Why we need to pay fees for taking images on State Parks?
Hi friends, I'm trying to understand the logic behind the restrictions for filming and taking pictures (mostly commercialy) on state parks. Of course I understand all the restrictions that tend to prevent any damage or perturbation of the enviroment. We all want to preserve nature as it is, don't we? But why some places ask for a fee? As public parks, and having individuals and brands trying to get some kind of revenue of the imagery taken on these places, I may understand the thinking behind this: if you are earning some money with a public landscape, then you should pay to all the owners of that place. But who and how they put a price about that? And most important to me: Why government's tourism campaigns spend a lot of money advertising places like these protected areas, but then they try to charge you if you want to spread the beauty of that places, even under a brand, personal project or whatever. Isn`it that a kind of free promotion for them?
Here in Argentina I've seen some commercial projects asked for ridiculous things, from exaggerated fees to non sense prohibitions. Sometimes it depends on the mood and criteria of the official in charge, and not on a regulation itself.
I would love to know if there are some image-friendly places in the world to get some background about this, with the idea of trying to convince some local filming comissions and photo associations to join an effort for changing this reality.
Any help, bibliography or idea appreciated.