I just spoke with Membership Services to get an indepth answer to their updated photography rules, effective Jan 1 and in their newsletter. Basically, it runs down like this:
1. Anyone who wishes to take, promote, or sell pictures for personal gain will need to become a photography member for the sum of $150 per year. They are allowing an upgrade of $50 for current members for this year (upgrade offer expires March 31st). Any website promotion from this location does mandate this membership. Basically, if you say "for sale", you must pay.
2. No more photo friends allowed in as a guest with this membership. While they still can be brought in with a member as a guest, if they take pictures, there's a $2 tripod fee and a waiver form promising not to sell or promote pictures or they must follow #1 above. Tripod fee is waived with a membership.
3. Photographers do, however, become eligible for late-evening and early morning hour photo taking. MS said that it may be as early as 6:30 AM and as late as 9 PM for photo members.
4. They plan to host the first ever Garden's Photographer Art Show for photo members to display and sell photos. Date to be announced, but probably during the summer.
5. Permission to get a group rate for workshops or classes to the Garden for a group rate.
6. Discount on portrait and wedding photography fees.
This is disappointing for me, since I've spent so much time there, and I think I have some great shots. I can post pics from there on websites like this one, but if I post it on my website, I must either sign the waiver or pay the membership or say not for sale. This new rule is more strict than previously, and it does encompass all commercial photos past, present, and future.
Just thought I'd let you know. I'm not sure if I can swing that $150/year:(
Kevin
PS My website will be down until I revamp it:(( which may be a while until I get that fence rebuilt (and a new baby soon!!!)
That is kind of a bummer. Although I had not taken very many images from there, I had been considering doing some more. Now I've got to decide if it would be worth it.
Posted by John Lehmkuhl on January 8, 2007 at 9:33 PM
One of the more beautiful places in Portland to stroll with a camera. I can understand why to a certain point, but this is silly. In Los Angeles being members with some of the larger botanical gardens (about 8 times the size of this garden) allows you in early/late and freedom to take all the photos you want....
We'll have to see if it flies, but I'm not joining.
Posted by David Bostock on January 8, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Wow, this is truly disappointing and, I think, not quite legal. I can't imagine that photographs taken in the past can be subject to this restriction.
I have spent many hours in this wonderful garden…if they persist in this policy however, I will not visit again. I just renewed my membership in December. I plan on going to their offices on Saturday to demand a refund. I will also write a letter to the new executive director deploring this move. I would urge you all to do the same. They’ve lost me as a patron and major contributor. It’s less about the money and much, much more about the principle.
Can you imagine if the Oregon Zoo, or the Chinese Garden, or Northwest Trek, or Pittock Mansion adopted this model? Sorry, this is an outrageous move that will surely reduce their revenue stream, not increase it…
If we all push back, perhaps they'll rethink their position...
Posted by John Lehmkuhl on January 9, 2007 at 2:10 AM
I agree. I was going to join this year to be a member... but I'm going to contact them next week and let them know this new policy is unacceptable.
Posted by Andy Drumer on January 9, 2007 at 6:19 AM
In addition to all mentioned above, I wouldn't hesitiate to break out a little rhetoric in a letter to the JG.
You could argue that this new policy goes against the spirit of the garden, which itself is a celbration and expression of design, shape, color, light, and nature. Photography, or any art form is very similar.
This policy is cleary a disservice to the creators and visionaries of japanese gardens around the world.
Ok, a bit too much rhetoric classes for me in college
Posted by Curtis Knight on January 9, 2007 at 12:54 PM
hmmm... I wonder how long before they start trying to ban the sale of paintings derived from photos taken in the garden. Well, It's thier property, and they can do what they want, but they are going to lose the business of many photographers. I doubt that it will be worth it. The photos that are sold/shown of thier garden is free publicity for them. "penny wise and pound foolish" comes to mind.
They've never had my business because I thought they were heavy handed before, but now they'll never get it.
Well $150.00 does seem way too much to me too. And I agree that the prints we do sell/display/share are indeed free advertising for them. I do like the idea of the Garden's Photographer Art Show but how long would such a show run? One day? A weekend? The longer a matted/framed print hangs on display the more likely it will sell. This is why I like pursuing galleries to exhibit my work.
In the end I don't think spending $150.00 for this would be hard earned cash well spent. The return on investment just isn't there. It saddens me to see places tighten up like this all in the name of the mighty dollar...
Posted by Rick Lundh on January 10, 2007 at 2:33 AM
Hmmm...discouraging for sure. I for one am going to voice my thought to the management. David is sure on to something there. It's such a grey area, it almost sounds government-ish. If you pay for 1 year, take images...then dont pay the next year...does that mean you cant sell the image?
Posted by Philip Kuglin on January 10, 2007 at 1:25 PM
This isn't new to the world of organized gardens. For example - try to go to the Burchard Gardens in Victoria and carry in professional looking gear. First thing they ask, "are you a professional?" and if you sell anything then you are. At this point they want to participate in the profit – after all it is their private resource we are using to create our product. It isn’t public land.
Now the Japanese Gardens are asking for about $75-$85 a year over and beyond the normal membership fee for this. Is this really that much? One print sold almost recovers this cost. Bottom-line the issue isn’t the $$$, it is the loss of freedom and change in your rights. The long term rights issue is interesting, more of a logistical issue than a legal one though.
Of the people up in arms here – how many actually are Japanese Garden members that support the gardens verses people who piggyback on someone else’s membership? Is it fair to complain about changes to something you didn’t support in the first place.
Posted by Mark Hudon on January 10, 2007 at 1:59 PM
I've never been there, but Phil sounds right, it is private land and you are on their land making making yourself profit, and, yeah, sell one print and you're covered. I don't see the problem.
Posted by Rick Lundh on January 10, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Well, I am one piggy backer that was going to get a membership...but for such a place of peace and enjoyment, they are taking quite the capitalistic approach. You guys are correct...they have every right to do this...but is it right to do this? I guess in the end, it is up for them to decide, not us.
The question is...if you take one picture of that tree, and you never visit the gardens again...do you HAVE to keep your membership up for every year that you try to sell that image? Do you HAVE to delete it and never sell it again if your membership dues are up? That is the grey area that I have the biggest question about.
Deeper...what about the books that are already out and have been collecting dust on the shelf for 10 years. Should they all be pulled or face legal battle?
Posted by Rick Lundh on January 10, 2007 at 3:38 PM
I just called and they did confirm that you must have a yearly membership for every year you plan to sell that one image (or many images). It doesn't matter if you no longer live in Portland and are unable to visit the gardens. What you are buying is a one year right to sell that image you took on their property.
Posted by Erik Lundh on January 10, 2007 at 3:50 PM
I myself have never shot there and have never planned to. I always felt that it's a private man made garden that has been groomed and sculptured. It just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe because it was so easy to access and get a "wow"shot.
Posted by Ned Fenimore on January 10, 2007 at 3:57 PM
I get sick of seeing that tree personally... doesn't that go against your comp. rule Ricky?
Posted by Rick Lundh on January 10, 2007 at 4:13 PM
ouch...you sorta got me there Ned! but I think icons are open territory...and that is defintely an icon shot.
Posted by Mark Hudon on January 10, 2007 at 4:45 PM
you must have a yearly membership for every year you plan to sell that one image
Hmmm... that will be the last nail in the coffin for a lot of photographer memberships I'll bet.
I just got an email from Kerry Cobb from membership services: he said there's been some misconceptions from this post (I hope nothing I wrote). But anyway, he'll or I'll correct any info that is not correct with their new photo rules - so stay tuned!
And to rebut the "you can make it back in one picture sale," do you guys/gals make $150 PROFIT from that sale? Or $150 minus print/framing cost? It takes me at least 3 prints to make $150 right now, not to mention that it's at least one picture sale per year to make it monetarily feasible.
Discussion
18 repliesI just spoke with Membership Services to get an indepth answer to their updated photography rules, effective Jan 1 and in their newsletter. Basically, it runs down like this:
1. Anyone who wishes to take, promote, or sell pictures for personal gain will need to become a photography member for the sum of $150 per year. They are allowing an upgrade of $50 for current members for this year (upgrade offer expires March 31st). Any website promotion from this location does mandate this membership. Basically, if you say "for sale", you must pay.
2. No more photo friends allowed in as a guest with this membership. While they still can be brought in with a member as a guest, if they take pictures, there's a $2 tripod fee and a waiver form promising not to sell or promote pictures or they must follow #1 above. Tripod fee is waived with a membership.
3. Photographers do, however, become eligible for late-evening and early morning hour photo taking. MS said that it may be as early as 6:30 AM and as late as 9 PM for photo members.
4. They plan to host the first ever Garden's Photographer Art Show for photo members to display and sell photos. Date to be announced, but probably during the summer.
5. Permission to get a group rate for workshops or classes to the Garden for a group rate.
6. Discount on portrait and wedding photography fees.
This is disappointing for me, since I've spent so much time there, and I think I have some great shots. I can post pics from there on websites like this one, but if I post it on my website, I must either sign the waiver or pay the membership or say not for sale. This new rule is more strict than previously, and it does encompass all commercial photos past, present, and future.
Just thought I'd let you know. I'm not sure if I can swing that $150/year:(
Kevin
PS My website will be down until I revamp it:(( which may be a while until I get that fence rebuilt (and a new baby soon!!!)
We'll have to see if it flies, but I'm not joining.
I have spent many hours in this wonderful garden…if they persist in this policy however, I will not visit again. I just renewed my membership in December. I plan on going to their offices on Saturday to demand a refund. I will also write a letter to the new executive director deploring this move. I would urge you all to do the same. They’ve lost me as a patron and major contributor. It’s less about the money and much, much more about the principle.
Can you imagine if the Oregon Zoo, or the Chinese Garden, or Northwest Trek, or Pittock Mansion adopted this model? Sorry, this is an outrageous move that will surely reduce their revenue stream, not increase it…
If we all push back, perhaps they'll rethink their position...
You could argue that this new policy goes against the spirit of the garden, which itself is a celbration and expression of design, shape, color, light, and nature. Photography, or any art form is very similar.
This policy is cleary a disservice to the creators and visionaries of japanese gardens around the world.
Ok, a bit too much rhetoric classes for me in college
They've never had my business because I thought they were heavy handed before, but now they'll never get it.
I'll also write a letter to them.
Sandy R
In the end I don't think spending $150.00 for this would be hard earned cash well spent. The return on investment just isn't there. It saddens me to see places tighten up like this all in the name of the mighty dollar...
Now the Japanese Gardens are asking for about $75-$85 a year over and beyond the normal membership fee for this. Is this really that much? One print sold almost recovers this cost. Bottom-line the issue isn’t the $$$, it is the loss of freedom and change in your rights. The long term rights issue is interesting, more of a logistical issue than a legal one though.
Of the people up in arms here – how many actually are Japanese Garden members that support the gardens verses people who piggyback on someone else’s membership? Is it fair to complain about changes to something you didn’t support in the first place.
The question is...if you take one picture of that tree, and you never visit the gardens again...do you HAVE to keep your membership up for every year that you try to sell that image? Do you HAVE to delete it and never sell it again if your membership dues are up? That is the grey area that I have the biggest question about.
Deeper...what about the books that are already out and have been collecting dust on the shelf for 10 years. Should they all be pulled or face legal battle?
Hmmm... that will be the last nail in the coffin for a lot of photographer memberships I'll bet.
I just got an email from Kerry Cobb from membership services: he said there's been some misconceptions from this post (I hope nothing I wrote). But anyway, he'll or I'll correct any info that is not correct with their new photo rules - so stay tuned!
And to rebut the "you can make it back in one picture sale," do you guys/gals make $150 PROFIT from that sale? Or $150 minus print/framing cost? It takes me at least 3 prints to make $150 right now, not to mention that it's at least one picture sale per year to make it monetarily feasible.
Kevin