Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
From: steve harley On 2010-08-26 08:05 , William Robb wrote: -- From: Rob Studdert Subject: OT More local photogs rights controversy http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2993756.htm Not unusual. I've run into that a few times in National Parks in the USA, though not Canada as of yet. i did not know there were any such restrictions in US national parks, but looking around i see for example in Denali there are special access permits for professional photographers -- they allow use of a private vehicle which is otherwise not permitted, so in contrast to a restriction, this seems like special access that others don't get http://www.nps.gov/dena/parkmgmt/propho2.htm in Capitol Reef NP, Utah, i see a different type of rule -- only commercial photography which may interfere with normal park visitation requires a permit http://www.nps.gov/care/planyourvisit/comfilmphoto.htm obviously this is a small sample; are there national parks where photography is restricted in less reasonable ways? the situation is different on some US Native American reservations; for example i have visited Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico; while this is a beautiful natural area, and contains also amazing historic structures, it is also still the active residence of a large number of people who also collectively own the land; so i fully understand that camera permits are required as a way to make sure Acoma has a contract with the photographer making clear rights and responsibilities in the case at hand, Ulura-Kata Tjuta National Park, seems to be a bit of a hybrid -- respect for indigenous people is clearly the objective, but the article questions whether the Australian government is the perfect steward for that respect The way I read it was the complaint in Ulura-Kata Tjuta National Park was they were applying an overly restrictive interpretation to what was commercial work, i.e. anyone with an SLR camera. That happened a couple of times in U.S. National Parks back in the 90s, but it seems like the National Park Service has made a real effort to educate their employees. The interfere with normal park visitation usually applies if you want to close off an area for your exclusive use during your shoot, or if you're bringing in so much equipment and crew that there's no room left for other visitors. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
From: Ken Waller he photo permits for professionals in Denali are severely restricted and not available to all that apply. There is only one two lane road, around 90 miles long, in Denali and most of the road traffic is for the park run tour busses. In some places there is absolutely no place for a vehicle to park off road. The pros that do get permits are restricted to having their vehicles off the road during specific hours. In the off season the park road is open for a short time to Alaska residents and their vehicles. The restrictions are aimed at motor vehicles, not photographers. The professionals are not permitted to drive off road either; only to go beyond the gate at mile 15. It's basically a concession to allow the winners of the lottery to carry more equipment than you can fit into one bag a tripod. You can go every place the pros can go riding the park bus. You are limited by the physical dimensions of what you can carry on the bus, but they don't restrict what you can photograph with the equipment you are physically able to carry. The fall road permit lottery is open to everyone ... you don't even have to be US citizen. But you have to know to apply during the month of June. Most of the fall permits go to Alaska residents because they're right there at the park and more of them know when to apply for the lottery. I looked at this year's published list for the first day and only 46 of the 400 winners were from out of state and it looked like 90% of the winners were from Anchorage. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
From: steve harley On 2010-08-26 14:22 , Ken Waller wrote: The photo permits for professionals in Denali are severely restricted and not available to all that apply. There is only one two lane road, around 90 miles long, in Denali and most of the road traffic is for the park run tour busses. In some places there is absolutely no place for a vehicle to park off road. The pros that do get permits are restricted to having their vehicles off the road during specific hours. right, that corresponds closely to the info in the link i included; i was mainly trying to say that i learned Denali doesn't really restrict photographers -- it restricts everyone, and then it has a lottery to give a few pros special permissions that the general public doesn't have Yeah, but it was worded so that it seemed to imply the professionals got additional rights to photograph in places where the general public can't get to, when in fact, all they get is a slight easing of vehicle restrictions to allow them to schlepp more equipment through the park. They cannot take those vehicles off road. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
On 26/8/10, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2993756.htm I don't see what's controversial. Commercial photographers usually have to either have permission or pay to perform their craft if they intend to profit from using a particular location. At the end of the day it seems it's down to the laws of the land and the land itself. In the UK, we have lots of private land (obviously) but we also have lots of footpaths, bridleways and byways which cross private land. According to law, as an individual I have the right to 'pass and re- pass' one of these rights of way. The law doesn't say anything about stopping to take a photograph or film. However, the law does say that as an individual I am permitted to photograph or film from a public right of way. There is no distinction between private, commercial or any other type of photography. When I am working for TV news, I will often access a footpath across private land to get a shot of a location or building that cannot be seen from the road (which is also a public right of way). Of course I have been accosted by irate landowners over the years, but to be honest, never had a problem. Often I will try the landowner first and 9 times out of ten they will tell me to access the site directly with a warm welcome. If one of them ever tried to sue me I'd welcome the opportunity to clarify the situation in court. Anyone know of any UK test cases in this respect? As far as national parks go, I am unaware of restrictions on commercial photographers. If I was a commercial photographer, I would not be skulking about in the bushes, I would be approaching the appropriate persons for permissions and information. If you run a business and stand by your product then in my book it's all above-board. I can see complications though as highlighted by the article. Australia is a big place. Really big. I always thought it was a long way down to the chemist's. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
Quite a few years ago, we visited Katmai National Park, which is the source of most images a grizzlies catching salmon by standing in the falls as they try to jump over it. There were 2 professional photographers on the float plane from King Salmon to Brooks Lodge. They both had permits. Based on the conversations I had with the one seated next to me, they weren't required to get the permit, but getting it gave them certain privileges that others didn't have. I had to set up my tripod on the photography platform overlooking the falls, where I was secure from wondering bears. The permitted pros could approach closer to the falls, and could get different angles, but could not cross over to the other side, which was were most of the bears would emerge from the woods. For the most part, the pros stayed on the platform with the rest of us, as it had the best view of the action, but if the platform got too crowded, then they could, and did, go off on their own. That was 15 years ago, and things may be quite different now. Dan On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Cotty cotty...@mac.com wrote: On 26/8/10, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2993756.htm I don't see what's controversial. Commercial photographers usually have to either have permission or pay to perform their craft if they intend to profit from using a particular location. At the end of the day it seems it's down to the laws of the land and the land itself. In the UK, we have lots of private land (obviously) but we also have lots of footpaths, bridleways and byways which cross private land. According to law, as an individual I have the right to 'pass and re- pass' one of these rights of way. The law doesn't say anything about stopping to take a photograph or film. However, the law does say that as an individual I am permitted to photograph or film from a public right of way. There is no distinction between private, commercial or any other type of photography. When I am working for TV news, I will often access a footpath across private land to get a shot of a location or building that cannot be seen from the road (which is also a public right of way). Of course I have been accosted by irate landowners over the years, but to be honest, never had a problem. Often I will try the landowner first and 9 times out of ten they will tell me to access the site directly with a warm welcome. If one of them ever tried to sue me I'd welcome the opportunity to clarify the situation in court. Anyone know of any UK test cases in this respect? As far as national parks go, I am unaware of restrictions on commercial photographers. If I was a commercial photographer, I would not be skulking about in the bushes, I would be approaching the appropriate persons for permissions and information. If you run a business and stand by your product then in my book it's all above-board. I can see complications though as highlighted by the article. Australia is a big place. Really big. I always thought it was a long way down to the chemist's. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche -- http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
OT More local photogs rights controversy
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2993756.htm -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
WTF! On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Rob Studdert distudio.p...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2993756.htm -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
-- From: Rob Studdert Subject: OT More local photogs rights controversy http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2993756.htm Not unusual. I've run into that a few times in National Parks in the USA, though not Canada as of yet. Pulling out a 4x5 camera in a National Park garners instant suspicion that you are a commercial photographer. I haven't used a 4x5 in a NP for some 15 years, so this isn't anything new. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
Rob Studdert wrote: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2993756.htm I don't see what's controversial. Commercial photographers usually have to either have permission or pay to perform their craft if they intend to profit from using a particular location. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
On 2010-08-26 08:05 , William Robb wrote: -- From: Rob Studdert Subject: OT More local photogs rights controversy http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2993756.htm Not unusual. I've run into that a few times in National Parks in the USA, though not Canada as of yet. i did not know there were any such restrictions in US national parks, but looking around i see for example in Denali there are special access permits for professional photographers -- they allow use of a private vehicle which is otherwise not permitted, so in contrast to a restriction, this seems like special access that others don't get http://www.nps.gov/dena/parkmgmt/propho2.htm in Capitol Reef NP, Utah, i see a different type of rule -- only commercial photography which may interfere with normal park visitation requires a permit http://www.nps.gov/care/planyourvisit/comfilmphoto.htm obviously this is a small sample; are there national parks where photography is restricted in less reasonable ways? the situation is different on some US Native American reservations; for example i have visited Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico; while this is a beautiful natural area, and contains also amazing historic structures, it is also still the active residence of a large number of people who also collectively own the land; so i fully understand that camera permits are required as a way to make sure Acoma has a contract with the photographer making clear rights and responsibilities in the case at hand, Ulura-Kata Tjuta National Park, seems to be a bit of a hybrid -- respect for indigenous people is clearly the objective, but the article questions whether the Australian government is the perfect steward for that respect -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
The photo permits for professionals in Denali are severely restricted and not available to all that apply. There is only one two lane road, around 90 miles long, in Denali and most of the road traffic is for the park run tour busses. In some places there is absolutely no place for a vehicle to park off road. The pros that do get permits are restricted to having their vehicles off the road during specific hours. In the off season the park road is open for a short time to Alaska residents and their vehicles. Capitol Reef doesn't have the same limited road conditions as Denali. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: steve harley p...@paper-ape.com Subject: Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy On 2010-08-26 08:05 , William Robb wrote: -- From: Rob Studdert Subject: OT More local photogs rights controversy http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2993756.htm Not unusual. I've run into that a few times in National Parks in the USA, though not Canada as of yet. i did not know there were any such restrictions in US national parks, but looking around i see for example in Denali there are special access permits for professional photographers -- they allow use of a private vehicle which is otherwise not permitted, so in contrast to a restriction, this seems like special access that others don't get http://www.nps.gov/dena/parkmgmt/propho2.htm in Capitol Reef NP, Utah, i see a different type of rule -- only commercial photography which may interfere with normal park visitation requires a permit http://www.nps.gov/care/planyourvisit/comfilmphoto.htm obviously this is a small sample; are there national parks where photography is restricted in less reasonable ways? the situation is different on some US Native American reservations; for example i have visited Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico; while this is a beautiful natural area, and contains also amazing historic structures, it is also still the active residence of a large number of people who also collectively own the land; so i fully understand that camera permits are required as a way to make sure Acoma has a contract with the photographer making clear rights and responsibilities in the case at hand, Ulura-Kata Tjuta National Park, seems to be a bit of a hybrid -- respect for indigenous people is clearly the objective, but the article questions whether the Australian government is the perfect steward for that respect -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
On 2010-08-26 14:22 , Ken Waller wrote: The photo permits for professionals in Denali are severely restricted and not available to all that apply. There is only one two lane road, around 90 miles long, in Denali and most of the road traffic is for the park run tour busses. In some places there is absolutely no place for a vehicle to park off road. The pros that do get permits are restricted to having their vehicles off the road during specific hours. right, that corresponds closely to the info in the link i included; i was mainly trying to say that i learned Denali doesn't really restrict photographers -- it restricts everyone, and then it has a lottery to give a few pros special permissions that the general public doesn't have Capitol Reef doesn't have the same limited road conditions as Denali. and i wasn't trying to compare Capitol Reef and Denali, just looking for a range of types of restrictions; i'd say Capitol Reef has _more_ photography restrictions, though they are very limited and seem intended to keep large photo/film shoots from ruining everyone's day; neither seems like an attempt to control commercial use of imagery, but the Acoma Pueblo (not a national park, but a semi-sovereign indigenous nation, for those not familiar with US reservations) clearly asserts such control my overall point was that i tried to follow up on William's statements and couldn't find restrictions he seemed to have run into, but i'm interested to learn what restrictions there may be -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: steve harley p...@paper-ape.com Subject: Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy On 2010-08-26 14:22 , Ken Waller wrote: The photo permits for professionals in Denali are severely restricted and not available to all that apply. There is only one two lane road, around 90 miles long, in Denali and most of the road traffic is for the park run tour busses. In some places there is absolutely no place for a vehicle to park off road. The pros that do get permits are restricted to having their vehicles off the road during specific hours. right, that corresponds closely to the info in the link i included; i was mainly trying to say that i learned Denali doesn't really restrict photographers -- it restricts everyone, and then it has a lottery to give a few pros special permissions that the general public doesn't have Not really. I've shot alot in Denali and have never had an issue. You, like every one else are free to roam the park. You can use the park bus system to be dropped off picked up anywhere in the park where the busses run. Capitol Reef doesn't have the same limited road conditions as Denali. and i wasn't trying to compare Capitol Reef and Denali, just looking for a range of types of restrictions; i'd say Capitol Reef has _more_ photography restrictions, though they are very limited and seem intended to keep large photo/film shoots from ruining everyone's day; neither seems like an attempt to control commercial use of imagery, but the Acoma Pueblo (not a national park, but a semi-sovereign indigenous nation, for those not familiar with US reservations) clearly asserts such control I've also shot several times in Capitol Reef and have very seldom even run into other photogs in the places I've shot at. I can't image they'd have to inforce any limitations on usage to the individual photog. my overall point was that i tried to follow up on William's statements and couldn't find restrictions he seemed to have run into, but i'm interested to learn what restrictions there may be -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy
-- From: steve harley Subject: Re: OT More local photogs rights controversy my overall point was that i tried to follow up on William's statements and couldn't find restrictions he seemed to have run into, but i'm interested to learn what restrictions there may be To be fair, I may well have run into private restrictions that park people decided was appropriate, not any official policies regarding photography. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
