Opinion: Nevada encroaching on rights of professional photographers
By Carolyn E. Wright
As an attorney in the Lake Tahoe area who represents photographers and who also is a photographer, I am concerned about the rights of photographers.
Carolyn E. Wright
The Nevada Division of State Parks will have a public hearing at the Richard Bryan Building, 901 S. Stewart St., Carson City, 2nd floor Tahoe hearing room, on March 31 from 3-5pm for amended regulations relating to park entrance fees for photographers with commercial photography permits. The good news is there will be no fee increase associated with the amendments. The bad news is that, while reviewing the proposed changes, I learned that Nevada defines commercial photography as:
[P]hotography engaged in for financial gain, including, without limitation, the sale of a photographic image as a product or for use in advertising, motion pictures, television productions or portfolios and the archiving of an image by a person who uses photographic skills, equipment or resources to provide a photographic product for sale.
It’s disappointing that Nevada defines commercial photography by the purpose of the photography rather than by the activities that may affect the park and visitors, as is done with the National Park Service. Go online for more information.
But it gets worse. Currently, the website for the Nevada Administrative Code (“NAC”) 407.050 states:
4. For each day or partial day that a person engages in commercial photography in a park, the Division will charge and collect the following fee according to the total number of vehicles or the total number of persons, whichever results in a higher fee:
Number of Vehicles or Persons Fee Per Day
2 to 5 vehicles or 6 to 25 persons……………………………………………………………….. $200
6 to 10 vehicles or 26 to 50 persons……………………………………………………………… 350
11 to 15 vehicles or 51 to 75 persons……………….………………………………………….. 500
16 to 20 vehicles or 76 to 100 persons………………………………………………………….. 800
21 to 50 vehicles or 101 to 400 persons…………………………….………………………. 2,100
More than 50 vehicles or more than 400 persons………………………………………. 3,500
. . .
6. The Division will not charge a fee pursuant to this section for:
(a) Commercial photography engaged in by one to five persons in a single vehicle . . . .
So when I took this photo at Sand Harbor State Park in 2009, I didn’t need a permit because I was shooting alone.
2013 Revisions
But the NAC website is not up to date. Last year, the NAC made changes to the code that have not been posted online but are available directly from the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. And the changes aren’t good:
1. The definition of commercial photography now includes portraits.
2. The fees have been divided into classes. Class A is now: 1 to 3 vehicles or 2 to 15 persons and the fee is $50 a day.
3. New provisions have been added that state:
7. A person may request an annual class A commercial photography permit . . . [for] a fee of $500. . . . A person to whom is issued an annual class A commercial photography permit shall:
(a) Pay the entrance fee required pursuant to NAC 407.055 each time he or she enters a park to engage in commercial photography;
(b) Maintain adequate insurance coverage for the entire period he or she holds such a permit and provide proof to the Division of such coverage; and
(c) Contact in advance the office of the park that he or she intends to use to confirm the availability of the areas where the person intends to engage in commercial photography.
Proposed Revision for 2014
So, the only substantive proposed change for 2014 relating to photographers is that the Code will be clarified so that:
The Division will waive the entrance fee for the park (referenced in paragraph 7 (a) above) upon payment of the fee for an Annual Class A photography permit.
Which is, at least, a little good news.
Therefore, a photographer is supposed to pay $50/day or $500/year to take photos in Nevada State Parks, which includes Cave Rock State Park, the Spooner backcountry area, and Sand Harbor State Park in Lake Tahoe. But the photographer’s activity and impact on the park and other visitors likely is no different than that of a hobbyist photographer. Taking family vacation photos usually doesn’t affect the park or its visitors any more than taking portraits for seniors or engaged couples. Taking landscape or wildlife photos for later sale doesn’t affect the park or its visitors than it does for sharing the photos on Facebook. Given the literal interpretation of the statute, I was not violating the law when I took my friends’ engagement photos (example shown above) last October because it was my gift to them. But if I had charged them for the shoot, as I have for other clients, then I should have paid the State Park fee.
State legislators, please understand that photographers usually don’t use the park any differently than anyone else. So we shouldn’t have to pay more than anyone else. Instead, please modify the code so that it is similar to the National Parks guidelines.
Persons wishing to comment upon this proposed action of State Parks may appear at the scheduled public hearing or may provide their comments, data, views or concerns in written form to Division of State Parks, 901 S. Stewart St., Suite 5005, Carson City, NV 89701-5248. Written submissions must be received on or before March 31.
Carolyn E. Wright is a licensed attorney dedicated to the legal needs for photographers. She provides free legal information online.
Unbelievable and Absurd !
More “double taxation” for property we as taxpayers already own. I’de like to see them try to collect fees from me in one of their parks ……..
When photographers take pictures, many shots are discarded because they are inferior, light is poor, or for any number of reasons, not suitable for use. It’s possible that an entire photo session can become worthless due to bad light. Many sunsets are not of any value when the clouds don’t materialize. A photographer cannot know if a photograph session will be useful until the quality of the photographs are examined hours later.
For the reasons stated above, no photographer can know for certain, that they are engaged in a photo session that will result in commercially used photographs. At least, not until they print the photos, and review their quality, at a later time.
Given what we know about commercial quality photography, there is no way that a photographer can know they are going to use photographs commercially, or which photos will be used, or how many, when entering a state park. A potential customer may refuse to purchase any photographs. The photographer cannot predict the quality of photos yet to be taken. Therefore, any fee payed towards that effect is inappropriate.
Any photographer entering a state park with intent to take photographs cannot know the photographs will be used commercially at all. This would be the reason for not paying any commercial photograph fee when entering any state park.
Photographers shooting in Nevada state parks are doing the state a favor by encouraging tourism. Nevada’s attempts to prevent professional photographers from shooting on their public lands will only discourage tourism and force photographers to go elsewhere. These rules are disappointing, to say the least.
To me when photographers photograph certain areas, they bring more awareness to that location. That in turn often brings more tourists, more revenue, etc. Its a shame that laws such as this are even in place. We have been sharing beauty of locations around the world through the lense of a camera. . . this is not right to me.
Denying photographers from later selling a photo is truly a good way to eliminate future tourism by those same individuals. Many photographers come to Nevada, Lake Tahoe and other areas from around the world solely to photograph the beauty. This certainly will stop that.
And how could the park service distinguish between a commercial photographer and an individual amateur??? Certainly NOT by the type of equipment used… what is this, a communist state where the government owns the rights of everyone????
$500/yr to shoot in Nevada? This is fine, as long as they pay me $50,000 to promote these locations.
This is truly disappointing! I have been a professional wedding and portrait photographer in this area for over a decade and not only do I photograph clients in state parks, I also shoot just for myself for the joy of it. Photographers have been treated like criminals for too long by local and state government seeking to capitalize and profit from hard working tax paying entrepreneurs. I pay my annual business licensing fees to the state and city and county in which I operate my business, this entitles me to do business in these areas. If I were a painter who painted images of a certain state park from memory and sold that painting would I need to pay the state a commission on my creativity? This is so insane, these parks are paid for my state residents like myself, and my clients, I do not understand why we must be made to feel like criminals for utilizing the natural beauty of our public lands in photographs. I can tell you one thing, if I have to charge my clients and extra $50 on top of my session and travel fees to photograph their sessions at Sand Harbor or any of the other locals in question, I am certain they will opt to shoot elsewhere.
This is truly shocking. It feels like the Nevada Division of State Parks is trying to copyright something created by God for our viewing pleasure. Since when do people sell rights to commercially photograph parks? This is a frightening precedent. I hope the other states don’t get wind of this.
This is outrageous!
Plenty of other states to visit!!!