Legal Question, shooting in a state park?

[Destin]

Alright guys I think I know the answer but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind I'm in NY state.

I shoot alot of mountain bike races. This year the event organizer is choosing photographers using an open bidding system: whoever offers him more money to shoot gets exculsive photo sales rights for the event. I told him that I won't pay him to shoot the races, simply because it's not practical for me. I was already only making $200-300 per race for about 5 hours of shooting and 3 hours of driving for each race. So all you need from this paragraph is that I told him that I won't pay to shoot, and therefore I don't have the right to sell the photos from his races. Now they are all on private property so he does have the right to tell me I can't take/sell photos right?

Alright to make this even more fun: One of the races is in a state park, aka public property. So does that mean that he can't legally stop me from taking and selling photos from that race? Or because he payed to use the land, can he stop me? Keep in mind, the trails are NOT closed to the general public during the race.

Thanks for your expertise guys!

 

[Josh66]

Call the park and ask.

Some of the parks around here have photography policies... Usually, personal shots of family are fine. Professional shoots (i.e. - you're getting paid, setting up lights, using a tripod, etc...) require either an hourly or daily fee.
It's usually not much. They then give you a little pass that you can wear around your neck, or hang from your gear so the park employees don't hassle you.


I would just call and ask what their policy is towards photography...

 

[Formatted]

Now they are all on private property so he does have the right to tell me I can't take/sell photos right?

Yes he does have a right, private property is trespassing

Alright to make this even more fun: One of the races is in a state park, aka public property. So does that mean that he can't legally stop me from taking and selling photos from that race? Or because he payed to use the land, can he stop me? Keep in mind, the trails are NOT closed to the general public during the race.

Don't know if your serious about it, ask a lawyer. This is a photography forum everything we say is here-say.

 

[Big Mike]

Could be a tricky situation with plenty of variables.

There is a term called 'fair use'...which is what allows photo-journalists to photograph just about anything and make money by selling the shots. But the caveat is that this applies to editorial uses of the images, not commercial. So, in a simplified situation...I would think that it would be OK to take photos (legally...no trespassing) and then sell them for editorial purposes. Does that include selling the the riders or sponsors? I have no idea.

Best idea would be to ask a lawyer who is familiar with this type of thing...in the jurisdiction where it will take place.

 

[KmH]

Could be a tricky situation with plenty of variables.

There is a term called 'fair use'...which is what allows photo-journalists to photograph just about anything and make money by selling the shots. But the caveat is that this applies to editorial uses of the images, not commercial. So, in a simplified situation...I would think that it would be OK to take photos (legally...no trespassing) and then sell them for editorial purposes. Does that include selling the the riders or sponsors? I have no idea.

Best idea would be to ask a lawyer who is familiar with this type of thing...in the jurisdiction where it will take place.

Actually, fair-use applies to someone, other than the copyright owner, using a copyrighted work, in whole or in part.

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

You own the copyrights to any photos you make.

As Mike pointed out, the differences between what is considered editorial or commercial usen applies, as does public and/or private property.

Selling your photos to individuals is not a commercial use, it is an editorial use. It only becomes a commercial use if the people in the photos can be perceived as endorsing or sponsoring a business, including your own.

The event organiser cannot keep you from shooting in a state park. But, the State can.

More and more city, county, and state parks require working photographers provide a COI (Certificate Of Insurance) making the park an additional insured, and pay for a permit.

If you are going to be making photographs with people in them to sell or license, you really need to be familiar with the federal (copyright) and state (model/right of publicity/property) legal implications of doing so.

U.S. Copyright Office - Frequently Asked Questions

A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things and includes a section on property release.

 

[JG_Coleman]

Alright to make this even more fun: One of the races is in a state park, aka public property. So does that mean that he can't legally stop me from taking and selling photos from that race? Or because he payed to use the land, can he stop me? Keep in mind, the trails are NOT closed to the general public during the race.

I see many variables potentially affecting the legality of taking/selling photos in this situation. Since I'm far from a lawyer, I can't really say much as concerns taking photographs of people at an event or what uses are legal, etc., etc. But I do want to take this opportunity to comment on the topic of the legality of taking photos at a state-owned park for commercial use.

A good deal of my shooting is conducted on state parks, state forests, and state wildlife management areas in Connecticut and, to a much lesser degree, in Vermont and New York and other states on the Eastern Seaboard. I have never heard of a policy in any of the locations I've visited which suggested that any special permit or license was required, or that the state had to be notified in any way, before I could take photographs there. Mind you, I have cumulatively spent hundreds of hours reading DEP webpages for all of the northeastern states and reading innumerable accounts of hiking experiences at locations therein. I suppose things could potentially be done drastically different in some states, but for what it's worth, it is unheard of in Connecticut for a photographer to walk into a state park (tripod or otherwise) and feel that he or she can't take and/or subsequently sell the photos they shoot there with virtually no limitations.

There IS a statute in place (which I've found to exist similarly elsewhere in most states and national parks) which gives rise to the state releasing "Special Use Permits" and "Commerical Licenses", but a review of the actual statute language makes it quite clear that these permits are only necessary under very specific conditions:

• if you require access to areas of the park not ordinarily open to the public
• if you plan to bring along an entire camera crew (for video)
• if you plan to use extensive quantities of extra equipment like elaborate lighting setups and boom mics
• if you plan to employ the use of elaborate or extensive props
• if your presence there presents a clear and present danger to the flora and fauna

However, I would not doubt that carelessly abbreviated versions of this statute (which are found on many pages as a footnote) probably fool many poor souls every year into thinking that the average joe actually needs a permit (costing between $300 and $1000) just to hike into state-owned woods with his D-SLR and a tripod.

So, suffice to say, you could have a $20,000 D-SLR on a bad-ass, hulking tripod... you're entirely within your legal rights to hike and take photographs at a CT state park without any special license or permit. Whether or not you "look" professional is irrelevant... whether or not you'll subsequently sell the photos is also irrelevant. The same holds true for NY state parks to the best of my knowledge... and every other state-owned park across the northeast that I've visited.

And, quite frankly, contacting the state and asking them is really of little use. It should be understood that very few state employees spend time familiarizing themselves with the details and ins-and-outs of every one of the thousands of statutes. Here's what will happen: state employee X will just guess and tell you what they think, acting as if their employment by the state means that their interpretation is correct. A committee will not be formed to delve into the law texts and give you a well-thought-out answer... nobody will check with a "State Photography Officer"... all that will happen is that some guy, who happens to be employed by the state, will just tell you what he/she thinks. You might just as well go ask some somebody working down at the gas station or walking down the sidewalk... they are both just about as likely as a random state employee to know the actual text of the statutes that govern photography on state-owned land. What they say to you really holds no legal importance, at all. The actual text of the statute is the law... not what some state employee tells you off the top of their head.

If you really want to know -100%- that you can take photographs in the state park in New York... get the actual text of the state statutes that covers photography in state parks. That's the only way you'll know for sure what your rights are. 99 times out of 100, I'd put my money on it that it's entirely legal.

All that being said, I'm referring to landscape photography. The whole situation may very well change when you involve people at an event coordinated with the state (and for which the event host would've had to acquire a special use permit from the state, as well as buying state insurance for the event). That may very well grant the event host special rights. Again, read the state statutes and get the word of the law as it is actually written down.

 

[Big Mike]

I believe we have a similar policy for our National parks up here. They list a bunch of things that supposedly require a permit...professional photography being one of them. But I haven't seen a definitive description as to what 'professional' means in reference to the policy.

 

[reedshots]

I’m confused, do you pay admission to enter the event (race) when on privet property? Once you have paid the fee you then shoot the race and sell photos to who? Do you sell the photo’s to the public or the racers them self or both? I don’t understand how they can stop you from taking photos of the race (as long as you are within the right’s of a paying spectator) or do you go out on the track and set up where the average paying spectator cannot go? As for the State park again I don’t understand how the race officials can stop you from shooting. (again within your rights as a paying customer) as for the State rules I would think as long as you are not marketing the park or the State I don’t see how that would be an issue ether.

 

[Destin]

Ok, so anybody know where I can dig up a copy of the New York state photography statutes that involve state parks? Google turned up nothing.

 

[Josh66]

Laws of New York

Scroll down to PAR - Parks ... I didn't see anything about photography in there though.

You can search from that bar on the top - I typed 'photography' in there, and only a few results came back. Nothing that had anything to do with state parks though.

Edit
Oops ... overlooked it.
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&[email protected]+&LIST=SEA5+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=09517874+&TARGET=VIEW
Paragraph 6.

Link isn't working for some reason... Just type photography in the search box...

 

[JG_Coleman]

Ok, so anybody know where I can dig up a copy of the New York state photography statutes that involve state parks? Google turned up nothing.

Here you go....

This more clearly identifies the situations in which one would need a "Special Use Permit".

http://nysparks.state.ny.us/inside-...lmPhotoSoundRecordingApplicationAndPermit.pdf

(Published by State of New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation)

To quote:

This permit may be required for filming, photography and sound recording at all parks, recreational facilities and historic sites under the jurisdiction of State Parks.

Generally, permits are not required for the following:

Visitors using cameras and/or recording devices for their own personal use,

Film or video news crews and technicians at news events,

Filming, photography or recording undertaken by State Parks or its agents or contractors, or

Outdoor photography that does not involve a prop, model or set, does not interfere with normal patron activities, takes place during times when the facility is normally open to visitors in an area which is normally open to visitors, does not result in the alteration of facilities or environmental resources and does not require the exclusive use of any defined area.

I also want to point out "own personal use", at least in my opinion, can legitimately be interpreted to mean just that... your own personal use, whether it is to look at them, sell them, etc.

You can read the whole thing, though. This document pretty much lays it out.