opinions sought - photo download website idea...

[Ext User(Joel)]

Can I solicite some opinions?

What if we had a resource where we could upload photos (BIG ones
(multi-megabyte) or SMALL ones), as a reserve of photos that we could use to
showcase some of our work, or just allow others to use?

I'm an ASP programmer and I have the code on my laptop where I can throw a
nice web app together in a few days.

You'd register and each time someone downloaded one of your photos, you'd
get sent an email.

You'd be able to upload (or delete/withdraw) photos, put them into
categories, put descriptions that would be searchable, and then share them
with the world.

I was thinking of a free service, but someone pointed out to me it would be
very easy to charge a fee to download images over a certain filesize/rez.
The photographer could put his email address and paypal info in his
registration info along with the price ($0 to $xxxx... whatever you want to
charge, I s'pose), and then when someone downloads it, you'll get their
paypal info and the website would handle the shelling out to the paypal
system (I recall seeing code on some websites somewhere).

Any thoughts?

-Joel

[Ext User(Jasen)]

I use www.photographersdirect.com and although I haven't made a sale yet
because I don't have a huge number of pics there and have only been trying
this for a few months, they do basically what you suggested. If you want to
have your own website portfolio set up for you though, they do change a fee
but it isn't exorbitant. I think there are other sites that do this also
but a little differently. try www.Pbase.com Some photographers here have
been able to attach a button to add a photo to a shopping cart to buy via
Paypal. I believe there is an article about it in one of their
newsletter/magazine downloads.

"Joel" <joel@mega-traveller.com> wrote in message
news:xoRjf.8851$ea6.446@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Can I solicite some opinions?
>
> What if we had a resource where we could upload photos (BIG ones
> (multi-megabyte) or SMALL ones), as a reserve of photos that we could use
> to
> showcase some of our work, or just allow others to use?
>
> I'm an ASP programmer and I have the code on my laptop where I can throw a
> nice web app together in a few days.
>
> You'd register and each time someone downloaded one of your photos, you'd
> get sent an email.
>
> You'd be able to upload (or delete/withdraw) photos, put them into
> categories, put descriptions that would be searchable, and then share them
> with the world.
>
> I was thinking of a free service, but someone pointed out to me it would
> be
> very easy to charge a fee to download images over a certain filesize/rez.
> The photographer could put his email address and paypal info in his
> registration info along with the price ($0 to $xxxx... whatever you want
> to
> charge, I s'pose), and then when someone downloads it, you'll get their
> paypal info and the website would handle the shelling out to the paypal
> system (I recall seeing code on some websites somewhere).
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> -Joel
>
>

[Ext User(Joel)]

oh...

<pause>

never mind...

hehe thanks for the tip

-joel

"Jasen" <jasen1970@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:43904b10$0$8603$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> I use www.photographersdirect.com and although I haven't made a sale yet
> because I don't have a huge number of pics there and have only been trying
> this for a few months, they do basically what you suggested. If you want
to
> have your own website portfolio set up for you though, they do change a
fee
> but it isn't exorbitant. I think there are other sites that do this also
> but a little differently. try www.Pbase.com Some photographers here
have
> been able to attach a button to add a photo to a shopping cart to buy via
> Paypal. I believe there is an article about it in one of their
> newsletter/magazine downloads.
>
> "Joel" <joel@mega-traveller.com> wrote in message
> news:xoRjf.8851$ea6.446@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Can I solicite some opinions?
> >
> > What if we had a resource where we could upload photos (BIG ones
> > (multi-megabyte) or SMALL ones), as a reserve of photos that we could
use
> > to
> > showcase some of our work, or just allow others to use?
> >
> > I'm an ASP programmer and I have the code on my laptop where I can throw
a
> > nice web app together in a few days.
> >
> > You'd register and each time someone downloaded one of your photos,
you'd
> > get sent an email.
> >
> > You'd be able to upload (or delete/withdraw) photos, put them into
> > categories, put descriptions that would be searchable, and then share
them
> > with the world.
> >
> > I was thinking of a free service, but someone pointed out to me it would
> > be
> > very easy to charge a fee to download images over a certain
filesize/rez.
> > The photographer could put his email address and paypal info in his
> > registration info along with the price ($0 to $xxxx... whatever you want
> > to
> > charge, I s'pose), and then when someone downloads it, you'll get their
> > paypal info and the website would handle the shelling out to the paypal
> > system (I recall seeing code on some websites somewhere).
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > -Joel
> >
> >
>
>

[Ext User(BigPix)]

Be aware that more and more Professional Photographers are getting pissed
off that amateur and tourist photographers who seek to make some spare cash
out of taking pictures in EPA "managed areas" of Australia are doing so
illegally. At least one Pro Photographer I know has embarked on a legal
campaign to sue poster printers *buying* cheap shots from places like
"photographers direct" and making posters out of the pictures which compete
directly with their legally obtained ones, yet have been taken illegally.

http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/parks_and_forests/management/commercial_activities/

Be aware that if you do not have a filming permit and you take a picture in
a National Park or other EPA managed area, you are breaking the law if you
sell it. Nothing at all wrong with taking pictures for your own enjoyment,
to enter in competitions or give friends... Just don't try to sell them.
It's illegal.

Microsoft are determined to sue anyone who uses their software illegally.
Quite a few Photographers who make their living taking poster photos are
heading the same way when amateur photographers think they can sell a few
cheap shots illegally. It costs big bucks to set up with gear for landscape
photography at a Professional level. It's only fair they protect their
investment.

Who needs CAMS license to photograph motor sport anyway? Anyone who sells
the photos.
Who needs an EPA filming permit? Anyone who sells the photos.
Who needs the permission of the people they photograph? Anyone who sells the
photos.

--

"Joel" <joel@mega-traveller.com> wrote in message
news:xoRjf.8851$ea6.446@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Can I solicite some opinions?
>
> What if we had a resource where we could upload photos (BIG ones
> (multi-megabyte) or SMALL ones), as a reserve of photos that we could use
> to
> showcase some of our work, or just allow others to use?
>
> I'm an ASP programmer and I have the code on my laptop where I can throw a
> nice web app together in a few days.
>
> You'd register and each time someone downloaded one of your photos, you'd
> get sent an email.
>
> You'd be able to upload (or delete/withdraw) photos, put them into
> categories, put descriptions that would be searchable, and then share them
> with the world.
>
> I was thinking of a free service, but someone pointed out to me it would
> be
> very easy to charge a fee to download images over a certain filesize/rez.
> The photographer could put his email address and paypal info in his
> registration info along with the price ($0 to $xxxx... whatever you want
> to
> charge, I s'pose), and then when someone downloads it, you'll get their
> paypal info and the website would handle the shelling out to the paypal
> system (I recall seeing code on some websites somewhere).
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> -Joel
>
>

[Ext User(Alice)]

BigPix wrote:
At least one Pro Photographer I know has embarked on a legal
> campaign to sue poster printers *buying* cheap shots from places like
> "photographers direct" and making posters out of the pictures which compete
> directly with their legally obtained ones, yet have been taken illegally.

LOL!! Sounds like sour grapes to me. If Joe Amateur is more dedicated
and goes the extra yard to get a shot a Pro couldn't be bothered tekking
3 hours to get, he should be just as entitled to sell the result.

Yes, you can cite legislation till you're blue in the face, that doesn't
automatically make it right.

[Ext User(Jasen)]

"BigPix" <only_reply@the.group> wrote in message
news:CX2kf.9232$ea6.9186@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Be aware that more and more Professional Photographers are getting pissed
> off that amateur and tourist photographers who seek to make some spare
> cash out of taking pictures in EPA "managed areas" of Australia are doing
> so illegally. At least one Pro Photographer I know has embarked on a legal
> campaign to sue poster printers *buying* cheap shots from places like
> "photographers direct" and making posters out of the pictures which
> compete directly with their legally obtained ones, yet have been taken
> illegally.
>
> http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/parks_and_forests/management/commercial_activities/
>
> Be aware that if you do not have a filming permit and you take a picture
> in a National Park or other EPA managed area, you are breaking the law if
> you sell it. Nothing at all wrong with taking pictures for your own
> enjoyment, to enter in competitions or give friends... Just don't try to
> sell them. It's illegal.
>
> Microsoft are determined to sue anyone who uses their software illegally.
> Quite a few Photographers who make their living taking poster photos are
> heading the same way when amateur photographers think they can sell a few
> cheap shots illegally. It costs big bucks to set up with gear for
> landscape photography at a Professional level. It's only fair they protect
> their investment.
>
> Who needs CAMS license to photograph motor sport anyway? Anyone who sells
> the photos.
> Who needs an EPA filming permit? Anyone who sells the photos.
> Who needs the permission of the people they photograph? Anyone who sells
> the photos.
>

Amateurs are hardly a threat to seasoned professionals. You seem to have a
few hangups over it.
Most amateurs really only would want to make a little money to pay for their
hobby anyway and to share it with others for very little profit. Hardly a
significant commercial activity, if it is that at all. So what if a few
tourists are able to help pay for their trip by making a meagre amount?

[Ext User(Jasen)]

The permit system in this country is geared for protection of the resource
from degradation from commercial activities and, as a bonus to the
Government, financial gain. Why shouldn't an amateur take a photo for their
own viewing and then decide to sell it later if he/she wishes to. Many
photographers, professional and non-professional alike would prefer the
system implemented in the US. as it is fairer:
__________________________________________________ _________________________
National Park Service -
Neither a permit nor a fee is required for still photography, unless the
photography

a.. Uses models or props that are not a part of the site's natural or
cultural resources or administrative facilities; or,
b.. Takes place at locations closed to the public; or,
c.. Takes place during hours that the park is closed to the public; or,
d.. Is likely to result in additional administrative costs.
It may not be obvious when photography "is likely to result in additional
administrative costs." The NPS give the example of a location so popular
with photographers that an extra ranger must be assigned to maintain order.

Photography is not allowed if the photography or related activity is such
that

a.. There is a likelihood of resource damage; or,
b.. There would be an unreasonable disruption of the public's use and
enjoyment of the site; or
c.. The activity poses health or safety risks to the public.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________

Just because it is illegal to sell a photo made without a permit here,
doesn't make it right. National Parks are public property, paid for by
taxes from the people, so, if there is no extra impact to the park then no
photographer should pay extra for it's use beyond normal entry permits for
camping and the like.

"BigPix" <only_reply@the.group> wrote in message
news:CX2kf.9232$ea6.9186@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Be aware that more and more Professional Photographers are getting pissed
> off that amateur and tourist photographers who seek to make some spare
> cash out of taking pictures in EPA "managed areas" of Australia are doing
> so illegally. At least one Pro Photographer I know has embarked on a legal
> campaign to sue poster printers *buying* cheap shots from places like
> "photographers direct" and making posters out of the pictures which
> compete directly with their legally obtained ones, yet have been taken
> illegally.
>
> http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/parks_and_forests/management/commercial_activities/
>
> Be aware that if you do not have a filming permit and you take a picture
> in a National Park or other EPA managed area, you are breaking the law if
> you sell it. Nothing at all wrong with taking pictures for your own
> enjoyment, to enter in competitions or give friends... Just don't try to
> sell them. It's illegal.
>
> Microsoft are determined to sue anyone who uses their software illegally.
> Quite a few Photographers who make their living taking poster photos are
> heading the same way when amateur photographers think they can sell a few
> cheap shots illegally. It costs big bucks to set up with gear for
> landscape photography at a Professional level. It's only fair they protect
> their investment.
>
> Who needs CAMS license to photograph motor sport anyway? Anyone who sells
> the photos.
> Who needs an EPA filming permit? Anyone who sells the photos.
> Who needs the permission of the people they photograph? Anyone who sells
> the photos.
>
> --
>
> "Joel" <joel@mega-traveller.com> wrote in message
> news:xoRjf.8851$ea6.446@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Can I solicite some opinions?
>>
>> What if we had a resource where we could upload photos (BIG ones
>> (multi-megabyte) or SMALL ones), as a reserve of photos that we could use
>> to
>> showcase some of our work, or just allow others to use?
>>
>> I'm an ASP programmer and I have the code on my laptop where I can throw
>> a
>> nice web app together in a few days.
>>
>> You'd register and each time someone downloaded one of your photos, you'd
>> get sent an email.
>>
>> You'd be able to upload (or delete/withdraw) photos, put them into
>> categories, put descriptions that would be searchable, and then share
>> them
>> with the world.
>>
>> I was thinking of a free service, but someone pointed out to me it would
>> be
>> very easy to charge a fee to download images over a certain filesize/rez.
>> The photographer could put his email address and paypal info in his
>> registration info along with the price ($0 to $xxxx... whatever you want
>> to
>> charge, I s'pose), and then when someone downloads it, you'll get their
>> paypal info and the website would handle the shelling out to the paypal
>> system (I recall seeing code on some websites somewhere).
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> -Joel
>>
>>
>
>

[Ext User(BigPix)]

"Jasen" <jasen1970@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4392f0a4$0$23292$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

>>
>> Who needs CAMS license to photograph motor sport anyway? Anyone who sells
>> the photos.
>> Who needs an EPA filming permit? Anyone who sells the photos.
>> Who needs the permission of the people they photograph? Anyone who sells
>> the photos.
>>
>
> Amateurs are hardly a threat to seasoned professionals. You seem to have a
> few hangups over it.
> Most amateurs really only would want to make a little money to pay for
> their hobby anyway and to share it with others for very little profit.
> Hardly a significant commercial activity, if it is that at all. So what
> if a few tourists are able to help pay for their trip by making a meagre
> amount?
>
Just last month some joker advertised on this very group for amateurs with
$10k worth of gear looking to make a few bucks and get some experience. No
CAMS permit required, no questions asked, no rate of pay offered. Just pay
your spectators entrance at the gate and go ahead and shoot all the pictures
you can, we'll buy 'em!

What about the blokes with a whole business set up and legally licensed with
all the permits and insurance who need a $100 hit on every photo they sell
just to offset their costs? Bugger 'em, perhaps?

It is precisely your (and Alice's) attitude that has turned Australia into
a (nearly) banana republic. Whatever gives you or her the idea that the only
time anything is illegal is when you get caught doing it? The fact is,
tourists and amateurs are welcome to take all the photographs they like in
National Parks they just can't sell them unless they have a permit to have
taken them for sale in the first place.

Your attitude seems to suggest it's fine for just anyone to wander around
taking pictures and when they get lost (as one recently did on Moreton
Island and cost tens of thousands of dollars in search costs to find him)
doing untold harm to the environment in the process just so they can cripple
an Industry by selling their happy snaps illegally "for very little profit".

This is precisely my point. A Professional will have outlaid over $50,000
just to do this. Each and every picture they sell will have a amortisation
component in it's price to offset this outlay. How fair is it that Poster
print firms are now using the fact jokers who are looking for a "meagre
amount" for similar pictures are using this argue the squeeze the price down
for Professionals?

Last year I sold 90 pictures to Poster Publishers and I broke even on the
cost of the gear. This year, I met several tourists or amateurs on my
travels and discovered when I went to sell my pictures, that some how or
another one of them who seemed hell bent on dogging me everywhere I went in
one location, sold his "over my shoulder" pictures to one of my publishers
for 20% of my price. Who do I sue? The student on holidays who took similar
pictures to me and illegally sold them or the publisher who couldn't control
his greed? Maybe I should just take issue and track the kid down then get
the EPA to charge him?

Maybe you think I should just ignore it and go on the dole so I can do the
same as him? Wake up Jasen. Far too many people in Australia think anything
is fair game, legal or not. Well is isn't and people like you need to have
someone steal your income and great ideas before you realize just how much
damage such attitudes are doing to a once great country, rapidly in decline.
It's the fault of people like you mate. Get a grip on things and join the
program. It's called a fair go mate. Otherwise the thought we are still part
of the convict era with no morals or principals will prevail.

Sometimes I gain comfort in the knowledge I probably won't be alive to see
the damage your generation are doing to the country my father and brother
died fighting for in the false belief they were doing some good protecting
your right to act illegally and foster the notion there is nothing wrong
with doing this as long as you feel right about it and think nothing of
others who do the same.

[Ext User(Alice)]

BigPix wrote:

>
> Just last month some joker advertised on this very group for amateurs with
> $10k worth of gear looking to make a few bucks and get some experience. No
> CAMS permit required, no questions asked, no rate of pay offered. Just pay
> your spectators entrance at the gate and go ahead and shoot all the pictures
> you can, we'll buy 'em!
>

Funny, I can't imagine ANY commercial concern buying "all the pictures
you can". A slight exaggeration, perhaps?


> What about the blokes with a whole business set up and legally licensed with
> all the permits and insurance who need a $100 hit on every photo they sell
> just to offset their costs? Bugger 'em, perhaps?

Perhaps they can use the better vantage points and their access to areas
unavailable to amateurs to assure they actually do a better job, get
better pics and thereby assure their products sell on merit, just like
anyone else in the real world..
>
> It is precisely your (and Alice's) attitude that has turned Australia into
> a (nearly) banana republic.

LOL!! Oh yes, the multi-billion dollar black market in sport and
landscape photography dominates our economy, doesn't it?

Whatever gives you or her the idea that the only
> time anything is illegal is when you get caught doing it?

I for one never said that at all. I simply stated my opinion that THIS
PARTICULAR piece of legislation wasn less than morally right.

The fact is,
> tourists and amateurs are welcome to take all the photographs they like in
> National Parks they just can't sell them unless they have a permit to have
> taken them for sale in the first place.

Oh, I thought you said they were already doing just that.
>
> Your attitude seems to suggest it's fine for just anyone to wander around
> taking pictures

No, I wasn't 'suggesting ' that at all. I was openly advocating it.

and when they get lost (as one recently did on Moreton
> Island and cost tens of thousands of dollars in search costs to find him)
> doing untold harm to the environment in the process

Gawd, your talent for hyperbolic extrapolation is a wonder to behold!
Naturally no professional photographer has ever had to be rescued, right?

just so they can cripple
> an Industry by selling their happy snaps illegally "for very little profit".

Curses, you've managed to uncover the evil conspiracy....
>
> This is precisely my point. A Professional will have outlaid over $50,000
> just to do this. Each and every picture they sell will have a amortisation
> component in it's price to offset this outlay. How fair is it that Poster
> print firms are now using the fact jokers who are looking for a "meagre
> amount" for similar pictures are using this argue the squeeze the price down
> for Professionals?

Have you actually ever heard any amatueur trying to argue a poster print
company should pay less? Or is this just another dubious justification
for your rather weak case?
>
> Last year I sold 90 pictures to Poster Publishers and I broke even on the
> cost of the gear. This year, I met several tourists or amateurs on my
> travels and discovered when I went to sell my pictures, that some how or
> another one of them who seemed hell bent on dogging me everywhere I went in
> one location, sold his "over my shoulder" pictures to one of my publishers
> for 20% of my price.

How do you know it was him, and not someone else?


Who do I sue? The student on holidays who took similar
> pictures to me and illegally sold them or the publisher who couldn't control
> his greed? Maybe I should just take issue and track the kid down then get
> the EPA to charge him?
>
> Maybe you think I should just ignore it

That'd be a start. Or perhaps outperform him, take better photographs?
You seem to be proud of your professional status, surely it also
behooves you to do a better job than some lowly amateur?

and go on the dole so I can do the
> same as him? Wake up Jasen. Far too many people in Australia think anything
> is fair game, legal or not. Well is isn't and people like you need to have
> someone steal your income and great ideas before you realize just how much
> damage such attitudes are doing to a once great country, rapidly in decline.
> It's the fault of people like you mate. Get a grip on things and join the
> program. It's called a fair go mate.

LOL!! So someone takes a great pic, the shot of a lifetime perhaps, and
you think denying him the right to sell it constitues a "fair go"?

Otherwise the thought we are still part
> of the convict era with no morals or principals will prevail.
>
> Sometimes I gain comfort in the knowledge I probably won't be alive to see
> the damage your generation are doing to the country my father and brother
> died fighting for in the false belief they were doing some good protecting
> your right to act illegally and foster the notion there is nothing wrong
> with doing this as long as you feel right about it and think nothing of
> others who do the same.

So you think your brother and father died fighting for the right of a
few exclusionary elitists to abrogate the rights of the majority to make
a few dollars out of their hobby? And you think that's a good thing?

[Ext User(Jasen)]

Some of mankinds greatest achievements were as a direct result of ignoring
the law.....but besides this point, you seem to have a great chip on your
shoulder that can't be removed regardless of opinion.
As for idiots roaming the country-side and getting lost, don't dare put me
in the boat mate, I am responsible for myself and my safety, attain local
evironmental knowledge of conditions and use maps any time I go into any
wilderness area, with great concern for flora and fauna alike. And as for
thinking that I am and the masses who are apparently like me are at fault
for turning this great country into a mess....get off your high-horse. The
rest isn't even worth responding to due to its conspiracy factor which is so
far fetched that I wonder what planet you are on. Sure, a few shots slip by
and an amateur gets paid, but by far the most pics being sold are from pros.
So stop whining and start shooting. Personally attacking people you take
issue with because of their entitled opinions is not going to win you any
friends.


"BigPix" <only_reply@the.group> wrote in message
news:AGHkf.11126$ea6.6427@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Jasen" <jasen1970@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4392f0a4$0$23292$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>>>
>>> Who needs CAMS license to photograph motor sport anyway? Anyone who
>>> sells the photos.
>>> Who needs an EPA filming permit? Anyone who sells the photos.
>>> Who needs the permission of the people they photograph? Anyone who sells
>>> the photos.
>>>
>>
>> Amateurs are hardly a threat to seasoned professionals. You seem to have
>> a few hangups over it.
>> Most amateurs really only would want to make a little money to pay for
>> their hobby anyway and to share it with others for very little profit.
>> Hardly a significant commercial activity, if it is that at all. So what
>> if a few tourists are able to help pay for their trip by making a meagre
>> amount?
>>
> Just last month some joker advertised on this very group for amateurs with
> $10k worth of gear looking to make a few bucks and get some experience. No
> CAMS permit required, no questions asked, no rate of pay offered. Just pay
> your spectators entrance at the gate and go ahead and shoot all the
> pictures you can, we'll buy 'em!
>
> What about the blokes with a whole business set up and legally licensed
> with all the permits and insurance who need a $100 hit on every photo they
> sell just to offset their costs? Bugger 'em, perhaps?
>
> It is precisely your (and Alice's) attitude that has turned Australia
> into a (nearly) banana republic. Whatever gives you or her the idea that
> the only time anything is illegal is when you get caught doing it? The
> fact is, tourists and amateurs are welcome to take all the photographs
> they like in National Parks they just can't sell them unless they have a
> permit to have taken them for sale in the first place.
>
> Your attitude seems to suggest it's fine for just anyone to wander around
> taking pictures and when they get lost (as one recently did on Moreton
> Island and cost tens of thousands of dollars in search costs to find him)
> doing untold harm to the environment in the process just so they can
> cripple an Industry by selling their happy snaps illegally "for very
> little profit".
>
> This is precisely my point. A Professional will have outlaid over $50,000
> just to do this. Each and every picture they sell will have a amortisation
> component in it's price to offset this outlay. How fair is it that Poster
> print firms are now using the fact jokers who are looking for a "meagre
> amount" for similar pictures are using this argue the squeeze the price
> down for Professionals?
>
> Last year I sold 90 pictures to Poster Publishers and I broke even on the
> cost of the gear. This year, I met several tourists or amateurs on my
> travels and discovered when I went to sell my pictures, that some how or
> another one of them who seemed hell bent on dogging me everywhere I went
> in one location, sold his "over my shoulder" pictures to one of my
> publishers for 20% of my price. Who do I sue? The student on holidays who
> took similar pictures to me and illegally sold them or the publisher who
> couldn't control his greed? Maybe I should just take issue and track the
> kid down then get the EPA to charge him?
>
> Maybe you think I should just ignore it and go on the dole so I can do the
> same as him? Wake up Jasen. Far too many people in Australia think
> anything is fair game, legal or not. Well is isn't and people like you
> need to have someone steal your income and great ideas before you realize
> just how much damage such attitudes are doing to a once great country,
> rapidly in decline. It's the fault of people like you mate. Get a grip on
> things and join the program. It's called a fair go mate. Otherwise the
> thought we are still part of the convict era with no morals or principals
> will prevail.
>
> Sometimes I gain comfort in the knowledge I probably won't be alive to see
> the damage your generation are doing to the country my father and brother
> died fighting for in the false belief they were doing some good protecting
> your right to act illegally and foster the notion there is nothing wrong
> with doing this as long as you feel right about it and think nothing of
> others who do the same.
>

[Ext User(Jasen)]

Thanks Alice, I don't need to reply further to his egotistical old-world
views as I totally concur with all you have said herein. My Grandfathers
also fought for this country, and I find his attacks amazingly stupid and
narrow minded.

"Alice" <e@shitanddie.com> wrote in message
news:439385a6@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> BigPix wrote:
>
>>
>> Just last month some joker advertised on this very group for amateurs
>> with $10k worth of gear looking to make a few bucks and get some
>> experience. No CAMS permit required, no questions asked, no rate of pay
>> offered. Just pay your spectators entrance at the gate and go ahead and
>> shoot all the pictures you can, we'll buy 'em!
>>
>
> Funny, I can't imagine ANY commercial concern buying "all the pictures you
> can". A slight exaggeration, perhaps?
>
>
>> What about the blokes with a whole business set up and legally licensed
>> with all the permits and insurance who need a $100 hit on every photo
>> they sell just to offset their costs? Bugger 'em, perhaps?
>
> Perhaps they can use the better vantage points and their access to areas
> unavailable to amateurs to assure they actually do a better job, get
> better pics and thereby assure their products sell on merit, just like
> anyone else in the real world..
>>
>> It is precisely your (and Alice's) attitude that has turned Australia
>> into a (nearly) banana republic.
>
> LOL!! Oh yes, the multi-billion dollar black market in sport and landscape
> photography dominates our economy, doesn't it?
>
> Whatever gives you or her the idea that the only
>> time anything is illegal is when you get caught doing it?
>
> I for one never said that at all. I simply stated my opinion that THIS
> PARTICULAR piece of legislation wasn less than morally right.
>
> The fact is,
>> tourists and amateurs are welcome to take all the photographs they like
>> in National Parks they just can't sell them unless they have a permit to
>> have taken them for sale in the first place.
>
> Oh, I thought you said they were already doing just that.
>>
>> Your attitude seems to suggest it's fine for just anyone to wander around
>> taking pictures
>
> No, I wasn't 'suggesting ' that at all. I was openly advocating it.
>
> and when they get lost (as one recently did on Moreton
>> Island and cost tens of thousands of dollars in search costs to find him)
>> doing untold harm to the environment in the process
>
> Gawd, your talent for hyperbolic extrapolation is a wonder to behold!
> Naturally no professional photographer has ever had to be rescued, right?
>
> just so they can cripple
>> an Industry by selling their happy snaps illegally "for very little
>> profit".
>
> Curses, you've managed to uncover the evil conspiracy....
>>
>> This is precisely my point. A Professional will have outlaid over $50,000
>> just to do this. Each and every picture they sell will have a
>> amortisation component in it's price to offset this outlay. How fair is
>> it that Poster print firms are now using the fact jokers who are looking
>> for a "meagre amount" for similar pictures are using this argue the
>> squeeze the price down for Professionals?
>
> Have you actually ever heard any amatueur trying to argue a poster print
> company should pay less? Or is this just another dubious justification for
> your rather weak case?
>>
>> Last year I sold 90 pictures to Poster Publishers and I broke even on the
>> cost of the gear. This year, I met several tourists or amateurs on my
>> travels and discovered when I went to sell my pictures, that some how or
>> another one of them who seemed hell bent on dogging me everywhere I went
>> in one location, sold his "over my shoulder" pictures to one of my
>> publishers for 20% of my price.
>
> How do you know it was him, and not someone else?
>
>
> Who do I sue? The student on holidays who took similar
>> pictures to me and illegally sold them or the publisher who couldn't
>> control his greed? Maybe I should just take issue and track the kid down
>> then get the EPA to charge him?
>>
>> Maybe you think I should just ignore it
>
> That'd be a start. Or perhaps outperform him, take better photographs? You
> seem to be proud of your professional status, surely it also behooves you
> to do a better job than some lowly amateur?
>
> and go on the dole so I can do the
>> same as him? Wake up Jasen. Far too many people in Australia think
>> anything is fair game, legal or not. Well is isn't and people like you
>> need to have someone steal your income and great ideas before you realize
>> just how much damage such attitudes are doing to a once great country,
>> rapidly in decline. It's the fault of people like you mate. Get a grip on
>> things and join the program. It's called a fair go mate.
>
> LOL!! So someone takes a great pic, the shot of a lifetime perhaps, and
> you think denying him the right to sell it constitues a "fair go"?
>
> Otherwise the thought we are still part
>> of the convict era with no morals or principals will prevail.
>>
>> Sometimes I gain comfort in the knowledge I probably won't be alive to
>> see the damage your generation are doing to the country my father and
>> brother died fighting for in the false belief they were doing some good
>> protecting your right to act illegally and foster the notion there is
>> nothing wrong with doing this as long as you feel right about it and
>> think nothing of others who do the same.
>
> So you think your brother and father died fighting for the right of a few
> exclusionary elitists to abrogate the rights of the majority to make a few
> dollars out of their hobby? And you think that's a good thing?

[Ext User(BigPix)]

--

"Alice" <e@shitanddie.com> wrote in message
news:439385a6@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >
> So you think your brother and father died fighting for the right of a few
> exclusionary elitists to abrogate the rights of the majority to make a few
> dollars out of their hobby? And you think that's a good thing?

If you live in a capitalist society and derive all it has to offer, you have
an obligation to abide by it's laws. Unfortunately for you, those laws mean
some enterprising people get to run their business protected by laws while
other (you perhaps) can only engage in snide remarks and absurd attempts to
justify your FTW attitude because you can't achieve the same success... Nice
person Alice.

[Ext User(BigPix)]

--
Like I told Alice, Jasen...
If you derive all the benefits of living in a Capitalist society, you also
have to abide by the laws of that society which protect the rights of some
members make a lot of money while letting others live off welfare provided
by the taxes of those who make a lot of money. Why do you object so strongly
to being told that you can't sell pictures you take in National parks or at
motor racing events unless you have a permit? You're nearly as bad as
Alice who goes on a rampage because I pointed out the law.

What are you lot on? You need to get a grip on reality mate.

[Ext User(Julian)]

> Last year I sold 90 pictures to Poster Publishers and I broke even on the
> cost of the gear. This year, I met several tourists or amateurs on my
> travels and discovered when I went to sell my pictures, that some how or
> another one of them who seemed hell bent on dogging me everywhere I went in
> one location, sold his "over my shoulder" pictures to one of my publishers
> for 20% of my price. Who do I sue? The student on holidays who took similar
> pictures to me and illegally sold them or the publisher who couldn't control
> his greed? Maybe I should just take issue and track the kid down then get
> the EPA to charge him?

Mate, if tourists, students and amateurs can take pictures similar to
yours and sell them to publishers, then you should be taking a long
hard look at your "professional" skills...

[Ext User(Alice)]

BigPix wrote:
You're nearly as bad as Alice who goes on a rampage because I pointed
out the law.
Huh? 'Rampage'? Disbelief, perhaps, along with some mild annoyance at
your continued unwillingness to address the points raised in reply to
your complaint. But hardly rampage.

Then again, I suppose its another example ofyour penchant for fanciful
hyperbolic extrapolation (I really loved the 'banana republic' comment
and your silly sentiment about your relatives dying to uphold your right
to exclude others from selling photos of natural landscapes!)

Now, without resorting to any further pompous pontificating and ,
perhaps you'd like to explain why with all your experience and expensive
equipment, you still can't outperform 'some joker' (your words) taking
photographs from what you allege is precisely the same geographical
position as yourself?

[slaver]

I to, find this incredible!

Professional photographers chose to be professional photographers knowing there are a lot of amateur photographers around. It's not the amateur's fault if a professional can't compete!

As far as taking photos in a public place goes; any law or action that prevents anyone from taking pictures in a public place is no more than censorship.

Get a life and let others get on with what they enjoy doing.


Stephen

[Ext User(Jasen)]

"BigPix" <only_reply@the.group> wrote in message
news:fnNkf.11275$ea6.2543@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
> --
> Like I told Alice, Jasen...
> If you derive all the benefits of living in a Capitalist society, you also
> have to abide by the laws of that society which protect the rights of some
> members make a lot of money while letting others live off welfare provided
> by the taxes of those who make a lot of money. Why do you object so
> strongly to being told that you can't sell pictures you take in National
> parks or at motor racing events unless you have a permit? You're nearly
> as bad as Alice who goes on a rampage because I pointed out the law.
>
> What are you lot on? You need to get a grip on reality mate.
>
>

Ok, so let's never never ever challange anything big brother tells us we can
and cannot do, and as part of a capitalist society never listen to the
market that tells people, if you are an amateur, we want your photos but
because you are in a capitalist society, we cannot take them......oh,
hang-on, that IS part of a capitalist society! Freedom for one and all,
plain and simple. Reality is that people have the freedom to sell whatever
they choose if they have a buyer that wants it...apart from drugs or other
such things of course. THAT's what our forefathers fought for, freedom, not
a disguised dictatorship.
One reason I have a problem with it is that as singular photographers,
amateur or not, there is an underlying obscenity in the fact that a
government charges $23 a day or more to people who want to take photos and
one day may like to have someone buy a photo off them in the future,
regardless of
whether or not that was the intent at the time. Surely the main purpose of
a permit is to simply regulate probable environmental damage and insurance
liabilities either for the photographer and/or any staff involved in
obtaining
the shots. The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of
amateurs do not go to extraordinary lengths to get shots that may risk life
and limb, so there is no difference in their methods and the general public
who are keen amatuer photographers except that they might in future sell
work either
at a marketplace or online through a stock agency with or without original
intent. So, although I have only sold to friends who like my prints and
only at such a price that maybe I recoup some of what I originally spent to
get the shot in the first place, and most people who are amateurs would get
bugger all back if you include the cost of going to the destination in
question.
As for quality, the professional would walk over most amateurs anyway, so if
some obscure publisher only wants mediocre shots for publishing their cheap
calendars or posters, then all the worse for them, for most decent people
will pay for quality at a reasonable price over poor quality for not much.
THAT is capitolism my friend. You sold 90 shots. Good for you and I am
pleased you are able to do that. The very fact you were able to sell 90
pics just for poster or calendar publishing is the very proof that tells me
that not all is bad in the land of professional photography!

[Ext User(BigPix)]

Your posts are a contradiction Jasen, just like Alice's are.
She chooses to goad me like a troll with the underlying suggestion (without
ever seeing any of my photos) that I can't take as good a picture as a
tourist. I won't be baited with that any more than I will be baited by you
in suggesting I am somehow at fault for expecting you and every other person
in the country to abide by the laws we have. My photographic ability has
nothing at all to do with illegality of selling pictures taken in a managed
area without a permit.

You wouldn't have the level of computer ability you have today if Microsoft
(and a few other) didn't have a legally protected right to charge you $1000
and more for a 20¢ disc.There wouldn't be any songs for you to pirate with
that sophisticated PC because the people who now have legal protection to
charge you $30 and more for a 20¢ audio disc with a few songs on it would
have no incentive to record them. You wouldn't have any movies you could pay
$15 for 20 minutes viewing either (or steal from the Internet) because there
would be no incentive to make them if there were no laws to protect the
profits of those who make them.

If your idealistic, free-for-all society existed, there would be no reason
for me to take pictures in managed and environmentally sensitive areas
because by now in your society, they would be full of feral drop outs living
their life of Valhalla... Just like the squatters at Moreton used to do
before they were run off the Island.

Don't you yet understand Jasen? If your view were that of the greater
majority, it would be the way it is. It is not because the greater majority
agree that you have to abide by the law. I can't understand why you have a
problem with that. If you wanted to engage me in a discussion about how to
change the law so anyone could sell the pictures they took regardless of
having a permit or not, I would a lot more tolerant but as it is, you are
advocating total disregard for a valid law. Just because I make a profit by
obeying that law, is no reason to get up me for pointing out that it exists.
Likewise I have a legal right to report anyone I discover breaking that law.
If it helps protect my sales, all the better.

If you saw the amount of work the Government do in helping permit holders
achieve their goal, you wouldn't for one minute claim they are making
"financial gain" from the daily fee they charge. Right now there is a feral
pig eradication program going on in one of the parks I frequent. In order to
avoid shooting photographers, they provide (at no charge) escorts whenever
asked and whatever other assistance might be required. Hardly making any
money at $24 a day to provide a ranger for an escort, is it?

What have you got against the system here? If you don't like it, stay away
from managed areas. There's always the hoons racing illegally at night in
Industrial areas. The way your going on, you'd be right at home there with a
camera.



"Jasen" <jasen1970@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4392f75d$0$23280$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> The permit system in this country is geared for protection of the resource
> from degradation from commercial activities and, as a bonus to the
> Government, financial gain. Why shouldn't an amateur take a photo for
> their own viewing and then decide to sell it later if he/she wishes to.
> Many photographers, professional and non-professional alike would prefer
> the system implemented in the US. as it is fairer:

[Ext User(Alice)]

BigPix wrote:
> Your posts are a contradiction Jasen, just like Alice's are.
> She

Wrong. I'm a bloke. I know that must play havoc with your
rigidly-regimented sense of right and wrong, but I really couldn't give
a rat's.

chooses to goad me like a troll with the underlying suggestion (without
> ever seeing any of my photos) that I can't take as good a picture as a
> tourist.

Never said anything of the sort. What I actually said (regardless of
your attempt to imply the exact opposite with that 'underlying
suggestion' crap) was that with all your experience and expensive
equipment you should be able to do better, and therefore you had little
to worry about.


I won't be baited with that any more than I will be baited by you
> in suggesting I am somehow at fault for expecting you and every other person
> in the country to abide by the laws we have. My photographic ability has
> nothing at all to do with illegality of selling pictures taken in a managed
> area without a permit.

Gee, you're not the brightest bulb in the magicube, are you?
>
> You wouldn't have the level of computer ability you have today if Microsoft
> (and a few other) didn't have a legally protected right to charge you $1000
> and more for a 20¢ disc.There wouldn't be any songs for you to pirate with
> that sophisticated PC because the people who now have legal protection to
> charge you $30 and more for a 20¢ audio disc with a few songs on it would
> have no incentive to record them. You wouldn't have any movies you could pay
> $15 for 20 minutes viewing either (or steal from the Internet) because there
> would be no incentive to make them if there were no laws to protect the
> profits of those who make them.
>
> If your idealistic, free-for-all society existed,

LOL!! More of this ridiculous extrapolation. Considering one particular
law as unjust doesn't automatically make either of us radical
anarchists, except perhaps in the deep dark recesses of your
angst-ridden conspiracy theories.

[Ext User(Jasen)]

"BigPix" <only_reply@the.group> wrote in message
news:f1Tkf.11730$ea6.1084@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Snipped pointless drivel>
>
> If you saw the amount of work the Government do in helping permit holders
> achieve their goal, you wouldn't for one minute claim they are making
> "financial gain" from the daily fee they charge. Right now there is a
> feral pig eradication program going on in one of the parks I frequent. In
> order to avoid shooting photographers, they provide (at no charge) escorts
> whenever asked and whatever other assistance might be required. Hardly
> making any money at $24 a day to provide a ranger for an escort, is it?


I'm not talking about photographers who need escorts, I am talking about
photographers who impede no more than the general public who are out for a
day's walking. No escort, no impact outside of the main tracks. You
continually do not get it. At no point did I state anyone should not pay
for this service if they actually use it to the point that it incurs costs
beyond what the general public would use, which is the very point of the US
system. You obviously cannot read what was written.


>
> What have you got against the system here? If you don't like it, stay away
> from managed areas. There's always the hoons racing illegally at night in
> Industrial areas. The way your going on, you'd be right at home there with
> a camera.

You're a funny and deluded guy. That diatribe isn't worth anything but a
raucous chuckle, and I've already stated my case.