City parks -- property?

[John Mitchell]

City parks -- are they considered "property" for purposes of optional box-ticking in AIM?

 

e.g. This image was taken in a Vancouver city park,  no people or buildings -- but is it "property"? Could it be used commercially?

 

 

 

[Sultanpepa]

I wouldn't think so. In reality it could have been taken anywhere in the world as there's no distinguishing features. 

 

[John Mitchell]

2 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

I wouldn't think so. In reality it could have been taken anywhere in the world as there's no distinguishing features. 

 

 

However, I've named the park and location in the caption.

[fotoDogue]

Here in New York City, city parks are public property so no property release is necessary. Of course this could be different in Vancouver.

[John Mitchell]

2 minutes ago, fotoDogue said:

Here in New York City, city parks are public property so no property release is necessary. Of course this could be different in Vancouver.

 

They call city parks "public property" here as well.

[fotoDogue]

14 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

They call city parks "public property" here as well.

 

As long as you're on public property then you should be able to photograph without permission. However, while your photo doesn't show property, in theory there could be objects on  public property that require a release.

 

I recently photographed a "public art" installation in my local park. I marked the photos RM Editorial, containing property without a property release.

[Cecile Marion]

22 minutes ago, fotoDogue said:

Here in New York City, city parks are public property so no property release is necessary. Of course this could be different in Vancouver.

I’ve always found this confusing. I have family in NYC and visit a good bit. Are you saying I don’t need to list photos taken in city parks - Central Park, Carl Schurz for example - as needing property releases?

[fotoDogue]

5 minutes ago, Cecile Marion said:

I’ve always found this confusing. I have family in NYC and visit a good bit. Are you saying I don’t need to list photos taken in city parks - Central Park, Carl Schurz for example - as needing property releases?

 

 

Central Park and Carl Schurz are public parks - essentially supported by City taxes, so no property release is necessary. Certain areas in some parks, like the Central Park Zoo, or the Bronx Zoo in Bronx Park, are run by the Wildlife Conservation Society and do have restrictions against photography. Also, not all parks in New York City are public city parks so the rules can vary. For example, Gramercy Park is private. 

[John Mitchell]

17 minutes ago, fotoDogue said:

 

As long as you're on public property then you should be able to photograph without permission. However, while your photo doesn't show property, in theory there could be objects on  public property that require a release.

 

I recently photographed a "public art" installation in my local park. I marked the photos RM Editorial, containing property without a property release.

 

Just trees, fallen leaves, and a paved pathway in my image.  Guess I could just take the park name and location out of the keywords and caption if I want to be 100% sure and say "No" to property, but you never know when someone might be looking for an image of a particular park.

[fotoDogue]

2 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Just trees, fallen leaves, and a paved pathway in my image.  Guess I could just take the park name and location out of the keywords and caption if I want to say "No" to property, but you never know when someone might be looking for an image of a particular park.

 

I wouldn't leave out the name of a public park or it's location. This could very well be what a client is searching for. 

[John Mitchell]

4 minutes ago, fotoDogue said:

 

I wouldn't leave out the name of a public park or it's location. This could very well be what a client is searching for. 

 

My thinking as well. Currently have it designated as RM with no property. Guess I'll just leave it that way. Thanks for your feedback.

[Joseph Clemson]

Some public parks in the UK require photographers to ask for permission before any kind of commercial photography or filming may be conducted there. Heaton Park, Manchester and Stanley Park, Blackpool are two I know which have imposed this kind of requirement. The photographer who wishes to keep his/her nose clean may want to first check on relevant websites for what conditions are attached before venturing into such places. 

[Matt Ashmore]

18 hours ago, Joseph Clemson said:

Some public parks in the UK require photographers to ask for permission before any kind of commercial photography or filming may be conducted there. Heaton Park, Manchester and Stanley Park, Blackpool are two I know which have imposed this kind of requirement. The photographer who wishes to keep his/her nose clean may want to first check on relevant websites for what conditions are attached before venturing into such places. 

 

Half the parks in London too like Kensington Gardens and also The Long Walk in Windsor (although this doesn't seem to stop a lot of people) are subject to the same kind of restrictions.

 

[digi2ap]

I'm confused really by the requirements for permits for all photography in London's Royal Parks. I can understand why film crews or certain commercial photographic shoots would be required to apply for a permit but editorial, really?

[Keith Douglas]

1 hour ago, digi2ap said:

I'm confused really by the requirements for permits for all photography in London's Royal Parks. I can understand why film crews or certain commercial photographic shoots would be required to apply for a permit but editorial, really?

 

There can be laws or bylaws that restrict the taking of photographs in some places. What the reasoning is behind those laws or bylaws is not too relevant. What is relevant is the potential penalties for breaking them!

 

Are those people required to apply for a permit that allows them to be there with 'professional' equipment? Or does the permit allow them to use the images or film that they take commercially? It's probably both, but if you don't have a permit and you take a photo with your smartphone or camera then that won't remove the need to have a permit to sell the image commercially.

 

If someone is taking a photograph to sell for editorial stock is that commercial? It depends on the definition of commercial, which probably depends on the context and who you ask!

 

 

[Inchiquin]

6 hours ago, Matt Ashmore said:

 

Half the parks in London too like Kensington Gardens and also The Long Walk in Windsor (although this doesn't seem to stop a lot of people) are subject to the same kind of restrictions.

 

 

The Royal Parks are owned by the Crown and are only 'public' in the sense that the public is allowed to use them by grace and favour of the monarch. Beyond that, the public have no rights over the land and so the parks can stipulate what rules and regulations they want to apply.

 

Alan

 

[imageplotter]

I can understand the Royal Parks wanting to cash in on commercial shoots, and to a certain degree on other use. Like other places, they probably face budget cuts and may need to look into all revenue streams available.

 

But news? £100 for the privilege to cover the parks for news pics? 

 

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/media-centre/royal-parks-news-permit

 

....Seems to take the biscuit a bit, given that they, like most other London tourist attractions and landmarks, partly depend on press exposure to publicise events etc. Alas, I'll fill in the darn form for peace of mind and cough up. But I'm starting to believe that I might make more money sitting in Kensington Gardens with a sign "impoverished photog, spare some change?" than I will ever make from Royal Parks news images. Unless I manage to catch Lillibeth scooping up after the corgies in her hoodie and joggers one morning in St James'... 

 

If they really wanted to make some cash, perhaps they should ask for a £1000 per week press permit for Abington Street Gardens instead. 

[losdemas]

4 hours ago, imageplotter said:

I can understand the Royal Parks wanting to cash in on commercial shoots, and to a certain degree on other use. Like other places, they probably face budget cuts and may need to look into all revenue streams available.

 

But news? £100 for the privilege to cover the parks for news pics? 

 

https://www.royalparks.org.uk/media-centre/royal-parks-news-permit

 

....Seems to take the biscuit a bit, given that they, like most other London tourist attractions and landmarks, partly depend on press exposure to publicise events etc. Alas, I'll fill in the darn form for peace of mind and cough up. But I'm starting to believe that I might make more money sitting in Kensington Gardens with a sign "impoverished photog, spare some change?" than I will ever make from Royal Parks news images. Unless I manage to catch Lillibeth scooping up after the corgies in her hoodie and joggers one morning in St James'... 

 

If they really wanted to make some cash, perhaps they should ask for a £1000 per week press permit for Abington Street Gardens instead. 

 

Totally out of order.

 

I was going to send all my cash offshore to the Cayman Islands , but I don't want to get the fiver wet.

[imageplotter]

2 hours ago, losdemas said:

 

Totally out of order.

 

I was going to send all my cash offshore to the Cayman Islands , but I don't want to get the fiver wet.

 

Given the cold and miserable weather in Londinium, I shall volunteer to take your fiver to the Cayman Islands. Just don't expect me to return with your interest, I'll need it to fund my Cayman Islands underwater press permit. And the cocktails.