Photography on the navajo Nation

[mark]

I'm not blowing my own horn....No really I'm not. In writing the article a lot came up that was a total shock to me. I would really like to ask for your thoughts on the subject. There are issues that have me steamed.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Since I am asking for opinions then I will throw mine out.

The fees for photography are insane. I have no problem with paying for a hiking or camping but if I plan to sell any of my photographs I am looking at at least 750 dollars in fees, and that does not include if I want to take a picture in Monument valley. If I'm there that is another 250US dollars. SO lets say I want to exhibit and sell one photograph at say maximum for an 11x14 print a couple hundred dollars, I am in the hole 500 dollars. WHat the hell. If I am shooting an add then the cost is passed onto the client and would be discussed before hand. If not there is no one to pass the fee onto. It really sucks.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I suppose the fee structure could work in different ways.

If they are open to negotiation, one could offer a percentage of sales, but if it turns out that you have a lot of sales, the flat fee works in the photographer's favor, economically at least. Perhaps the message is that one shouldn't get into it as a commercial proposition, unless one is fairly committed and can recover the costs.

 

[Graeme Hird]

Mark,

The same thing is happening in Australia with places like Uluru (Ayres Rock) and Kakadu NP. While I sympathise with the principle of ownership of the land, prostituting the land for the sake of a few dollars for images seems very wrong to me.

For instance, professional photographers may not take any images of Uluru except from certain places. Amateurs have free reign and may shoot anywhere. As soon as a person tries to publish any of those images (professional or not) they must pay a fee and seek permission to do so - even if the image was made dozens of years before the law was enacted. The Government has stolen all copyright on the images of these two places via retrospective laws.

Roteague is actually in violation of the laws of Australia by publishing his avatar and could be fined ~$50,000 for showing his avatar.

These laws are indeed short-sighted. The ONLY reason these places are famous throughout the world is because fantastic photographs have been made of them. The people claim the sites (and sights) are sacred, but for the right amount of money, well, we'll just look the other way for a while ......

Either they are sacred, or they're not. If they are, ban all images from the place - period. No commercial use of the images what-so-ever. But that must include the shots they themselves use to entice tourists to visit "The Rock" and spend money in their community.

If they're not sacred and the images don't offend the elders, let all who make them, use them.

Photography of the natural landscape on indigenous land is a symbiotic relationship: The photographer benefits by making beautiful images (sometimes even of commercial value) and the indigenous people benefit by cashing in on tourists who come to see their beautiful lands. If they don't want tourists, don't let ANY images be published.

</rant>

Cheers,

 

[Aggie]

I read the article before you posted it. I was greatly surprised by the fees. In fact if you had not written that article I would still be ignorant of the fees and any ramifications of it. Question then arises, if you take a picture of say a family you are invited to stay with, would you also be charged fees for photographing them? Would their portion of land on the Rez be subject to the same fees?

I think the fees are exorbitent. On the other hand, look at what the Hopi's have done. You take a camera with you to go on the Hopi Rez, and you have your camera confiscated. They have outlawed photography in any form on their reservation. This due not to the wanting to charge, but they truely do not wish to have photograph taken of their ceremonials, and the people. I may not like their decision, but I can respect what they have done.

Last Time I was at Antelope Canyon, our guide dumped at the canyon at 9 am. He took off with the rest of his tour group to other places. The 3 of us sat there waiting for the light to do something spectacular. At around 11:30 am, other tourists start to arrive. The light was great for about an hour. Our tour guide returned around 2 pm to pick us up. We had no water, there were no bathrooms, I was angry. We were told we would be there just in time for the good light. Hell it would have been hard for us to have missed it with the amount of time we spent in that canyon. For those that do not know it, it is maybe (upper portion) 100 yards long. This was also in July. Hot miserable, and an experience I would not want to repeat.

 

[mfobrien]

And just how does one separate pro from amateur? If you use a tripod, you must be a pro. That's what I have heard from others photographing at places like Washington DC.
Maybe the best thing is to have photographers boycott the places that charge the fees. We've probably seen enough shots of those sites, anyway. Amazing how stupid governments can be.

 

[roteague]

Roteague is actually in violation of the laws of Australia by publishing his avatar and could be fined ~$50,000 for showing his avatar.

Actually, my avatar is a scaled down version of an image that comes from Australia.com as a desktop image. I have a number of images on my website from Uluru that I took myself, and so far, I only offer them as travel images, and not for sale. Since, I am getting ready to print my image of Kata Tjuta I should probably look into it.

However, I totally agree with you. I saw it signs of it the last time I was at Uluru, which is why I probably won't go there again. There is enough wonderful stuff around Alice Springs that I doubt I would miss it - I certainly won't miss the $300 AUD+ hotel rooms at Yulara.

 

[mark]

No Navajo owns the land they live on. It is held in trust by the US government. The Tribe over sees it and families lease the land. Where they live is called a home site lease. The leases last for 99 years and then the family has to pay again. It is a very tiny amount they have to pay. It is not theirs, even if they see it as theirs. Yes you will have to pay the same fees as if you were on someone elses homesite lease.

You do not have to pay for hiking permits if you are with a Navajo. The grey area pops up if you have someone's permission to walk on their land. Then you need to stay on their site lease.

You will only get your camera confiscated on the Hopi Nation if you are actively using it. If it is in your bag or in your car you are fine.

Hopi is closed because of very well documented abuses. People, even today, think they have the right to video tape or use their digital cameras. People with cameras caused this rule. In fact I only know of one Pueblo that does allow photography, maybe two. Acoma strictly restricts your photographs to certain areas. Taos might be a bit more lax but I am not sure. You will get the same treatment in Zuni as you do in one of the Hopi villages. ZUni is closed to photography because of photographers not following the rules and thinking they they can take pictures of what ever they want.

Talk to your guides and know what they will do. Remember that their were people who died in antelope canyon when a flood went through. That, according to those who would know, was the guides fault for not reading the signs.

 

[roteague]

Either they are sacred, or they're not. If they are, ban all images from the place - period.

One thing I noticed from my first trip to Uluru (1999) to my most recent (2002) was that the number of off-limits locations for photography had decreased, while I noticed increased emphasis on professional photographers (signs, etc.).

 

[Aggie]

BTW, Thanks Mark for an excellent article, that is a valuable treatise on what we should know about the Rez.

 

[mfobrien]

to follow up on what I said above. Since the Navajo Nation is a "state" within a state, they certainly have every right to enact whatever rules they think are appropriate, and of course we should respect them. Given the fact that Navajos, and all other Indian nations were screwed by our government, I cannnot blame them for trying to make money from others trying to make money from their land. However, I don't know how they can police such a policy or enforce it post-facto. Joe Blow in Europe that sells a few shots he took on a vacation at a small show, isn't really making any money (travel + expenses, etc.). The Ansel Adams print that sells for 70,000 at auction is quite a bit different. But, that was taken in 1940s, and isn't covered?
I guess there will just be places I won't bother shooting unless I use a Holga.

 

[mark]

You become a pro when you sell a photograph that is where the line is drawn. It has nothing to do with a tripod. I agree that the fees are stupidly high and those who created them had no clue what they talking about. Instead of boycotting maybe a better solution would be to open a line of discussion. It works very well, as long as you hold your cool. I have personally seen success doing it and have gotten some silly rules changed. If one person can do it then a group can affect a larger change.

It is a slow process but so is all change.

 

[roteague]

I'm not blowing my own horn....No really I'm not. In writing the article a lot came up that was a total shock to me. I would really like to ask for your thoughts on the subject. There are issues that have me steamed.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Since I am asking for opinions then I will throw mine out.

The fees for photography are insane.

I appreciated the article, I like to write them myself, when I have time.

I've spent a fair bit of time in the Navajo nation; I once had a close friend living in Page. I've done both Antelope Canyon and Mounment Valley, but would not do either again. Not just because of the fees, but the tourists. It seems like every government is scrambling for a few more $$$, and looks to tack fees onto everything. These days, I tend to avoid the National Park system, with a couple of exceptions - Joshua Tree, Vocanoes and Haleakela. Sadly, this is not a US only thing, note Graeme message about Uluru, and I have heard the same about other places as well.

 

[photomc]

You will get the same treatment in Zuni as you do in one of the Hopi villages. ZUni is closed to photography because of photographers not following the rules and thinking they they can take pictures of what ever they want.

Mark, first of all Thanks for a well written article..do have a question about Zuni - has this changed in the past year? Was there last year (Oct. 03) and picked up a photo permit at the tribal office and after inquiry was told I could photograph the OUTSIDE of the old mission church. Homes of course were off limits as was the ancient pueblo, and premission is required prior to publishing any image..since the ones I did were for my own use, no problem. I think, but do not have first hand information, that this is ture at Taos and Santa Clara as well.

 

[mark]

to follow up on what I said above. Since the Navajo Nation is a "state" within a state, they certainly have every right to enact whatever rules they think are appropriate, and of course we should respect them. Given the fact that Navajos, and all other Indian nations were screwed by our government, I cannnot blame them for trying to make money from others trying to make money from their land. However, I don't know how they can police such a policy or enforce it post-facto. Joe Blow in Europe that sells a few shots he took on a vacation at a small show, isn't really making any money (travel + expenses, etc.). The Ansel Adams print that sells for 70,000 at auction is quite a bit different. But, that was taken in 1940s, and isn't covered?
I guess there will just be places I won't bother shooting unless I use a Holga.

I asked about this very situation and they admitted it was a bit unfair. How do they catch people, apparently it happens all the time. I was not given any examples of still photography, but apparently, the reason I could not get ahold of Mr. mastach, for so long was because he was in court. The tribe sued a small independant film operation for shooting 30 seconds of film on the reservation. Mr. mastch said he has people report pictures to him all the time, and most of the time they work it out with the artist. I assume they do what David was talking about. The whole percentage thing.

 

[mark]

Mark, first of all Thanks for a well written article..do have a question about Zuni - has this changed in the past year? Was there last year (Oct. 03) and picked up a photo permit at the tribal office and after inquiry was told I could photograph the OUTSIDE of the old mission church. Homes of course were off limits as was the ancient pueblo, and premission is required prior to publishing any image..since the ones I did were for my own use, no problem. I think, but do not have first hand information, that this is ture at Taos and Santa Clara as well.

This surprises me, I have never heard of it and I inquired this past summer. Last year a local photographer was basically mugged by a bunch of Zuni's in full Kachina Garb and had his cameras taken. As far as I know he never got them back. He was doing work for a Zuni man who asked him to photograph a a Mural the guy painted. I would say you were very lucky but since you were taking a picture of the Church maybe that was the loop hole I was not told about.

 

[mfobrien]

I visited NM in summer 2003, and had a wonderful time. Originally was going to visit the Pueblos, but there was so many other things to see that I never missed it. I did contact the appropriate authorities beforehand and found out about the rules, and that may have influenced my decision a bit. OTOH, so many things to see that I don't feel that I missed out on any opportunities. With just a week or so, we knew we had to be choosy. Try Bisti badlands -- cool place, owned by BLM.

 

[BruceN]

It's all a load of crap, typical of the unlimited double standards applied in our society today. Any one of those people, government types included, can step up to the curb fronting my house or to my back fence and shoot film all day long and not a court in this country would support me if I tried to do something about it. So, in order not to give offense, I will never go to any of these places and take any photographs. Nor will I go there as a tourist and spend any of my hard earned money. In fact, I see no reason to go there at all. Furtheremore, I will not likely ever support ANY causes the purpetrators of such unfairness might have for as long as it is going on. :::end rant:::

 

[Les McLean]

Thanks for the post Mark. I've visited the Antelope Canyon//Monument Valley area a few times over a 16 year period and I totally agree with you that the present situation has been caused by stupid people making photographs without putting their brain into gear. I wrote to one of the Navajo Chapters' before I went there for the first time and received wonderful co-operation and information, I was quite impressed considering that I was writing from the UK. On my first visit to Antelope Canyon back in the 80's I was in there all day for $2.50 and saw only a handful of people. I walked in from the road and at the end of the day when a young Navajo named Damion told me it was time to go I asked if I could sleep there as I was camping on that trip, he said "sure but you'll have to pay another $2.50". I did and it was an unforgettable experience. How the world has changed.

 

[david b]

Just a side note:

I live in Santa Fe and have been in NM for 5 years. I've been told many times to abide by the "no photography" signs and to never cross a fence here in NM.

I've been told of photogs having their film taken away from them by a group of angry residents in a small town north of Santa Fe that is home to a very famous painter. They were photographing three large crosses. The town has a no photography sign at the main road in.

Also, the town of Galisteo has told the Santa Fe Workshops not to bring classes to their town anymore as they want their privacy. (The town has a great old church which is right on a Highway and it also has a very nice cemetary that begs you to photograph it.)

 

[mark]

There are a few people who are ruining things for the rest of us. It drives me nuts. Do people honestly think the NO photography signs do not include them because their names are not on it?

 

[photomc]

Just a side note:
Also, the town of Galisteo has told the Santa Fe Workshops not to bring classes to their town anymore as they want their privacy. (The town has a great old church which is right on a Highway and it also has a very nice cemetary that begs you to photograph it.)

That's very interesting David, since I know the area and some of the 'artist' that live there, there are a number of photographers living in Galisteo, sounds like they being a bit snobish about there own area...they can photograph it, but no one else can...is how that sounds.

Sad, but it is true that others have caused these reactions and we are the ones that feel the burnt..No matter though, that just forces us to think about new and fresh subjects, and create work and hopefully trust with new people and new subjects.

 

[mfobrien]

Wow. We drove thru Taos, but did not see any signs, and I did shoot some things from the car (esp. the adobe MacDonalds). My daughter and I spent about 2 hours at Ranchos de taos church, and she shot with her Kiev 88, I shot with a Kiev 60, Argus C-3, and a Holga. Turns out I think my best shots were taken with the Holga and my Argus: http://www.geocities.com/argusmaniac/taosc3.jpg

 

[Lee Shively]

I don't think there are any restrictions photographing in the town of Taos itself, only in Taos Pueblo. The church at Ranchos de Taos is probably one of the most photographed sites in New Mexico and I don't think there are any restrictions photographing it either. As far as I know, all the pueblos have some restrictions on photography.

I had no idea about permit requirements for photography on the Navajo reservation. I've been through it numerous times and generally photographed whatever I wanted. Traveling thru the northwestern section of New Mexico, it's hard to tell if you're on the reservation or not--it's called the "checkerboard reservation" due to it being in pieces.

As far as a whole town banning photography, I question the legality of that. I'm no lawyer but such restrictions could probably be successfully challenged in court. Unless the whole town is private property, "public" is public. I also doubt that a group of angry residents have any legal right to confiscate film if the picture taking is being done on public property. On private property, it's another matter of course.

In contrast to these pockets of antagonism, I visited the Santuario de Chimayo in New Mexico recently for the first time and I was impressed with the open, friendly people. My wife and I had our dog in the vehicle so I asked the caretaker if it was okay to bring the pup onto the grounds on a leash. He
said it was not only okay but he would gladly hold her for us while we looked around inside the church. Although there is a sign on the door saying not to use flash inside the church, he came up to me later and told me it was okay to use flash if I wanted to--the restriction only applied if people were inside praying.

I have a theory on fees, permits, etc., no matter who imposes them. I call them the "because we can" charges. Everyone is out to generate income any way possible including charging unrealistic fees just becaus they can.

 

[david b]

I was recently in the Santuario de Chimayo and even used a tripod. I did give a donation though.

 

[mark]

Chimayo is a fantastic place, as are most of the little towns up in that area.

Lee. I agree with the Charge because we can.