For those who can see the forest through the lens, a contest
- Thread starter Teegate
- Start date
I wouldn't mind allowing them reproduction rights, but I'd want to be the one with ownership of the photo.
I think this is designed to knock most "serious" photographers out of the running and allow the 13 year old kid with the 110 camera a shot at winning.
I think this is designed to knock most "serious" photographers out of the running and allow the 13 year old kid with the 110 camera a shot at winning.
I don't care if they keep mine. What the heck. Life is short and so am I.
What about our own Mr. Boyd. His shots of Harrisville are great.
What about our own Mr. Boyd. His shots of Harrisville are great.
Thanks BobM, will have to think about this one.
That also raises an interesting question I've wondered about. Are there any regulations about photographing things in State Parks? I looked on their website awhile ago and couldn't find any, although there was some sort of disclaimer that the rules on the website were not complete.
The national parks have recently made some policies about this I know. I assume that if I'm just taking photos for my own amusement then that's OK. But what if I put them on the web? Or publish them in a book? Or sell them for profit? Do I need permission? Do I need insurance?
What if I want to shoot a video, which is something I am thinking about. Again, if I just watch it at home that's probaby OK. What if I sell it to PBS though? Or what if I bring some actors and we make a movie and put it on the web? Everyone is so paranoid about liability these days. If I ever get serious about this of course I will call and try to get some real answers, but I've always subscribed to the theory that when you're dealing with government agency never ask a question unless you already know the answer...
And since you mention Harrisville, I think it's technically "off limits." Maybe not such a good idea to brag about your photos? Then again, maybe I just worry too much. ;-)
That also raises an interesting question I've wondered about. Are there any regulations about photographing things in State Parks? I looked on their website awhile ago and couldn't find any, although there was some sort of disclaimer that the rules on the website were not complete.
The national parks have recently made some policies about this I know. I assume that if I'm just taking photos for my own amusement then that's OK. But what if I put them on the web? Or publish them in a book? Or sell them for profit? Do I need permission? Do I need insurance?
What if I want to shoot a video, which is something I am thinking about. Again, if I just watch it at home that's probaby OK. What if I sell it to PBS though? Or what if I bring some actors and we make a movie and put it on the web? Everyone is so paranoid about liability these days. If I ever get serious about this of course I will call and try to get some real answers, but I've always subscribed to the theory that when you're dealing with government agency never ask a question unless you already know the answer...
And since you mention Harrisville, I think it's technically "off limits." Maybe not such a good idea to brag about your photos? Then again, maybe I just worry too much. ;-)
And Mr. Boyd,
In this game of life they say its easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission.
Especially when it comes to matters of guvmint policy.
In this game of life they say its easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission.
Especially when it comes to matters of guvmint policy.
There are no regulations regarding photographs of anything on state land in NJ.
Just about the only thing that might get you in trouble (because we're at war) is photographing bridges (and I mean the big ones, not something like Quaker Bridge), railroad depots (and again you most likely wouldn't get in too much trouble at Winslow Jct.), military equipment, etc.
I would think that any national laws regarding ownership or publishing rights of objects in National Parks would easily be defeatable in court. They can get away with it in museums, but that's because flash photography is pretty brutal to things, and with all of the idiots coming in with their point-n-shoots there would be excessive wear on artifacts. You can't argue that the same thing would happen if you take a picture of Mount Rushmore or something.
Just about the only thing that might get you in trouble (because we're at war) is photographing bridges (and I mean the big ones, not something like Quaker Bridge), railroad depots (and again you most likely wouldn't get in too much trouble at Winslow Jct.), military equipment, etc.
I would think that any national laws regarding ownership or publishing rights of objects in National Parks would easily be defeatable in court. They can get away with it in museums, but that's because flash photography is pretty brutal to things, and with all of the idiots coming in with their point-n-shoots there would be excessive wear on artifacts. You can't argue that the same thing would happen if you take a picture of Mount Rushmore or something.
I dug around a little, and if anyone particularly cares Public Law 106-206 passed by congress in 2000 sets forth some rules regarding commercial photography in National parks: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/permits/pl-106-206.pdf
In a nutshell it says you need a permit and a fee will be based on the number of people and amount of equipment involved in filming. Still photos are generally allowed, but some exceptions exist.
Evidently the individual parks have their own paperwork and rules, for example the Yosemite application says
In a nutshell it says you need a permit and a fee will be based on the number of people and amount of equipment involved in filming. Still photos are generally allowed, but some exceptions exist.
Evidently the individual parks have their own paperwork and rules, for example the Yosemite application says