    Andrew Mc Guest

    Andrew Mc, Oct 10, 2003
    #19
  20. Scott Coutts

    [BnH] Guest

    hmm .... what defines small scale ?

    A maximum of one photographer plus one assistant with
    low level equipment (ie fits in a backpack or single
    tripod) and no props or talent are used. This category
    includes most speculative and editorial work"

    If that's the case, I am not so "small scale" then ?
    although basically I am just a hobbyist with friends who is keen in
    photography as well :(

    I wonder if they have regulations like this in NSW.
    Anyone ?

    =bob=


    news:7e2hb.142353$...
     
    [BnH], Oct 10, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.