Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs  (Read 8787 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs
« Reply #20 on: September 27, 2014, 02:00:19 pm »

According to this it wasn't exaggerated at all. What this says is that they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and the adverse publicity was giving them serious heartburn.

I tend to concur with that assessment, Russ (see, we can agree sometimes).

This is such an old bureaucratic trick, used by many governments as well: use a broad, ambiguous language that will allow you to interpret it as you see fit, hoping no one would notice. But if they do, claim ignorance: "That's not what we had in mind." For instance "non-commercial still photography"... while experienced and educated readers would understand "commercial" to mean "used for advertising," those less familiar (e.g., most rangers) assume it means "making money" from it. The same with the term "professional"... you are one if you have a tripod and a big camera and a big lens (and if that lens happens to be white, you are oh, so busted).

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2014, 03:35:27 pm »

My very brief reading of the proposal is that it is designed to make permanent a policy that is already in place for National Forrest Service lands that are generally NOT accessible to the public.  This does not apply to the national parks and monuments so all you Yosemite photogs need not lose a moment of sleep as you plan your next outing.  The Forest Service is trying to generate some badly needed revenue to cover their ongoing activities.  Additionally, this focuses on commercial photography so you simply add the cost of the permit into your business expensing.

This proposal is in accord with many other governmental initiatives that have been implemented over the past 30 years; charge user fees to the impacted community to fund activities.  I spent my working career in the pharmaceutical industry and the amount of fees that we had to pay on a yearly basis was very high.  This is just reality.  You either fund things through general taxes or through user fees.  There is no free lunch.
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2014, 04:50:14 pm »

Even if it is enacted, it's aimed at the media as stated in the first line of the article. Commercial media. I don't see this effecting the professional photographer or amateur photographer unless it's re-written or modified.

Paul
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2014, 04:53:58 pm »

They elected a reasonably conservative government which has been partially dismantling the nanny state, which is one of the reasons Wendy's is moving north.

We Americans haven't woken up yet.  We're still looking for a free meal.

shawnino

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 116
Re: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2014, 11:06:13 am »

Saying that Canada has elected a reasonably conservative government is, by American standards, false. Canada's "conservative" party is somewhere between Clinton Democrat and Johnson Democrat.

All major political parties in Canada support a single-payer health care system. Allowing a private for-profit system to spring up beside the government system is happening, but very, very slowly. For profit walk-in clinics are allowed, but they bill the public system for patient visits. Purely elective surgery (such as breast augmentation) is done in fee-for-servioce private clinics, but many doctors who go that route are then barred from performing not-so-selective surgeries in hospitals.

Photography is not protected speech. It can, however, be "cyberbullying", which is a crime.

American-style "private" universities don't really exist in Canada. Universities operate moderately independently from the government but the government pays 2/3-or-more of every domestic student's tuition (international students often pay full fare). In return, the government gets to approve which universities teach which programs, and to what standard. (There are a few Bible Schools that opt out of the model.)

Federal VAT up here is 5%, and provinces can choose to top that up. My province tops it up to 15%.

Canadians do not have a right to bear arms, nor a right to self-defence in their own homes. You can defend yourself, but you'd better make sure your attacker doesn't survive, because in court the burden will be on you to prove that you couldn't have fled (last thing you want is your attacker saying "sure, he could have run out his back door instead of defending himself"). Long guns are allowed for hunting, but they must be locked up, unloaded. Ammunition must be locked in a separate cabinet.

Criminals do generally have a right to parole ("statutory release") after serving 2/3 of their sentences.

Canadians do have a right to contact a lawyer after being arrested, but do not necessarily have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning. The right to not incriminate oneself under the Evidence Act is much narrower than the USA's Fifth Amendment. But the good news is, you've got that right to parole :)

Canada is a socialist country--in some ways, particularly the health system, far more socialist than Europe (where parallel health systems exist).     
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs
« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2014, 10:52:54 pm »

Thanks for posting the link.  From reading the document, at least in CA, sounds like the State Parks are where you need to be careful.  The National Parks, National Forest and Wilderness rules seem fine for a single photographer working without a model or props. 

Paul
Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

Colorado David

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1178
Re: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2014, 11:35:39 am »

NANPA, ASMP, NPPA and others see this as a threat to photographer/journalist rights and are taking action.  We would all be well advised to not be lulled to sleep over this issue.  I was required to pay $100 per day to photograph in Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska.  That was for one person photographing in areas that the general public is admitted to without restriction.  There is no guarantee that a single image from that shoot will ever make any money back.  That is the nature of shooting spec.  A $100 per day permit fee along with a threatening speech from a clerk is a steep price to pay for that privilege.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 11:40:32 am by Colorado David »
Logged

Chrisso26

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
Re: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs
« Reply #28 on: October 09, 2014, 06:07:57 pm »

Fees and permits have been a reality In Australia for several years now.
http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/media-and-artists-0

They do not cover amateur photography, but if you turn up with a big rig, park rangers may question you, and if you start selling your images, you'll have to keep it somewhat covert.
In reality, several well known locals have made careers out of landscape images from our national parks. Prints can sell for between $2,000 and $10,000.
I have no issue over those business people contributing to the management and upkeep of the resource they are exploiting (National Parks).
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs
« Reply #29 on: October 09, 2014, 06:47:07 pm »

If a poet goes to a national park or state forest, writes a poem about it, and sells the book for million bucks... is he "exploiting" it? And should he fork out $1500 for the "privilege" every time he enters a park or forest for inspiration? And should every budding poet pay the same?

Those "business people" WILL pay their due through income tax, btw.

Chrisso26

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
Re: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2014, 07:46:17 pm »

You're taking a picture directly of the scene, which is maintained by the park staff.
Ordinary citizens can take as many free pictures as they want by the way. But someone whose business earns almost exclusively from glossy landscape shots of National Parks (which several in Australia do), shouldn't complain about paying a little more for the right.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs
« Reply #31 on: October 13, 2014, 08:21:17 pm »

... paying a little more...

In the States, entrance to National Parks is about $50. The proposed fee for national forests (less upkeep than national parks, btw) was $1500. That would be 30 times more, hardly "a little more."

As for "business earnings"... no one knows in advance if a shot (or the whole photography business for that matter) is going to turn profitable. Yes, a print might be sold for $xxxx, but that is not profit, just revenue. Subtract expenses (equipment, travel, gallery cost, etc.) and you'd have to wait till the end of year for your accountant to tell you if you made a profit and how much. If you did, you'll pay income tax, a part of which goes for national parks and forests.

Besides, your whole argument is displaced, as even the originators of the proposal backed down, facing the outrage. They actually now claim they never even had in mind what you are advocating here.

shawnino

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 116
Re: Feds Want Fee for Photographing on Public Lancs
« Reply #32 on: October 17, 2014, 08:48:32 am »

You're taking a picture directly of the scene, which is maintained by the park staff.
Ordinary citizens can take as many free pictures as they want by the way. But someone whose business earns almost exclusively from glossy landscape shots of National Parks (which several in Australia do), shouldn't complain about paying a little more for the right.


I have two issues with your argument:

1) The broad distinction between an "ordinary" citizen and a businessperson. In my opinion all citizens ought to have the same rights (unless, for instance, you've committed a serious crime and thus forfeited your right to liberty for some period).

2) The specific case here that businesspeople, who own the public land just as much as other members of society own it, should pay a higher user-fee (in this case, an entrance fee) to enjoy the public land in the same way as others.

Now if a film crew (or a stills photographer, I don't mind) needed to use a swath of the Park and have it cordoned off from other people, well, at the point the Park needs to think about whether it's a good idea and what sort of rent might be charged. But that's not what's being debated here. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up