# City requiring permit to take pictures in a public park



## spicyTuna (Jan 17, 2014)

I guess being a public park and paying taxes isn't enough to use a park as a backdrop. Overland Park Kansas now requires a permit to take pictures in the park. I hope they don't do this in CA. 

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2014/0...1&spJobID=361707394&spReportId=MzYxNzA3Mzk0S0


----------



## snowbear (Jan 17, 2014)

In all fairness, tax revenue not being enough to fully support government, is not uncommon.


----------



## JerryVenz (Jan 17, 2014)

In California we had to attain permits for City parks, County parks and all State beaches.

City parks were a pain since we had to get them the DAY OF THE SESSION--we stopped using City parks.

County parks were better (Santa Clara county) since we could buy those as ANNUAL PERMITS good for all the parks in the county.

State Beaches were a bit more work. You have to apply for the beach you want both at the regional ranger station AND the California Film Commision. You must also put the State of California on your $1,000,000 insurance liability policy to qualify.

These beach permits are also only available for WEEKDAYS--NOT FOR WEEKENDS.  AND THE STATE RANGERS PATROL THE GOOD BEACHES!!

HAVE FUN, Jerry V.


----------



## badrano (Jan 17, 2014)

I can see where they might be coming from.  Let's say you want to get your wedding photos taken in the park, the pro-photographer is in essence providing you a service and conducting business in the park.  I bet a hotdog stand in the park would need a permit to do business along with a health/food service cert.  So I guess they are taking the mentality that in order to do business in a public park, you have to get a permit.

Having said this, do I agree with it, no.  This is just another way for our governments to extract more dollars out of our pocket.  I think it's just a bunch of bs.   The hotdog stand is different in my book.  They are providing food to the public and the last thing we need is to eat a bad dog.  So in this case I can see the need to require a permit.

Next, I guess they will require the homeless person playing a musical instrument to get a permit.  After all, the homeless person is trying to bring money in (ie. profit) so that he/she can make a living.


----------



## weepete (Jan 17, 2014)

We are not all pros and it's a sad day when officials wont let you take photos of your family in a public place without a permit. 

All I can say is phone cameras sometimes have their uses


----------



## tirediron (Jan 17, 2014)

The city maintains the park, the city ensures the park is safe - why should you get to make money for nothing?  It's great if you can, but it's not really a reasonable expectation.  The main reason however that most cities enact such laws is to control the number of photographers; how would you feel if you were going for a picnic with your family and you couldn't get to the table you want because some photographer has the whole area covered with lights and gear doing a shoot?  There's always at least two sides to every story!


----------



## tirediron (Jan 17, 2014)

weepete said:


> We are not all pros and it's a sad day when officials wont let you take photos of your family in a public place without a permit.
> 
> All I can say is phone cameras sometimes have their uses


Did you read the story?  It very clearly says "Pro photographers".  You can still take pictures of your family all you want, sans paperwork.


----------



## weepete (Jan 17, 2014)

tirediron said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> > We are not all pros and it's a sad day when officials wont let you take photos of your family in a public place without a permit.
> ...



Nah mate, I didn't follow the link to be fair, my bad. In the op though it only says photographers though so I hope that clears up my misunderstanding.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 17, 2014)

tirediron said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> > We are not all pros and it's a sad day when officials wont let you take photos of your family in a public place without a permit.
> ...



I guarantee you.... a MWAC shooting her own toddler will be required to obtain a permit.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 17, 2014)

480sparky said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > weepete said:
> ...


Doesn't MWAC = Pro???


----------



## squirrels (Jan 17, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Doesn't MWAC = Pro???



It does? Dang it, why am I not raking it in?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 17, 2014)

tirediron said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



According to the cops writing the ticket,........... Absotively posilutely.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 17, 2014)

If someone's doing a photoshoot with clients and making money from it they're conducting business in a park which is shared community space; can't expect to do that without a permit and/or fees etc. If they allow one business (a photographer) to operate in the park they'd potentially have to allow other businesses to operate there as well. 

Now whether a working photographer would be making more or less money than a hotdog vendor I don't know... LOL


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 17, 2014)

This is becoming common across the country as a means for states and local governments to generate revenue in a down economy. It doesn't always pertain to "Professionals" either. A city up the road from me requires a permit for anyone with a camera...probably even cell phones. It's not much, I think $25 but still.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 17, 2014)

Last time I looked into it (in the DFW area) it SEEMED that it would only be an issue if you had a tripod, lights, etc set up - something that could 'impede' traffic (even off the walkways)...  Without a tripod or light stands, or anything like that - you'll most likely be fine.


Last time I looked into it was at the botanical gardens in Fort Worth.  Even with a tripod, I didn't have any problems.  It may have changed since then though...


----------



## KmH (Jan 17, 2014)

weepete said:


> We are not all pros and it's a sad day when officials wont let you take photos of your family in a public place without a permit.
> 
> All I can say is phone cameras sometimes have their uses





weepete said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > weepete said:
> ...



Here you go:


> The city has said that non-professional photographers are still free to take photos in the park, but it's likely that anyone with a DSLR-style camera will get questioned in the efforts to enforce this rule.



Part of the reason more cities/counties/states are requiring public parks permits and COI's (Certificate Of Insurance) that add the city/county/state to the pro photographers liability insurance is because there are so many people charging for photography services that do not have a legal business and the required business liability insurance.

Thankfully on 30 years of doing professional photography I never had a client get hurt, but there were many close calls.
I did know of other pro photographers that had to use their liability insurance more than a few times.


----------



## photofree (Jan 17, 2014)

In Texas the better parks, you may have to sign in. And be reminded not to put the model "in" the flowers. Beyond that we have no income taxes. California just sucks. You already paid for the park, just keep it clean.

profound thinking about stuff


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 17, 2014)

photofree said:


> Beyond that we have no income taxes.


Income tax is not the only source of revenue for a State.  We have what I consider a high sales tax (8.25%), then there's (high) property taxes, fees for everything, lower State spending compared to other States...

Delaware was the cheapest state I ever lived in.  Income and property taxes were low, NO sales tax...  It is a tiny State though...lol.  I always seemed to have too much money for my own good though.


----------



## spicyTuna (Jan 18, 2014)

tirediron said:


> The city maintains the park, the city ensures the park is safe - why should you get to make money for nothing?  It's great if you can, but it's not really a reasonable expectation.  The main reason however that most cities enact such laws is to control the number of photographers; how would you feel if you were going for a picnic with your family and you couldn't get to the table you want because some photographer has the whole area covered with lights and gear doing a shoot?  There's always at least two sides to every story!



Money for nothing? We pay taxes on the money we make and pay other local taxes for those parks just like other people do. 

I understand the annoyances of perhaps a photographer having the area covered but it remember, it's a public park for everyone. I don't really see it as any different from a kid's birthday party taking several tables or a bunch of skate boarders or kids on bikes zooming through park paths. All can be annoyances. Photographers shouldn't be singled out. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## KmH (Jan 18, 2014)

The skate boarders and the bike riders aren't conducting a business and making money from using the park.

The issue is liability insurance.......

To get the permit the photographer has to add the city to their liability insurance and prove they have done so by including a COI that states so.
If a "pro" photographer does not have business liability insurance and a business that is registered or licensed by the city and state, they don't get a permit.


----------



## KmH (Jan 18, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Delaware was the cheapest state I ever lived in.  Income and property taxes were low, NO sales tax...  It is a tiny State though...lol.  I always seemed to have too much money for my own good though.


IIRC, Delaware is the only state that has every single road/street in the state pave. No dirt roads.

Of the approximately 4,000,000 miles of roads in the US, about half are still not paved.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 18, 2014)

KmH said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > Delaware was the cheapest state I ever lived in.  Income and property taxes were low, NO sales tax...  It is a tiny State though...lol.  I always seemed to have too much money for my own good though.
> ...


I can't confirm that, but in the 5 or so years I lived there, I can't say that I ever remember seeing an unpaved road...  I once lived in a house that had an unpaved alley beside it connecting two streets - but it was unnamed.  Think of it as an 'extended driveway', lol.  That's actually not far from the truth...  It was basically a driveway that served three houses.


edit
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=110+...F-8&ei=MybaUsPzGNLjsASrh4D4DQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg

Well, according to Google maps - it does have a name, South Ln.  There was no sign though, when I lived there.  It's gravel, as can be seen in the Street View.

That house was built in 1904.


----------



## Nickk (Jan 18, 2014)

tirediron said:


> The city maintains the park, the city ensures the park is safe - why should you get to make money for nothing?  It's great if you can, but it's not really a reasonable expectation.  The main reason however that most cities enact such laws is to control the number of photographers; how would you feel if you were going for a picnic with your family and you couldn't get to the table you want because some photographer has the whole area covered with lights and gear doing a shoot?  There's always at least two sides to every story!



That is a great perspective on the matter!


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 18, 2014)

KmH said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> > We are not all pros and it's a sad day when officials wont let you take photos of your family in a public place without a permit.
> ...



Guess it's a good thing I use my film cameras outdoors and rarely use my DSLR outside.


----------



## JoeW (Jan 18, 2014)

I'll bet the vast majority of public parks and certainly the NPS system require permits for commercial work, internal space (like the Smithsonian or National Botanical Garden) ban tripods unless you get a special permit, many also require insurance.  One local park (Meadowlark Botanical Gardens) that is a popular setting for bridal portraits even goes so far as to say:  we not only require a permit and insurance but we will also limit the number of shoots/photographers in the park.

Yes, it's b/c Parks are underfunded.  But another factor here is the need to "manage" the park.  It's why I can't decide to hold a concert in the park.  Or why I can't hold an impromptu animal circus.  Or set up a soccer tournament (and lay down some chalk lines in the big open space).  Or pitch a tent and just stay there for a month or so when I'm in between rentals or school is out of session.

People like to kvetch about how they "paid" for the park with their taxes and their freedoms are being restricted by big government.  Bah.  It's primarily about the NPS (or state or local entities) also having to balance everyone's rights and maintain access as much as possible.  It's why there are noise ordinances in urban areas, why you can't keep a pet tiger in your apartment, why you can't 10 old AMC Gremlins on your front lawn you've been meaning to restore, why areas are zoned to restrict certain types of businesses in some areas.  Eliminating these kinds of restrictions would mean that ultimately, all or most of us would lose some freedom as other people chose to exercise their "right" and it denied us some of our rights.

Now I know that some of these parks don't seem busy or are unlikely to have someone walking dogs off-leash or showing up with a couple of horses or shooting a 10 day movie there.  But if the City only requires permits for 1 particular park, what's to keep people who's use would deny others from moving to another park?  So, as much as permits and usage rules stink, they're necessary in a world where Parks and Rec has to balance many competing demands.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 18, 2014)

I'm just confused as to where they're going to make the distinction. For example; the dog project I was working on. I had one light with a softbox and a stand. I didn't make any money from the project, and I don't plan to, but because I appear to be a "professional" by someone who knows nothing about photography, I might be ticketed.

Or I would just have to not pursue the project since I don't have liability insurance...

And what about students? A student photographer trying to learn about lighting or doing a project might appear to be a professional, when in fact they're just a kid living off Ramen noodles and Red Bull. 

I don't know. I get why permits are required. I just don't trust cops to really care what the photog's actual reason is for being in the park vs. their own perception.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 18, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> I'm just confused as to where they're going to make the distinction. For example; the dog project I was working on. I had one light with a softbox and a stand. I didn't make any money from the project, and I don't plan to, but because I appear to be a "professional" by someone who knows nothing about photography, I might be ticketed.
> 
> Or I would just have to not pursue the project since I don't have liability insurance...
> 
> ...


One of the important things is to READ the actual by-law; there may well be language in it which makes it very clear ('though equally, there may not).  If the law is ambiguous, go about your shooting and if you get ticketed, challenge it on the basis of being an amateur.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 18, 2014)

Lol at all the statists trying to justify living in eu.


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 18, 2014)

tirediron said:


> challenge it on the basis of being an amateur.



Thats my story and I'm sticking to it. I'll show'em my CDL and give them the "I'm on vacation story"


----------



## skieur (Jan 18, 2014)

spicyTuna said:


> I guess being a public park and paying taxes isn't enough to use a park as a backdrop. Overland Park Kansas now requires a permit to take pictures in the park. I hope they don't do this in CA.
> 
> City in Kansas Now Requires Pro Photographers to Pay For a Permit When Shooting in Public Parks | Popular Photography



The right to take pictures is covered under the American Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights.  Restricting those rights would therefore be unconstitutional in the US and a violation of the Charter of Rights in Canada.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 18, 2014)

skieur said:


> spicyTuna said:
> 
> 
> > I guess being a public park and paying taxes isn't enough to use a park as a backdrop. Overland Park Kansas now requires a permit to take pictures in the park. I hope they don't do this in CA.
> ...


Trivia question:  How many permits could you pay for with 1% of the money it would cost to challenge this constitutionally?


----------



## table1349 (Jan 18, 2014)

Funny, when I read the constitution I never saw the word photography or even the word photograph once.  Nor did it say anything about the right to take pictures.


----------



## manicmike (Jan 18, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Funny, when I read the constitution I never saw the word photography or even the word photograph once.  Nor did it say anything about the right to take pictures.



It's the 75th amendment. Keep up my friend.


----------



## skieur (Jan 18, 2014)

tirediron said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > spicyTuna said:
> ...



Well some judges would rule on it immediately and some organizations would fund any appeal if it were even necessary in the US.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 18, 2014)

skieur said:


> spicyTuna said:
> 
> 
> > I guess being a public park and paying taxes isn't enough to use a park as a backdrop. Overland Park Kansas now requires a permit to take pictures in the park. I hope they don't do this in CA.
> ...



Your rights aren't taken away.... you can still take photographs.  It's just a matter of Taxation Without Representation.


----------



## IByte (Jan 18, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Your rights aren't taken away.... you can still take photographs.  It's just a matter of Taxation Without Representation.



Time to start dumping cases of film rolls an SD cards in the water


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 18, 2014)

tirediron said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > spicyTuna said:
> ...



Hum..i'm not sure about 1%. I've been looking into permits for some of our upcoming trips and the cost of some was very shocking. Washington DC for example requires a Permit for just about every park and monument...some are copyrighted and need permission from two different groups. These permits aren't cheap, $90 regular application fees to $120 Special event application fees. Then you have the permit fees which can run an additional $50-350. This amount could double, or triple should you want to shoot in multiple parks/monuments that is not covered under the same permit. Non-permit tickets run around $500 & 24hrs in jail. I wasn't going to complain about a $15-30 permit fee but as it stands, I'm a tourist in town for vacation. Now I'll fill out the necessary application for the monuments that are copyrighted but thats about it. I'm still reviewing permit requirements for some of our other upcoming trips.


----------



## snerd (Jan 18, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Funny, when I read the constitution I never saw the word photography or even the word photograph once.  Nor did it say anything about the right to take pictures.


That's because it's intended to limit governmental power. It lists what the government "can" do, not what citizens can't!


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 18, 2014)

snerd said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, when I read the constitution I never saw the word photography or even the word photograph once.  Nor did it say anything about the right to take pictures.
> ...


9th amendment.


----------



## skieur (Jan 18, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Obviously you are not aware that monuments cannot be legally copyrighted in the US or Canada.


----------



## skieur (Jan 18, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Funny, when I read the constitution I never saw the word photography or even the word photograph once. Nor did it say anything about the right to take pictures.



You are obviously not familiar with the US Constitution and the areas that cover the rights of photographic journalists in the US, backed up by case law and judges decisions.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 18, 2014)

tirediron said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > spicyTuna said:
> ...



Like it matters.  Please.  Don't you know that the best place in the world to get sound legal advice is from a photography forum on the internet!  Lol


----------



## table1349 (Jan 18, 2014)

skieur said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, when I read the constitution I never saw the word photography or even the word photograph once. Nor did it say anything about the right to take pictures.
> ...


Oh I am quite familiar with the US Constitution.  Show me the words Photography, photographer or photographic journalist in the Constitution.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 18, 2014)




----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 19, 2014)

skieur said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Sorry, meant Statues: Permission to use the Three Servicemen Statue


----------



## JoeW (Jan 19, 2014)

skieur said:


> spicyTuna said:
> 
> 
> > I guess being a public park and paying taxes isn't enough to use a park as a backdrop. Overland Park Kansas now requires a permit to take pictures in the park. I hope they don't do this in CA.
> ...




I'll speak to the USA since I'm not that familiar with Canadian juris prudence or national law.  And let me also note that I am not a lawyer.

1.  No rights in the USA are absolute.  Technically, speaking, it's not the right to take pictures, it's freedom of speech (the first amendment).  And even that....you can't take pictures of underage kids in erotic positions, you can't take pictures of accident victims in many states, you can't take pictures of secure facilities or classified documents.  Heck...a number of states have made it illegal for individuals to take pictures of farm animals or animal processing from public land (like the side of the road).  So even when the first amendment says "shall make no law" there are millions of laws that restrict free speech in this country...and the courts have upheld most of these laws.

2.  Requiring someone to have a permit or insurance is not prohibiting pictures.  It's like saying that if you have to get a license and insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle, then government has banned driving.

3.  It's absolutely correct that it makes sense to study the laws and ordinances where you live.  Some places provide exceptions for students and amateurs.  Or....as long as you don't have a crew or tripod.  Or....if there is no intended commercial use.  That's b/c WHY a locality passes a law varies and therefore the details of the law vary.  And yes, there is some wiggle-room...that's b/c most localities aren't trying to be nazis about this.  But they want to make some revenue and they can't increase taxes.  Or they need to manage the use of the park.  Or prevent someone from setting up shop.

4.  It's very useful to have a copy of the law or ordinance that is relevant to you.  That's b/c if you pull out a DSLR on public ground and point it at a Federal building, you'll often have a police officer or security guard come out and say "hold it--that's prohibited."  So to be able to pull out the paperwork and show it, matters.  For instance, here's a great website with details (state-by-state) about the "right to privacy" and what restrictions photographers face:  Photographers' Guide to Privacy | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and here's another downloadable and printable pdf by an attorney (Bert Krages) that's very easy to carry and deals with your rights as a shooter is someone stops and interrupts you with a "hey, that's illegal--you can't shoot that":  Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page

I highly recommend that anyone who shoots street photography, photojournalism, amateur sports, or any buildings and property that isn't your own download this sheet, print it out and carry a copy with you.  I've got one in my backpack and another in my holster.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 19, 2014)

JoeW said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > spicyTuna said:
> ...


But did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night??





Seriously though.  This isn't really about photography at all nor personal rights.  If you read the article it is apparent that this is about a local municipal government regulating commerace on property held in trust by that government for the use of all.


----------



## skieur (Jan 19, 2014)

It is covered under the first amendment in the US:  Freedom of Expression as in freedom of self-expression through photography and freedom of the enjoyment of property namely camera equipment under the same amendment.
Below is the American Civil Liberties Union web site detailing these freedoms.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers


----------



## spicyTuna (Jan 20, 2014)

2.  Requiring someone to have a permit or insurance is not prohibiting pictures.  It's like saying that if you have to get a license and insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle said:
			
		

> I would disagree. If you can't afford the cost of the permit, it would be prohibiting. If two parks are the same, and one costs money, would you choose the free one or the pay one? The city could make the cost very high which would effectively prohibit photography in public parks without outright banning it. Even if the permit is cheap, it's just the beginning for them to only raise the cost of the permit over time. A permit to remove a splitting and over grown tree on my own property cost more today than it did several years ago.
> 
> If they require permits to take pictures in a "public" park, then maybe they shouldn't call it a public park. If they need to charge more money to maintain the park, then they shouldn't discriminate and single out photographers, they should just charge for parking or admission so everyone who is using the park is paying to use it.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 20, 2014)

> I would disagree. If you can't afford the cost of the permit, it would be prohibiting. If two parks are the same, and one costs money, would you choose the free one or the pay one? The city could make the cost very high which would effectively prohibit photography in public parks without outright banning it. Even if the permit is cheap, it's just the beginning for them to only raise the cost of the permit over time. A permit to remove a splitting and over grown tree on my own property cost more today than it did several years ago.
> 
> If they require permits to take pictures in a "public" park, then maybe they shouldn't call it a public park. If they need to charge more money to maintain the park, then they shouldn't discriminate and single out photographers, they should just charge for parking or admission so everyone who is using the park is paying to use it.



So as a working photographer, if you can't afford the price of a back drop is the government obligated to buy you one?  Why should a business, any business get a free ride at the cost of all of the citizens that all pay for that resource.  A public park is just that a park for the use of all the public.  If it is there for the free and indiscriminate use by businesses then it should be called a Business Park not a Public Park.  

How about other public spaces then.  Let's say you are working photographer and have a building you work from.  If I run say a cafe of some kind next door should I be able to put a bunch of tables with umbrellas and chairs in front of your business location on the side walk.  It is after all a PUBLIC sidewalk.  So what if I may be blocking part of the view of the front of your business. If you say no then aren't you prohibiting me from being able to operate my business, to grow and expand it?

I have a good compromise for you.  If you as a working photographer, don't want to pay the permit fee to use the public park then I say fine.  I also say that you should be required to give to your clients any and all photographs that you took of them while using that public park free of charge for both the photos themselves and your time.  Why should your clients not get the same treatment that you as a working photographer seem to expect in using that public park as your location?


----------



## JoeW (Jan 20, 2014)

skieur said:


> It is covered under the first amendment in the US:  Freedom of Expression as in freedom of self-expression through photography and freedom of the enjoyment of property namely camera equipment under the same amendment.
> Below is the American Civil Liberties Union web site detailing these freedoms.
> 
> https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers



In the US, it's not really freedom of expression.  It's about free speech, which the courts have indicated is really speech with political or artistic nature.  And even then, all rights are balanced.  So my desire to stand up and yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre can be regulated.  Or my intention to take pictures of individuals entering and leaving secure facilities (like the local DEA office in Colombia or the CIA station in Tripoli).  Or taking pictures of accident and crime-scene victims.  In fact, even law requiring a model release for me to sell or publicize photos of a non-public figure balances my rights of speech vs. the rights of other individuals.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 20, 2014)

It seems the county can claim reasonable fees to cover the cost of regulating the park.  So there is no obstruction to free speech.  There was a recent decision by the courts that gave NYC the right to charge more than upstate communities to license firearms.  The court determined that resonable costs are acceptable and do not interefere with the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.  Constitutional Law Prof Blog


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 20, 2014)

Why even worry about the parks?  Just shoot on train tracks.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 20, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> > I would disagree. If you can't afford the cost of the permit, it would be prohibiting. If two parks are the same, and one costs money, would you choose the free one or the pay one? The city could make the cost very high which would effectively prohibit photography in public parks without outright banning it. Even if the permit is cheap, it's just the beginning for them to only raise the cost of the permit over time. A permit to remove a splitting and over grown tree on my own property cost more today than it did several years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 20, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> Why even worry about the parks? Just shoot on train tracks.



Doesn't that require a top hat and a handlebar moustache that is long enough to twirl while you laugh manaicaly?  Not that I'm saying it's a bad idea mind you just want to make sure I have all the I's dotted and the T's crossed.. lol


----------



## pixmedic (Jan 20, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > Why even worry about the parks? Just shoot on train tracks.
> ...



I got that covered.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 20, 2014)

Next you're going to tell me you need a license to be a florist...


----------



## table1349 (Jan 20, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Next you're going to tell me you need a license to be a florist...



Well, if you are pushing a cart around on a public sidewalk, in a public park etc.  selling your flowers you probably do.  

http://www.license123.com/Businesses/Florist#


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 20, 2014)

Go on a day like today! some of the parks etc. waive fees on some holidays. Check into the policies before you go so you know if there will be any costs or restrictions.  

In my area you need a season pass or pay a fee to just _enter_ a county park so it's not free. It seems to depend on where you live, but it's like using a picnic shelter - you have to sign up based on what's available and there may be a fee. I don't think a photographer can plan on setting up a photo shoot without permission and/or a fee, and may need to figure the cost into what they're charging clients (maybe this will discourage some of the facebook and craigslist fauxtographers?)

The railroad tracks sounds funny (and now I have this mental image of Pixmedic in a Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon) but this seems to really be happening - someone just posted on here somewhere I think a news story about a couple with their camera who got killed out on tracks. Apparently by the time they heard the whistle and saw it coming they couldn't get out of the way fast enough.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 20, 2014)

I have a feeling that part of the reason those people got killed is that they decided to worry too much about the equipment rather than their lives. Part of the reason.


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 21, 2014)

Much ado about nothing.

The article says that anyone with a DSLR is likely to be questioned in order to enforce the rule that requires pros to get a permit.

How long do you think it's going to be before they figure out that DSLR's are as popular as an Instamatic was in the 70's and give up on that idea?

To the point, though, I understand it and I don't have a problem with it. If you're doing business in the park, be it selling hot dogs or shooting pictures, there's no reason one should have to pay and not the other...


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 21, 2014)

weepete said:


> We are not all pros and it's a sad day when officials wont let you take photos of your family in a public place without a permit.



I agree with you.

Of course, that's not what's happening here, so your fears are unfounded...


----------



## JoeW (Jan 21, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



I live in the DC area (and have been for nearly 40+ years).  I'm in DC taking pictures of the monuments and federal buildings almost every month.  I don't think I've ever purchased a permit to do so.

Here's the key--almost every monument/park in the Federal system that restricts shooting to some degree or requires permits (and that includes DC) is about COMMERCIAL use or using a tripod.  I doubt there is a location you're looking at that I haven't shot at in DC and the permits only mattered if it was for commercial work OR if I had equipment (speed light, tripod, film crew, large ensemble).  Shooting as a hobbyist/amateur or shooting pictures of friends with iconic locations...it's all free.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 21, 2014)

JoeW said:


> I live in the DC area (and have been for nearly 40+ years).  I'm in DC taking pictures of the monuments and federal buildings almost every month.  I don't think I've ever purchased a permit to do so.
> 
> Here's the key--almost every monument/park in the Federal system (and that includes DC) is about COMMERCIAL use or using a tripod.  I doubt there is a location you're looking at that I haven't shot at in DC and the permits only mattered if it was for commercial work OR if I had equipment (speed light, tripod, film crew, large ensemble).  Shooting as a hobbyist/amateur or shooting pictures of friends with iconic locations...it's all free.



correct:






officier quotes 36 CFR 7.96 but there's no mention of a permit for "commercial" shooting: 7.96 - National Capital Region. - PART 7: SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM - Code of Federal Regulations - Title 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Property - July 01, 2010 - Order: 7.96 - 19768726 - PART 7: SPECIAL REGULATIONS, ARE



just don't take pictures of the SS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXkA55czGWc


----------



## NancyMoranG (Jan 21, 2014)

You couldn't pay me enough to put up with people like that! 
You have the right to have a gun, but there are rules. You have the right to drive a car, but there are rules. 
Yes, there is free speech, but it comes with rules too. You cannot slander someone, you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded space, etc
He CAN film there, just not impeding others, who have the right to be there, with his entourage, tripod and stopping the flow of sidewalk, to interview people. So they ask crews to be out of the public walk! 
I think security in D.C. Is alittle more strict. In large cities, you can't let just 1 do it, or a million will want to do it.
What a jerk.
Nancy


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 21, 2014)

JoeW said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...




Yes, I was committing on commercial work. 

So does this stance on no tripods include night time photography?


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 21, 2014)

Braineack said:


> JoeW said:
> 
> 
> > I live in the DC area (and have been for nearly 40+ years).  I'm in DC taking pictures of the monuments and federal buildings almost every month.  I don't think I've ever purchased a permit to do so.
> ...



Wow...those Park police are way tolerant than I thought. I probably would have had a couple guys in the back seat of my cruiser if it was me...especially that dude bugging the SS  

I've been around the SS a few times and never thought about taking their photos. I did however ask if I could get one of the President once while out Mountain bike Riding. They then informed me that that wasn't part of their job distraction...BUT, if I was in the right place at the right time, it would be possible. This however violated my beliefs in NOT chasing down a man with heavily armed guards. So I took a pass and waved as they drove off lol


----------



## skieur (Jan 21, 2014)

JoeW said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Correct. The idea behind permits is to control large photo crews from taking over a park with large and elaborate equipment and disturbing normal use. The problem in some areas of states or cities in the US is when the "enforcers" of permits go after anyone with a camera. That is where the line is crossed into violating the rights of the photographer.


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't know that jackass Kokesh from Adam, but he's an idiot.

How many times was he told to speak with the department PIO? Seven? The reason they tell him that is because that's the right thing to do. It is not their job to comment on the legitimacy of policy. The one cop had it exactly correct; it's not his job to interpret the law, it's his job to enforce it. Idiots like Kokesh are too stupid to understand this. I really wish they'd have enforced the law on him.

Man, if anyone needs a *****-slap...


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 21, 2014)

skieur said:


> Correct. The idea behind permits is to control large photo crews from taking over a park with large and elaborate equipment and disturbing normal use. The problem in some areas of states or cities in the US is when the "enforcers" of permits go after anyone with a camera. That is where the line is crossed into violating the rights of the photographer.



Where is that happening?


----------



## Coasty (Jan 21, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> Go on a day like today! some of the parks etc. waive fees on some holidays. Check into the policies before you go so you know if there will be any costs or restrictions.
> 
> In my area you need a season pass or pay a fee to just _enter_ a county park so it's not free. It seems to depend on where you live, but it's like using a picnic shelter - you have to sign up based on what's available and there may be a fee. I don't think a photographer can plan on setting up a photo shoot without permission and/or a fee, and may need to figure the cost into what they're charging clients (maybe this will discourage some of the facebook and craigslist fauxtographers?)
> 
> The railroad tracks sounds funny (and now I have this mental image of Pixmedic in a Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon) but this seems to really be happening - someone just posted on here somewhere I think a news story about a couple with their camera who got killed out on tracks. Apparently by the time they heard the whistle and saw it coming they couldn't get out of the way fast enough.



Well, I had to try it. The key is not to be on the tracks


----------



## JoeW (Jan 21, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> JoeW said:
> 
> 
> > Tailgunner said:
> ...



First, I think it depends upon where you're shooting.  For instance, I've done night-time shots with a tripod at the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial, at the Tidal Basin during the Cherry Blossom Festival, inside the Lincoln Memorial.  But I think if you try to use a tripod or monopod inside any enclosed building you're going to have a problem regardless of time of day.

Second, to other posts that questioned just exactly where large groups of people with cameras were showing up and denying access to the public...again, my experience is DC.  You started to get people who camped out for a full year in Lafayette Park (which is viewable from the White House) so they could dramatize the plight of the homeless (there was even a Federal Ct. decision about whether or not the Park Service could require them to apply for a permit since this was obviously political speech).  One winter, farmers decided they were getting a raw deal from Congress so a large group of them parked combines, tractors and harvesters on the National Mall and they just stayed there most of the winter.  There are plenty of examples where individuals have used public space in ways that basically screwed the public--denied use to many others or degraded the space requiring tax payer money to fix things.  So one of the things the Fed Govt now does in parks and with buildings that the public has reason to go to, is to require permits or fees for photography or weddings or receptions or large gatherings and they regulate the non-traditional use (what you can bring in to certain museums).


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 21, 2014)

JoeW said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > JoeW said:
> ...



Thanks, 

I use my tripod more for night time city and landscapes shots. So I'll be out in some field shooting...hopefully during the Cherry Blossom season.


----------



## spicyTuna (Jan 22, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Well, if you are pushing a cart around on a public sidewalk, in a public park etc.  selling your flowers you probably do.    http://www.license123.com/Businesses/Florist#



Ya pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Kids get heckled for having lemonade stands now.


----------



## batmura (Jan 28, 2014)

So how are they gonna tell if you're a pro or not? If I have a tripod and am shooting a park or at a beach, how am I gonna prove I'm just an amateur? Here in Turkey I was not allowed to shoot once because the idiot said I have a tripod and a "big" camera (D7100).


----------



## skieur (Jan 28, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



On the contrary, a busy photographer in all areas of photography encounters a lot of legal situations on a weekly basis and needs to know the law in order to survive financially and know when to ignore threats and intimidation based on law suits.


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 28, 2014)

I thought I posted on this -- apparently I did not.

In any case, there's one glaring problem with this...   what's the "point" of requiring a permit?  I can't imagine any other reason EXCEPT to charge the "professional" photographer for the permit.  Normally the point of a REAL permit has to do with compliance.  I need a permit to build a house BECAUSE a city inspector is going to show up to verify that the contractor isn't building a house that's actually a death trap.  I look suspiciously on any law or ordinance requiring a "permit" for something that cannot be argued to be a matter of safety or genuinely in the public interest.

One might argue that raising funds is in the public interest.  But there's a problem with this.

This supposes that those professional photographers are rife with cash and taking advantage of the taxpayers by getting rich off the use of a park that the public paid for.

And herein lies the problem:  Do you suppose the "photographer" is going to eat the cost of the permit?

I think probably it will go more like this: If the city says that permit will be $XX dollars... then the photographer is going to tell the client that there will be an $XX dollars fee for the permit required to shoot their senior portrait / family portrait / engagement shoot / etc. in the park that requires the permit.

So the only person "paying" for the use of the park... is the client.


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 28, 2014)

TCampbell said:


> I thought I posted on this -- apparently I did not.
> 
> In any case, there's one glaring problem with this...   what's the "point" of requiring a permit?  I can't imagine any other reason EXCEPT to charge the "professional" photographer for the permit.  Normally the point of a REAL permit has to do with compliance.  I need a permit to build a house BECAUSE a city inspector is going to show up to verify that the contractor isn't building a house that's actually a death trap.  I look suspiciously on any law or ordinance requiring a "permit" for something that cannot be argued to be a matter of safety or genuinely in the public interest.
> 
> ...



I've never had to secure a permit, but would the process of securing include proving that you hold liability insurance? Would it make a provision for, if something is damaged or destroyed during your commercial shoot, that you have a sufficient level of insurance to pay for the damage?

Again, I don't have a single problem with requiring a permit...


----------



## JoeW (Jan 29, 2014)

TCampbell said:


> I thought I posted on this -- apparently I did not.
> 
> In any case, there's one glaring problem with this...   what's the "point" of requiring a permit?  I can't imagine any other reason EXCEPT to charge the "professional" photographer for the permit.  Normally the point of a REAL permit has to do with compliance.  I need a permit to build a house BECAUSE a city inspector is going to show up to verify that the contractor isn't building a house that's actually a death trap.  I look suspiciously on any law or ordinance requiring a "permit" for something that cannot be argued to be a matter of safety or genuinely in the public interest.
> 
> ...



Not always.  Some venues require permits in order to regulate use (for instance, if you have to pay $1,000 to shoot a movie...even an amateur attempt...you're likely dissuaded from doing so).  I mentioned the example of Meadowlark Gardens Park in an earlier post (requires permits for wedding shoots and limits them to 3 a day)...that's not about making money, it's about regulating volume and use.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 29, 2014)

The way it's presented on their website, suggest it's pretty much to regulate use, especially since you need to schedule 30 days in advance.

Permits for Photos & Video ? City of Overland Park


The fee is not substantial, and the burden will get paid by the clients, that's how taxes work.  This new rule with the booking schedule seems to be an effort to completly erradicate any commerical, portrait or posed photographs from the park completely, this is how laws/regulations work.


----------



## New_photog (Jun 8, 2014)

I also live in the DC area, and have taken lots of photos in Northern Virginia in parks maintained by the National Park Service.  My shoots have always been non-paid/hobbyist portrait shoots with friends and *aspiring* models, in which no one pays anything.  We all contribute our time and skills for free, be it me as the photographer, the model, or the occasional makeup artist or hairstylist.  I've only pulled out a reflector on one shoot.  No one paid any attention or hassled me.  I don't have an actual business or even a website or blog (I don't count a Facebook fanpage as a website).  Yes, sometimes my models wear vintage dresses and flower crowns, so they don't look like a typical tourist in a park.  But the photos aren't being used to sell anything.  We just do this for practice, fun, and portfolio-building.  I don't think this falls under the definition of "commercial photography," does it?


----------



## JoeW (Jun 9, 2014)

New_photog said:


> I also live in the DC area, and have taken lots of photos in Northern Virginia in parks maintained by the National Park Service.  My shoots have always been non-paid/hobbyist portrait shoots with friends and *aspiring* models, in which no one pays anything.  We all contribute our time and skills for free, be it me as the photographer, the model, or the occasional makeup artist or hairstylist.  I've only pulled out a reflector on one shoot.  No one paid any attention or hassled me.  I don't have an actual business or even a website or blog (I don't count a Facebook fanpage as a website).  Yes, sometimes my models wear vintage dresses and flower crowns, so they don't look like a typical tourist in a park.  But the photos aren't being used to sell anything.  We just do this for practice, fun, and portfolio-building.  I don't think this falls under the definition of "commercial photography," does it?




I too have done a lot of shoots at NPS sites.  As a general rule, if you have "professional equipment" (soft box/umbrella, scrim, tripod) and/or a crew, you're likely to have Park Rangers inquire.  But otherwise, not.

Frankly, I highly approve of the permits and regulations on the parks...it gives people like you and me a opportunity to use them by limiting over-use or preventing abuse.  I look at what has happened with the National Mall in DC or Lafayette Park across from the WH...grass is beaten down in to submission and what could be a beautiful piece of green in an urban environment (and a nice place for photos) is instead full of dust and weeds and trash plus whatever group is using it that day.


----------

