National park fees

[atky]

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).

I did say the images would be classified as EDITORIAL and I don't seem to remember claiming or even suggesting I was a commercial photographer. I shot motorsport I sell some images to competitors I also from time to time submit images to editors of magazines with the hope of getting published and paid if that means I'm a commercial photographer.
I am more than willing to pay the administrative costs of shooting the event but tell me would $540 be a fair charge for the administrative costs? (Rhetorical)

[Redgum]

Atky, you just said

I shot motorsport I sell some images to competitors I also from time to time submit images to editors of magazines with the hope of getting published and paid if that means I'm a commercial photographer.

.
For someone in a government department that statement clearly makes you a commercial photographer in their eyes. You're far better off just being there as an amateur and avoiding the outlandish fee. If you do happen to turn a profit from the photographs declare yourself at that point and pay your dues.

[MarkChap]

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."

See this is the bit I focused on, INTENT, if you don't intend to make financial gain, you pay no fee.

[atky]

See this is the bit I focused on, INTENT, if you don't intend to make financial gain, you pay no fee.

Thats how I read it the editor I was hoping to submit the images and an article to is not interested in the event so I could go as a spectator HM still it will cost me about $800 fuel food park entry and time away from my other business. So the intent would be to go as a spectator take some happy snaps. That would be dishonest though ?

[Longshots]

No it wouldnt be dishonest.



However it would be foolish. While a few people are talking about "intent" and oh I loved this one, well "if you dont make any financial gain out of it, then it isnt commercial"; can I suggest a trip to reality, and some common sense ?

While I totally abhor the commercial fees, and agree it absurd, ridiculous and all of those things. The arguments put forward, about not paying on the basis of non commercial are slightly unrealistic.

If you want to join in and aim to be a commercial photographer you have to take the rough with the smooth. And that means complying with the rules and regulations whatever they may be. And if you dont like them - join and support, and work for the professional and amateur organisations who've been actively lobbying against these type of outrageous fees and restrictive rules.

For those who suggest yeah go in, dont tell them what you're intending to do, and then shoot what you want, and sell them to a publisher - guess what ? The publisher is going to publish them. Which means that they will be seen - in a commercial environment. To me that to me is one of those "doh" situations. Do you think that there is no possible way that your images will not be seen or recognised ?

Who might be a tad peeved ? Other not for profit photographers; or commercial (for profit) photographers who did pay, and didnt sell images to the same publisher you just sold some to; or and this is potentially the biggie, the department responsible for managing the national park, or area that you were required to buy a licence for commercial photography. And do you think that your publisher may be a bit peeved, when the National Park marketing department check with their records and find that the photographer who took and sold these images to a magazine, didnt have a licence for commercial photography ?

Seriously, its one thing to stand up and say the fee is ridiculous, (which I completely agree with) and its another to suggest that you can ignore the rules and regulations that do restrict commercial photographers because you are a hobbyist - but selling them.

Seems a classic case of wanting your bread buttered both sides. If you want to take a punt, pay the licence fee up front and see if you can get a guarantee of at least that fee from a potential magazine editor. Ignore the fee and subsequently sell the images afterwards, and risk not just the fee retrospectively, but also a fairly large fine - because however the issue is spun, it would I'm afraid be deemed commercial.

[Longshots]

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.

Oh thank you - clear and concise, common sense advice on the actual topic.

[atky]

Hi again as stated earlier I was only in the planning stage of this enterprise. when I said the editor was not interested in this project that was the truth, there are other publications that could be interested. The plan was always to also shoot some landscapes on the lake and its sounds all to be filed away for another project in the future. The project was always going to be a punt. That said it would of been fun and I would of gain some experience.
My intent was always to do the rite thing by all involved by gaining the rite permissions etc.
This would of represented a significant investment of time and money on my part (not a great deal of money to some but significant to me).
Now DENR not only want $540 but I also need permission from the Native Title claimants of the park, that will take at least 30 days, no mention of cost for that, problem is the event is in less than 30 days ( should of started the proses sooner )
It all started out sounding like a good idea but now don't know.

[Longshots]

Atky I wasnt specifically having a go at you, but responding to the various suggestions that had been offered in this topic. Quite a lot of freelance commercial photography involves a specific investment in order to attempt a gain at the end of the project.

I have to say that this sounds like one which just aint worth hassle - the DENR and Native Title claimants combination of "grief" is something I would walk away from.

Personally I'd pass on your experience to Arts Freedom Australia and see what their response is. BTW Arts Freedom Australia is the leading voluntary organisation that is producing some significant lobbying against this type of over the top fees for access to public areas around Australia. They invite you to post your experiences - I would post it if I were you:

http://www.artsfreedomaustralia.com/blog/?page_id=103

Trying to find a commercial outlet for your images is often more trouble than many consider.

I'd hate to tell you, but if you were there in a commercial position (ie you were intending to sell the outcome), then you would also have to consider public liability insurance to cover you - which might even be part of the DENR licence terms and conditions.

You might like to consider that this is fairly normal for the day to day commercial photographer (ie people like me), and its always a depressing bureaucratic maze.

Slightly Off topic, but I was talking to a fellow photographer trying to organise a commercial advertising shoot for tomorrow in a Sydney National Park, who was grinding his teeth in frustration, as he had most of the various licence's in place for his shoot, and had then found that in NSW as he was using a under 16 year old child in the advertising shoot, the organisation required him to also have a permit/licence from Child Services Licence

http://www.license.nsw.gov.au/Licenc...d_Children.htm

which was going to cost him just under $1,000 !!!! for a 12month licence (he has only used one child in a stills advert in the past 12months). And he couldnt go ahead with that, because his client was delaying the final signing off for the project until the last possible minute - which will probably too late for the various departments to supply all of the various licences and permits. As I said, its not as easy as many would like it to be.

[atky]

Public liability is on the application I have it through Confederation of Australian motor sport being a CAMS accredited photographer ( Not sure the event was a CAMS event only plaining ) and yes have put in the to hard basket

[kiwi]

I guess the last resort is whether you'd enjoy and get value just attending and shooting for fun, at least then based on feedback or approaches by attendees you could judge whether next year it would be financially worth shooting commercially.

[Longshots]

Good point Kiwi.

[atky]

Ill probably just go another time for me and shoot some landscapes when there is no one there (If the truth be known that was the primary motivation) yes I know I don't post any . It is however something I enjoy.

[atky]

The event was canceled the lake was flooded what would of happened to the $540 investment?

[Redgum]

How long is the permit for? Maybe you can use it next year when the fees have gone up?

[atky]

One day