Pixiq

FTA: “…and they went home, having finished taking the photos for the holiday card.”

Interesting how people are always “just finished” after these incidents.

No one ever says, “I felt embarrassed and ashamed, so I went home.”

If “photo shoots and filming can involve considerable amounts of equipment and displace the public”, I propose an easier way to determine if a permit is required.

Don’t require permits based on use of the images taken will be, base permits on how much equipment the photog is using.

For example, two camera bags or less, no permit needed. If you want to bring more, say, up to four camera bags + a fold-up tripod, an instant permit available. That should cover even the most avid amateur, and the light commercial stuff.
Don’t focus on the big flashy cameras, look around the camera. Require a sceduled permit if any of the following apply: A group of 2 supporters to the photographer. If someone’s going to be walking around with a shouldermounted camera. If any wires are going to be on the ground.

If your permit regulations are to enforce safety, they have to show that.

This is completely ridicilous. The equipment you carry is not in any way related to what you’re photographing. A professional could go out and take shots with a pinhole camera while a wealthy amateur can go out for a shoot with a full strobist set. Same thing in concerts, point and shoots get in but dslr’s dont.

This is getting just ridiculous. They can make any assumptions and make up any rule they want. You are the one who has to spend the time proving them wrong. Sort of like guilty until proven innocent. Hmmm

I go metal detecting sometimes in parks and cops can’t keep away. I know the relevant laws and I am sure not break any. So its the cops’ ignorance that keeps causing me problems.
Same thing going on here.
Cops like to mess with people, that’s what is really going on here. Just be a stupid consumer/slave and hang out at Wendy’s and WalMart and you’ll
be okay.

Happy Bill of Rights Day!

When you buy a camera, it should come with a legal disclaimer, “Danger: Possession of a camera in public or private will cause LEOs to target you as a terrorist or a pedophile. Park Rangers will get dollar signs in their eyes. Wear protective padding to protect yourself from assault and seek legal advice before removing camera from packaging…”

@Ken:

Outstanding. Maybe we can get some of these printed up and scotch tape them to camera displays in stores everywhere.

Stupid laws. No permit should be required. And who cares if they are making money? They pay taxes, and hence the parks operation, so they should be able to use it how they want. Now, if there are damaging property, that’s a different story.

There is such a regulation: it’s Title 14, Section 4316 of the California Code of Regulations. It was adopted in 1991 to control large-scale projects like motion picture production, but the Department of Parks and Recreation did a poor job of wording, so the regulation sometimes gets misapplied to small-scale still photography. The best way to keep the problem from recurring is to petition the DPR to change the regulation to say what was intended.

The rule should be as long as you’re not depriving others from using the park. This has nothing to do with laws, this was simply a bullshit power play.

Agreed that this incident was a petty power play. But it’s also the law. Most DPR personnel have better things to do with their time, but there are a few whose raison d’etre is the exercise of petty authority. And until the law is changed, those people will be able to play their silly games. Unfortunately, just griping here (or anywhere else) won’t change anything.

JeffC: You say it is the law, but where does the law state that a specific type of camera requires a permit? The law does not need to be changed, the government needs to be sued to force it to apply the law correctly.

The regulation requires a permit for photography for “profit and sale.” Although most of us recognize that this has nothing to do with the photogprapher’s equipment, a few DPR people, like the ranger who accosted Mr. McGhee, ass-u-me that a fancy camera indicates “commercial” intent. Unfortunately, this is a difficult misconception to correct, and the harassment will continue until the law is changed to preclude it. The intent of the regulation was to require a permit based on the activity’s potential for disruption, not whether the photographer might be making a profit. The law should be changed to say what was intended.

That’s all it is, is dollar signs.

Admittedly, I’ve done commercial projects on public land before, sans permit, but I know I’m shooting without one, so I never bring anything heavy. 1 body, 1 lens, and a wireless flash. I work with what I have, and that’s part of the fun actually.

Only been bothered once and it was by some officious park employee. I wasn’t embarrassed or anything, I said “OK, you got me”, and walked away. Me and my subject were actually at the vehicle ready to leave.

“Back in the day”, it used to be that you generally would be left alone as long as you kept it simple. No tripods, no big lights, if it was just you and a subject, no big whoop. I took some photos of a friend’s motorcycle (custom ‘Busa) on Ocean Drive, and the cops were more interested in the ‘Busa than what I was up to. They even wanted to be in the photos. This was five years ago.

Now, anyone with a remotely professional-looking rig is subject to the city sales pitch for a permit.

I feel bad for pros that shoot “for fun”, like the guy in the article.

It’s not at all about dollar signs in California state parks. There is no charge for a permit, so enforcing the regulation provides no revenue. The insurance certificate needed to get a permit protects against a nonexistent hazard for activities such as Mr. McGhee’s. This was a case of petter harassment, pure and simple.

Whether a permit is needed on “public lands” depends on the agency in charge. For most federal lands, a permit isn’t needed unless the photography involves the use of models or props for commercial advertising. Not all agency personnel understand this, but those who don’t are in the minority. Of course, infrequency doesn’t mean much if you’re the one who gets hassled.

WOW

Embarrassed and ashamed over having one’s 1st. Amendment rights trampled by a low level government official? I’m missing your point here.

Yeah, I guess if a rich kid showed up with a $40K Hasselblad that’d make him a pro.

To me, these laws seem ridiculous. If they’re meant to make sure the park life is not disrupted, I think there are much better laws that could have different criteria than trying to outlaw people with cameras. Seriously!
TJ McDowell recently posted..Wedding Photography Tips To Get Amazing Images