Jump to content


Photo

Paying to have photos in public park


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 Chr!st!ne

Chr!st!ne

    Part of the Furniture

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,841 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 04:20 PM

we are planning on having our photos taken at Cabarita Park on the Parramatta River and i have just found out that we need to pay $120 per hour to use the park for photos.

im outraged.

why the hell should i pay? we arent using anything?

im livid.

do you think i can get away with not paying?

has anyone been told to 'move on' before while having photos taken?

im speachless

#2 *Ez*

*Ez*

    Centurion

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,750 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 04:21 PM

Geez thats so steep!
I've never heard of anyone being charged for using a public park before...

<a href="http://lilypie.com/"><img src="http://lb2f.lilypie....om/tADJp11.png" width="400" height="80" border="0" alt="Lilypie Second Birthday tickers" /></a>
<a href="http://lilypie.com/"><img src="http://lb4f.lilypie....om/PqPxp11.png" width="400" height="80" border="0" alt="Lilypie Fourth Birthday tickers" /></a>
<a href="http://lilypie.com/"><img src="http://lbdf.lilypie....om/pI1Np11.png" width="400" height="80" border="0" alt="Lilypie Pregnancy tickers" /></a>
Shhh...I'm a secret on facebook...


#3 Ishi

Ishi

    Lost and Found

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,417 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 04:52 PM

i've heard of parks charging up to $250 for photography use, my only reasoning for it is that the photographers make money from it and like most nsw councils they charge a fee to anyone doing photographic or filming work in a public place when a profit is made from it. unfortunatly in this instance because you are the one who wants it done in that park you have to pay for it and not the photographer. I don't know the park but if it's big enough you may get away with it.
Me + DH Married 5th April 2008
DS Born 23rd December 2010
TTC #2

#4 Chr!st!ne

Chr!st!ne

    Part of the Furniture

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,841 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 04:59 PM

its a huge park, like i said to the girl, we wont be in one spot long enough for us to be a hassle.

but i do see your point.

#5 chrisby

chrisby

    Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 09:01 PM

QUOTE(Christine @ Jul 18 2006, 04:59 PM) View Post

its a huge park, like i said to the girl, we wont be in one spot long enough for us to be a hassle.

but i do see your point.

Hmm, I am sure I shot there before, but never had to pay (or maybe just never got cought).
Did you mention it was for domestic use rather than for commercial purposes?

Usually you only have to pay if you want to book the park for the ceremony, but just for photos you usually don't (with the exception of the Botanical Gardens who charge you either way)



#6 Vik

Vik

    Earthbound misfit.

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,238 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 09:11 PM

One of the reasons that they charge people is to ensure that they can control the number of people that are using the park for photos that day. Imagine if 10 brides all turned up wanting photos in the same spot (I understand that this is unlikely!) and there was an incident of some sort - the park could then be liable for damages.

While the charging seems excessive, they also do it to control the number of people that are trying to use the same site at the same time.
Support the universal right of every human being to lead a dignified life
http://www.globaldignity.org


IPB Image

#7 taylor

taylor

    Centurion

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,309 posts

Posted 18 July 2006 - 09:21 PM

We saw the charge as a contribution to the upkeep I guess - I was not surprised - just like contributions to churches etc - some locations like the Botanical Gardens can be inundated with wedding groups and giving each family their time, space and privacy is important.

Adds up though!

#8 GRINCH

GRINCH

    Centurion

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,764 posts

Posted 19 July 2006 - 05:59 AM

yes i hear you! i am not from australia and thought this was pretty ridiculous when i hear that you have to pay to take photos!!.. hahaha.. it's kinda funny.. but really irritating. i mean.. for me especially who has no bridal party, it's just going to be the 2 of us for a couple shots.. seems so outrageous and a bit unfair or even greedy dare i say?

but when you think of it as a means of upkeep and such.. i guess it's a bit understandable. but actually not though because filming is not really for personal use.. it's to show the public.. but wedding photos are just for your own private use and a keepsake. who knows. but i think for really big groups and such i guess it makes a little sense? but for 2 people? but yeah.. that wouldn't really be fair still to charge some and not others. i don't know the solution. maybe instead of charging you should just have to have a written permit for the date and timeframe to ensure it doesn't get out of control and make a donation of a fee of your choice? that would be reasonable

but i really really want photos at the botanical gardens and i'm upset we can't have them. i'm not paying a hundred or hundreds of dollars for a few photos. it's just such a pity because it's a beautiful place i spend a lot of time at whilst in sydney, and i would love to have it represented in a few photos to my family/friends overseas who willl probably never get to australia. real shame

#9 chrisby

chrisby

    Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted 19 July 2006 - 12:47 PM

QUOTE(amy22 @ Jul 19 2006, 05:59 AM) View Post


but i really really want photos at the botanical gardens and i'm upset we can't have them. i'm not paying a hundred or hundreds of dollars for a few photos. it's just such a pity because it's a beautiful place i spend a lot of time at whilst in sydney, and i would love to have it represented in a few photos to my family/friends overseas who willl probably never get to australia. real shame

Have a talk to your photographer about it then. As I understand it, the botanical gardens only cover the area that's whithin the gates, so places like lady Mcquarie chair are outside, so you don't have to pay for photography.

QUOTE(teagreen @ Jul 18 2006, 09:13 PM) View Post

I wouldn't pay. I'd tell the photographer to keep snapping and give the council twit my best bridezilla glare until s/he buggered off.


Technically a ranger can confiscate the photographers equipment so photographers are a little bit weary of upsetting them.
Personally I have never had a problem, but I would advise that pleading ignorance, some begging and pointing at the wedding dress is a better strategy than staring down the ranger.

Normally they only get upset if a photographer is using a location for obvious commercial purposes i.e. shiny new car with glam model and a crew of 10 people.





#10 Christian

Christian

    Advanced Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 19 July 2006 - 02:36 PM

QUOTE(chrisby @ Jul 19 2006, 12:47 PM) View Post

Have a talk to your photographer about it then. As I understand it, the botanical gardens only cover the area that's whithin the gates, so places like lady Mcquarie chair are outside, so you don't have to pay for photography.
Technically a ranger can confiscate the photographers equipment so photographers are a little bit weary of upsetting them.
Personally I have never had a problem, but I would advise that pleading ignorance, some begging and pointing at the wedding dress is a better strategy than staring down the ranger.

Normally they only get upset if a photographer is using a location for obvious commercial purposes i.e. shiny new car with glam model and a crew of 10 people.


Since when do Rangers have the power to confiscate anything? Not even the police have this power unless a warrant is issued or an arrest made.

I would suggest to you that ANYONE who threatens to confiscate your gear by force is committing assault - and if they actually carry through with it using force amounts to battery and theft.

QUOTE(Christine @ Jul 18 2006, 04:20 PM) View Post

we are planning on having our photos taken at Cabarita Park on the Parramatta River and i have just found out that we need to pay $120 per hour to use the park for photos.

im outraged.

why the hell should i pay? we arent using anything?

im livid.

do you think i can get away with not paying?

has anyone been told to 'move on' before while having photos taken?

im speachless


Christine I'd run the gauntlet if I were you.

In the unlikely event that you are challenged, my standard response (and this has been tested a couple of times) is to say that the relationship with the photographer is non-commercial in nature. Problem solved.
Christian Wright - Dip Phot
Baulkham Hills, NSW

#11 chrisby

chrisby

    Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted 20 July 2006 - 01:51 PM

QUOTE(Christian @ Jul 19 2006, 02:36 PM) View Post

Since when do Rangers have the power to confiscate anything? Not even the police have this power unless a warrant is issued or an arrest made.

I would suggest to you that ANYONE who threatens to confiscate your gear by force is committing assault - and if they actually carry through with it using force amounts to battery and theft.
Christine I'd run the gauntlet if I were you.


Think again Christian, Rangers do have to power to confiscate gear. I am a scuba diver and for example if you are cought removing marine live e.g. a shell form the ocean while using scuba gear, the ranger will confiscate not only the shell but also all the scuba gear. That's a fact.

A quick google search yielded this example of rangers having the power to confiscate skate boards etc rangers

So, again on a good day you don't have to worry about it, but if you pi$$ off a ranger enough he can confiscate your Canon 1D Mark II N or whatever. If you are opn crown land he also has the power to remove you from it...see here power ranger

#12 Queang

Queang

    Frequent Poster

  • Unwelcome User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 867 posts

Posted 21 July 2006 - 08:51 PM

I know how you feel. I thought it was fair enough that I had to pay a hire fee for the part of a park I'm holding my ceremony in (even though $250 seems a little pricey for a patch of grass). I am annoyed however that if I want to have photos taken in any other part of the park I have to hire that part too at full price!

#13 Christian

Christian

    Advanced Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 25 July 2006 - 03:57 PM

QUOTE(chrisby @ Jul 20 2006, 01:51 PM) View Post

Think again Christian, Rangers do have to power to confiscate gear. I am a scuba diver and for example if you are cought removing marine live e.g. a shell form the ocean while using scuba gear, the ranger will confiscate not only the shell but also all the scuba gear. That's a fact.

A quick google search yielded this example of rangers having the power to confiscate skate boards etc rangers

So, again on a good day you don't have to worry about it, but if you pi$$ off a ranger enough he can confiscate your Canon 1D Mark II N or whatever. If you are opn crown land he also has the power to remove you from it...see here power ranger


Look Chris I don't Dive or Skate. biggrin.gif

But there is no basis in law giving a Ranger the power to confiscate your camera. If a Ranger attempts otherwise I suggest a call to the police.

You may have to move on but the law says the camera stays with you.
Christian Wright - Dip Phot
Baulkham Hills, NSW

#14 Studio-D

Studio-D

    Member

  • frequent poster
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted 25 July 2006 - 10:19 PM

interesting topic and one to be considered...

In many cases, the only issue is being asked to move on... in some locations, such as Balmoral beach island or Botanic gardens.
Most places charge what they do to cover any incidentals such as rubbish. Other charge it becuase they can, but mostly, its cahrged to control numbers.
As an example, if a couple were to be married at the Rotunda in Balmoral, theyd also most liekly pay the $300 to have photos taken on the beach and nearby island. However, would it be fair for the couple who married at the beach and who paid for this "exclusivity of the island", to have their photo session interrupted by another couple who DIDNT marry there? or who DIDNT pay??
This is wher eit gets complicated..

Places like Luna park are another issue.. where permission may be required from the security office before youre allowed to film or take stills. Its free, but u still need permission. U can walk in willy nilly, but they prefer the courtesy of being advised.
These are jsut examples, but u can see how it can affect certain elements

For commercial purposes, a charge is required on most public locations, and the funny thing is, even though its for a personal contract between client and photog, more that likely the photog will use those stills to woo new potential clients.. so in turn it IS a commercial venture... but not at THAT time...

its an iffy one...

as for paying, ive seen a mixed lot of this...some ppl pay, while others dont..
Either way, youre not breaking the law by taking photos in a public place... To be honest, i would say go with the flow, and if your asked to move on, move on... More than likely they do not want to upset anyone, and Rangers/Inspectors/Plastic Police wont do anything untoward which will compromise your day.

There are plenty of free locations anyway... and thinking outside the square usually yields far more attractive and original locations, more dynamic photo/video work, allows your profesionals to be a little more explorative and offer you alot more variety in scenery within your archives (be it photo or video)

Ive shot some crazy stuff in my time.. riots, protests etc etc (not during weddings..lol) , and i have had police try to confiscate my tapes.

All they can do is view the footage, or the photos, but they have no right in demanding the material content without a court order. By then, ive duped the tape anyway and freely offerd the original tape with timecode, date and time on it to be used as evidense. Thats getting far beyond what were talking about here, but you must understand that they dont ask for this kind of material lightly.

Ive shot weddings in canberra and some cars used in bridal car processionals were specifically built for summernats, so u can imagine the hooning going on.. with this, the subject material i get is incriminating. Police follow along and SEE that i have a camera and im recording these cars but they wont bother asking to see the footage, as even though its evidence against the drivers who are driving defective, or unregisterd cars, or theres footage of a car doing a burnout and tearing up the street, they wont chase it up. Even though they CAN ask... its too much work for them to ask for it legally, and they know that most of us who work in media, know our rights.

What im tryin to say is that a couple taking happy snaps in a park is the least of their concerns. They will only act if theyre required, and only then will they really only ever ask you to move on...

Im yet to hear of an incident of materials/equipment/images/footage being confiscated by a ranger. Despite the written law, the real world doesnt work this way...
Studio-D
Digital Video and Multimedia Productions

#15 MrsP

MrsP

    Fan of bad 80's music

  • avid user
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 574 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 01:53 AM

I agree with Christian, run the gauntlet.

My mother was married (a few years ago) in a park with the Puffing Billy station behind it, an obsolete station that no one went to at that time.

However, she was told that they had to take photo's in a certain area so the station was out of shot, or they would confiscate the camera and film.

The photographers reply? 'I'd like to see them try' laugh.gif

Don't let them ruin your photo's. Have them where you want them! I'd like to see the bravery of the ranger game enough to upset a bride!
September First Two Thousand and Six






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users