National park fees

[atky]

Just got the form for commercial photography at Lake Gairdner National Park all I can say is you've got to be joking $540 for a day with no assistance. Shez (I wanted use another word) is this just a grab for money I would not mind paying for the purposes of gaining permission but come on $540 for access to take photos of something that is basically public property.
The images in our definition would be editorial.

[I @ M]

Well, if you are selling the images and provided a quote for your services you should have researched the costs involved and included them in your quote.
Argue the point that they are editorial and not commercial with the department concerned, perhaps a gentle hint that the "editorial' will also highlight the ridiculous charges they want to apply.

Yes, the prices that they expect are ludicrous and it does amount to an unreasonable cash grab, that is why the various bodies and individuals are getting up and protesting.
Join in and add your voice and signature, it will be better heard there rather than on a forum like this.

Read a bit more here.

[ameerat42]

Atky. U say "...form for commercial photography..." and "...basically public property..."
I was just wondering what the rest of the story is. Am.

Edit: In the meantime, Andrew replied, and I can see there's a commercial angle to your intention. OK.

[atky]

I am in the planing stage of shooting a motorsport event that is held at Lake Gairdner annually and gets little coverage I think I discovered why. As for the mentioned protests I know of them .
I will argue the point.

[kiwi]

Define commercial use

It's always been my understanding that you taking pics either for editorial use or for selling limited quantities from your website is not commercial use

It is commercial though in the sense that you are doing so for money

So I'd ask for their definition and then do it anyhow and argue the point later

[Analog6]

And what happens if you go and take some pics while you are on holiday and later someone wants to buy one - I cannot imagine any togs out there saying "Oh, no, I can't sell you that one"!

[dbax]

might also be worth speaking to the event organiser who would already have approval to stage the event ? They would have all sorts of support staff, surely a photographer might fit in there somewhere ?

[atky]

Have been in contact with organizers they informed me about needing permission. As for the definition this is an extract from the Email I received in reply.

"The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) classify commercial filming and photography as any activity that produces images with the intention of using these for commercial gain. I presume from your description that your intent as a freelance is to sell your images, which classifies your activities as commercial. If this is the case you will require a permit from DENR to undertake photography on Lake Gairdner National Park."

[kiwi]

That sux. Highly unlikely that it's commercially viable eh

What's the penalty if you are caught I wonder

[atky]

This sentence was included in the previous paragraph how would you read it.
"If you do not intend to make financial gain out of your images then approval is not required - you may go ahead as planned."

[Kym]

It's Lake Gairdner ?? NOT Sydney Harbour. DENR are complete idiots - no parts missing.

I have some slides from about 1997 when we up in that area. Other than the salt there is not much there.

[I @ M]

This sentence was included in the previous paragraph how would you read it.
"If you do not intend to make financial gain out of your images then approval is not required - you may go ahead as planned."

Combined with the previous email it is perfectly clear to me.

If you intend to derive any income from the images that you take in their precious little patch of dirt then you need to pay for a permit.

If you are merely there and taking images of an event that you aren't going to receive any payment ( cash or in kind ) then you don't need a permit.

I guess that if you were to be identified as having taken images without a permit then under the laws of the land they could probably seek punitive damages from you at a later date ( do I hear the term -- more revenue raising -- by any chance ) but by the heavy handed nature of that which they decide can happen on public ( tax payer funded to start with ) land it all smells of bureaucracy gone mad and there needs to be more public backlash against that sort of behaviour.

[macrocephalic]

This sort of shit makes my blood boil. Where do a government entity get off, charging rates like that for a citizen to take pictures of public land?

[Analog6]

And that is the crux of it - it is OUR taxes that are supporting and making possible this and other pernitecky government entity - yet we have no say in their heavy handed approach. EVERY photographer should go and join the Arts Freedom Australia people - it's only $2.00 (link in second post here)

[Wayne]

Commercial gain - doesnt necessarily mean payment, only if you profit. Cover your costs and you shouldnt need a permit would be my argument.

[Boo53]

Commercial gain - doesnt necessarily mean payment, only if you profit. Cover your costs and you shouldnt need a permit would be my argument.

Wayne, I think you are confusing gain & profit. Any payment in cash or kind is "gain".



Atky, have you raised the matter with your local MP's (Upper & Lower house).

A charge for commercial permits is probably justified if some facilities are involved, or you are likely to cause some "wear & tear" to the site, but $540 is just over the top.

If you do talk to your MP's remember they will probably have little knowledge of photography, other than their own happy snaps, and your a quite likely to get a response that tries to explain the departments side. Don't just mutter about bloody politicians and leave it at that. Use the 1st response as an opportunity to educate them, and hopefully they will go back in to fight for you (us)

[Wayne]

Wayne, I think you are confusing gain & profit. Any payment in cash or kind is "gain".

No, not at all.

From the Oxford concise;

commercial |kəˈmər sh əl| (abbr.: comm.)
adjective
1 concerned with or engaged in commerce : a commercial agreement.
2 making or intended to make a profit : commercial products.
• having profit, rather than artistic or other value, as a primary aim : their work is too commercial.
3 (of television or radio) funded by the revenue from broadcast advertisements.
4 (of chemicals) supplied in bulk and not of the highest purity.


Gain;
[mass noun]
1 an increase in wealth or resources
[count noun] :
shares showed gains of up to 21 per cent


So, simply receiving a payment does not constitute either something commercial or a gain, you only have those two, once you profit.

[I @ M]

No, not at all.

From the Oxford concise;

commercial |kəˈmər sh əl| (abbr.: comm.)
adjective
1 concerned with or engaged in commerce : a commercial agreement.
2 making or intended to make a profit : commercial products.
• having profit, rather than artistic or other value, as a primary aim : their work is too commercial.
3 (of television or radio) funded by the revenue from broadcast advertisements.
4 (of chemicals) supplied in bulk and not of the highest purity.


Gain;
[mass noun]
1 an increase in wealth or resources
[count noun] :
shares showed gains of up to 21 per cent


So, simply receiving a payment does not constitute either something commercial or a gain, you only have those two, once you profit.

Wayne it really matters not if the relevant govt dept in charge of collecting said permit fees doesn't use the Oxford concise dictionary --------

[arthurking83]

I think Wayne has (what I believe to be) a sound alternate description to the meaning of the term commercial gain.
I think it could be reasonably argued by a lawyer, that commercial gain(in the financial sense) is one where there has to be a nett monetary gain .. (i.e. of profit!!) from the venture.
If there is no financial nett gain, or if there is a financial loss on the entire venture once all costs are included, then it'd be very difficult for this DENR mob to argue that the photographer has made a commercial gain(in the financial sense).

Other alternatives to their argument to note tho; is that unless their term is specifically limited to financial aspect of commercial gain, you would be careful not to gain commercially by an offshoot of this venture, say with follow on work that netts you more income.
That is: motorsports enthusiast A likes your photos but only purchases 1 $10 image, but it's cost you $560 in expenses to get to Lk Gardiner. You make a total loss of $450 and that's without the park fees!
But!! if this motorsports enthusiast A chap then enlists your services to do a $2K shoot elsewhere and you profit massively from this subsequent venture, they could in theory take action against you, as a commercial gain has now been made from the initial surreptitious foray into parks property without paying their ludicrous Nazi entry fee!

My belief on a matter such as this(or variables similar too this) is to pay any standard entry fees(as would be the case to all general public) and enter as a tourist only. You are then completely free to capture any images of whatever you see fit to do so, without any interruption(legally) by a parks officer. If you were to sell any images to any of the participants, it'd have to be via your website at a later date, and not to sell them directly via canvassing on the day(or weekend) or whatever the case may be.
The chances of them finding your site on the web is so remote that it'd be something not to worry about, and them finding and tracking down any sales you procure on your website will impossible to close to impossible to uncover, as the legal paperwork is not really worth the effort or reward.

As I understand (the existence of)this commercial fee, it's to keep a track of the major commercial ventures such as movies, commercials and other such massive enterprises as they can be quite disruptive to the parks tranquil nature.
And also to keep a check on photo trek tours which I think Ken Duncan(not sure on who exactly, but a prominent Aussie landscaper) was protesting against a few months back or a year or so ago)
The single lone photographer capturing images and carrying nothing but a few hundred kilos of photography gear, and subsequently selling them via some obscure online gallery, is too hard to police, and they'd know that!! The resources required to track down all commercial images of a particular area is a daunting task for a governmental parks department.

note I'm neither a lawyer, nor an accountant, and I'd be inclined not to simply believe the opinions or legal advice of one legal representative alone. The issue with such topics is one of 'interpretation' ... such as what is 'commercial gain'
To an accountant only interested in numbers, a commercial gain is one where income exceeds expenses. Makes perfectly good sense really. Making a los year after year is not considered to be a commercial gain in any way. But to a new age YouFace networker, who's only interested in making new connections and hence further their commercial career, by making new business acquaintances out there on the vast salt flats of Lk G.. they could be creating a massive commercial gain out there on the day but only realised at a later date.
How would DENR police that?

anyhow. My personal opinion of the whole fascist regime of paying to enjoy our already paid for national parks, is that if you ignore it, it won't bother you. I remember there being a national parks fee simply to enter into the park itself. Pay that and my dues have been met. If I subsequently make a profit on any holiday trip to these parks, I'd just make sure that's it;'s enough to cover the legal expenses for taking these goons to court or a one way ticket to at least Argentina or Majorca ... and spend the rest of life holidaying the sun

EDIT: OOPS! I now noticed that Steve(Atky) mentioned financial gain, and not the term commercial gain. That changes my reply quite a bit. I used the term that Wayned referred too(my bad).

Financial gain has only one meaning. profit. Pure and simple. Any accountant will tell you that. if your expenses are greater than your income, there is now way in hell that DENR could argue the case where any payment made to the photographer in this park could be considered financial gain. Cost have to be taken into consideration to enventually come to the conclusion that a financial gain has been made(unless they're kind enough to pay all of your costs for you! ).

[Redgum]

With all due respects isn't this a case of wanting to be seen as a "commercial" photographer but not wanting to pay the fee? Identify yourself as an amateur and go in free. No argument even under their own rules. As for the level of charges I agree wholeheartedly with what's been said. Governments have no idea how hard it is to be commercial simply because their budgets lack any knowledge of income (for them it all comes from a whole in the wall).