# Laguna Beach Requires a $100+ Permit for ANY Kind of Photo Shoot in Public



## nerwin

Well it has begun. 

Is this a new thing that will be happening across the country and throughout the world? Photographers wont allowed to take photos in public without a expensive permit? 

https://petapixel.com/2017/06/09/laguna-beach-requires-100-permit-kind-photo-shoot-public/

This is an absolute joke. 

Crap like this more and more is turning me off from enjoying photography. Will DSLRs (or "big cameras") become banned from public and can only be used with a permit or on private property? 

I'm afraid someday I'll get in trouble for shooting with my DSLR because of its size and that I'll get fined or ticketed because I have a "big camera" and not using my phone or a dinky point and shoot. 

They certainly are making it harder and harder for us photographers.


----------



## smoke665

Case of your rights end where mine begin. If in fact the popularity of the place for photography had made it a problem for the residents, and damage/trash had taken place then the city was within their right to seek a resolution. That said, if a resident of the city, desired to take photographs for their own personal use, then I foresee a lawsuit challenge if they were to be ticketed.


----------



## Braineack

if it breathes...


----------



## nerwin

smoke665 said:


> Case of your rights end where mine begin. If in fact the popularity of the place for photography had made it a problem for the residents, and damage/trash had taken place then the city was within their right to seek a resolution. That said, if a resident of the city, desired to take photographs for their own personal use, then I foresee a lawsuit challenge if they were to be ticketed.



But say if I went there on vacation and used my DSLR to take some landscape shots for personal use, wouldn't I get in trouble because I don't have a photography permit? That's what I got from the article. Sounds like for ANY KIND of photo shoot.


----------



## jpross123

Drones I guess I can understand having a permit for that. But to take pictures with a DSLR...that's just not right. Photography is already an expensive enough hobby/career, lets not make it more pricy with permits and fees we have to pay, just to take a photo.


----------



## pendennis

Photographs, taken in or from a public area, have been considered part of the photographer's First Amendment rights.  Requiring a permit to "normally" exercise one's First Amendment rights might be ripe for an action.

If the "rangers" catch someone littering or damaging the beaches, etc., then fine the litterers.  Reads like using a howitzer to stop a mouse.  But, if people are too sheepish to fight these infringements, then they deserve the government they get.


----------



## table1349

pendennis said:


> Photographs, taken in or from a public area, have been considered part of the photographer's First Amendment rights.  Requiring a permit to "normally" exercise one's First Amendment rights might be ripe for an action.
> 
> If the "rangers" catch someone littering or damaging the beaches, etc., then fine the litterers.  Reads like using a howitzer to stop a mouse.  But, if people are too sheepish to fight these infringements, then they deserve the government they get.


Public area does not mean it belongs to the public.  It is land held in trust for the good of ALL of the public.  The courts have long found that government entities can regulate the use of the lands held in trust for public use.  

Perhaps photographers should actually READ the First Amendment:
_"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."_


----------



## KmH

nerwin said:


> But say if I went there on vacation and used my DSLR to take some landscape shots for personal use, wouldn't I get in trouble because I don't have a photography permit? That's what I got from the article. Sounds like for ANY KIND of photo shoot.


Read the City of Laguna Beach NON-COMMERCIAL STILL PHOTOGRAPHY PERMIT PROCEDURES AND POLICIES:
Non-commercial still photo *permits are for family portraits and engagement/wedding type photo shoots only.*
and:
Only one hand held or one camera on a tripod may be used. Filming is not permitted *on* rocks at the beach, *in* tide pools or *in* the ocean.

So yes, you can take some landscape shots for personal use _without the need to obtain a permit_.
At the beach - stay off the rocks, out of the tide pools, and out of the ocean.


----------



## cgw

nerwin said:


> Well it has begun.
> 
> Is this a new thing that will be happening across the country and throughout the world? Photographers wont allowed to take photos in public without a expensive permit?
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2017/06/09/laguna-beach-requires-100-permit-kind-photo-shoot-public/
> 
> This is an absolute joke.
> 
> Crap like this more and more is turning me off from enjoying photography. Will DSLRs (or "big cameras") become banned from public and can only be used with a permit or on private property?
> 
> I'm afraid someday I'll get in trouble for shooting with my DSLR because of its size and that I'll get fined or ticketed because I have a "big camera" and not using my phone or a dinky point and shoot.
> 
> They certainly are making it harder and harder for us photographers.



 No it's not a joke and nobody's "rights" are being affected.These sorts of bylaws usually result from near anarchy at popular parks and scenic locations where free-for-all shooting of weddings, engagements and other occasions by pros and hacks alike becomes a problem. Scheduled permits and fees, along with enforcement, thin the mob and allow the public to enjoy these areas. The case cited in the petapixel article was a clear violation. Freedom is knowing the rules, bro.


----------



## 480sparky

pendennis said:


> .....Requiring a permit to "normally" exercise one's First Amendment rights............................



It used to be that way for the 2nd Amendment...................


----------



## nerwin

Just worries that I'll get in trouble someday for taking a picture in a public place even for personal use. But maybe that isn't the case, maybe it's just for more elaborate shoots.


----------



## Shafty

Typical bureaucracy ****.


----------



## table1349

nerwin said:


> Just worries that I'll get in trouble someday for taking a picture in a public place even for personal use. But maybe that isn't the case, maybe it's just for more elaborate shoots.


Refer to this.


----------



## pendennis

480sparky said:


> pendennis said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....Requiring a permit to "normally" exercise one's First Amendment rights............................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It used to be that way for the 2nd Amendment...................
Click to expand...


In Michigan, there's a move afoot in the legislature to "undo" the permit requirement for concealed carry.  Open carry has always been constitutional.  People are asking why a permit is needed just because one wears a coat.  Makes sense.  Now, if they'd just do away with the stupid registration forms...


----------



## 480sparky

pendennis said:


> ...........  Makes sense.  ............



Ya gotta remember your dealing with the gubbamint.  NOTHING makes sense.  If the gubbamint designed a race horse, they'd end up with a one-legged giraffe.


----------



## table1349




----------



## nerwin

I mean I completely understand what the article is about. So basically they are trying to limit the amount of photographers doing photoshoots in that area that's full of tourists trying to enjoy their day. It's understandable. Just like national parks require photography permits for commercial work or drone usage....but amateur photographers shooting personal use, don't need it.

I'm just scared that these rules someday will rub off to all photographers if you use a camera over a certain size. Maybe I'm just crazy. Haha.


----------



## smoke665

nerwin said:


> if you use a camera over a certain size. Maybe I'm just crazy. Haha.



You've never heard the expression, "it's not the size, it's how you use it"?


----------



## Designer

nerwin said:


> So basically they are trying to limit the amount of photographers ..


I dispute this.  IMO, it's more about the money than the number of photographers.  If it was a simple matter of knowing who is taking photographs and for what reason, and to make sure everyone picks up their trash when leaving, then the permit would be $5.  They charge $100 because they can.  Takes a lot of moola to run a city these days.


----------



## vintagesnaps

Petapixel got it wrong - their article says '...you'll need to pay a hefty permit fee just to shoot *any* photos...' . I highlighted 'any' because that is incorrect. According to the Laguna Beach website it says the permit is '...for limited use, single camera *shoots* such as family portraits, holiday cards, etc.'. It doesn't list any restrictions on taking pictures of the scenery. 

In my area this is nothing new, it's been going on for several years now. Most places have their policies and info. on their websites, or call and ask before you go. Having done sports this is definitely nothing new, but it has gotten more restrictive in more recent years. Teams and arenas have their policies on their websites, in media guides, programs, posted in the arena, etc. 

The photographer in this case had an assistant, equipment, and a client with him and apparently was doing a commercial (business) shoot. The photographer's friend (who is apparently also a photographer) said they've been doing this (apparently knowing they shouldn't) because the policy hasn't been enforced. So that sounds like the photographer knew about the policy and knew to get a permit but didn't. 

A community park/beach being intended for recreational shared public use means park management sets whatever policies. The cost is higher than around here but then the cost of living is much higher where they are so I don't know if the fees are 'hefty' or not - that's the opinion of the self proclaimed 'editor in chief' whose experience is in computer programming not journalism. These articles seem to be written to get people to look more than to provide accurate information.


----------



## nerwin

Designer said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically they are trying to limit the amount of photographers ..
> 
> 
> 
> I dispute this.  IMO, it's more about the money than the number of photographers.  If it was a simple matter of knowing who is taking photographs and for what reason, and to make sure everyone picks up their trash when leaving, then the permit would be $5.  They charge $100 because they can.  Takes a lot of moola to run a city these days.
Click to expand...


You're probably right. They saw an op to get more money haha.


----------



## table1349

Look at the positive side, it will thin out the M.W.C.'s and the Craigslisters, since they won't want to spend more than what they are probably charging for their shoot anyway.  

We have a small downtown park that is very photogenic and is also a nice little place to grab lunch and eat.  A couple of years ago some of us had grabbed our lunch and settled in a nice spot to eat.   A few minutes later along comes a photographer an his clients and he proceeded to try and run us off as he wanted to use it for his shots.  He became quite indignant when we refused and threatened to call the police telling us he had a permit to use the park for photography.  

He was a little taken aback when I cheerfully suggested that yes, maybe he should call the police.  He was down right floored when I stood up, produced my badge and then asked him what it was I could do for him.  As he stood there, very red faced and stammering I then asked him for the Permit that he claimed to have.  I was fully aware that the city does not issue such permits and that this particular park had no facilities that any sort of permit would be issued for.  

As he stammered and stuttered I then explained to him that this particular park was not here for the pleasure of the photographers, but for the people of our city and especially for those downtown.  I happened to have a little inside information on the park, the land and how and why it was built, because it was bought and paid for by the previous who also happened to be the original owner of the bank where my wife is a Senior V.P.  We had known the owner and his family for well over 30 years and knew ALL about that particular park, the purpose it was built before being donated to the city. 

He was one of the quietest photographers I have ever seen as he left with his clients in tow.  He didn't even try to use some of the other commonly used areas, of which there were plenty.


----------



## nerwin

What's M.W.C? (forgive me, I never heard of it)


----------



## table1349

nerwin said:


> What's M.W.C? (forgive me, I never heard of it)


*M*ommies *W*ith *C*amera's


----------



## nerwin

gryphonslair99 said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's M.W.C? (forgive me, I never heard of it)
> 
> 
> 
> *M*ommies *W*ith *C*amera's
Click to expand...


Is that some kind of photography cult?


----------



## Designer

nerwin said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's M.W.C? (forgive me, I never heard of it)
> 
> 
> 
> *M*ommies *W*ith *C*amera's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that some kind of photography cult?
Click to expand...

Not a cult.  Just a derogatory term for amateurs.  

Also *M*an *W*ith a *C*amera.


----------



## table1349

You are a newbie aren't you.  

There are to many old posts these days to even be counted as a plethora, where someone, often a female but not always, writes something along the lines of: 

_*"Hi I am a stay at home mom who has always really loved pictures and photography.  I just bought my first camera, a* _(insert your favorite consumer grade brand here)_ * and I want to start a part time business to make some money photographing babies and children.  What kind of lens should I get and what is the best setting to photograph babies and kids."  *_


----------



## nerwin

gryphonslair99 said:


> You are a newbie aren't you.
> 
> There are to many old posts these days to even be counted as a plethora, where someone, often a female but not always, writes something along the lines of:
> 
> _*"Hi I am a stay at home mom who has always really loved pictures and photography.  I just bought my first camera, a* _(insert your favorite consumer grade brand here)_ * and I want to start a part time business to make some money photographing babies and children.  What kind of lens should I get and what is the best setting to photography babies and kids."  *_



I'm just pulling your chain. Hehe.


----------



## table1349

Designer said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's M.W.C? (forgive me, I never heard of it)
> 
> 
> 
> *M*ommies *W*ith *C*amera's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that some kind of photography cult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a cult.  Just a derogatory term for amateurs.
> 
> Also *M*an *W*ith a *C*amera.
Click to expand...

Actually it deals more with the uninformed, overly excited, pie in the sky dreamer types.


----------



## nerwin

But Man With a Camera is different than Guy With a Camera. You don't want to call a MWC a GWC.


----------



## table1349

nerwin said:


> But Man With a Camera is different than Guy With a Camera. You don't want to call a MWC a GWC.


Which could also be called a Girl With Camera or a Gorilla with Camera, or even a *G*reen Mountain Stater *W*ith *C*amera.


----------



## nerwin

gryphonslair99 said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Man With a Camera is different than Guy With a Camera. You don't want to call a MWC a GWC.
> 
> 
> 
> Which could also be called a Girl With Camera or a Gorilla with Camera, or even a *G*reen Mountain Stater *W*ith *C*amera.
Click to expand...


Ohhhh you funny.


----------



## table1349

nerwin said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Man With a Camera is different than Guy With a Camera. You don't want to call a MWC a GWC.
> 
> 
> 
> Which could also be called a Girl With Camera or a Gorilla with Camera, or even a *G*reen Mountain Stater *W*ith *C*amera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh you funny.
Click to expand...


----------



## nerwin

gryphonslair99 said:


> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nerwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Man With a Camera is different than Guy With a Camera. You don't want to call a MWC a GWC.
> 
> 
> 
> Which could also be called a Girl With Camera or a Gorilla with Camera, or even a *G*reen Mountain Stater *W*ith *C*amera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh you funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 141389
Click to expand...


Oh my goodness, The Truman Show. Its been a long time since I've seen that.


----------



## BananaRepublic

nerwin said:


> Well it has begun.
> 
> Is this a new thing that will be happening across the country and throughout the world? Photographers wont allowed to take photos in public without a expensive permit?
> 
> https://petapixel.com/2017/06/09/laguna-beach-requires-100-permit-kind-photo-shoot-public/
> 
> This is an absolute joke.




Ah Capitalism


----------



## gckless

They're just trying to make money. I mean, is $100 really going to stop a wedding/engagement or family portrait shoot? Nope. So it's not to limit traffic. Just a money-making scheme IMO. If it morphs into something more, then I'll be concerned.


----------



## ClickAddict

If I have 2 locations, both of which are great for wedding photography, and one charges 100 and the not... guess which I'm picking most often.  It will limit traffic.  Wont eliminate it, but will limit it.  (Assuming they really enforce the rule closely)


----------



## tirediron

gckless said:


> They're just trying to make money. I mean, is $100 really going to stop a wedding/engagement or family portrait shoot? Nope. So it's not to limit traffic. Just a money-making scheme IMO. If it morphs into something more, then I'll be concerned.


Not at all; the way municipal governments work, it will likely cost them a LOT more to administer that $100 permit than $100.  There are two reasons for this sort of thing, for which I am totally in favour.

1.  It prevents a public area, meant for the enjoyment of ALL of the public from becoming a free photographer's studio and preventing the public from enjoying it; and

2.  If you or I as the photographer are making money from our gig there, why should we be entitled to free use of a space maintained at public expense? 

I never shoot in public spaces (unless I know it's permitted) without obtaining permission.  If there's a permit fee... the client pays it.  Plain and simple.


----------



## KmH

tirediron said:


> If there's a permit fee... the client pays it.  Plain and simple.


Yep. That's taught in Business 101.


----------



## benhasajeep

ClickAddict said:


> If I have 2 locations, both of which are great for wedding photography, and one charges 100 and the not... guess which I'm picking most often.  It will limit traffic.  Wont eliminate it, but will limit it.  (Assuming they really enforce the rule closely)



And you will just might find half a dozen like minded photographers there with the same opinions!  Some places invented the fee's due to the over crowding and fighting between parties.  The permits are priced high yes, but like others mentioned, keep the wanna bee's out.

We have a state sponsored logging mill near us.  They charge a photo fee.  And there is no additional access allowed by it, nor special treatment.  And it's only for commercial or commercial like uses (familys taking portraits within their own family ok).  So, my wife who likes to take friends who want their pictures taken by her there.  She got mad when they asked for the fee.  Even though she doesn't charge for the pictures they still have to pay the permit.  I can't remember but it's like $15.  She thinks it's unfair since she doesn't charge.  The facility is normally free of charge.  So, I tell her, it sounds fair to me for them to get a little money from people using their hard work to keep the mills in shape that you want to take pictures of.


----------



## cgw

tirediron said:


> gckless said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're just trying to make money. I mean, is $100 really going to stop a wedding/engagement or family portrait shoot? Nope. So it's not to limit traffic. Just a money-making scheme IMO. If it morphs into something more, then I'll be concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all; the way municipal governments work, it will likely cost them a LOT more to administer that $100 permit than $100.  There are two reasons for this sort of thing, for which I am totally in favour.
> 
> 1.  It prevents a public area, meant for the enjoyment of ALL of the public from becoming a free photographer's studio and preventing the public from enjoying it; and
> 
> 2.  If you or I as the photographer are making money from our gig there, why should we be entitled to free use of a space maintained at public expense?
> 
> I never shoot in public spaces (unless I know it's permitted) without obtaining permission.  If there's a permit fee... the client pays it.  Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

 
Amen. It's the out-sized sense of entitlement among some photographers--mostly hacks and wannabes--that makes for the problems. My only beef is iffy enforcement at permitted/pay venues when goofs-with-cameras(new acronym?)get in the way with their "clients." Hard-bitten pros I know who still play by the rules routinely involve law enforcement to clear venues they've paid for of these lice. Suspect it's no different in BC. Big problem around Toronto and its 'burbs.


----------



## tirediron

cgw said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gckless said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're just trying to make money. I mean, is $100 really going to stop a wedding/engagement or family portrait shoot? Nope. So it's not to limit traffic. Just a money-making scheme IMO. If it morphs into something more, then I'll be concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all; the way municipal governments work, it will likely cost them a LOT more to administer that $100 permit than $100.  There are two reasons for this sort of thing, for which I am totally in favour.
> 
> 1.  It prevents a public area, meant for the enjoyment of ALL of the public from becoming a free photographer's studio and preventing the public from enjoying it; and
> 
> 2.  If you or I as the photographer are making money from our gig there, why should we be entitled to free use of a space maintained at public expense?
> 
> I never shoot in public spaces (unless I know it's permitted) without obtaining permission.  If there's a permit fee... the client pays it.  Plain and simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen. It's the out-sized sense of entitlement among some photographers--mostly hacks and wannabes--that makes for the problems. My only beef is iffy enforcement at permitted/pay venues when goofs-with-cameras(new acronym?)get in the way with their "clients." Hard-bitten pros I know who still play by the rules routinely involve law enforcement to clear venues they've paid for of these lice. Suspect it's no different in BC. Big problem around Toronto and its 'burbs.
Click to expand...

Yep...  a little while I did a team shoot for the local contingent of the Battlefield Bike Ride which is riding to the Vimy memorial this year for the 100th Anniversary.  Veteran's Memorial Park in Langford has a miniature of "Mother Canada" and i thought that would be a great backdrop.  I called the city, explained what I wanted, quick e-mail with details and everything is good.  The day of the shoot, I'm setting up around 7.00 on Sunday morning and who roles up?  By-law enforcement (You know, never around when you need them, but at 7.00am on a Sunday...).  Asked my name, checked his computer, and all was good... BUT..  had i not done my due diligence...  Point being why, when  you're going to be blocking a large part of a public, tax-payer funded space, would you think that you DON'T need permission??????


----------

