By Carlos Miller
Howard “Boots” McGhee was photographing his family in a California state park when a ranger told him he was breaking the law.
McGhee, it turns out, did not have a permit to take pictures. And a state law requires photographers to obtain permits for commercial photo shoots.
The only problem was, this was far from a commercial photo shoot. It was a family photo meant to go on a holiday card.
But that didn’t matter to the ranger. He saw McGhee shooting with a Canon 30D and a 70-200 lens, so he assumed he was making money off the shoot.
If it were only that easy.
According to the Santa Cruz Sentinel:
A little-known State Parks regulation requires commercial photographers to acquire a permit through the California Film Commission before embarking on still or motion picture shooting at any state-administered park or beach, including Seacliff.
“Up and down the coast throughout the year we have many issues with commercial enterprises doing commercial shoots on State Parks land,” said Kirk Lingenfelter, superintendent for the Pajaro Coast sector of State Parks.
He said photo shoots and filming can involve considerable amounts of equipment and displace the public, which is why a permit is required. Also, the permit curtails commercial outfits from using parks for profit, Lingenfelter said.
The incident occurred Thanksgiving weekend at Seacliff State Beach on Monterrey Bay, just south of Santa Cruz. Another two photographers were also forbidden from taking pictures that weekend.
Lingenfelter said McGhee’s shoot and two others caught the ranger’s attention Friday because they had the appearances of a professional photo shoot.
“What caught his eye was very, very expensive equipment and reflective equipment for lighting,” Lingenfelter said.
Carrying professional camera gear does not make one a professional photographer anymore than wearing beige stetson make one a park ranger. And even if somebody happens to be a professional photographer as McGhee is, it doesn’t necessarily mean he is making money off that particular shoot.
With this logic, anyone caught with possession of illegal drugs can be convicted of drug trafficking. But so far, the courts have required more evidence to turn a mere possession charge into a trafficking convinction.
So why are these park rangers allowed to make baseless assumptions?
In fact, I took a look through the California Film Commission site and was unable to find a section dedicated to still photographers. But I’m sure there is one because Ranger Lingenfelter said it would be.
And he wouldn’t lie, would he?
Popularity: 14% [?]
Related posts:
- New Hampshire man told he needs permit to film inside state park
- Man told he needs to ask police permission to photograph in park
- A Coral Gables police officer asks me for a permit after I photograph him
- Phoenix skateboarders told not to take pictures of the federal courthouse
- Man threatened with arrest for using tripod to photograph Coke museum
Support Photography is Not a Crime by buying your electronics through this ad.
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
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