question regarding 'public'

[matilda]

I'm getting quite a few requests for family portraits, which is fine by me I'm loving it.

Most requests I have had have been out on their farms (well that happens when you live in the country), which has been great cause I get to use all the farm stuff!

However I have thought of some other locations, which will be fantastic. One of which is a school. It is a public school.

So my question is regarding 'public' locations. Do you have to get a release (From council etc) to shoot in public locations. For example, would I need to get permission from the public school to shoot there (i would only shoot out of school hours)?

I thought I would ask on here 1st, that way if I need to approach said person/society, i have my facts straight.

tia.

[Kym]

Yes (in the case of a school), otherwise you are trespassing.

Public land in general you don't need anything

[matilda]

ok that's what I thought.

All the other locations are public land, so better contact the school then to get permission.

[Redgum]

What do you mean by public land? Like beaches. You can't shoot commercially (for money) at a beach without a permit from Council. Many public parks are the same and the same goes for National Parks (discussed recently).
Once you start doing anything for money you can almost count on needing a permit. A recent example was a beach at Redcliffe that I used for a television commercial shoot - permit was $6000 for half a day which included two council officers to patrol the exclusion area. A wedding will generally cost about $1500. It's easier to shoot on private property for a carton of stubbies.
Oh! and these days in the city a school will ask you for a fee as well.

[kiwi]

I don't think so re weddings actually, I don't believe these or say other private commissions such as family portraits are considered commercial by council...in my local council you can even book particular beach locations at no fee

http://www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/discover.aspx?id=5969

[Redgum]

There are no fees for "non-exclusive" use. If you organise a wedding you can't stop the general public from passing through or in fact joining the celebration. You pay for exclusive use.
In any case you will pay a deposit of $500 (Moreton) refundable if the grounds are left in the same condition as arrival. If cleaners are brought in you lose your deposit.

[kiwi]

Can you show me where the $1500 fee for weddings is documented ? I can't find it. I do understand that if you want to shoot an ad etc and want excessive use etc

Hardly the case for the average wedding shoot where its not $1500 but is actually nothing

[Redgum]

Kiwi, it's simple. Phone Moreton Regional Council tomorrow. I've used Suttons Beach several times under the Redcliffe City Council. In fact I've shot three commercials down there in the last five years.
By the way, it's EXCLUSIVE use, not excessive use. Quite a difference as shown in the document you linked. :)

[kiwi]

I realise that, you talked about weddings and I bet not one photographer spends one dollar for a beach wedding shoot....but sure, I'll ring the council and ask

I do know for example that say Roma st parklands is free

[Redgum]

I realise that, you talked about weddings and I bet not one photographer spends one dollar for a beach wedding shoot....but sure, I'll ring the council and ask
I bet they haven't either - any fee for using the beach would be up to the wedding party. That's what it says in your booklet. Can you imagine a photographer being paid to do a wedding shoot and then having to pay for the licence?
This whole thread is about getting permission to use public places, schools and parks etc. As you have shown from your own experience you do need to get permission. Who pays any fee is not really relevant.

[kiwi]

But you specifically said to the op that a wedding shoot at a beach would cost $1500 for a permit....and I say it's zero....even if you need a permit at all...just to clarify

[Redgum]

Kiwi, this is off-topic but read the book again. You always need to apply for a permit. Whether you have to pay is subject to your specific application. The wedding at Suttons Beach closed the northern end for four hours and engaged three council staff to supervise security in that "exclusive" area and the fee was $1500. Its all in the booklet. Can we get back on topic, please?

[kiwi]

I thought it was exactly on topic, can the op shoot on public land without a permit....the answer as far as i inderstand re parks and beaches is yes, even if it's paid. Permits for exclusive use and paying 1500 is more off topic based on the original question, I'm not doubting based on your circumstances that this was true for this, but really, hardly applicable for average family portraits or weddings in general.

I'll leave it there

[kiwi]

I thought it was exactly on topic, can the op shoot on public land without a permit....the answer as far as i inderstand re parks and beaches is yes, even if it's paid. Permits for exclusive use and paying 1500 is more off topic based on the original question, I'm not doubting based on your circumstances that this was true for this, but really, hardly applicable for average family portraits or weddings in general.

I'll leave it there

[Redgum]

Darren, you're going around in circles again. this was the original question...

So my question is regarding 'public' locations. Do you have to get a release (From council etc) to shoot in public locations. For example, would I need to get permission from the public school to shoot there (i would only shoot out of school hours)?
The simple answer to this question is YES. Taking photos commercially, and that was the OP's question, in the vast majority of cases, including the booklet you produced, requires them getting permission from the Council. To advise otherwise is just stupid and they could end up in all kinds of strife. By the way, shooting for any sort of fee is "commercial" as far as the authorities are concerned. Gosh, I've been doing it for thirty years and I'm not about to engage in any unnecessary work if it can be avoided.

[Longshots]

But you specifically said to the op that a wedding shoot at a beach would cost $1500 for a permit....and I say it's zero....even if you need a permit at all...just to clarify

Kiwi - you really do need more hands on experience of doing this before you make claims that are simply so wrong, and misleading. How do you know its "zero" ? Yes, please go and do some more reading.

Yes this is exactly on topic, because its all about where can someone shoot on public land. The issue of what public is, changes in every state, every town, every park and almost, every road. The correct advice is that there is no standard rule, and there is always a misconception of what is public.

I wont comment on the actual costs of this particular permit discussed with Redgum, but I can assure you that many councils see weddings as a commercial event ( because they are - to the photographer ), and most councils do require you to apply for a permit.

Sure you can try and get away with it, just like plenty of people copy software, but that doesnt make it legal. I've certainly seen plenty of people ejected from a classic Wedding photography venue, New Farm Park. And you might be interested to know, that shooting a great fave location of Brisbane Powerhouse, by every single budding photographer, does require permission from Brisbane Powerhouse.

The best advice is simply go and ask the people who can give you the correct advice (the council or authority that manages the location or building), as opposed to simply relying on comments from people that you have no idea whether they're 30 year veteran of hands on experience, or that they've just gone out and bought all the best gear in the world.

[Longshots]

I thought it was exactly on topic, can the op shoot on public land without a permit....the answer as far as i inderstand re parks and beaches is yes, even if it's paid. Permits for exclusive use and paying 1500 is more off topic based on the original question, I'm not doubting based on your circumstances that this was true for this, but really, hardly applicable for average family portraits or weddings in general.

I'll leave it there


No please dont leave it there. Because its misleading and again, wrong.

Again to remind you of what you're talking about - can the op shoot on public land without a permit (and you refer to the Moreton Bay booklet), well reading that it says this important part:


Weddings & photo sessions on parks and foreshores
A site booking is available for functions of short duration (up to 2 hours) such as wedding ceremonies and photo sessions.

So. yes you can go and drive down the road at high speed, and ignore the rules. Just like you can shoot on a beach (in this example, in Moreton Bay Area) But if you want to give the correct advice, you simply need to READ what you refer to.

And I read that as pretty clear. It reads that you need to apply for a permit. Thats the correct advice, and its from the authority that is responsible for the area.

My point is if you're going to give advice, give the proper advice, not an opinion.

And FWIW its my opinion, that it should be free and without the need for a permit. But thats not the reality.

[kiwi]

Sorry, where does it say you need a permit if you are not wanting to book a site or get exclusive use ?

And to educate me why is a wedding shoot commercial when the pictures are not going to be used to promote a product or service and are for private use only ?

I'm happy to be shown where I'm going wrong, really.

[Longshots]

Mate I'm trying to educate you, but you're not reading what I quoted and therefore not listening.

Really its very frustrating discussing something with you. READ THE BOOKLET, and more importantly read the quoted area. Gee how simplified do I have to make it for you ?

It says this about photography


Weddings & photo sessions on parks and foreshores
A site booking is available for functions of short duration (up to 2 hours) such as wedding ceremonies and photo sessions.

It doesnt say if you want exclusive use, it just says if you want to photograph. End of story.



And please go and do some reading about commercial, because you're confusing something entirely different with your analysis of what commercial is. What you're talking about is commercial usage of an image, as opposed to undertaking a commercial activity. Two very different things mate.

And if you are being paid to shoot something, no matter what it is, I can assure you that councils, authorities, insurers, solicitors, will all consider that you're undertaking a commercial activity.

And I dont think you are happy to be shown where you're wrong, because when you are shown, you simply ignore what facts/documents/references are in front of you.

[James T]

Not really arguing either 'side' but using that booklet as the example:

Regarding photo sessions it reads; ...a site booking is available...

Now all the other sections have phrases like requires permits and Permit must be obtained

So that would imply that you don't in fact need a permit to shoot a wedding on their beaches.

[Longshots]

Well despite your comments, you are actually arguing a side. One of interprettation, and again you are ignoring the facts. Have you checked any other related information before you came to your conclusion as to what you saw that phrase "implying". Because, again, you are wrong, and misleading.

Sometimes its simply not worth responding with actual information when the information sourced, given, or actually experienced is then diluted by a sequence of arguments from those who havent bothered to check their facts, or imaginatively interpreted with a heavy bias towards people personal preferences.



I'm sure no-one is interested in my personal views on the matter, I'm simply answering with facts, based on knowledge & experience, which is easily sourced, easily read, and easily understood.

So after checking - twice with the actual council referred to. I can confirm that again, what Redgum and myself have stated is correct. As I said earlier, ignore the quite honestly facile, and pointless arguments, about what each person think their personal world should be governed, and check the facts with each local council or managing authority.

Once you'e ascertained the facts, then by all means, join Arts Freedom Australia's lobbying voice, and try and lobby changes in your areas. However, first of all you need to check the actual facts.

[James T]

Calm down William, I'm not wrong.. what I posted is precisely what that booklet implies, and that's all I stated, what it implies. I wasn't presenting legal facts or offering advice of any kind.

I said using that booklet as the example, and then quoted the pertinent phrases from it. I haven't checked 'other related information' as I said, 'taking that booklet as the example.'

I think it was established pretty early on in the thread that simply contacting the relevant body is the way to go before shooting anything commercially (as common sense would dictate anyway). I don't think I've posted anything misleading, even if I did, anyone who chose to take it as legal advice and act upon it without sorting it out for themselves would deserve any hassles they got themselves into as a result.

[Longshots]

I'm nothing other than calm James. :)

Which ever way I look at this; drawing a conclusion from the booklet, without reading it properly, is incorrect.

What I was saying is that this shouldnt be an argument based on each individuals own personal viewing of a small booklet, or two quoted lines. But suggesting what something implies without finding out the full information, seems such a pointless exercise. That was my point - which has been clearly missed.

[James T]

I read all of the booklet that I could see to be relevant to this. Anyway, I was only saying that's what the material linked to implied, which it did through the choice of language used.

It's not an important point, but possibly one that could lead to confusion. I would assume though that before anyone acted on it they would research further, as I and pretty much everyone else has already said. And I think that was the whole point of the thread in the first place before it went off on a tangent.

Now, back to work... :)

[jasevk]

Geee, at 1500 to shoot a wedding..... how many photographers are running at a $1000 loss per wedding on the beach? :p

[farmer_rob]

I've just looked through the fees and permits sections of our local council's website and there is NO mention of photography - either permits, fees or restrictions.

[Redgum]

Geee, at 1500 to shoot a wedding..... how many photographers are running at a $1000 loss per wedding on the beach? :p
Jasevk, you need to read the posts. Fees are for permits, not photography. You can add in somersaults and skydiving if you like and it won't cost you anymore.
Rob, that's the point, permits aren't required everywhere. Like William said, you gotta ask. :)

[farmer_rob]

...
Rob, that's the point, permits aren't required everywhere. Like William said, you gotta ask. :)

I know, but just felt that a counter example was needed :).

[jasevk]

Jasevk, you need to read the posts. Fees are for permits, not photography. You can add in somersaults and skydiving if you like and it won't cost you anymore.
Rob, that's the point, permits aren't required everywhere. Like William said, you gotta ask. :)

Red, I know... I can read.... But someone needs to find their sense of humor :p

[Longshots]

Hardly any need for a counter example Rob, because I could bore you solid with a time wasting experience of listing all the different places that have different permits, or different rules; which is what I've been saying all along - Ask. Dont assume.

And no offence to anyone here, but talking about how individuals interpret what's written down in a booklet, is seriously pointless, and then counter arguing, how something could be perceived, without reading all the information available is as useful as trying to push a wet cow pat up hill with a sharp pencil. Information was what was sought here, not opinions based on insufficient knowledge. Dont ask here, ask your local council or authority, (who ever you think may manage the area) because they will have the relevant and correct information.

[Longshots]

Red, I know... I can read.... But someone needs to find their sense of humor :p

The humour was understood from my point of view Jasevk.

The trouble is that in the next couple of responses, others wont read your humour and then think that OMG I have to pay $1000 for a permit to shoot a wedding on a beach. Which is not correct in the particular Council example we've been discussing.

Which, while I could see the humour, others might not, and thats how misinformation is circulated.

[kiwi]

I'm waiting for an email reply from council. I don't think personally their publicly accessibke documents are at all clear...plus some interesting reading about re waverley council and this particular topic too

So, I apologize that I state my opinion without facts to William and red gum. I guess I assumed that no photographer would be paying 1500 for a few beach snapshots on the way to the reception....and I bet none do. But yes quite likely they need a permit and quite likely need to pay a fee of by looking maybe up to $300....but I don't think it's clear.

[jasevk]

Which, while I could see the humour, others might not, and thats how misinformation is circulated.

Yeah fair call.... Maybe we need a standard AP joke disclaimer William? Hehe :p

[Longshots]

I dont think they're clear either. But, and this is an important but, the information was easily sourced by a simple phone call to that council.

Yes many people, photographers do not apply for permits. And its because of people "taking over" areas to do their business, that council's react to public opinion/complaints, and introduce permit application systems.

While noting your sarcasm Kiwi, what I've been trying to do is answer the OP's question with the facts. So in the same spirit of gentle sarcasm, sure, go ahead and keep posting your opinions. But how about pre-empting it with something like, "well I have little experience on this topic, but plenty of views, and even when someone posts the information, or their actual experiences, I will continue to argue on the basis that I interpret differently to the managing authority that has produced the written information". :) The managing authority are not going to give a dam what you think, or what I think about how well they're written guidelines, local laws, local T&C's are (or whatever they're going to call them); if they say you cant do something, you cant. ;) And if you want to ignore that, then do so at the risk of having the police called. And the police will remind you that ignorance of a law is not a valid defence. And it then gets messy. The laws are different everywhere you go.

I used to shoot for Yellow Pages, "Get About Guides" which was in the front of all city/towns/areas Yellow Pages. I'd visit plenty of different regions, councils etc etc; and I can assure you that it was a real nighmare trying to get permission to shoot in so many different locations. And I couldnt "wing it", because as the images were going to be used in such a highly recognised publication, they (Yellow) didnt want to be dealing with complaints that I shot somewhere without permission.

For what its worth, the Moreton Bay Councils response to me, (which was consistently delivered back to me when I checked with a 2nd phone call), photography in their parks beaches did need a permit. Wether there was a cost or not, was dependant on many different factors. So you're right that its not clear in the written information, but it does indicate that you should call them, and when you do that, they appear to be quite willing to clarify it, once they know everything involved. And while I did not specifically record all details of the conversation, as it was not the aim of my enquiry; as Moreton Bays booklet clearly says, yes you need a permit for photography; but is there a substantial cost ? My recollection (so this is my opinion) was that there was NO cost on something thats a simple "less than 2 hour" shoot. But that should always be checked prior to the event.

And have I, do I apply for permits - most of the time, yes, because its less embarrassing to have a production crew, of photographer, assistant, model, client, etc (in my case of commercial photography) thrown off the location I would have planned the shoot on - most of the time there has been ZERO costs to gain a permit - its just like some beach driving/national park permits that cost nothing. And if I were a wedding photographer, where important timing is the order of the day, the last thing I would want to do is to have to find an alternative location because I and the 10 or so in the wedding party have all been thrown off the beach by an official, and I'm then having more of that time wasted by giving my details to the official/police.

[kiwi]

There was no sarcasm intended actually. My original reply meant to cast doubt on the 1500 more than the necessity for the permit. But sure facts are always better than opinion. Roma st I did know as i did check prior to a shoot i did there recently. So valid point re checking with council re beach too.

[Longshots]

Oh, sorry. thought it was sarcasm/humour - mine was meant in the vein of humour then - no offence intended :)


What I can tell you is that the amount is a moveable feast according to the Moreton Bay Council, and the amount depends on what's involved.

While we're discussing this, what I would urge is many to join Arts Freedom Australia to lobby against unnecessary charges and restrictions to photography.

[kiwi]

Yes, and I guess based on the op's first post i made an assumption, dangerous I know, about the type of shot likely.

The point I guess in all of this is your point re moving feast.

[Redgum]

Yes, and I guess based on the op's first post i made an assumption, dangerous I know, about the type of shot likely.
The point I guess in all of this is your point re moving feast.
No, the point is you didn't know or have experience of what you were talking about when it comes to permits and you confused the matter. :)
I feel sorry for Matilda (OP) who asked a simple question and got a relevant answer (phone the Council). Informed opinion is fine but rather than uninformed answers a poll would have been better. :D

[Speedway]

Longshots wrote
Weddings & photo sessions on parks and foreshores
A site booking is available for functions of short duration (up to 2 hours) such as wedding ceremonies and photo sessions

Longshots you also are misleading and as you say read the booklet as a little further you will see

Weddings and Photo Sessions on parks and foreshores
Council does not charge a fee for these bookings. However depending on the scale and type of event, a refundable bond and park hire fee charges may apply. Approved applicants will be sent an assessment letter and invoices detailing the amounts to be levied (if any). Approvals will be provided via email where possible.

So if it was just a few photos on the beach or in the park and there were no signs prohibiting photography I'd go for it, anything more and it would pay to contact the relevant authority's
My 2 cents worth,
Keith.

[jasevk]

The other point to remember is that a wedding shoot is performed under some form of domestic agreement. It's not commercial work, it's domestic..... Now somebody please correct me' if I'm wrong!

[kiwi]

No, the point is you didn't know or have experience of what you were talking about when it comes to permits and you confused the matter. :)
I feel sorry for Matilda (OP) who asked a simple question and got a relevant answer (phone the Council). Informed opinion is fine but rather than uninformed answers a poll would have been better. :D

How about you yourself read first post re being misleading. Where should I sendme1500 cheque for my wedding shoot ?

[Redgum]

The other point to remember is that a wedding shoot is performed under some form of domestic agreement. It's not commercial work, it's domestic..... Now somebody please correct me' if I'm wrong!
Of course there is no such thing as a "domestic" agreement. You have a contract or you don't and it doesn't really matter if you have an agreement or contract at all.
Like I said earlier I've had a good deal of experience with the Moreton/Redcliffe council. You always need a permit and what you pay is entirely up to the Council when they assess the commercial value of your shoot. This is consistent with what William and I have said from the start.
I don't know what people are trying to argue here? You need a permit, everyone agrees with that, even Kiwi. So phone the Council and ask and they will tell you if a fee is applicable. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

[Longshots]

Longshots wrote
Weddings & photo sessions on parks and foreshores
A site booking is available for functions of short duration (up to 2 hours) such as wedding ceremonies and photo sessions

Longshots you also are misleading and as you say read the booklet as a little further you will see

Weddings and Photo Sessions on parks and foreshores
Council does not charge a fee for these bookings. However depending on the scale and type of event, a refundable bond and park hire fee charges may apply. Approved applicants will be sent an assessment letter and invoices detailing the amounts to be levied (if any). Approvals will be provided via email where possible.

So if it was just a few photos on the beach or in the park and there were no signs prohibiting photography I'd go for it, anything more and it would pay to contact the relevant authority's
My 2 cents worth,
Keith.

Keith

While it may entertain you to say I'm misleading, and in doing so attack me, please try doing some reading of what I actually said. I've said the same thing over and over again - Yes in answer to the OP question, you need a permit in the Moreton case, and in all cases ring the relevant authority.

Other than noting your opinion, you have indeed AGAIN, missed the facts. What I've tried to do, and continue doing so, despite many who seem to ignore passing on facts to answer the question, and despite receiving this type of response.

So where is the misleading ?

[Longshots]

The other point to remember is that a wedding shoot is performed under some form of domestic agreement. It's not commercial work, it's domestic..... Now somebody please correct me' if I'm wrong!

The Other Point to remember ?

Correct you if you're wrong ?

What do you think I've been trying to do ?

This has already been claimed, and I've tried to explain that is incorrect.
You are wrong. Again what experience do you have in this matter to guide someone on the point of wether a wedding is commercial or domestic ?

AGAIN if you'd bothered to READ this topic, I've already pointed out that incorrect comment from KIWI !!

The difference between Domestic and Commercial is something that you are confusing (UTTERLY !) between the issue of Copyright.

And if you'd also noticed, that the booklet in this case, CLEARLY states wedding.

[jasevk]

The Other Point to remember ?

Correct you if you're wrong ?

What do you think I've been trying to do ?

This has already been claimed, and I've tried to explain that is incorrect.
You are wrong. Again what experience do you have in this matter to guide someone on the point of wether a wedding is commercial or domestic ?

AGAIN if you'd bothered to READ this topic, I've already pointed out that incorrect comment from KIWI !!

The difference between Domestic and Commercial is something that you are confusing (UTTERLY !) between the issue of Copyright.

And if you'd also noticed, that the booklet in this case, CLEARLY states wedding.

Well firstly William, that's why I asked someone to correct me if I was wrong, You could have pointed out my errors much more tactfully and without coming across as rude and arrogant....

[kiwi]

Just on this issue of what is commercial photography seems to be a moving feast of interpretation. Just this morning reading various articles by guys like nick rains their definition is at odds with various authorities. Once again it seems to be on the basis of individual interpretation as to whether commercial photography definition according to say an individua council is based on whether you are simply paid, or whether it's done for commercial use. Confusing to me anyhow and suspect to a lot of similar novices.

[Longshots]

If I came across as rude and arrogant it may be down to the sheer frustration at trying to answer the OP's question, and to be constantly attacked for doing so.


Jasevk, that same question - which FWIW is actually unrelated, had been stated, not asked, already. I had attempted to correct the point then - and remember that its not a very large topic, so the point couldnt really be missed IMHO


And Kiwi, seriously mate, this is getting ridiculous, but this isnt about commercial usage, this is an answer to the OP's question. And again referring back to the information gained from the phone calls and the booklet, and my experience - facts are that you need a permit - end of story. Commercial usage of any understanding or argument simply does not come into it as far as Moreton Bay Council is concerned. I'm seriously trying to pass on that info, but if everyone is going to argue what they would like life to be, I cant really help.

The commercial usage/argument is a different apple in the situation of paying for a permit. Again you need to understand what AFA is all about, its not asking for a permit, but against paying for that privilege to the access.

And just for the record, and I do wish I could add a poll miday through a topic (happy for someone to do this if they can).

How many of you have ever applied for a permit for photography ?
How many of you have ever bothered to find out if you need one, prior to this topic?
How many of you charge people for their photography (even just for the print costs), where you are taking them out and about, in areas that are, like this case, public, and understand about the issue of public liablity ?

[kiwi]

No
yes
Yes (that part alone in the application forms would knock most potential applications out I'd imagine)
:o

[kiwi]

On, I wasn't taking about afa's position but an article written by nick rains some time ago where he was differentiating a commercial photographer (taking photos for commercial use, eg advertising) as opposed to a professional photographer (taking photos as paid by a client or for profit via private sale) versus amatuer/tourist. Anyway, enough on that I suspect. A topic for another day.

[Longshots]

its probably an excellent topic, and quite a complex one, but doesnt answer the OP's question.

Why not start another topic ? The only trouble is that even when its related to permits, the issue is treated differently with every council or managing authority I can think of, so its unlikely to be a satisfying discussion - ie without a conclusion.

[jasevk]

If I came across as rude and arrogant it may be down to the sheer frustration at trying to answer the OP's question, and to be constantly attacked for doing so.


Jasevk, that same question - which FWIW is actually unrelated, had been stated, not asked, already. I had attempted to correct the point then - and remember that its not a very large topic, so the point couldnt really be missed IMHO



How many of you charge people for their photography (even just for the print costs), where you are taking them out and about, in areas that are, like this case, public, and understand about the issue of public liablity ?

Good points to think about... Thanks :)

[Harves]

Lets just keep it on topic guys without getting personal! Thanks

[jasevk]

Yeah sorry about that... Apologies to William :)

[Longshots]

We're all cool :)

[ricstew]

hmm and I thought a public school was private property....... ya know owned by the education department......thats why they have big fences and you have to go to the office and get a sticker in school hours.......after hours ya get aressted for trespass.......at least ya do round here!:D

[ricktas]

thread closed due to wording of posts. Keep it civil or I will start issuing bans