Photographer Gets Threatened with False Takedown Notice

Photographer Gets Threatened with False Takedown Notice

Just recently a friend of mine posted some rather stunning images on his Facebook page. While vacationing in Vegas, Réjean Brandt, a very talented fashion photographer from Canada decided to take the opportunity to organize a portfolio shoot. The photos taken at Red Rock Canyon were beyond splendid to say the least, and I quickly jumped on Réjean to get behind the scenes details for an article on this very site. The next day the images were abruptly taken down. Why? Because Red Rock Canyon threatened to seize his equipment if he didn't. 

The model that Réjean had found on Modelmayhem had recommend the beautiful area of Red Rock Canyon as the perfect backdrop for their quick impromptu shoot. Taking just a camera body, two lenses and a reflector the small group entered the national park legally (paid for access) and quickly conducted the shoot in less than two hours and were on their way. There was no mention anywhere of a permit needed for photography anywhere around the grounds. Réjean posted the images on Facebook after he finished retouching them, and as a lot of photographers do on Facebook, he tagged the pictures at the location of the shoot, Red Rock Canyon.

rejean2

A few days later he received a takedown notice from someone representing Red Rock Canyon.

 

"Notification
 Please find the enclosed copy of State law regarding photography on State property or of State property.
 
It has become evident to us, that you have violated State Law and are now subject to fines.
 
It appears that on February 15th of 2013 that you photographed a model within the State park boundries, that you have attached your name to such photos and that contitutes advertising and as such, is a violation. Per each occurance of every photo we find, your fine will be 10 times the cost of the permit, had you filed for one. Your Permit costs would have been $200 for one day, your fines will be $2,000 per photo that we will find. We will contact the local authorites in your province to insure collection of monies or the seizure of equipment.
 
We will also be notifying the Federal Park Authorities of possible violations on their land as well.
 
You will have 24 hours before this matter is turned over to the State's Attorney General for prosecution. to remove any and all photographs taken on State Property or of State Property without a permit. As the photographer, you and you lone are responsible for removing ALL photographs from prior receipients, internet advertisingagencies, social media sites, etc.
 
 -[---- Burke]
Red Rock Canyon Conservation Group"

 

 

rejean3

Réjean informed me of the email and promptly took the 'offending' photographs down. He, being from a different country, wasn't aware that he needed a permit, and while I do believe that ignorance isn't above the law, Réjean is human and all of us do make mistakes now and again. Feeling quite guilty he replied to this mysterious officer of Red Rock Canyon's integrity and offered his apologies, and asked if there was a way that this misstep could be corrected (IE: Buy a permit after the fact).

This was  Mr. Burke's reply:

"Dear Sir,
This is not a matter that we discuss. We are only the conservation group and we only notify the proper authorities. It will be up to them to discuss any terms.

If you removed any photos, there will be nothing for them to prosecute you for. In the future, please fill out the appropriate forms for the property you will be photographing on. Just about ALL public property, Federal, State, County and City, require a filming permit and insurance. Even some local homeowner associations require these, but that is a civil matter.

You were among 12 photographers who received notice yesterday.

Please note: Your pleading of not knowing is of no importance to us as we here are aware of property copyright laws of Canada.

[--- Burke]
Red Rock Canyon Conservation Group"

So, Mr. Burke is correct, you do need a permit to take photos in Réjean's case while inside a Federal and State Park, there is no argument there. I just couldn't believe the tone of the reply and upon further examination of the email that Réjean forwarded to me I noticed something. The email was sent from a gmail account. Now, I know that many of us use gmail as an official email provider, but the government doesn't. I told Réjean that I would do some digging to find out who this person was and if he was in danger of being sued.

FS02smallblur
I took it upon myself to call the agency that issues the permits for weddings and commercial photography at Red Rock Canyon. Lee was the first to answer my call and after a lengthy conversation about the incident he directed me to his co-worker Jamie who issues out the permits. She explained that if Réjean had received a takedown notice it would have come from their law enforcement head, Robert, and that the email would be sent by a proper '.gov' email with an official letterhead attached. She also stated her concern on who this person was and what he was doing emailing photographers on their behalf. She transferred me to Robert, the head of law enforcement for Red Rock Canyon, and he reiterated to me that indeed an official takedown notice would have come from him and that this 'Mr. Burke' had no right to email and harass Réjean on their behalf.
 
In fact, not one person at the official office of Red Rock Canyon had ever heard of this 'Mr. Burke' or of the 'Red Rock Canyon Conservation Group'. Robert was concerned that this might be a case of a money scam to scare photographers into paying a permit fee to an organization that might not even exist. I searched for the group and found nothing. Robert was extremely pleasant over the phone and said that people always make mistakes and that the majority of the time they let things like this slide, since it wasn't a big production, but also explained the importance of having a permit.
 

If Réjean had indeed gotten his permit beforehand all of this wouldn't have been an issue. Robert and Jamie were more than happy to let Réjean repost the images non-commercially with their blessing, but warned that in the future he, of course, would need to file the proper paperwork. Rightfully so. They also warned that if Mr. Burke were to contact Réjean again to just ignore the emails. They wanted to let us know that they were going to try to look into the matter. I was happy to report this to Réjean and his photos are happily where they should be, on his portfolio and without the beautiful backdrop of Red Rock Canyon blurred out.

 

FS02WMSMALL

 

In closing, I hope that this serves as a good lesson to each of you as you read this article. First and foremost if shooting in a state or federal park always check to see if a photography permit is needed, this also goes for any location that might be in question. Second, if you do receive a take down notice, go ahead and remove the photographs in question, but also stop and do some research on the person sending you the takedown notice. Never send any money or equipment to someone if they demand it. Find the official people in charge of permits and see if an arrangement could be made, like paying the permit fee. Most often or not state park and federal park officials will be more than willing to work with you.
 

FS03-small
FS05-small

I would like to thank the Bureau of Land Management (Southern Nevada District Office) and the Red Rock Canyon Interpretive Association for helping us with the article. (*Only first names were used due to privacy).

Photographs used with permission.

Rebecca Britt's picture

Rebecca Britt is a South Texas based commercial, architectural and concert photographer. When she's not working Rebecca enjoys spending time with her two daughters, playing Diablo III, and shooting concerts (Electronic Dance Music). Rebecca also runs the largest collective of EDM (electronic dance music) photographers on social media.

Log in or register to post comments
75 Comments
Previous comments

I was thinking the same thing. Either the guy was working on the inside, or was just phishing for anyone who would reply.

I'm glad I don't live in a country where you would need a permit to photograph in nature.

I didn't even know the park existed. I wanted to visit it to see the beauty he captured while shooting. With the parks pathetic reaction I guess I will visit elsewhere and im sure many will feel the same. I come from Africa, nature/parks are the publics as long as there is no danger to the park or destruction. Focus your energies on better use..

Red Rock Canyon was not the one sending out these emails;  it was an impostor.  I want to make that clear because Red Rock Canyon did nothing wrong.  They were very helpful and kind when they responded to this ordeal.  

If you take a look at the info page for friends of Red Rock Canyon ( Here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-Red-Rock-Canyon/88723621898?sk... ) you will notice there is a Mr. Burke listed in the awards section. I would just about put money on it the email came from the Mr. Burke at their organization.

Yeah, probably some old dude with control issues and nothing better to do than hassle people he has no right to hassle. God, I know people like that in charities nearby.

So the $64,000 question is: Has anyone traced the email address to see where it's from? I say track the MF down and and have his ass busted.

Being via Gmail there is no tracking it as long as it was sent directly from the web access of Gmail. Only Google could track it as not originating IP would be in the headers.

How did 12 photographers from that Red rock shoot all get take down notices? Sounds like an inside job from someone close.

Thomas Shue, you are assuming that 12 Photographers were served with this notice. Nobody really knows how many or if anyone else was served this false notice.

He's not assuming anything, he's going by what is stated by the person that was pulling this stunt. Try reading an article before you comment.

Woofa, maybe you need to learn how to read what someone said. I did read the article and the comments but I'm glad you "assumed" that I didn't  read it...Bravo to you LOL. What Thomas said was..."How did 12 photographers from that Red rock shoot all get take down notices? Sounds like an inside job from someone close."  That's an assumptious statement and was not meant to be an argument just pointing out that it may not be true just like the whole "Take Down" notice was.

You're an effing idiot. You said he was assuming. IT'S in the statement the guy made. Therefore Thomas Shue made no assumption, he's going on the info given. Learn how to read.

But if it's a scammer, then probably he's lying about 12 photographers being served with notices. In that case, Thomas would indeed be assuming, Richard would be correct, and you would be the effing idiot for calling him an effing idiot, which is also a very unkind thing to say btw.

You obviously lack intellgence to understand anything, that's usually evident when you resort to those types of insults you just displayed. Thanks for making yourself look lilke a complete ignoramus, thanks again for displaying that LOL. Enough with responding to you, I seen your other post from the past, all you do is argue with people due to your own insecurities...have a good day boy.  :) 

you can tell it's a scam by the grammar mistakes and the improper use of the english language. Whoever wrote that email has no clue of how to write a business letter...

Plus it's not a state park. not state property and no state laws apply, etc. etc. etc.

I shoot at Red Rock a lot without a permit. :-/

I wouldn't name the official park workers.... gives info fro the scammers to reuse later on....

That's why last names are not used. 

 I'm sure he means at all.  The scammer used his entire name? lol?.... minor logic fail there...

Burke is a busy-body, Barney Fife wannabe with no standing or authority. It's possible that he could be prosecuted for impersonating a state official. He's got a history of this. He's all bluster. My records check shows not one single prosecution. And the photographer - living in Canada, would be out of reach of local officials in this case since this would be a civil violation not a criminal violation. The "conservation" types hate photographers. They think the park should be theirs and theirs alone. You do need a permit, but Pal Blart Mall Cop - i.e., Burke isn't going to do a thing to you or anyone else. He's all hat and no cattle.

I'm actually surprised that this Burke wanker did not have the nerve to extort money as retroactive "we forgive you this time" scam!

FYI, some government agencies (including mine-USGS) have now adopted gmail, however, they can be identified because they end in .gov not . com.

This whole "rights driven" and liability litigious society is eventually the ruin of all creativity and inspiration. Soon we all will just [have to] do Soviet style propaganda photography as we still see it in North Korea.

I have an extensive body of work e.g. a New York series that galleries refused to show since I had no "property releases". The latter in post research would have cost an arm and a leg besides corporate business interests who would have wanted to "approve" their property depicted appropriately. American style corporate totalitarianism and "art critic"....

In another case images from Burma since I had no releases from t he people photographed... Geez.... and would you do that let alone explain it [what American greed and control is]

When I offered the Gallery that I sign the releases and assume "liability" they chickened out.

With fear you can rule... I'm disgusted to say the least.