I received an email yesterday from someone from navajo parks. The email started out with a request for copies of my photographs. Then went into the fact that i copyright my photos and went on to say that they issue permits for commercial photography for events and my name/organization is not on file for a permit.
The photos are on my Pbase site. The only money from photography I've made is back when I shot weddings (until 2007) and from photo contests. I don't consider myself a commercial photographer, as I don't make any money from photography - actually, I end up paying in many cases, to be able to TAKE photos, such as when I'm in places like Navajo sites (i.e. Monument Valley, Antelope Canyon). Hell, If I go back to the 10 years or so, since I've been going to ANtelope Canyon or Monument Valley, I think I've spent around $1500 for photo guides/tours and permits to shoot in the canyons. I've also had numerous people who have seen my photos on Pbase ask for advice about shooting at these parks, so I'm kind of pissed that someone from the navajo parks would have that kind of tone in the email to me.
Admittedly I do list my email contact for anyone wishing to purchase prints - which has not happened in the 4-5 years I've been on Pbase.
I started copyrighting my photos after a freind told me that photos from some Bollywood shows were stolen off my pbase site and put on someone's website.
Anyway, the question I have, given my use, do I need to get a permit to be able to put these photos on my Pbase gallery
When I went to NYC last summer, I contacted Grand Central Terminal for permission to take photos and when they asked what I would be doing with the photos, they had no issues of the photos being on my Pbase site.
Anyway, would be interested from hearing back from others!!!
From what I gathered, commercial use entails posters, advertising, tv, movies, etc. I am pretty sure that "fine art" doesn't fall into that category, or else we would ALL owe them money.
PeaktoPeek wrote:
From what I gathered, commercial use entails posters, advertising, tv, movies, etc. I am pretty sure that "fine art" doesn't fall into that category, or else we would ALL owe them money.
Thanks for the response. I was a bit taken aback by the email. First requesting copies of the photos i took and then saying I didn't have a permit to shoot. Does that make any sense
Yep. Photography within the boundaries of the reservations can present some special problems. If you are making photographs with the intent to sell them for any use, I believe it would be considered "Commercial Use".
Here's a page that lists the Navajo Nation's Photography permit process:
Note that this is for the official "Parks" within the reservation. On my last trip into the Navajo Nation, I tried to decipher what would be required to visit a couple of places, including Coalmine Canyon and Blue Canyon. It seemed that I would need a Wilderness Permit, but the gentleman at the visitor center in Cameron didn't seem sure that I actually needed one, even though everything I had read previously said that the permit was necessary. The rules are quite confusing, and seem inconsistent between sources. I do recall seeing verbage that required images to be provided to the Navajo Nation upon request, but I can't seem to find any of those documents.
The Navajo Nation had best think twice about the policy for anything but big, Ad-Agency and Film shoots. The Nation collects an entry fee to get in, the guides pay huge fees to take tours into the "off limits" areas. Their good exposure could suddenly vaporize, resulting in a substantial loss of revenue.
Also, its totally unenforceable as there is no way of telling who is a casual photographer vs a professional photographer unless its tattooed on their forehead, or someone applied for a permit.
They get too greedy, it may come back to bite them.
It's about greed. It's a cash grab, nothing more. It's actually only fairly recently that the Navajo Nation started to really collect in earnest "permit fees" from "photographers," at least at Upper Antelope. I'm not sure when the policy was implemented, but noticed the change when traveling through the southwest last summer. It would be absurd to attempt to enforce it in retrospect.
What is offensive is that there does not seem to be any understanding of what a "permit" allows---or rather if the Navajo Nation is issuing permits, then it seems reasonable that they should also be providing something in exchange, e.g. clearing out the crowds in Upper Antelope "for your commercial shoot." Safety and security? Crowd control? Isn't that why a commercial permit is issued? Check liability insurance? Obviously they don't. And anyone present purchasing a "photographer's tour" can attest to the fact that they receive essentially the same herd mentality treatment as the general public who isn't on a "photographer's tour" and doesn't have a "permit."
I didn't enjoy Upper Antelope because of the crowds, though it was just one of those places important to take my son. Permit? Nah, as it stands, I won't be back. Clear out the crowds and offer something in return, maybe....
FWIW, in my time spent out in the Navajo land I have never come across any sort of Ranger, Officer, or any other sort of authority. On this last trip, I purchased the Backcountry Permit to try and stay on the proper side of the Navajo regulations and support their recreation department with their reasonably priced permits.
Where it gets entertaining/frustrating (depending on your outlook), is the inconsistencies between the posted documents, laws, and reality. For instance, on the Navajo Nation website, it says the following:
"All areas on the Navajo Nation are closed to non-Navajos unless you have a valid camping, hiking or backcountry permit issued by the Navajo Parks and Recreation Department or other duly delegated tribal authority. Failure to have a permit is considered Trespassing on a Federal Indian Reservation."
Obviously, that's not the case in reality, as I can freely drive on their roads, eat in their restaurants, and sleep in their hotels without any sort of permits...but it's these inaccuracies that make it extremely difficult to figure out how to do things properly on their land.
To throw another wrench in things, there are some beautiful spots inside the Hopi reservation (which is surrounded entirely by Navajo land) which requires you to drive on back roads through Navajo land to get to. Unfortunately, while the Hopi website says:
We invite and encourage you to visit our Hopi lands. However, please be respectful of our laws, culture and way of life. It is our hope that this website will provide current and useful information about the Hopi Tribe.
...their website actually provides NO useful information on use or visitation of their land. Depending on who you talk to, you will either get thrown off the land for taking pictures or left alone to do your work. I actually tried calling the Hopi government to suss things out last time I went out there, and their ENTIRE PHONE SYSTEM WAS NOT WORKING!!!
So, the bottom line is this: You're probably breaking tribal law to practice "commercial photography" on tribal lands without the proper permits. Or not. Who knows?
lukeb wrote:
If you go [pay] with a Navajo guide, you have no problems. Like KDPhotography noted, its about money.
I don't have a problem paying a Navajo guide. In fact, in the times that I have done so in the southwest, the Navajo guides have always been helpful and very much appreciated their services. The "permit fee" is something relatively new and in addition to the guide---at least that's what I saw at Upper Antelope this past summer. And that's where it's an obvious money-grab.
A "commercial photography permit" (to me) offers something back in return. At Upper Antelope the "photographers" were treated no differently than the general public with cameras in the slots.
This may be about money, or maybe it is to CYA. Can't you just see someone doing something stupid, and then they sued the Navajo Nation. I mean, that is the kind of nation we live in now-a-days.
I think this is something that was just passed sometime this year. I would think that anything taken before it was passed would not be subject to the same rules?
Thanks charles354
It's interesting that Our tax dollars subsidize the reservation, yet the US constitution doesn't apply on the reservation. Two interesting bits from the Navajo Nation Film permit page:
"First Amendment; Censorship
The Navajo Nation has the right to ensure that any filming or photography is in compliance with Navajo Nation law including obscenity and pornography statutes. The Navajo Nation has the inherent right to terminate any filming or photography that may violate Navajo law or adversely affect the image of the Navajo Nation.
Freedom of Speech
The Navajo Nation has laws that protect the right of Navajo citizens to exercise their right of free speech as long as such practice is not an infringement on the rights of others to enjoy the park resources and facilities. The Navajo Nation does not offer such rights to non-Navajos on the Navajo reservation and may terminate or disallow any filming or photography that may be detrimental to the Navajo Nation."
RJKphoto wrote:
It's interesting that Our tax dollars subsidize the reservation, yet the US constitution doesn't apply on the reservation. Two interesting bits from the Navajo Nation Film permit page:
"First Amendment; Censorship
The Navajo Nation has the right to ensure that any filming or photography is in compliance with Navajo Nation law including obscenity and pornography statutes. The Navajo Nation has the inherent right to terminate any filming or photography that may violate Navajo law or adversely affect the image of the Navajo Nation.
This is a real concern. There's a National Park site near where I live, the Ocmulgee Indian Mounds. It is a sacred site to the descendants of the Native Americans who lived there and some of the mounds were used for religious ceremonies. Park Rangers caught a film crew making a porno movie on top of one of the mounds. To me, that is like someone sneaking into my church and filming a couple going at it on the altar.
But why would it be that members of the Navajo nation are protected by the US constitution when they are not on the reservation, but US citizens are not protected by the Navajo Constitution?
The porn thing is certainly not restricted to reservations, it happens everywhere in the world, sacred ground or not.
tandlh wrote:
Khurram,
Sorry to hear about this, what have you decided to do?
Ted
Ted,
I just replied back saying that I'm not using the photos for commercial use and didn't realize I needed to file for a permit to post photos on a site like Pbase.
Haven't heard back from them yet.
I would have been okay with a request for photos, if right after the request, the email didn't get into saying their records show I don't have the necessary permit. frankly, this has left a bitter taste for me and after our trip to Hunt's Mesa last spring, I was eager to return, but given how much you have to pay for a guide there, I don't think I'll be going to Monument Valley again anytime soon.
They EMAILED you about this? IMO, if something is important enough an email isn't the way to contact someone (unless it's with someone you've already established contact with and it's been decided that that's a preferred method of communication). I wouldn't bother giving them the time of the day in the form of an email response. If they included a phone number in their email, I would suggest calling them. But no way I'd get into such a discussion back and forth in emails.
