Skip to Content

Commercial photography in the Parks

Discuss and share your wildlife photography, filming and equipment
User avatar
christo
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 454
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Bloemfontein, RSA

Re: For me ...... the tops !

Unread post by christo » Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:21 am

Peter Betts wrote:would I be able to get a decent leopard as I need one for the book I'm doing.


Peter you may be aware, but if you are not there are procedures to be followed to use photography of the parks in a venture like a book. Mantlako Sebaka 012-4265033 should be able to give you the info you need.

Looking forward to your book.
To change ones life start immideately. Do it flamboyantly. No exceptions.

User avatar
DuQues
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Honorary Virtual Ranger
Posts: 14519
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: Red sand, why do I keep thinking of red sand?

Unread post by DuQues » Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:10 pm

We are going off topic (Biyamiti camp) here, so I'll split this off to the photography section.

Peter and all,
The site wrote:The National Parks of South Africa offer outstanding filming and photographic opportunities. The diversity of fauna and flora and variety of spectacular sceneries will be hard to match anywhere else on the planet. In terms of the National Parks Act, any footage secured inside a South African National Park for private personal fulfillment is perfectly permissible. However if the footage is used for a commercial purpose, then SANParks is entitled to remuneration from the incumbent using the material for enrichment. As a result, to film in a National Park for any commercial intention, there are applicable location fees that must be paid to SANParks. Non-commercial photographers will naturally be unaffected by such fees, and can happily photograph all the wonders of nature they encounter in the parks provided they act within the laws of that particular park.

And more about it.

So I guess you will have to talk to SANParks before publishing a book with photography.
Nigel Dennis wrote:Q5) Do you still enjoy Kruger, and how would you compare it to the other parks that you have visited?

Sadly I no longer work in any of the SANP Reserves. Since SANP have introduced a daily fee for professional photography (on top of the cost of camping/accommodation etc) it is no longer viable for me to work in these reserves. It would be OK to pay the fees for a quick magazine assignment, but to produce a large coffee table book takes a year or more in the Park. The royalties from such a book would not cover my costs.

The Nigel Dennis Q & A thread.
Not posting much here anymore, but the photo's you can follow here There is plenty there.

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c

gwendolen
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 2163
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:57 pm

Unread post by gwendolen » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:56 pm

The rule applies to professionals, people who sell their photographs or make a profit from them.

However if the footage is used for a commercial purpose, then SANParks is entitled to remuneration from the incumbent using the material for enrichment.


Nigel Dennis might not work in Kruger anymore, but there are plenty of other professionals who do. I met one of them in Satara last year. He makes the postcards you can buy at all the shops.

Penny
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 695
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: Durban, Kwa Zulu Natal, SA

Unread post by Penny » Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:59 pm

Peter the mind boggles at the connotations that might now arise. Just say I won the Veldfocus competition with a shot or video taken in Kruger and received a vehicle (expensive 4 x 4) as my prize - would that mean that Sanparks were entitled to a portion of that "remuneration". As you say a clever lawyer might make mincemeat of such rulings. Aside from that one would have thought that any publication that punted KNP or any other Sanparks Reserve could argueably then become the catalyst in many people making bookings in these Parks. Would that then entitle you to a percentage of the revenue from those bookings? Interesting!!!!!!!!!!

Yours in Parking
Penny
NO BAIL - JAIL AND NO TRADE IN RHINO HORN EVER!
[color=#FF0000]NO TO BUILDING OF HOTELS IN THE KRUGER NATIONAL PARK[/color
24 Sept 2015 Hlane, 25-2 Burchells, 2-4 Elephant Plains, 4-7 Satara, 7-9 Pretoriouskop, 9-15 Ngwenya, 16 Hluhluwe
The addiction is fed once again

User avatar
christo
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 454
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Bloemfontein, RSA

Unread post by christo » Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:03 pm

Does this mean all tour operators paid for the Kruger pics on their websites? If not, why as they are making a profit as a result of it. If they do pay, it means you should pay Sanparks to be able to promote Sanparks!
To change ones life start immideately. Do it flamboyantly. No exceptions.

User avatar
Peter Betts
Posts: 857
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:38 pm
Location: Port Elizabeth

Unread post by Peter Betts » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:50 am

I have just been browsing through the Main body of the San Parks site and found a section on Photography and Filming. I refer forumites to the section SPECIAL PRIVALEGES. Here it clearly states that all these location fees etc are paid for things like getting special permission to be out at night and requiring the services of a guide (consuming resources in my book and I completely agree with that)

However it says nothing about a little Joe Soap Tourist like me taking shots at picnic spots , birds in trees in restcamps, Sunrises over Kanniedood Dam, Being out after dark but on a fully paid for night drive, visiting a remote Rangers section to drop off a puppy and the ranger asks you to accompany him to a windmill to be fixed/checked and you bump into say Mafunyane and you stop to admire him and while doing this you take two pics which 20 years later you decide to use one in a book on Kruger then in my very limited legalise thats got Absolutely nothing to do with anyone and if the Park Shops (owned by an outside company) choose to sell Joe Soaps book thats a matter between the author and the shop company. Finally I dont think my life long friend Bruce Bryden was ever asked (which is absolutely correct in my view) for any royalties etc etc when he did his book.

Yes Nigel Dennis stayed out most nights while I was in Nossob at the same time and had a tracker with him etc etc and he would have got permission through the relevant channels (He was consuming resource and THIS IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER AND DOES NOT APPLY TO THE LIKES OF JOE SOAP)
2009
Punda Maria Sept 27,28
Bateleur Sept 29,30 (free award)
Tamboti Oct 1,2,3,4
Biyamiti Oct 5,6,7,8

FGASA Local Area Guide

Nikon D700 FX, Nikkor 24-70 G f2.8, Nikkor 70-200VR f2.8, Nikkor 200-400 VR f4, Nikon 1.4 & 1.7 Convertors

User avatar
madach
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:55 pm

Unread post by madach » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:47 am

Peter Betts wrote:I have just been browsing through the Main body of the San Parks site and found a section on Photography and Filming. I refer forumites to the section SPECIAL PRIVALEGES. Here it clearly states that all these location fees etc are paid for things like getting special permission to be out at night and requiring the services of a guide (consuming resources in my book and I completely agree with that)

Three years ago I applied for a Photography and Filming permit for the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. I was issued a permit that gave me after hours access to the park BUT I had to be accompanied by either a researcher or a guide after gate hours. I had to arrange a guide myself at the various camps. I agree with you that its totally logical that a permit like this costs money as you use SANP staff resources.'

User avatar
francoisd
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:38 pm

Unread post by francoisd » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:34 am

Penny wrote:Just say I won the Veldfocus competition with a shot or video taken in Kruger and received a vehicle (expensive 4 x 4) as my prize - would that mean that Sanparks were entitled to a portion of that "remuneration".

Can hardly clasify a photo sent to 50/50 as commercial use.

But I have to agree that as Peter said it is hard to police something like this. A published book sold in the shops might be "easier" to police but with the internet there are many sites where photographers can "park" there images and the public can then buy copies of the image. IMHO this will be impossible to police

User avatar
j-ms
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:55 pm
Location: Schoenmakerskop (near Port Elizabeth)

Unread post by j-ms » Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:13 pm

I am interested to know on what legal premise the right to share in commercial photographers income is based. I would expect that the statutes upon which SANParks is incorporated provides them with the right to charge fees to enable to supplement income to ensure they can meet their goal of protecting biodiversity but it takes a reasonably large creative legal leap to grant a right another institutions (ie professional photographers) income without providing something in return (I assuming that no EXTRA services such as nighttime access, guides etc are being provided) where other people/institutions (ie tour groups, individuals, SANParks employees etc) are able to enjoy the same benefits without penalty. If our local authority (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality) decided that professesional photographers will be charged a fee if they want to take pictures on the beaches or in the city parks and gardens (think wedding photographers here) they would have a massive legal battle on their hands.

User avatar
NightOwl
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:52 pm
Location: Port Elizabeth

Unread post by NightOwl » Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:20 am

A good lawyers fiirst words in court wil be... "PROVE IT"
Proving that a photo of say a red hartebeest was taken at a specific location with out being able to identify the individual animal and then show that that specific individual is the property of SANParks.

Legally I see it very difficult for anybody to win such a case based on only the photo and no other evidence, unless there is some unique identifier in the photo.
Bushes and trees don't count as unique :D sice animals consume them on a daily basis and they keep changing shape, hence not uniquely identifiable. Type of plant might go some distance if it is endangered and can only be found in a SANParks location and nowhere else in the world, but that's also going to be very difficult to prove.

But thats only my thoughts as an non lawyer (IT Manager)

User avatar
madach
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:55 pm

Unread post by madach » Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:38 am

j-ms wrote:AFAIK, the fee includes NO extra privilages, hence my feeling that it is unjustified.

That is not always true. Three years ago I applied for a Photography and Filming permit for the KTP. I was issued a permit that gave me after hours access to the park BUT I had to be accompanied by either a researcher or a guide after gate hours. I had to arrange a guide myself at the various camps. The cost of 'hiring' a researcher/guide were included in the permit.
Using this permit I was able to accompany Marna Herbst (African Wild Cat researcher) on one of her all-night observations of one of the cats (Juliet).

M.

User avatar
Yvonne B.
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:47 pm
Location: wildlifereserve in the Netherlands

Unread post by Yvonne B. » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:06 am

gwendolen wrote:Don't you pay the fee to get extra priveledges like staying in the park before and after the gates close, driving on non tourist roads etc? I thought that was what the fee was for? Is that correct? :?


As far as our experiences go Gwen, if Sanparks thinks that you are using your photo's/videofootage taken in the Kruger, in a commercial way, than they feel free to ask you to exactly tell them how long you have been filming/taking pics, and charge you for that. Even if you had no extra's at all, and payed for intrance, accomodation etc. just like anyone else. Even if you had no intention to sell or commercialize your footage on the moment you took it.

I feel that as very wrong, and I personelly don't know any wildlife reservation that handles the same rule, in the sitution described as above. I live in a wildlife reservation myself, and if I imagine that a thing like this would be asked from photographers coming here to take pics :shock: That would give a lot of turbulence.

This whole thing puzzles me a lot. If you get extra's, sure than you have to pay for it. But in the example, as mentioned in a reaction above (by coincident you take THE photo of your life, and sell it two years after taken it), it is unacceptable that you will be charged afterwards.

As a former lawyer, I wonder how they would like to make a case (apart from the statement: prove it). SA law and Dutch law are based on the same source, and here in Holland a wild animal is a "res nullius", a thing (SORRY for the word) that belongs to no one in particular, unless they are in a SMALL, fenced area. Trees however belong to the owner of the land, but they are very difficult to know as an individual.

User avatar
bucky
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:41 pm
Location: Gauties .

Unread post by bucky » Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:55 am

Charge if it costs them extra - ie like madach pointed out , for an after hours permit with guide .

IMHO people taking and using photos in the kruger or any other SANpark is FREE advertising for them , they would be very foolish to clamp down on it , as the money they get for issuing photo permits will be a fraction of that which they gain due to all the advertising .

Isnt it part of there mission to educate people on the parks ? The more photos and material out there , the better .

User avatar
Yvonne B.
Virtual Ranger
Virtual Ranger
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:47 pm
Location: wildlifereserve in the Netherlands

Unread post by Yvonne B. » Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:43 pm

I think a lot of sense can be read in all the posts.
@ Bucky, you are right, free advertising in a way a lot of the forumites do (making other people enthousisast to go, OR bore them to death :lol: ) will contribute a whole lot more to Sanparks AND South Africa in general (flying SAA, renting cars, staying overnight, visiting other places) than try to make a few bucks from tourists, that in most cases don't get their expences out of their trip, even if they would sell 20 pics.

@PeterPiper, ofcourse there is so much more costs involved before you have that picture that you might be able to sell. If you add all the costs for your equipement, and for those who have to come from far, I can't figger out how much pics you have to sell, but it will be a lot more than a few.

@ BushBaptist, I can agree with you if you think in terms of making a book or some other big project, but not by selling one or two pictures. Than one has to use that money to be able to come back to the Park anyway. But if somebody would send me on a commercial assigment (like a magazine), I would most defenitely make sure that there is a fee payed to Sanparks, that is a totally different story. Than you go with the INTENTION of making pics for a commercial goal. And if I would make a book myself, I would be sure that a part of the money would be spend to SanParks, but than I would donate it to a special project (like binoculairs for ALL the fieldguides) and not in the general income. But I would do that because I felt that is a good thing to do. Not because I HAVE to, specially when you make a book afterwards, because during the years you gathered enough great pics to do so. Than you did not have the intention to be commercial when you made the pics.

User avatar
niknak
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:43 am

Unread post by niknak » Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:39 pm

Is a wildlife artist who uses a camera to make a record to be used in the painting of various pictures liable? These artists are specifically taking photos to use in the creation of their artworks. In many cases these pictures will be sold and in some cases provide the income of the artist. Are these artists to pay a fee?


Return to “Wildlife Photography Enthusiasts”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Webcam Highlights

Addo
Submitted by Kleintjie at 16:24:01
orpen
Submitted by ANN ANSELL at 08:30:20
satara
Submitted by Kleintjie at 08:51:11
nossob
Submitted by Tazrules229 at 19:19:50