FFS: National Parks Charging Photography

[jdear]

<BEGIN RANT>

I recently Photographed a wedding location at Bradley's Head, Mosman without any trouble. It was the first time I had used the location and it worked out great.

I had a message from another DSLRUSER saying that he had heard that they were charging now for photography at this location. Having a wedding this Saturday with this as a location the B+G wanted I naturally enquired. (I am trying to do the right thing)

Apparently they have Rangers there everyweek, turning people away.

I rang Mosman Council and talked to a man who told me that there is no charge and that photographing a bridal party there is not a problem, as long as the venue isn't booked for a wedding ceremony. He said he would check and call back if there was a ceremony there for my saturday.

I got a call back from a lady saying that they charge for the location. Apparently it has been in 'effect' for some time now, and since it has become a 'popular' location they want to 'monitor it'.

She emailed me an application form (which includes a processing fee) and a rates sheet.
Prices are as follows:

$55 application fee (to look at your form)
$220 security deposit (refundable if they is no damage)

then
$55/hr (being a weekend)
$71.50 Supervision fee (to have a Ranger supervise you on a weekend)

+ entry fees if it is applicable to that relevant park.

= for approx 2 hours - $528 ($200 maybe refundable)

-- She was quick to tell me about a commercial yearly license for $330 (correct price is $275) which would cover me photographing in any National Park anytime.

+ you needed to have public liability insurance of $5 million.

NOTE: "Photography which is undertaken principally as a
hobby or as a personal interest in not considered
commercial photography and is not subject to fees
and charges"

I asked her about the fisherman who fish there, are they charged? and she told me 'they don't have an intended purpose there'. Whatever!
I can assure you they would leave alot more mess then we would.

What should I expect for my $$ worth? Should they valet park our wedding cars, should they clean the area and make sure there is good weather for us?

Who would turn a bride away on her wedding day??

<END RANT>

[Glen]

Johnathon, is it NPWS or MC charging?

I don't agree with the charge, but can understand the necessity for some control. That is a hugely popular spot there, I get down there every so often and in summer I have seen 3 bridal groups queuing to get their shots. In fact during the last DSLR minimeet we had at that location a wedding group came down. Outrageous charges for what they are, sound like they are more orientated towards a commercial shoot or filming rather than a small wedding shoot.

[gstark]

Let me see if I understand ALL of the issues; I suspect that you may have overlooked at least one.

You called Mosman Council, but you were called back someone from NPWS? In giving your number to NPWS, isn't that actually a breach, by the council, of your privacy?


But yes, shooting a wedding is classed as a commercial activity, and as such, I think the the harbour foreshores authority also wants to extract its pound of flesh too, because you are photographing ... the harbour. Commercially.

NPWS? I've always considered them to be a bunch of wankers, too interested in cutting off their noses in order to spite their faces.

Are there parts where you can access the foreshore that are not controlled by NPWS?

If they decide to deny access ... make sure you delegate that responsibility to the ranger on duty. He's the one denying the access, let him deal with bridezilla.

[DaveB]

So is Bradley's Head a council park or a National Park? It's not clear from your post.

There have been quite cogent arguments for photography in parks having to pay an extra fee. Most of us would argue strongly that taking photos there is no different to experiencing the park as per any other user, but when you say "photography" many managers think in terms of multi-person teams doing still and/or video/film work.
Obviously a video film crew (e.g. with director, lighting, make-up, catering, etc) is going to have more impact on the location (and more disruption to other park users) than a single photographer, and those of us who do things like photograph landscapes don't like being dumped into the same bucket as film crews.

Unfortunately for you, your use probably falls somewhere between the low-impact and high-impact scenarios, and you understandably feel hard done by. But it's definitely commercial in nature. I'd recommend you talk to the Australian Institute of Professional Photography about issues like this: they've certainly been active in talking to park managers about it.

Having a wedding this Saturday with this as a location the B+G wanted I naturally enquired. (I am trying to do the right thing)

[...]

Who would turn a bride away on her wedding day??

These days: Who would arrange for a bridal job to be conducted at a site that charges fees without covering those fees in the money paid by the client?... BTW, the park managers' arguments that "commercial" landscape photography is different from "personal" work even if they involve exactly the same impact on the park and its users are something that I personally take strong argument with, but that seems tangential to your particular issue.

[who]

There was also an article on news.com.au about charges for photography at Cape Byron lighthouse today (or yesterday?).

And only one group, with others being turned away.

"Welcome to NSW, where you have no personal rights (eg APEC or WYD special legislation), but you can buy anything"

[radar]

Bradley's Head is part of the Sydney Harbour National Park so as such, it would be under the NSW Nat Park which is part of the Department of Environment and Conservation. As you say, the yearly fee is $275. You would also have to pay the security deposit of $220 and show that you have PL insurance.

Note that $275 yearly fee also includes an All Parks pass. To buy that separately is $190/yr. But if you don't visit NSW Nat Parks that require daily charges (especially Kosciuszko) , that probably isn't worth anything to you. The deposit you could get back at the end of the year, if you didn't want to renew.

Also, that charge is for what they call small scale photographic activity and they include wedding photographers in there. Films, fashion shoots, etc would likely attract much more.

If you do enough weddings in Nat. Parks, that is a charge that can be spread over a few weddings. That is the cost of doing the right thing Certainly would save some embarrassment on the day.

I looked into this a short while ago, on advice from a friend, but because I was not doing it for commercial gain, I didn't need a license. In principle, I agree with user pays but a lot of times the government does take it too far

Good luck,

André

[JordanP]

There was also an article on news.com.au about charges for photography at Cape Byron lighthouse today (or yesterday?).

And only one group, with others being turned away.

"Welcome to NSW, where you have no personal rights (eg APEC or WYD special legislation), but you can buy anything"

That has been going on at the Byron Lighthouse for some time now. It is a small area so the idea of one bridal party at a time makes common sense - but charging is a joke (fortunately many of those on duty there think the same and will often waive the fee if you arrive unannounced and there is no other party up there.)

jdear - If the bride is suggesting the location I would be passing on the cost - otherwise I would be suggesting alternatives.

[the foto fanatic]

Photographers are quickly becoming the most discriminated against group in our country.

You can't photograph kids playing sport because you might be a pedophile.
You can't photograph a train station because you might be a terrorist.
You can't photograph in National Parks without paying a fee.

The world is crazy.

[ozczecho]

In principle, I agree with user pays ...

Unless the wedding takes over the whole park or wants to book a special location within the park for a period of time then the wedding party plus photog is using the park as everyone else. I don't see why they should be charged $$$ when uncle Bobs 40th BBQ party is allowed to party on for free, Fred the fisherman is fishing there for free and a couple enjoying a picnic there for free.

As Cricketfan said, the world is crazy.

[Glen]

Trevor, I agree with your sentiments.

Just so everyone has some perspective, I have included a photo of the location below. Predominantly the rest of the park is bushland or with no view, or insufficient space to accommodate a bridal party. So in reality every single party goes to this exact spot to take their photos. As can be seen a party of a dozen would totally dominate this area photographically, little alone when 2 groups arrive at the same time. At the car park near this point there is probably parking for 20 cars, both general park users and wedding parties. I have often seen wedding cards double parking the whole parking lot in. There is also a reception venue within 500 metres that is within the park and rented by NPWS to the proprietors, at a handsome rent, I would imagine their clients sometimes like to use this also.

I am not a fan of fees, but some equitable way has to be found to share this resource. I wouldn't mind a free booking schedule, but only the bride or groom is allowed to book, to eliminate the chance of one photographer pre booking and dominating the park. I have seen booking schedules used in the past, for a wedding out west, it was a beautiful park with ponds etc, our party had a time slot of an hour at our chosen pond. Seemed to work well.

[W00DY]

I had a message from another DSLRUSER

That would be me

Yeah I have a wedding there in October and was advised by the bride that there are rangers there turning people away every weekend if they don't have a permit.

Here's the silly thing.... "Apparently" they let you walk around the headland a little (which is still part of the NP but with no city view) and shoot there!!!! so really they are just trying to charge you to shoot with the city in the background. I know what Glen is saying in regards to overuse (I actually tried to talk my bride out of having photos there but since they are getting married at Taronga Zoo she wants photos at BH) and it would be annoying for the general public but I also think the fees are quite step.

Note for all other wedding photographers also - In case you don't already, put a clause in your contract which states that the bride and groom are responsible for any location fees etc... I didn't have this so I am covering the charge this time.

Oh well, you have to do what you have to do.

[Glen]

Andrew you are right about other locations, there are a few small (3m x 4m) lookouts or the HMAS crows nest next to this location, but most of the others (like the nice rock platform facing Manly) are hard to get to in a wedding dress (note the nice wide steps down to "the" location) so almost every image is taken within 10-15m of that jetty. If you have clients who are getting married at Taronga there is also a nice city view from the top floor of the reception centre, though the balcony is not that deep.

[Escapism]

I just had a similar experience...

Had a vehicle shoot to do so thought I would try something different and travelled to a VERY famous National Park just north of Perth. Got set up out of the way in a favourable location when along comes Mr Ranger. Long story short....he tells us that there are forms to fill out, applications required and a waiting list to go on, should we wish to shoot a commercial venture in the park. I honestly didnt realise and told the Ranger this...he took pity and asked a few questions as to what the shoot was for, then let us continue...BONUS!

Later I questioned the reason for the red tape, he replied that the park simply likes to see that the landscape is being filmed/photographed in a favourable manner and that non of the footage/images show scenes that may encourage negative behaviour within the park. I thought that was more than fair!

Oh and the shoot was a complete success, it will run over 5 pages with an opening DPS....which, funnily enough, was taken with the Ranger standing just out of frame to the left

[ozczecho]

Only time a fee would be warranted is if someone wanted to book that location exclusively for a period of time (1hr etc). If 20 wedding parties rock up then the 20 photogs will have a hard time trying to get a good shot. Thats the luck of the draw. If someone parks illegally I am sure the rangers can write out a ticket. As for other people being inconvenienced by the wedding parties, I dont see how...to me its just another group of people enjoying a public area.

Is there a limit of how many people can fish off there?

I went to the area to take pics of the QM2 (last year), the place was filled with photogs....ranging from P&S cameras to LF Pano cameras.....no ranger in sight....there should have been, they would have made a motza....

Its a money grab, simple as that.

[Glen]

Mike, I agree with you it is a money grab, not dissimilar to how the councils do as well. I have seen wedding groups take over an hour there and also ask the fishermen to move, so there is a problem down there of a small space and small car park. In reality I have seen some wedding photogs push the envelope of a public space and are probably only saved from physical harm by the fact the fishermen don't wish to spoil the brides day. I have also seen the wedding groups queue. It really is a nightmare down there on any summer Saturday, I actually try to avoid it on those days. It is not just the weddings, it is the whole road from the middle car park to the bottom is parked out by all sorts of users. I have on previous occasions asked 2 limos to move so I could get out, so there is a bit of a problem there. It seems brides don't want to walk very far