Santa Monica security guards harass photographer at amusement park
|
santamonicapier
Photo by Anthony Citrano |
One of the most popular tourist spots in Southern California is off-limits to photographers.
At least photographers who carry big lenses.
Or photographers who are not photographing their families.
Or photographers who have not signed a prior waiver.
Security guards could not make up their minds as to exactly why Anthony Citrano was not allowed to take photographs inside the famous Pacific Park amusement park on the Santa Monica Pier Friday night.
The first guard told him he was only allowed to take photos of family members. A second security guard told him he could not take photos of the rides, such as the Ferris Wheel. A third security guard said he could only take photos if he signed a waiver agreeing to give up his first born.
The trio of security guards finally concluded that Citrano was not allowed to take photos because the amusement park is private property. However, Citrano did some research and discovered that the amusement park is actually sitting on public property.
But upon further reflection, I don’t understand how Pacific Park can fit the legal definition of private property. The entire pier is owned by the City of Santa Monica (thus the name “Santa Monica Municipal Pier”), and Pacific Park appears to lease the space from the City (as Santa Monica Amusements LLC.) The Park is entirely surrounded by – and from a purely physical point of view literally sits atop – public property.
Thus, Pacific Park appears to be a private service operating on public property. I’ll let the lawyers out there more clearly define this for us.
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
The Fujifilm Finepix X10, A Review
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Tips for Textures
Butterflies in Motion
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk Inkjet Paper — Audiocast











Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Taking your Portraiture Higher
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?
























Comments
I know for a fact you COULD photograph there. I even filmed police on the pier, several years ago. I had a series of pictures (evidently lost in a hard drive crash, i was going to link to them) called “pacific park punkasses”
One of the pictures was of a buddy of mine in the pink information booth giving the Thumbs Up sign – other pictures included the arcade (DDR was HOT that year), ferris wheel, the cannons, and various other attractions on that pier.
So, that’s my experience, there.
I think you need a permit to photograph commercial intent there. Taking photos of family is not commercial intent – it is personal.
This is So. Cal. after all. Film permits are needed everywhere – from LA to SM to Hermosa and Manhattan Beach.
Thanks, Carlos. I think if it is public property, the answer is a simple one: photography is allowed. If it is private property, we at least need clarity on what the policy is.
And since this was not commercial photography, the second commenter must be discussing another case.
Scary stuff, and a complete time waster at that. Thanks for the heads up–I’ll have to avoid this great night photography location from now on…
kwwphoto: you’re bound to get better pictures in and around 3rd street promenade anyhow.
I’m a photographer and was shooting a couple up in Palisades Park (the park along Ocean leading up to the entrance of the pier) and was harassed by a Park Ranger. He asked me for my film permit, which I didn’t have. I told him I’m sorry, I didn’t know (which I actually didn’t) and that we were leaving. He made sure to wait and watch us leave. I can understand (sort of) the issue with commercial photography (again, sort of) I don’t understand the issue with portrait photography. My clients had never visited SoCal and wanted me to document their time in Santa Monica as they enjoyed the city. It really left a bitter taste in our mouths, but I just laughed, “that’s LA for ya, everyone wants their money”.
Every bozo with a gun, a badge and a uniform thinks its his god given right to run roughshod over other people’s civil rights.
A great number of for the well-written piece of content. I am realistically at position in the moment! And so i are required to go off devoid of reading all I’d like. But I’ve added your webpage to my RSS feed so that I can deliver my time to go as a area.
I admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time… however it was another pleasure to see It is this kind of an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to assist making individuals more conscious of possible issueGreat stuff as usual…
Post new comment