NSW PARKS
AND WILDLIFE
And how a few concerned
photographers got together and proved that conversation is more effective
than confrontation
The NSW Parks and Wildlife are about to issue a new code and scale of fees for photographers and film-makers using NSW parks.
Much of their nine page document was sensible and was geared to protecting the flora and fauna in the parks. However, along with it came some daft requirements including ten free images for them to use from every shoot.
Sally Mayman, Collection 1
Peter Adams wrote the attached letter:
Joanne Coverdale
Senior Policy Officer
Environmental Policy Division
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Serivice
PO Box 1967
Hurstville 2220
Copy to the Federal Board, Chris Shain, Rob Imhof Richard Woldendorp, Ken Duncan, Richard Bennett.
Tuesday, April 27, 1999
Dear Joanne,
Your 33 page document, which arrived on my desk last Thursday, has taken
some time to mull over. As you are presenting it to the Minister in two
days time there has only been time to get verbal input from a few board
members of the ACMP and certainly insufficient time to expose it to our
membership.
So the thoughts contained in this letter are mine with some telephone
input from the ACMP Federal Chairman (David Roche in Sydney), the Patron
of the ACMP (Rob Imhof in Melbourne) and discussions with the Federal
President of the AIPP (Greg Hocking in Perth).
Re: the 'environmental' issues:
The control and protection of wildlife and flora, as outlined, seem to
make sense. There is obviously a need for careful supervision of props
(ie fireworks, domestic animals), the erection of structures and signage
and so forth. I think most of our members would see the commonsense in
the suggestions you have outlined.
Re: Fees and park charges:
This area needs a little more careful consideration. I have attached a
circular sent out by your counterpart in Victoria in which they have halved
the fees charged for filming in Melbourne's park and recreation areas.
They quote: 'Parks and Recreation recognises the important role the film and television industry plays in marketing Melbourne, to both local and international audiences. It also acknowledges the important contribution the industry makes to the economy and the need to ensure that any local government fees and charges do not unfairly prejudice or disadvantage the industry. In addition, Parks and Recreation will give special consideration to waive or reduce fees associated with documentaries, independent or student film producers."
While this document
is aimed at the producers of motion pictures, the intent is very sound.
The 'shooting' fees you are suggesting for filming in NSW Parks are not
unreasonable, but when you add to the fees the nonreturnable application
fees, the returnable security deposit, the hourly supervision fee and
the short notice levies, the fee structures become silly.
Unless the photographer buys an annual photography licence (costing $3000)
and assuming the worst scenario, permission to photograph for eight hours
in a National Pork (where only 24 hours notice is possible) would end
up costing the photographer $1030 (of which only $200 is refundable).
I believe exorbitant fees will have two effects:
1. They will encourage dishonesty - what's to stop photographers
saying they are tourists and taking the shots anyway? Being practical
for the moment, how are YOU going to 'police' the use of shots of your
parks?
2. They will create an environment in which editorial. personal
or book photography (which I suggest you guys badly need to support!)
will become financially impossible. (NB: Editorial photography usually
only earns the photographer $300 per page. What magazine will be prepared
to add 500-600 dollars to their story costs? Basically none of them).
Re: Personal photography:
This is another area not considered in your document. Many photographers
(for example: Ken Duncan from NSW, Richard Woldendorp in Perth, Richard
Bennett in Tasmania, Mark Long from Northern Territory, to name but a
few) take years, at great financial cost to themselves, to produce books
that promote this amazing country They may wait for hours or even days
for the light to be for shot. The fees you have suggested will cripple
any chance for them to continue to create books.
Re: The Paperwork:
The application and agreement forms you have created are a monster!!!
Any form which has four pages to fill out and an an additional three pages
of 'Conditions' will drive everyone crazy! Have you actually asked your
Parks Officers if they have the time to go through all the waffle? Being
realistic for the moment I suspect the forms will cause your understaffed
and overworked officers to take the easy way out and decline many applications
due to lack of time. This will serve no-one's interests.
Re: Use of photographers images:
Page three of your Terms and Conditions contains the following statement:
"The Licensee (The photographer) permits the NPWS to use, free of charge, images for promotional purposes at NPWS visitor centres and brochures. Up to ten (10) images taken under this agreement may be used by the NPWS within its own publications free of charge."
Our members must
decide for themselves how they handle this 'little charmer', but I suspect
the Federal Board of the ACMP would recommend that our members do not
agree to this condition under any circumstances. This is not on! Why?
1. The ACMP fought hard and long for the Australian Copyright Law
to be changed so that photographers are paid fairly for the use of their
images. Agreeing to this clause forces the assignment of the copyright
(or usage of the image) to the NPWS for an undetermined period. I'm not
a lawyer, but you may even be creating an unfair work practice! But even
if you are not, the condition is riot in the spirit of your Government's
new Copyright Law.
2. As professional photographers we derive our income from the
sale of our images. Why should we sell ourselves short? Why should we
'give' our images to anyone for nothing? To do so is like surrendering
our superannuation schemes.
3. Having gained permission and paid a fee to be able to work within
one of the parks under the care of the NPWS, it seems only fair to assume
that the photographer then owns the image as determined by the new Australian
Copyright Law.
I hope these thoughts hove been useful. In the short period of time you
have left me to respond to your 33 page document they have to be brief.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Adams
Federal President, ACMP
A couple of days later I received a phone call from Ken Duncan who asked "How can I help?", He arranged for the interested parties to discuss the issues at a meeting at his gallery in The Rocks. Those present were three folk from Parks and Wildlife, David Roche, Denis Montalbetti. myself and Ken Duncan.
The meeting was a great success.
We were able to work together, instead of butting heads. NSWP & W agreed to all the fees being revised. David suggested a yearly licence (similar to a fishing licence) - something they are currently looking into. Denis talked to them about the need to know how our images are used and for how long. Ken offered to work with them on setting up their own merchandising empire, And I hovered about in the background looking beautiful!!
Our thanks go to Ken Duncan for taking the ball and running with it.
This website copyright 2005 ACMP - PO Box 779 North Sydney NSW 2060 Australia
Ph. +61 2 9025 3975 Fx. +61 2 9025 3990 Email: secretary@acmp.com.au
All individual photographs copyright the photographer concerned