It’s getting tough out there to be a working photographer. Now think how you’d feel if you were busy snapping away, only to be suddenly confronted by a police officer busily writing you a citation. Put up too much of a fuss, and you’ll likely be trying on his handcuffs.
Two stories appeared here in California last week, about potential citation-worthy violations for taking pictures. The first is from the LA Times about photographing city buildings, while the second is from the OC Register, about the new requirement for permits at Newport’s Corona del Mar Beach.
That really pisses me off. It happened to me the other day while I was shooting at this touristy spot across the river from Cincinnati called Newport on the Levee. I had just finished shooting, and after my last frame when I was putting my camera away some cop comes up to me and says, “I’d advise you to not shoot photos here since it’s private property.” I let it slide since I had already finished. But what really was on my mind was, “That’s fine, because in that case I don’t plan on ever returning.” There was nothing private about the place. It was all open air and anyone could walk in from either the street or the riverfront. Obviously the guy feels a travel photographer is causing some sort of harm to others. It’s Kentucky, I shouldn’t be surprised.
What’s up with Corona del Mar being so uptight? So all the rich people can own the beach just like they do the clifftops. It’s the nicest beach I’ve been to in So. Cal and to hear something like this is really lame. I’d be willing to get arrested in order to get the absurdity of such a story out there. Seriously, what harm is a freaking mass of pixels to anyone? Guys like me are there to shoot the sun, rocks and water, not Paris Hilton. I wish a bus to hit stupid people like that. Geez.
Nothing new with Corona del Mar. Many cities have had requirements for commercial photography for a while. See a list at:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits
Same thing as with the supposedly new NPS rules.
Just tell them you are not a professsional. “But what about this fat Canon/Nikon ? I have a good practice as a civil rights attorney” 🙂
Thanks for the clarification QT. They should be more clear about the rules because there’s some people who take it to the extreme and harass every person with a camera regardless of what they’re actually doing with it.
This is scary stuff..seems like every week I hear about photogs being harassed or even made to pay up. It isn’t just cities that are charging commercial photographers, the National Park Service is in on it in a big way too. Privatization of public lands is just greedy, greedy, greedy…The requirements for a permit are ambiguous at best and because they aren’t consistently enforced, you will feel twice as cheated if you are caught and made to pay.
Gary, I hope you don’t mind that I used your post as a starting point for my own rant.
Cristoph: – No I certainly don’t mind using me as a starting point. Please, rant away! 🙂
For my own 1 cent opinion, I use the NPS as my guideline. If I am acting in a manner with no greater impact than your average tourist, then I should be exempt from permitting fees when shooting on any public property. If I am bringing models, props, or extra equipment onto the property, and have a direct line to commercial payment, i.e., I am being paid by a client to be there, shooting for an immediate and specific reason, then a permit is reasonable. Two good examples are weddings or commercial assignments. If my photos are for stock, whether editorial or commercial, without bringing models, props, lights, etc., and where the direct line to fiscal income isn’t there; it’s speculative, then we should be expempted. One photo may sell three years from now. None may ever sell, or I may sell nine pics a week after the shoot for $5,000.00. In that case, I believe I shouldn’t have to pay a permit fee.
And for those cities that do require permits, and if I was a wedding or portrait shooter, I could imagine paying a permit like to the City of Santa Barbara, which (if I remember correctly) charges an annual permit fee of a few hundred dollars, and allows wedding and portrait photographers to do their work in city parks. Charging a $150.00 / day fee for a photographer taking engagement photos really seems to be a money grubbing attempt to fill city coffers and pay for all that extra city bureaucracy which we all know works so very well and efficiently. In fact If I lived in Newport, and Laguna Beach had a decent annual permit fee to use their parks, I’d be happy to pay them, if not also just for the benefit of ‘stiffing’ the other guy. Besides, Laguna Beach has this really great coastal park.
Anyone else notice that the fine mentioned in the article is LESS than the permit fee? Catch me if you can, and if you do, I’ll be money ahead. LOL
Hi Gary,
Great job with the blog! I’m glad I stumbled across it, it is very well done.
“Just tell them you are not a professional. “But what about this fat Canon/Nikon ? I have a good practice as a civil rights attorney†â€
Tuan, that is hilarious, I will have to remember that one. Great to finally meet you in person recently in Alaska.
I’m glad to see the LA Times write about the issue – it is really out of hand there. I shot for 3 days in LA last winter and was approached at least 7 times by security. I had even hired an off-duty police officer for one day and that didn’t help. It got to the point that I would try to avoid using a tripod whenever possible. If I did need a tripod, I would scout things out first without any gear, and then have my tripod / grads and all ready so that I could shoot really fast. One more thing to love about the Alaska backcountry! I have never been bothered at CDM, Laguna or Huntington Beach.
Ron:
Thanks for the comment. Very glad you found your way over here. 🙂
Y’all come back a’ggin, y’hear. (from Beverly Hillbillies)
Luogo interessante, buon disegno, lo gradisco, signore! =)