As I was taking this image, some guy who did not have success selling his landscape images out of a gallery in Las Vegas, was trying to tell me why I could not be a successful professional landscape photographer owning my own gallery(s).
Tip: don't ask (or listen to) unsuccessful people for their advice on how or what can be accomplished in this world. If you want to know what can be done, go ask someone who has an awesome attitude and is inspiringly successful doing what you want to do. Our nspiration is your responsability.
Ken Duncan has been the latter for me. [url=http://KenDuncan.com]
Dec 22, 2007 at 03:58 AM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
As I was taking this image, some guy who did not have success selling his landscape images out of a gallery in Las Vegas, was trying to tell me why I could not be a successful professional landscape photographer owning my own gallery(s).
Tip: don't ask (or listen to) unsuccessful people for their advice on how or what can be accomplished in this world. If you want to know what can be done, go ask someone who has an awesome attitude and is inspiringly successful doing what you want to do. Our nspiration is your responsability.
Ken Duncan has been the latter for me. [url=http://KenDuncan.com]
I am surprised this story has not been discussed here. The Department of Interior is finalizing plans to charge fees for photography in the US National Parks.
I am surprised this story has not been discussed here. The Department of Interior is finalizing plans to charge fees for photography in the US National Parks.
According to the articles it appears fees will only be charged for "commercial" photography. I imagine that would exclude a lot of people on these boards, and I am sure the smart ones who do some "commercial" work could find a way around it as well.
This sounds like the same bill that everyone was griping about last year. Was that defeated/never moved on or is this a new bill entirely? In any case, sounds like a non-issue for 95% of folks here.
At the same time, its fascinating to see how many times the government can charge us again for what we already pay for. This quote sums it up nicely: "It’s just another way for the government to take what’s already ours and try to sell it back to us"
ajkessler wrote:
This sounds like the same bill that everyone was griping about last year. Was that defeated/never moved on or is this a new bill entirely? In any case, sounds like a non-issue for 95% of folks here.
At the same time, its fascinating to see how many times the government can charge us again for what we already pay for. This quote sums it up nicely: "It’s just another way for the government to take what’s already ours and try to sell it back to us"
I think the one last year was the City of New York.
jakita33 wrote:
According to the articles it appears fees will only be charged for "commercial" photography. I imagine that would exclude a lot of people on these boards, and I am sure the smart ones who do some "commercial" work could find a way around it as well.
I disagree. A large number of people here do commercial photography. Not sure how many do it in national parks though.
Mihail wrote:
How will they determine am I commercial photographer or just an amateur with nice camera?
I've had to leave my 1Ds2 in the car to avoid a 50 US$ 'commercial photography fee' once (in Belize !). My 20D and - after negotiating - my 70-200 f/2.8 were allowed in ...
So they just looked at the camera : if it is big, you have to pay.
cjac wrote:
I've had to leave my 1Ds2 in the car to avoid a 50 US$ 'commercial photography fee' once (in Belize !). My 20D and - after negotiating - my 70-200 f/2.8 were allowed in ...
So they just looked at the camera : if it is big, you have to pay.
Cedric
Hopefully the Park Service will do somthing better than looking at the size of your camera, but you never know. And after all, as we all know, size does matter.
ajkessler wrote:
This sounds like the same bill that everyone was griping about last year. Was that defeated/never moved on or is this a new bill entirely? In any case, sounds like a non-issue for 95% of folks here.
At the same time, its fascinating to see how many times the government can charge us again for what we already pay for. This quote sums it up nicely: "It’s just another way for the government to take what’s already ours and try to sell it back to us"
Nonsense. The public owns the parks, and charging reasonble fees for those who use our parks is entirely reasonable and just represents good stewardship. This is particularly true in the case of those who put public assets to commercial use.
I like Johnny's approach to this. We need rules to govern use of public lands and those who profit from commercial use should be willing to pay. On the other hand, our fine government seems to take many attempts to get anything really right. I wouldn't object to most of what I've read about this, providing that they make the rules sufficiently clear. When I go for a shoot, I don't mind filing forms and paying reasonable fees, but I draw the line at having to take a lawyer with me. It would certainly be nice if the rules were made uniform.
And Belize, beautiful though it is, is NOT administered by the U.S. Park Service.
In general mosts parks I've seen that charge for "commercial photo permits/use fees" are not based on a pro camera. It is based on use of props, models, assistants, access to non-public areas or anything that might somehow require other visitors to be detoured or require park personnel to oversee.
Here is a short report on the committee hearing where the Dept of the Interior was told to go clarify their proposed rules and come back to congress.
Glad to see my membership dollars at work Write your congress critter and those on the committee- let them know you are watching.
Now I'm not saying there won't be rangers who overstep / misinterpret or go after everyone with a "big/pro" camera- whatever rules we wind up with- but I'm used to that everywhere else already.
Mihail wrote:
How will they determine am I commercial photographer or just an amateur with nice camera?
I've had to leave my 1Ds2 in the car to avoid a 50 US$ 'commercial photography fee' once (in Belize !). My 20D and - after negotiating - my 70-200 f/2.8 were allowed in ...
So they just looked at the camera : if it is big, you have to pay.
jakita33 wrote:
According to the articles it appears fees will only be charged for "commercial" photography. I imagine that would exclude a lot of people on these boards, and I am sure the smart ones who do some "commercial" work could find a way around it as well.
I disagree. A large number of people here do commercial photography. Not sure how many do it in national parks though.
This sounds like the same bill that everyone was griping about last year. Was that defeated/never moved on or is this a new bill entirely? In any case, sounds like a non-issue for 95% of folks here.
At the same time, its fascinating to see how many times the government can charge us again for what we already pay for. This quote sums it up nicely: "It’s just another way for the government to take what’s already ours and try to sell it back to us"
ajkessler wrote:
This sounds like the same bill that everyone was griping about last year. Was that defeated/never moved on or is this a new bill entirely? In any case, sounds like a non-issue for 95% of folks here.
At the same time, its fascinating to see how many times the government can charge us again for what we already pay for. This quote sums it up nicely: "It’s just another way for the government to take what’s already ours and try to sell it back to us"
I think the one last year was the City of New York.
Write your congress critter and those on the committee- let them know you are watching.