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

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

$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”

dungfungus said :

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

Ha . good one Fungus.

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.

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?

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.

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.

They’re barking up the wrong tree.

Ignore it, they can damn well sue if they want. In my experience these policies aren’t enforced and these charges are some of the worst I’ve seen. Completely unreasonable and the language used is illogical so plenty of room to plead ignorance in the unlikely event the Arboretum SWAT team catches you.

Interesting to know how this will be enforced, and how much the enforcement measures will cost – anything left over could be put towards the cost of the lavish publications emanating from the Arboretum.

“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.

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

Forget these charges and just stick to your outrageous parking costs.

Got to pay for the $80m arboretum somehow…

The wedding and professional photography permit (non-commercial) charge of $200 is ridiculous and short-sighted. If people have a function such as a wedding at the Aboretum and they have a photographer on board shooting images of guests in and around the Aboretum, then those images are actually promoting the site. Free advertising. If you have a 5 hour wedding this permit would cost you $1000. Why have this charge and risk that people will go elsewhere? Omit the charge and you’ll likely find that people will book more functions. Surely you want to encourage not discourage people from using the space in these early days of establishment.

I’m not a layer, so I can’t comment on the legality of the charges. But they sound ridiculous and counter productive to me.

Professional, quality images of tourist attractions are free advertisements for the location and bring more tourists.

If you charge $200 per image then you get less photographs and less tourists… stupid.