Quite a few years ago, we visited Katmai National Park, which is the source of most images a grizzlies catching salmon by standing in the falls as they try to jump over it.
There were 2 professional photographers on the float plane from King Salmon to Brooks Lodge. They both had permits. Based on the conversations I had with the one seated next to me, they weren't required to get the permit, but getting it gave them certain privileges that others didn't have. I had to set up my tripod on the photography platform overlooking the falls, where I was secure from wondering bears. The permitted pros could approach closer to the falls, and could get different angles, but could not cross over to the other side, which was were most of the bears would emerge from the woods. For the most part, the pros stayed on the platform with the rest of us, as it had the best view of the action, but if the platform got too crowded, then they could, and did, go off on their own. That was 15 years ago, and things may be quite different now. Dan On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:44 AM, Cotty <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26/8/10, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed: > > http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2993756.htm > >>I don't see what's controversial. Commercial photographers usually have >>to either have permission or pay to perform their craft if they intend >>to profit from using a particular location. > > At the end of the day it seems it's down to the laws of the land and the > land itself. > > In the UK, we have lots of private land (obviously) but we also have > lots of footpaths, bridleways and byways which cross private land. > According to law, as an individual I have the right to 'pass and re- > pass' one of these rights of way. The law doesn't say anything about > stopping to take a photograph or film. However, the law does say that as > an individual I am permitted to photograph or film from a public right > of way. There is no distinction between private, commercial or any other > type of photography. > > When I am working for TV news, I will often access a footpath across > private land to get a shot of a location or building that cannot be seen > from the road (which is also a public right of way). Of course I have > been accosted by irate landowners over the years, but to be honest, > never had a problem. Often I will try the landowner first and 9 times > out of ten they will tell me to access the site directly with a warm > welcome. If one of them ever tried to sue me I'd welcome the opportunity > to clarify the situation in court. Anyone know of any UK test cases in > this respect? > > As far as national parks go, I am unaware of restrictions on commercial > photographers. If I was a commercial photographer, I would not be > skulking about in the bushes, I would be approaching the appropriate > persons for permissions and information. If you run a business and stand > by your product then in my book it's all above-board. > > I can see complications though as highlighted by the article. Australia > is a big place. Really big. I always thought it was a long way down to > the chemist's. > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ---------- http://www.cottysnaps.com > _____________________________ > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
