I posted this also on the SENP. If any of you plan to visit any Georgia Parks under the supervision of the Georgia DNR, pack your 12 mp "P & S" and leave your tripod in the car.
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/hour fee, and fill out a 2 - 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. Applications for approval should be submitted a week minimum in advance of visiting.
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. http://www.gastateparks.org/core/item/page.aspx?s=550#Photography
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:
According to e-bay, I can break out my old AE-1. Do I need to bring in tax returns for any images I've sold that total more than X $ amount? Isn't that what constitutes a commercial venture?
This may seem a joke, or a poke in the eye to Georgia DNR. It is not. It is a bureaucratic assault on a personal liberty that all of us should hold dear.
I ran into a similar situation once when I was shooting at John Brown's Farm, a NYS historical site in Lake Placid. I was approached by a "suit" who introduced himself as manager and asked if I was a "Pro". I told him I was an artist who shoots pictures for people to hang on their walls at which point he informed me that I could not sell any photos made at the site without permission from the state. That seems odd since most of my photography is of state owned land in the Adirondack pack and no one ever told me before that I couldn't sell the photos I took. I'm currently trying to verify what my rights are through an artists' organization I belong to. They have a lawyer on retainer whom I've asked for clarification.
My answer was meant to be funny. I do not think this is a funny situation. The assault on non-commercial photographers continues to complicate our lives. By non-commercial, I specifically mean that we do not take photographic images with the intent that they be used in advertisement (though it may happen from time to time).
The irony is that people come to visit these sites and a certain number of tourists are advanced photographers. In a way, they're just chasing away their tourist population, or at least a portion thereof. Its a stupid mistake in government as tourism is one of the few ways that a state can generate tax revenue from outside its borders.
Mel, I knew that. I guess I am so thoroughly disgusted and enraged by the ignorant and arrogant attitude of the Georgia DNR, I have lost sight of what little humor there is in the situation.
Even if we do sell for stock or profit, it is usually entirely speculative. Will the state refund a fee if the photo never sells?
We've faced the same balance in the national parks for many years. The commercial photography clause has often caused confusion around who is affected both among photographers and those charged with enforcing policy. Personally, I think Georgia has gone WAY over the line in this case.
Fortunately, the National Parks issues were clarified (in writing) a few years ago. It still doesn't stop a few Ranger Rick wanna-bes from giving you grief, but those incidents have been far and few between. On the positive side, I've actually had a couple of cases where the rangers have gone out of their way to provide me with too much help.
The rules for Georgia seem to be a current trend to suck money from people who look like they have money. If you think those rules are bad, try looking at the California State Parks and many of the local regulations. I'll shoot in Georgia anyday compared to what you legally need to do there.
This is a policy that needs to be carefully legally researched -- particularly whether the authorizing law or regulation for charging the fee grants state employees the right to "assume" commercial use. (If so, I won't be photographing in Georgia, even though I do nothiing commercial.) The public statement of DNR policy attached to the link in your post says nothing about "assuming." "Policy" is just that, not law. It is common for governmental employees to not recognize the difference. In situations like this, it imay be appropriate to ask government employees for a written statement of their authority. If a legal citation (a ticket) were given and then contested in court, it might be necessary for the Georgia DNR to prove commercial use. (Might not too, but in that case the policy would be extremely hostile to hobbyist tourist photographers and ought to be brought to the attention of senior Georgia legislators or government officials.) .
Pat, I think these "regulations" vary from site to site. The state DNR regulations quote fees for still photography, with the low end being photography for stock photos. 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.
Patrick's point is a good one. What is the state law/code that authorizes the Georgia DNR generally, and the site managers specifically, to set these policies to charge for "high quality amateur photography" on public grounds?
This almost sounds as though these folks are making the rules up as they go, very possibly without legal authority to do so.
The authorizing law for the state DNR was written when the state parks were turned over to the DNR from Georgia State Parks some years ago. It was pretty much a carte blanche ticket for them to set policy, rules and regulations as they saw fit.
They have.
Which is not to say these particularly onerous rules are legal. If profiling is illegal, then so should this be, as it is definitely profiling. To be cynical, they don't have the money to do what needs doing, and this is their way of creating a source of revenue.
Perhaps so, Steve. 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. That might get someone to court if they are willing to go that far.
Whoa. The way that paragrpah re: photography is written it is very open to interpretation and the $500.00 limit on equipment is just arbitary and uninformed. There are some P&S cams that have rather long reach and pixel counts that far exceed what "pro" cameras had a few years ago. This is a dangerous precedent in what we consider a free country alledgedly goverend by the Constistution of "we the people". I won't be visiting Georgia any time soon but I hope someone challenges this. After all it is the tax payers property, not some hired managemnt companies to rule as the king sees fit.
Patrick Nixon wrote:
I won't be photographing in Georgia...
Philip Hodgkins wrote:
My advice is not to visit Wormsloe.
John Klotz wrote:
I won't be visiting Georgia any time soon...
These messages need to be sent to Georgia's Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Board if they have one. Groups like that often have a lot of clout in state governments. If Georgia's tourism industry feels its revenue will be adversely impacted by capricious DNR rules, it can probably put a lot of pressure on the legislature and the DNR.
Discussion
17 repliesI 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/hour fee, and fill out a 2 - 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. Applications for approval should be submitted a week minimum in advance of visiting.
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. http://www.gastateparks.org/core/item/page.aspx?s=550#Photography
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
If anyone knows of another source to bring pressure to bear, please let it be known.
My answer was meant to be funny. I do not think this is a funny situation. The assault on non-commercial photographers continues to complicate our lives. By non-commercial, I specifically mean that we do not take photographic images with the intent that they be used in advertisement (though it may happen from time to time).
The irony is that people come to visit these sites and a certain number of tourists are advanced photographers. In a way, they're just chasing away their tourist population, or at least a portion thereof. Its a stupid mistake in government as tourism is one of the few ways that a state can generate tax revenue from outside its borders.
M-
Even if we do sell for stock or profit, it is usually entirely speculative. Will the state refund a fee if the photo never sells?
The rules for Georgia seem to be a current trend to suck money from people who look like they have money. If you think those rules are bad, try looking at the California State Parks and many of the local regulations. I'll shoot in Georgia anyday compared to what you legally need to do there.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/
This almost sounds as though these folks are making the rules up as they go, very possibly without legal authority to do so.
They have.
Which is not to say these particularly onerous rules are legal. If profiling is illegal, then so should this be, as it is definitely profiling. To be cynical, they don't have the money to do what needs doing, and this is their way of creating a source of revenue.
Cheers,
Later...Done! If anyone wants to add a voice, here is where I complained:
Georgia Department of Economic Development
75 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 1200
Atlanta, GA 30308
404-962-4000
travel@exploregeorgia.org