SANParks.org Forums

Just keep in mind: IF these guys actually pay you for the use of your photos, you will also have to pay SANParks the fee for commercial photography.

I had another look at the Accommodation Direct pages…there is STILL two of my photos on the Kieliekrankie page …….will check tomorrow morning if it was removed.

If I get any money from these guys then I'm donating the full amount to SANP.

Seems a fairly unrepentant attitude to simply remove specific images one by one as people lodge a protest. I think it would be fair to assume that the perpetrator of this THEFT has not paid a cent for ANY of those images on any of his sites.Even if SAN Parks ones are all removed after today, the remaining images have almost certainly also been simply lifted off other websites----------------------

Would it not stand to reason that SANParks invoice them for the whole lot seen the photos in fact belong to them Probably a better chance of them receiving payment than us individuals. Don't know if it's the right attitude but I'm not going to bother They will find many loopholes to get around their aweful behaviour of helping themselves to what didn't belong to them !!
Don't know about the other forumites pics that were used, but I think those used of mine could have been lifted off Flickr

Hmm, SANParks do not own my pictures. They hold the copyright to any images which have been made inside any National Park and are used commercially. The images in question have not been used commercially by me, they have been stolen from me. From my point of view I want to be compensated for the illegal use of my images. If SANP feel that they should also take action because their copyright was violated then kuddos to them but that will not stop me from taking action against people who steal my images.

With you all the way on this one madach!!!

Madach and Sprocky ...don't get me wrong..I am very as well and will always be annoyed by this. I am just rather confused about the copyright and owning issue
Let me try get more understanding.
Yes, I know I own those photos and read the fact that SANParks hold the copyright to them. Although I own them...does the fact that whoever holds copyright to them entitle them to use the photograph without any permission from the owner?

Just checked the Kruger Park Direct and Northern Cape Direct webpages. It seems they removed all images from the Kruger and KTP webpages.

No it does not. In the Filming and Photography Policy issued by SANParks in March 2008 the following is stated in chapter 6:

6.1 Where material is taken by individuals for private use and personal enjoyment, such as tourists/members of the public taking photographs or videos, SANParks cedes the rights to such material.

6.2 However if the material is secured professionally or by amateurs within a National Park for use or with the intention for use for commercial or broadcast purposes or for resale, marketing, advertising, the film producers (local & international) will becharged a location fee, as well as a fee for any other services, resources or special concessions required of SANParks.

6.3 Footage or photographs taken in national parks and submitted to competitions and third parties without a commercial agreement (such as a photography competition or television programme) will be considered to be for personal use and not for commercial gain.

All this says is that if you want to use your images commercially that you then have to pay a location fee. It does not say anything about copyright or ownership. I checked the Protected Areas Act because I thought that the copyright issue was handled there but it is not. I can't find any reference in either the Protected Areas Act or the Filming and Photography Policy which states that SANParks owns the copyrights to pictures made in National Parks.

I've asked SANParks to clarify their position on the copyright issue.

Please keep us informed madach, as this is close to my heart as well.

Thank you madach

Hey Madach--First up thank you for all your fantastic photos that you have contributed...A lot of smiles that youve shared.My girls really loved your fish shot BTW!!

And secondly thanks for making this a bit clearer.

Quick question though.....In your view does that 6.2 clause not apply more to film-makers and the advertising industry rather than stills ?? Practically I mean??Surely stills are almost impossible to police OUTSIDE of forums like this where theres a really high level of awareness? Do SANParks really enforce those fees for stills? That clause looks very geared for films to me.

If it does apply equally in practical terms to the area of stills as well, then this guy is truly getting away with daylight robbery.No location fees.. . No royalties....nice cheap way of making money off other peoples professional efforts......

I still reckon even after those SANParks related images in question have all been removed, the bulk of the remaining stuff on his sites must almost certainly be comprised of material he hasnt paid a cent for......Is this really someone who SANParks should be doing business with despite the removal of the images in question?? I seriously think that when that contract comes up for renewal,management should think again.Just my 2 cents--------

Oh! Oh! It looks like Krugerpark has opened a can of wasp, not even worms. Any way, guys any idea how can I put a watermark/copyright, I've tried one software but loose it when I send the picture to the printer.

Over here, please HELP . And thank you guys for blowing the whistle

Thanks madach. I've read through the entire policy and unless there is some specific waver when posting on the forums (or anywhere on SANParks website) then the artist/photographer retains full rights to their photo and SANParks only has a limited usage right.

Theoretically the original photographer could sue the owner of these websites for copyright infringement without having to pay SANParks, as the source of the income will be from copyright infringement and there was no intention of a commercial nature when the photographer originally placed the picture on SANPark’s website.

SANParks could sue the owner of the websites for loss of income because if they had gone through the normal channels then SANParks would have gained somewhere down the line.



Mavusana, unless you want to spend money on professional packages to do the job then there is no easy guaranteed way of doing it. Even with these packages it is relatively easy to remove traces of these watermarks.

Simple answer, not possible.

Difficult answer, read further.

If you want visible watermarks/copyright notices. My suggestions would be to use the Paint program in Windows and merely type a copyright notice (e.g. “© 2009, ceruleanwildfire”) somewhere in the frame.

The downside of this is that most photographers place this notice in the border of the frame, which is easy to remove if the digital image is made available. For this reason most professionals will place this notice right over the subject or in the middle of the frame. This unfortunately ruins the photo but it offers the best protection as it requires a good bit of work and time to remove.

Transparent watermarks, i.e. the raised clear watermark, is usually only available from software packages like Photoshop and the like. Truly invisible watermarks can be achieved through steganography, but the hidden copyright may be lost if the image is modified (depending on the package).

Metadata is your best bet as it remains invisible and unchanged even when the file is modified. However if the contents are copied and pasted or screen captured into a new image then the metadata is lost.

Hi all,

With regard to Intellectual Property, here is what Wanda (Head: Communications) would like to say:

Hope this clarifies. If you need more info, please feel free to send her a PM.