Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Commercial photography charges in Canberra public spaces? (read, the National Arboretum!!)

richiedt 7 May 2013 32

Hi

I was reading this morning the charges up at the National Arboretum and spotted that they want to charge $200 “per image” for any commercial photography done up there and $200 an hour for non-commercial photography!!

Some of the other charges for “hiring” some of the spaces up there seem ridiculous as well including if you want your kid wants to earn some money dog walking, it’ll cost them almost $20 an hour for the privilege!!

As a public space, surely these charges can’t be applied up there?? These sort of charges aren’t applied in other Canberra public spaces are they??


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
32 Responses to
Commercial photography charges in Canberra public spaces? (read, the National Arboretum!!)
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
GardeningGirl 4:14 pm 09 May 13

Great little video Mossrocket!

mossrocket 3:09 pm 09 May 13

so a short timlapse with 1000 photos will cost me $200000…

mossrocket 3:02 pm 09 May 13

This would have cost me a fair bit if I was commercial…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6lhqNz9m1A there’s quite a few photos in this 44 seconds…

oh poo – did I just read that they want to charge for non-commercial too??? there goes 100 bucks… well, is it an honesty system or will they troll flickr and youtube and 500px etc to find images then send bills out?

This is just ridiculous…

Masquara 7:35 pm 07 May 13

FXST01 said :

They’re barking up the wrong tree.

Can’t see the wood for them.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 6:05 pm 07 May 13

p1 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Difference being, road laws are there for a reason, mainly safety. Who can get hurt by taking a photo of a public place?

It is not about getting hurt, it is about lost profit.

You wouldn’t download a tree would you?

Lol

dungfungus 5:46 pm 07 May 13

In NSW, having a wedding on a beach is very popular. The going rate to hire 10 metres by 10 metres of sand at most beaches is about $100.00 per hour plus GST.
It’s good value compared to the Arboretum as the beaches have real sand and the Arboretum doesn’t have trees.

dungfungus 5:43 pm 07 May 13

MERC600 said :

dungfungus said :

Jeez, how much will it cost when they actually have trees there?

Ha . good one Fungus.

Anyone who takes photos of trees will have to use a 5 year time exposure setting.

p1 5:20 pm 07 May 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Difference being, road laws are there for a reason, mainly safety. Who can get hurt by taking a photo of a public place?

It is not about getting hurt, it is about lost profit.

You wouldn’t download a tree would you?

Deref 5:20 pm 07 May 13

Gungahlin Al said :

Deref said :

Gungahlin Al said :

This is just for securing a specified area of the venue for exclusive use.

Are you sure?

If that’s true then it’s fair enough, though why don’t they say that it’s for that? If it’s not, then it’s definitely time for some large-scale civil disobedience.

Not I’m not sure Deref. But I’m as not sure as every else is not sure of the opposite. It’s my interpretation, in the context of the rest of the fee schedule. Depends on one’s predisposition when reading the actual words I guess.

Yep – and that’s the problem. Whoever wrote it did an appalling job. It’s completely unclear.

If the interpretation that you and I would be charged $200 to take a photo in the Arboretum is correct, we need multiple photographic flashmobs.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 4:43 pm 07 May 13

Pork Hunt said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Effing lol. How exactly are they going to enforce this? Rangers have no power to do anything. We don’t wear rego plates around our necks so we cannot be dobbed in.
Unless they station police officers to enforce this its pretty much impossible to charge these fees to anybody.

You’re always banging on about how law abiding you are when driving. What changes when you exit the vehicle?

Difference being, road laws are there for a reason, mainly safety. Who can get hurt by taking a photo of a public place?

p1 4:14 pm 07 May 13

thatsnotme said :

I hope whey they say $200 per shot, that ‘shot’ refers to a photo that’s actually used in a commercial sense…otherwise you could hold down the shutter for a bit too long and cost yourself $1,000 or more!

I had that thought too… which actually makes it somewhat more reasonable, in that you could take as many as you want, and only have to pay should one actually be published.

Does anyone know how this all aligns with the idea of media photographers and news publications? The Canberra Times (for example) is a commercial operation, and I have no doubt have published several photos since the opening. Have they paid their debt to the Arboretum?

thatsnotme 4:02 pm 07 May 13

p1 said :

“Wedding and professional photography permit (Non-commercial)”.

How is this even possible? If it is non-commercial, it is not being done for money, and therefore, the photographer, by definition, is not acting as a professional.

On a related not, I recommend and same sex couple planning on getting hitched take the party up there for some group photos. Since they, by definition, cannot get married, I assume that charge won’t be levied.

I agree the wording isn’t great, but in this context ‘commercial’ is being used as a descriptor for a field of photography, in the same way you have ‘wedding photography’ or ‘portrait photography’. So commercial photography isn’t any photography done for money – it’s photography done for things like advertising.

I hope whey they say $200 per shot, that ‘shot’ refers to a photo that’s actually used in a commercial sense…otherwise you could hold down the shutter for a bit too long and cost yourself $1,000 or more!

Gungahlin Al 3:58 pm 07 May 13

Deref said :

Gungahlin Al said :

This is just for securing a specified area of the venue for exclusive use.

Are you sure?

If that’s true then it’s fair enough, though why don’t they say that it’s for that? If it’s not, then it’s definitely time for some large-scale civil disobedience.

Not I’m not sure Deref. But I’m as not sure as every else is not sure of the opposite. It’s my interpretation, in the context of the rest of the fee schedule. Depends on one’s predisposition when reading the actual words I guess.

Meanwhile $1400 to hire that entire main building for 8 hours for a function seems like a great deal for a professional setup looking to have a top shelf function.

thatsnotme 3:56 pm 07 May 13

Gungahlin Al said :

I think people are getting wound up for no reason. This is just for securing a specified area of the venue for exclusive use. No real difference between hiring a place for a party and hiring it for a photo shoot or filming a video. You don’t want Joe Public wandering through your shoot? Then you stump the fee and that bit of dirt is yours and yours only.
It wouldn’t stop you from rocking up to some part of the venue that hsn’t been booked and taking photos of the family.
And it wouldn’t stop people like Martyo or Richard Tuffin heading up there for more of their gorgeous sunrise photos.

I don’t agree. A $200/hr photography ‘permit’ doesn’t suggest exclusive use of anything. Compare it to the notes on hiring Dairy Farmers Hill:

Includes photography permit for weddings. Exclusive use of the outdoor space during the day (9 am to 4 pm) cannot be guaranteed, however, the booked area will be signposted as reserved for a function.

I also had a look at their Public Use Policies, and it doesn’t even mention photography, so in the absence of any other official word, I can only assume that if I were photographing a wedding party elsewhere, and they wanted to head to the arboretum for some photos afterwards, I’d have to secure a permit for a minimum of $200.

I’m not against the idea of a permit for some areas – I get that sometimes, if it’s a free for all, that an area could end up wall to wall brides in white dresses. I get that this could impede the opportunity for the public to head to the arboretum on a Saturday afternoon and to enjoy the place. But seriously…$200 per hour?? All that’s going to do is make this venue out of reach for all but the most well off.

c_c™ 3:50 pm 07 May 13

Let’s compare shall we. Arboretum (ACT Gov) vs Botanic Gardens (Commonwealth).

Commercial Photography: $200/image vs $270 per day, per site

Wedding Photography: $200/hr vs $200 for 3hrs

Commercial filming: $1000-2000 vs $270 per day

Doesn’t take a genius to see how unreasonable the Arboretum fees are.

astrojax 3:43 pm 07 May 13

the botanic gardens charge (commercial) photographers a fee – not sure of the current rate, but this has been the practice for some time. still, two hundred seems a bit steep ‘per image’. also, say an art photographer made an image using the aboretum when shooting for fun, then used the image in an art project and then sold that image at an exhibition – are they to be retrospectively charged?

they’ll twig to that sooner or later i suspect and perhaps they should leaf well enough alone.

c_c™ 3:43 pm 07 May 13

Gungahlin Al said :

I think people are getting wound up for no reason. This is just for securing a specified area of the venue for exclusive use. No real difference between hiring a place for a party and hiring it for a photo shoot or filming a video. You don’t want Joe Public wandering through your shoot? Then you stump the fee and that bit of dirt is yours and yours only.
It wouldn’t stop you from rocking up to some part of the venue that hsn’t been booked and taking photos of the family.
And it wouldn’t stop people like Martyo or Richard Tuffin heading up there for more of their gorgeous sunrise photos.

Read it again.

zorro29 3:38 pm 07 May 13

$200 an hour for non-commercial photography?? put your instagram away folks!

the fee for commercial photography sounds pretty standard and occurs in lots of “public spaces”

MERC600 3:18 pm 07 May 13

dungfungus said :

Jeez, how much will it cost when they actually have trees there?

Ha . good one Fungus.

Deref 2:59 pm 07 May 13

Gungahlin Al said :

This is just for securing a specified area of the venue for exclusive use.

Are you sure?

If that’s true then it’s fair enough, though why don’t they say that it’s for that? If it’s not, then it’s definitely time for some large-scale civil disobedience.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site