Comments on: California man told he needs permit to photograph family http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/15/california-man-told-he-needs-permit-to-photograph-family/ It's a First Amendment Right Sun, 01 Aug 2010 05:23:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=7723 By: Rusty Carr http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/15/california-man-told-he-needs-permit-to-photograph-family/#comment-22442 Rusty Carr Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:07:02 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=9054#comment-22442 Yeah, I guess if a rich kid showed up with a $40K Hasselblad that'd make him a pro. Yeah, I guess if a rich kid showed up with a $40K Hasselblad that’d make him a pro.

]]> By: Rusty Carr http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/15/california-man-told-he-needs-permit-to-photograph-family/#comment-22441 Rusty Carr Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:04:46 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=9054#comment-22441 Embarrassed and ashamed over having one's 1st. Amendment rights trampled by a low level government official? I'm missing your point here. Embarrassed and ashamed over having one’s 1st. Amendment rights trampled by a low level government official? I’m missing your point here.

]]> By: ugottabkidding http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/15/california-man-told-he-needs-permit-to-photograph-family/#comment-18093 ugottabkidding Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:45:44 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=9054#comment-18093 WOW WOW

]]> By: JeffC http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/15/california-man-told-he-needs-permit-to-photograph-family/#comment-17965 JeffC Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:56:48 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=9054#comment-17965 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. 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.

]]> By: pod http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/15/california-man-told-he-needs-permit-to-photograph-family/#comment-17962 pod Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:34:40 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=9054#comment-17962 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. 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.

]]> By: JeffC http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/15/california-man-told-he-needs-permit-to-photograph-family/#comment-17922 JeffC Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:19:28 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=9054#comment-17922 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. 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.

]]> By: NYCPhotorights http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/15/california-man-told-he-needs-permit-to-photograph-family/#comment-17895 NYCPhotorights Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:52:55 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=9054#comment-17895 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. 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.

]]> By: JeffC http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/15/california-man-told-he-needs-permit-to-photograph-family/#comment-17892 JeffC Wed, 16 Dec 2009 08:18:28 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=9054#comment-17892 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. 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.

]]> By: Jay http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/15/california-man-told-he-needs-permit-to-photograph-family/#comment-17890 Jay Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:49:17 +0000 http://carlosmiller.com/?p=9054#comment-17890 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. 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.

]]>