Botanical Garden Pricing

[mivy00]

True, but from what I have read any one has the right to take photos while standing on public property of anything they wish.

Unless that doesnt apply to people operating a busniess and only applies to PJ work.

Originally Posted by kenw

a non-photographer could say they resent paying taxes to support a private enterprise (your photography business).

Seems to me a non-photographer could say that if I pulled over and took a picture of the highway and sold it on my website.

[mike_sax]

Actually I have shot in the Gardens, even did a wedding in the Fuller Gardens and only had to sign in at the front desk and show them the special badges they made for us. Did not have to pay any fee and was told to "Have a Nice Day" when I left the desk. I have done several portrait shoots there and have not had any problems since we got the special badges.

[gardener]

I believe this issue has come up before and not being a photographer for hire, my opinion probably doesn't count. None the less, I'll give it anyway...
You're running a business so why isn't this just another business expense that needs to be included into the price you charge? Everyone that goes in the gate just to see the exhibits and plantings pay some amount of monies as their entrance fee and they're typically just taking pics for themselves while you're trying to make a few bucks and use what are essentially public facilities to make those bucks. In the meantime, the regular paying garden visitors are interrupted on visitor paths and common areas, forced to wait while you or your associates get your shots so they won't be in the middle of a picture, and generally have to go out of their way so as to increase your bottom line. If your bride can afford to hire out her wedding but balks at paying the extra garden fee that will increase her own memory junket then she's a twit. Your job is to convince her that the site is worth the charge... If you're making money and you refuse to pay the photography fee, then you're not as professional as you like to think you are...
Supported by tax dollars or not, you should be able to take all the shots you want but if you're being paid to take those shots, then you should pay your way just like everyone else. If that means paying for the privilege to put what is usually NOT a small amount of money in your pocket then either get used to it or start and maintain your own botanical garden where you can shoot as much and as often as you like for free but can charge the regular visitors $75 an hour just to see the flowers and take bad pictures with their point and shoots of little Bobby and little Maryann with grandma and grampa.
Quite honestly, the elitism shown by some wedding photographer's comments, both here and on other boards, is quite obnoxious in many aspects and shows a lack of respect for the general population in others. I'm all for you guys and gals making lots of money and having a successful personal business but when it starts to intrude on other's rights and pocketbooks BECAUSE of your business, you might want to step back and think about it again... There seems to be an undercurrent theme of many photographers that in some fashion, they're "special" and deserve special treatment and respect. Not so, you're just one more person with photographic gear that happens to love what you're doing and is trying to make a business of it. Your photographic worth and artistic ability can be duplicated by many others in the same line of work whether you think so or not. You do not receive special consideration just because you have a camera in your hand... If it's a business then treat it like a business and pay the fees like every other business does in the line of making a profit.

There... I've said it. The rock throwing may now commence.

[CaptainTom]

I think many more might object if I set up a booth on this public property and started a tour guide business, or even an "on site" portrait business. Now, if I come there with my family and act as a personal guide to them, I am not charged for that, and if I come to take pictures of my family I am not charged for that. If I come there with the express intent on operating a commercial business, I think they have the right to either ban it outright, or regulate it through a fee basis.

[brad]

Well, my first comment was made tongue in cheek to an extent.. and at risk of sounding "elitist" .. what I meant to say was I shoot out there all the time and I've never been approached or asked to pay a fee. There are no signs in the main garden that I have seen that says I should pay a fee.

When I shoot in a place where it is posted that I should pay a fee, I do pay it. But the only place I've ever seen this fee mentioned for areas like the Rose Garden at the FW Botanic Gardens is on photographer forums.

[*Mike*]

Well said Tom. It's sucks to pay for stuff, but that's reality. Chalk it up as a business expense...

[LadyShutterBug]

lots of public properties charge usage fees. you pay the fee if you want to use the property (using a park or pavilion for a party, etc.).

having a photographer pay a fee is also a great way for the park to ensure that you follow the rules-- stay on the paths, don't trample and pick the flowers, etc. if they have your $100, you're far less likely to disobey their rules or mess up the place, because you don't want to waste the money you've spent in usage fees.

[mivy00]

Let me clarify myself I am not against paying a fee to shoot in the garden I know they need money for upkeep. I am upset that the fee is 75.00 per hour but like i said it is up to them what ever they want to charge. My original question was really just one of wondering how the law worked.

My second concern was for people that truly are starting in the busniess. They usually ARE putting a small amount of money in their pockect and could not take the 75.00 fee out of their bottom line. So just because these begginer photographers do not command the dollars that the larger studios do means they can not shoot there unless they pass that cost along to their customers. Then you also have people with professional equipment that are shooting their friend as a favor ... or people that arenot making any money but trying to build a portfolio and get started........Like i stated before I am not against charging a fee I just feel that 150.00 for a 2 hour shoot is a little much

Steve if it us up to me to sell the gardens to my client as a place to take photographs I will not do it because I Dont feel that they are worth 75.00 per hour. I can get the same and in some cases better photos shooting across the street at trinity park. In your post you make it sound like photographers are out their making a killing on their clients....I would say that almost every photographer I know is struggling to make ends meet and most only do this as a weekend job because of that. So it irks me when someone says "We have about 125 professional photographers that use the Garden on a regular basis, and many other “out of the trunk of the car” folks that give the pros a bad name. " Baised on that line of reasoning I give pros a bad name because I cant afford to pay her fee, and choose not to pass the ridculos fee along to my customers.

Thanks everyone for your input on the subject i appreciate it. Thats why i like coming here you get many diffrent points of view

[venchka]

...and many other “out of the trunk of the car” folks that give the pros a bad name.

Mom always told me that if I couldn't say anything nice don't say anything at all.

[brad]

Originally Posted by mivy00

Baised on that line of reasoning I give pros a bad name because I cant afford to pay her fee, and choose not to pass the ridculos fee along to my customers.

Well, first off, its not "her fee," its the City's fee.. and apparently is city policy (posted at the entrance to the Japanese Gardens and at the Log Cabin Village.. it is not posted anywhere that I have seen at the botanic gardens themselves).

Second, my website and policy clearly state that if there is an additional fee to shoot in an area, that fee is the responsibility of the client. That way the decision is entirely up to the client on whether or not they want to pay extra to shoot there.

I'm not opposed to paying the fee, either... but since I've never seen it posted and never had anyone ask me about it, I've never paid it.

I won't be visiting the Japanese Garden anytime soon. My loss and theirs. I'm sorry, but the non-commercial use of a tripod should not be regulated by fees.

I've said this before and I'll say it again here.. I can understand regulating tripods in the Japanese Gardens with a fee... the pathways are narrow and they want to restrict the people that are blocking them with tripods to pros.