NA more unexpected regulation

Let'sgoflying!

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,928
Location
west Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Taylor
Today I hiked a local mountain owned by a conservation group. Very nice of them to allow this - most property out here is off-limits.

Anyway, I learned that they do not permit photography by professionals.

Is that a reasonable rule? What could be behind that decision?
I presume there is a law on the books that supports their claim to this rule, what could it be?

I have a pal who makes, shares, occasionally sells, but mostly gives away prints - and he is shut-out from this location (ha, unless I fly him by!).
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Today I hiked a local mountain owned by a conservation group. Very nice of them to allow this - most property out here is off-limits.

Anyway, I learned that they do not permit photography by professionals.

Is that a reasonable rule? What could be behind that decision?
I presume there is a law on the books that supports their claim to this rule, what could it be?

I have a pal who makes, shares, occasionally sells, but mostly gives away prints - and he is shut-out from this location (ha, unless I fly him by!).
Click to expand...
They own the land. They can set whatever rules they want for access.
 
In some places it can be as simple as the land-owner (private or government) wanting to be in on any money generated by commercial photography.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
In some places it can be as simple as the land-owner (private or government) wanting to be in on any money generated by commercial photography.
-harry
Click to expand...

Which isn't at all unreasonable if it's private property: If the photographer is making money, why shouldn't the owner get a cut?

As for public property... that's another story, in my opinion. If the land is publicly-owned, I think anyone should be free to photograph it, for any reason at all. But that's not always the case.

What I find really weird is those property owners who won't allow their property to be photographed commercially at any price, but who will allow non-commercial photography. They're turning away free money. Why?

I put them in the same category as photographers who publish their work under non-commercial licenses that allow literally anyone to use the photos for "non-commercial" use, but who refuse to negotiate a price for commercial use. I come across a lot of these jokers as a Web designer who actually does respect IP rights, and they baffle me.

A lot of times I walk away with the impression that they're basically Marxists. They assume that if someone is making a few bucks doing something, that "something" is inherently evil -- or at least questionable. I know that's a hefty accusation, but I'm at a loss to come up with another explanation why someone would adamantly refuse to allow a picture to be used on a commercial Web site -- even with payment and attribution -- while offering it for free to those who have no commercial purpose.

-Rich
 
My guess is that one or more of the owners (e.g. the members of the conservation group) have had some bad experience with a "professional photog" in the past, specifically a situation where some cherished aspect of the property wasn't respected and their simple "solution" was to ban such activity. I suppose it's also possible they have a fear that published photos might attract unwanted visitor traffic.
 
RJM62 said:
Which isn't at all unreasonable if it's private property: If the photographer is making money, why shouldn't the owner get a cut?

As for public property... that's another story, in my opinion. If the land is publicly-owned, I think anyone should be free to photograph it, for any reason at all. But that's not always the case.

What I find really weird is those property owners who won't allow their property to be photographed commercially at any price, but who will allow non-commercial photography. They're turning away free money. Why?

I put them in the same category as photographers who publish their work under non-commercial licenses that allow literally anyone to use the photos for "non-commercial" use, but who refuse to negotiate a price for commercial use. I come across a lot of these jokers as a Web designer who actually does respect IP rights, and they baffle me.

A lot of times I walk away with the impression that they're basically Marxists. They assume that if someone is making a few bucks doing something, that "something" is inherently evil -- or at least questionable. I know that's a hefty accusation, but I'm at a loss to come up with another explanation why someone would adamantly refuse to allow a picture to be used on a commercial Web site -- even with payment and attribution -- while offering it for free to those who have no commercial purpose.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Agree.

Sometimes they will allow it (for a price) with a permit. Here's what the AHS has for their property near me: http://www.ahs.org/river_farm/pdf/09/0911_Artist_Phtographer_Permit.pdf Sometimes it's about controlling the message or gaining acknowledgement. And the "no-never" types seem to convey it's that they think there's something evil about commerce.

BUt in the end, it's their property.

Why not call and ask them why, Dave?
 
gismo said:
My guess is that one or more of the owners (e.g. the members of the conservation group) have had some bad experience with a "professional photog" in the past, specifically a situation where some cherished aspect of the property wasn't respected and their simple "solution" was to ban such activity. I
Click to expand...

Having dealt with the spectrum of "professional" personalities here clamoring for special access and privileges, I could see this being the cause. Absolutely.
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
My guess is that one or more of the owners (e.g. the members of the conservation group) have had some bad experience with a "professional photog" in the past, specifically a situation where some cherished aspect of the property wasn't respected and their simple "solution" was to ban such activity. I suppose it's also possible they have a fear that published photos might attract unwanted visitor traffic.
Click to expand...
That's very possible.

I know this is a stretch but ask Lady Diana Spencer's family how they feel about Paparazzi.

-Skip
 
Skip Miller said:
That's very possible.

I know this is a stretch but ask Lady Diana Spencer's family how they feel about Paparazzi.

-Skip
Click to expand...

Fair question if you also ask them how they feel about drunk chauffeurs and the wearing of seat belts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top