As is well known amongst stock photographers, images of venues which require an admission fee for entry must be editorial as opposed to commercial. Such venues may include theaters, zoos, sports stadiums etc. I have several exterior photographs of the entrance of a cave which I'm planning on submitting as stock. This particular cave requires an entrance fee from visitors who want to go exploring inside (accompanied by a tour guide.) I'm assuming that despite the fact that this cave is a completely natural, geological formation, submitted photographs of this subject would need to be editorial?

It is certainly not forbidden to photograph in the caves. I exposed a number of images inside. Though like I mentioned in my previous post, the particular photos that I plan on submitting were taken outside of the cave.

Where is this cave? Surely it would depend on local regulations?

Where is this cave? Surely it would depend on local regulations?

The Capricorn Caves in Queensland, Australia.

Another thing to remember is:  "Yes you can take pictures." is not the same as "Yes you can sell pictures as stock."

Exactly. It depends on whether you're selling the images as commercial or editorial and whether the photos were taken on private property or not.

You can take all the pictures you want of the Houses of Parliament.  Just don't try to sell them as stock without buying a release.

Yea, if you were intending to sell them as commercial. Though would there be any issues if you were selling those photos of the Houses of Parliament as editorial (assuming you weren't standing on private property at the time)?

As mentioned in my opening post, my photos that I intend to submit were taken outside of the caves. And they would be submitted as editorial / non-commercial. However, despite taking the photos outside, I'm not really sure if I was standing on private property or not. It was native bushland where I was taking the photos but I don't know if that particular area is part of the same property as the caves.

Unknown to most people, including me until fairly recently, a lot of the streets in London are privately owned.

Woah, I didn't realise that. Well must be pretty challenging to do any kind of stock photography in London then - whether it's commercial or editorial.

You could always contact them for a definitive statement if you think there might be an issue. That said, most requests I've made (to tjer entities) have not been replied to.

Yea I'll send the Capricorn Caves management an e-mail. Since they accommodate wedding photographers, there's a fair chance that they might allow me to use my images of the caves as editorial. Or maybe even commercial (but I don't want to push my luck.)

you said: "As is well known amongst stock photographers, images of venues which require an admission fee for entry must be editorial as opposed to commercial. "

the above is a myth. it is a policy of some sites such as shutterstock, but has nothing to do with copyright law. you are free to film and resell your photos, even if you pay an admission fee, even if you do not have permission from the venue. venues are not courts of laws and you do not need to abide their photography rules.

I contacted the US copyright office regarding this issue, and they confirmed this.

there is nothing in the US (or other country's copyright laws) which have any special photography or copyright requirements for venues with paid admission.

if we followed the stock agency web site's rules, you would only be able to film nature and naked people. they think everything man made is copyrighted.