I bumped head on into a new state policy about photography at a state historic site here in Savannah, Wormsloe Plantation. If your equipment value is over $500 and you use a tripod, it is assumed you are commercial and must pay a minimum of a $25 fee, and fill out a 4 page application. A waiver of the fee can be considered on a case by case review of the filled out application by the site manager.
The state policy for all parks and historic sites does not go into that much detail, although it does mention getting a permit for commercial photography/film making, so I assume that the local requirements will vary from site to site.
I have no problem with them making money from commercial ventures. I have a real problem with them stipulating whether or not photos taken by hobbyists/ enthusiasts such as myself who are taking photos for fun should be lumped in with commercial folks. This is the kind of thing that happens in Socialist countries, where Government regulates the life and activities of ordinary citizens.
I don't mind meeting a reasonable circumspection by the state about photographing a public resource. In my opinion, this becomes an arbitrary and discriminatory action when it ties suspicion of commercial intent to the value of equipment. I think all that is required is a simple yes or no answer to the question of intent.
If anyone wants to protest this action, or just ask for clarification of requirements at specific sites, here are 3 email addresses to inquire/protest:
Sadly, you don't seem to know that Georgia is owned by the DNR as aptly represented on some of the bumper stickers I see!!!!!! Just playing with you. On the other hand, they DO treat certain areas as though they are the prime owners instead of the public who gives them their charter and pays their wages and everything else they get. I agree with you totally that it is an intrusive process and one that could be used at anytime to stifle photography. If you are doing a commercial shoot, then I can see good reason to have that registered and a fee paid. They should be required to have that data easily accessible. Anyone who comes in and claims to be shooting for non-commercial purposes should be taken for their word unless they have brought an obvious film crew with them. And what is the definition of "commercial"? Why should I have to pay $25.00 and waste time filling out 4 pages of stuff for the privilege of taking images that I MIGHT want to try to sell in an art fair? Is that commercial? I don't make a living doing that, so it should not be defined as commercial. And even if I did take nature images at state sites for sale as images for a living, that is still not commercial in my eyes. Commercial should be when you use the photo or video to sell another product. If nothing else, nature shots in a state place provides free advertising for that site! Perhaps, THEY should be paying US!
I would love to see a copy of the 4 page questionaire.
Here is the information sent me by the site manager for Wormsloe:
Georgia Department of Natural Resources - Wormsloe State Historic Site
Photography and Filmmaking Policy
All visitors to Wormsloe who would like to conduct professional, commercial, or “high-quality” amateur photography or filmmaking must fill out a DNR application and apply to the site manager or his designee for a permit. For the purposes of this policy “high-quality” photography is generally defined as that which involves the use of equipment (cameras, tripods, lighting, etc.) valued at $500 or more. Two weeks notice is required. All photographers and their subjects must pay regular admission fees in addition to any location or shooting fees. Please direct all questions concerning this policy to the site manager.
Still Photography Location Fees:
Local release/coverage/personal use $100 per day
Regional/National release/coverage $200 per day
Catalog/Magazine shoots $250 per day
The authorizing law is pretty much a carte blanche ticket for them to create rules and regulations as they see fit. My advice is not to visit Wormsloe. Be careful at other state parks and photograph out of sight of state agents. The worst that can happen is if you refuse to stop and refuse to leave if asked. That is a misdemeanor.
For all interested in this thread, I have forwarded this information and a long letter of my own to the legal department of the ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers). They have expressed an interest in possibly looking into what is going on here as another form of government intrusion and limiting of the rights of photographers. Will add any further data I receive. I hope y'all notice that the fees the DNR wants is more than you will usually get for placing an image inside many magazines.
Discussion
6 repliesThe state policy for all parks and historic sites does not go into that much detail, although it does mention getting a permit for commercial photography/film making, so I assume that the local requirements will vary from site to site.
I have no problem with them making money from commercial ventures. I have a real problem with them stipulating whether or not photos taken by hobbyists/ enthusiasts such as myself who are taking photos for fun should be lumped in with commercial folks. This is the kind of thing that happens in Socialist countries, where Government regulates the life and activities of ordinary citizens.
I don't mind meeting a reasonable circumspection by the state about photographing a public resource. In my opinion, this becomes an arbitrary and discriminatory action when it ties suspicion of commercial intent to the value of equipment. I think all that is required is a simple yes or no answer to the question of intent.
If anyone wants to protest this action, or just ask for clarification of requirements at specific sites, here are 3 email addresses to inquire/protest:
Sally.Winchester@dnr.state.ga.us
Melinda.Jackson@dnr.state.ga.us
Tommy.Turk@dnr.state.ga.us
Sadly, you don't seem to know that Georgia is owned by the DNR as aptly represented on some of the bumper stickers I see!!!!!! Just playing with you. On the other hand, they DO treat certain areas as though they are the prime owners instead of the public who gives them their charter and pays their wages and everything else they get. I agree with you totally that it is an intrusive process and one that could be used at anytime to stifle photography. If you are doing a commercial shoot, then I can see good reason to have that registered and a fee paid. They should be required to have that data easily accessible. Anyone who comes in and claims to be shooting for non-commercial purposes should be taken for their word unless they have brought an obvious film crew with them. And what is the definition of "commercial"? Why should I have to pay $25.00 and waste time filling out 4 pages of stuff for the privilege of taking images that I MIGHT want to try to sell in an art fair? Is that commercial? I don't make a living doing that, so it should not be defined as commercial. And even if I did take nature images at state sites for sale as images for a living, that is still not commercial in my eyes. Commercial should be when you use the photo or video to sell another product. If nothing else, nature shots in a state place provides free advertising for that site! Perhaps, THEY should be paying US!
I would love to see a copy of the 4 page questionaire.
And what happened? Did they make you pay the $25?
Don
The authorizing law is pretty much a carte blanche ticket for them to create rules and regulations as they see fit. My advice is not to visit Wormsloe. Be careful at other state parks and photograph out of sight of state agents. The worst that can happen is if you refuse to stop and refuse to leave if asked. That is a misdemeanor.
Troup