Outdoor Photography Canada

It seems to me those regulations are set in Place so "Hollywood type Productions " don't go into the Parks , Trash the shooting areas, completely disrupt the experience the General Public hope to enjoy, and leave without paying a Dime . It also gives Parks Canada the control to ensure Hollywood doesn't ruin the very good Image Parks Canada has around the world.

I have seen situations in Nova Scotia where Some Hollywood Production had the only Road access to Our Home Closed off for an hour at a time. Those People have no Qualms about screwing up anybody's Day as long as their's goes as expected.

it appears like the average photographer has nothing to worry about.

Admittedly the wording leaves a lot to be desired however it has to appear like the rules are being applied across the board to every person with a Camera. Otherwise Hollywood would scream Fowl and tie up Parks in a Court challenge for the next ten years.

Mike

Read this from the Parks Canada site. The way it is worded, all those people on those tour buses need permits too! What a load of crap. Prices go up, the services go down. And we, as the general users, must pay those fees?

Gary

Here's an excerpt from the email I received. Not sure it'll do you much good since there's no way to verify it came from Parks Canada if you simply print out this discussion thread.

"Permission is needed only if you are conducting photography for a commercial client and your images are presold."

I'm reluctant to post the name and contact information of the specific person who responded to me because I think it would be unfair to single that person out. I'd suggest going onto the website of one of the western parks in question and use the Contact form to ask the question. Hopefully you'll get the same answer I did.

Second that, would be nice to have something in writing! And even better if it was interpreted the same way by all members of Parks Canada.

While I haven't yet been majorly hassled or fined anywhere in Canada, I have been approached and had discussions on I was about, then left alone to continue on my merry way. Which is good :)

Bob

Would you be kind enough to forward me a copy of your email response or post it here.

I'm a freelance photographer. Last fall, I began researching for a trip to Alberta; including Banff, Lake Louise, Kananaskis, perhaps Yoho, The Icefields Parkway, Jasper and The Badlands. When looking into Banff/Yoho and finding the regulations about photography, I used the Contact link on the Parks Canada website to send a question about the regulations. I received a response from an official at Parks Canada telling me that a permit was only required if the photos or film footage was sold in advance. If my intention was to try and sell my photos after the fact, no permit was required. When I go on my trek this fall, I don't plan to apply for a permit. I will take a couple copies of the email with me in case I am questioned.

It really was that simple. Two minutes to send an email and I received a response the next day.

The article itself comes across as being reactionary and somewhat defensive. If the same attitude that comes across in the article was felt by or conveyed to the people with whom the writer attempted to contact I can see why calls and emails were not returned.

The regulation is poorly worded, no question. I can certainly see reasons for permits and insurance for crews of people who may be carrying significant amounts of gear through the parks. It enables park personnel to keep track of who's doing what in the parks and ensure that no undue damage is being done. For individual photographers or film makers, whether the product is sold in advance or not, there's significantly less justification for a permit. Yes, individuals can still do damage but if caught, there are laws on the books to deal with that and punishment for breaking those laws can include making restitution. Larger productions would need insurance anyway for their own liability.

The Chicken Little mindset in the article conveys and that others in this discussion are displaying is a little over the top.

They really don't want us to promote our country do they. They should be paying us for the promotion photographers do for them.

If someone asks me for a copy of my permit I plan to hand them a copy of my tax return and say, "here -- I helped pay for it now pardon me while I enjoy it."

Go ahead and arrest me over this you cheeky bastards. I dare you.

I agree with the sentiment expressed so far by the previous postings. I suspect that even if you were to take a few photos and sell them to a stock agency or others, you probably would not make enough money to cover the expenses of getting and maintaining the required permits.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

On one side I have no issue with obtaining releases and paying usage fees for privately owned locations.

However on public lands which I consider to be anything and everything run by the various governments; such as provincial or national parks, I am completely against any special permit requirements for photography and the associated fees.

Sort of like owning your house but then having to pay a usage fee every time you want to use the washroom. (and requiring the detailed use request be submitted 10 days prior!)

I agree it is an unwarranted and complete money grab. It will result in access being restricted to the few haves that can afford the exorbitant fees and lock out the masses that cannot.

Another nail in the coffin for Canada's small business freelancers and an end to amateurs hopeful of making a sale or two to offset the high costs of their already expensive hobby.

After reading the article I feel that it is a straight money grab by the government. When will it stop? I can see charging a fee for movie production or a mass photo shoot with entourage etc., but for the average photographer to freelance to charge a fee at all let alone the kind of money they're talking about is rediculous.