New fee

[keith english]

I can't find a link, but I saw it on Topix-photography. A town in Alabama has now instituted a $500 fee to photograph historical buildings. When challenged by a photographer who was on the public street photographing, they backed down. Much like the confusion in National Parks, it was aimed at "commercial photographers" who go onto the property with models etc. However it is still very unclear how they define a "Commercial" photographer. Do I lie, if asked, and say I have never sold a print, or never intend to? My usualy response is "It's just a hobby."

[rippo]

There's taking the picture, and then there's getting permission to be on the property doing it. If something is visible from a public place, you can photograph it. You probably can't however set up your HMIs and your portable dressing rooms in the middle of the street...you're going to need a permit for that.

It makes sense that a production company can't just inconvenience the general public by setting up anywhere they see fit, clogging traffic, ruining the view etc. And it makes sense that the average tourist with his/her 30 MP point and shoot can snap pictures of the kids in front of the local historic landmark. It's the fuzzy gray middle area that is the problem (zone 5, to you and I).

Some places say "no tripods". Pretty idiotic in many cases, but not all. Tripods can be tripped over, and/or block traffic. But a lone LF shooter out in the wilderness hardly constitutes a hazard.

Some places say "no commercial usage". Makes sense for some places, but not others. Why should a commercial shooter need a permit to sell prints of his best-selling "Yosemite at High Noon in Bright Sunlight"? It's public property. You don't want models trampling the underbrush in their high-heel shoes without some sort of permit though.

I'm an on-location portrait photographer (no LF when 'on the job', alas). I keep running into situations where my equipment triggers the "no commercial photography" orders from security. I usually have one or two lights and umbrellas, and a tripod, and it gets noticed. But I'm portable, usually on the beach or a park, and not destroying anything or getting in anyone's way. If it's public property, and I'm low impact, why can't I just use the area much like everyone else?

I've been told:

"your camera is too big" (and this was a Fuji S5 Pro dSLR with vertical grip)

"no tripods" (it's a light stand, you moron!)

"you can shoot toward the street, but don't shoot toward the buildings. it's a national security issue." (this was in a little park at the back of what I think was a entertainment-industry payroll company)

And some places take a one size fits all approach to permits. A lot of botanical gardens will host weddings and/or commercial and fashion shoots. So the fee for the location is $300 plus $50 per person, or something like that. That's considerably more than my sitting fee for the shoot!

So what do I do? Well...better to ask forgiveness than ask permission, at least under certain circumstances. If I'm traveling lightly, I can just claim I'm an enthusiast who's taking the picture for free. Or I pick some other location. Or, in the case of parks and gardens, I plead poverty and offer to provide images of the shoot for their website, and can sometimes get the fee waved or reduced.

But it's a constant hassle. This weekend I'm shooting on a California State Beach, which requires a permit from the State Film Board, a fee of unknown amount paid to the park system, and insurance with the park listed as additional insured. I'm going to try and stay out of sight instead. :/

[Ash]

If you can get in, get the shots, and get out again... all without being caught.... I'd say it's your right as a Wile-E-Coyote.


No but seriously, unless its a listed or endangered location, move fast and beg forgiveness. Only in some very obvious circumstances you can't plead ignorance.

[rippo]

I think it's easier to argue with a 4x5 than it is with a lighting umbrella though. "I'm walking in the shoes of Ansel Adams" versus "Er...I'm afraid it might rain on my flash?"

Actually, I'll be bringing an assistant for this weekend's shoot. She may end up being a human light pole. Slightly less obvious. But sort of off topic at this point.

[Janko Belaj]

In Croatia we have something called "Spomenička renta" what can be (probably) translated in english like "monument annuity"... well, each person or organization (firm) should pay to the Ministry of Culture some fee (kind of tax) for using our historical monuments for earning money. I'm photographing such building (mostly churches, interiors and exteriors) for over 20 years and have never ever been asked to pay such fee. However, I have asked several times how and whom to pay and I was - "rejected"! Few years ago I have searched web to find our low(s) and I have found that "monument annuity" should pay persons or firms who are using buildings for business in them, and that fee is in amount of 0.2 to 1 USD per square meter. Depending on their job. Basically - that made me kind a sad, because I'm part of those people in Croatia who are working on preserving our historical monuments, and I know that every dime is needed. It is good to know that we are free to photograph our monuments, but if I will earn some (more) funds selling my shots, and if I want to pay back to the country, society (whomever), why they don't want my contribution?
O.K., I went far away from topic, or from the point in Keith's question - I don't think that anyone who is photographing monuments for it's own pleasure and who occasionally sells a print or two is lier - by that point of view, the best practice was in Dubrovnik: they made a low that anyone earning money by photographing the old town should pay 10% of final earnings to the city's department of restoration... How did they control usage of photographs is another question, but idea is fine for me. Fair at least.
(and sorry for my clumsy english )

[Ostroscope]

The town's name is Mooresville. Here's a link to an article in PDN Pulse:

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/03/self-important.html

There's a link to the town's web site there as well. You guys there in America should get somehow organized and flood the town with a crowd of people shooting with anything from point-and-shoots to LF, no badges, no permits, no fees. I hear TV has already picked up the subject so this kind of photo-rally would probably get even more media attention and ridicule once and for all morons demanding fees for shooting in public places. And then publish the best shots in an album and send a (free) copy to the mayor of Mooresville.

I live in Poland and do mainly architectural photography. Once I was commissioned to take a shot of a residential estate from above. As there was only one tall building around (also residential), I contacted the administration and asked if they would let me to the rooftop. Okay, came the answer two weeks later (!), but you must pay. The sum they demanded was a quarter of my photographer's fee so I contacted my client, they okayed covering the expense so I went back to the building's administration just to be blatantly told that... the trouble they will have if anything happened to me (like I fell down or something) is not worth the sum they demanded. I asked how much it is worth for them that I break my neck but got only an indignant look for an answer. What a shame, I was hoping to get a proof of my value, possibly even in writing and split into gross and net...

[keith english]

I can't argue with their right to restrict use "on" their property, but it was obviously out of line to say you can't make a photograph from a public street "of" their property. But wait, aren't city owned streets the same as city owned buildings? I guess soon we will only be able to photograph on our own property. It wasn't clear in the story I first read who actually owned the properties, which were on the National Historic Register. I wonder if "no commercial photography during weddings" applies to the wedding photographer.

[keith english]

I should add, the fee is abhorantly high. I can find no business license fee, on the web, in my town and state that is over $200 a year, even for liqour and used car dealerships. And, they make a whale of a lot more money than I ever would with a photograph.

[rippo]

if i read the rules correctly (from the PDN page), they don't address taking pictures *of* the buildings. they address taking pictures on the properties. it says nothing about taking pictures from the street. so it sounds like whoever tried to bust the street shooter was getting his Homeland Security knickers in a bunch.

it does say also that commercial photographers in the town are required to pay a $500 per year permit. the way it's worded, it sounds somewhat separate from the right to photograph the buildings. you need a permit to operate if you sell photographs, period. unless clarified elsewhere, that would include portraits in your studio. sounds like a business license basically. but with that expensive business license, you get to take pictures on the historical properties as well. woo hoo. i'll bet that brick shi...i mean, brick church is really somethin' to see. i can't think of too many churches worth $500 just to take a picture of. must put the notre dame cathedral to shame....

[Jim Ewins]

power corrupts