Park worker: Professional photographers need to have a permit to take pictures here...

Let me start off by saying that I'm not a professional photographer. But this is what a park worker said to me this morning.

 

I'll back up a bit. I have a new B&W (XTOL) developer being delivered today. I haven't been happy with the amount of grain from higher speed films in HC-110. I needed a test roll. So I left a little early and took a detour on the way to work. I'm a bike commuter and I followed a trail along a creek to that leads to Minnehaha Falls. Lots a great spots to take pictures though probably better for color.

 

I was using a Nikonos V which is underwater camera. I intended to shoot some pictures of rocks in shallow water along with a bunch of regular pictures.

 

So I'm just about done and I'm in a big open area next to a restaurant and a bicycle rental stand. At this point I'm just taking pictures of random stuff trying to finish off the roll and get to work.

 

A couple of park workers approach me and ask what I was taking pictures of. And I paused briefly because I wasn't really taking pictures of anything in particular. So I said I was taking pictures of bikes and the building. One of them asks who I worked for, and was I professional photographer?

 

Now I'm really confused. So I say: "No. I'm just a guy. Can't I take pictures here?" Which is kind of absurd because there were probably hundreds of people taking pictures there on the weekend.

 

Then she says. "Oh, it's fine, but professionals need a permit".

 

Huh? I could kind of see if I were setting a bunch of lights and other equipment but it was just me, a backpack, my camera and a bike.

 

What was a little ironic was that today I was actually good and stayed behind the fences and ropes I was supposed to stay behind. I've ignored those things plenty of times before when taking pictures of the Falls and have never been questioned.

 

Part of me wonders if I hadn't accidentally taken a picture of them doing something they weren't supposed to be doing. :)

They probably thought they were just doing their jobs. Or they were being over-zealous. Who knows? You could check with your local park department to see if they were correct, so you'd at least know if you were doing something legal or not. If you've done this many times before and have seen others doing it a lot, I'd just keep doing it and assume your encounter today was a one off and won't happen again. Generally, I wouldn't question it too much. It happened. It's over. Move on.

I believe there's a general rule in nearly all public places (parks, national parks, city streets, etc,) that requires a permit for commercial use. In order to keep it fair and avoid grey areas, it applies equally to major motion picture productions and individual photographers. Sometimes it seems a bit out of scale, but consider how hard it would be if you were a ranger and had to make a judgement call on where a commercial video production crossed from one side of the line to the other. In photography, the line between commercial versus private use is a pretty consistent one, and the most easily enforced, for many circumstances, including street photography, model releases, etc.

And to make it makes some sense to require a permit if someone is staking out a spot and bringing in a crap load of equipment. But a guy with a handheld camera? Granted a Nikonos is a little unusual looking... Anyway, you'd have no trouble finding prints of Minnehaha Falls for sale and I seriously doubt any of the photographers had a permit. :)

If it's a national park, yes . . . They were correct. You need to have a permit to shoot for commercial purposes. But, this means that even professional photographers can be sight-seers and not shooting for commercial purposes. I doubt that very many park rangers would appreciate the difference. They usually make the distinction by looking at the "professional" camera that you are using.

If it's a national park, yes . . . They were correct. You need to have a permit to shoot for commercial purposes. But, this means that even professional photographers can be sight-seers and not shooting for commercial purposes. I doubt that very many park rangers would appreciate the difference. They usually make the distinction by looking at the "professional" camera that you are using.

 

Seems like it would be really difficult to enforce if all you have to say is that you're sight-seeing.

 

It did turn into a brief conversation with one of them. There was a man and a women. When I told them I wasn't a professional, the guy announced that he was. He had a bunch of (friendly) questions about my camera, where I got film processed, etc.

But a guy with a handheld camera?

David provided a reasonable answer for this.

In order to keep it fair and avoid grey areas, it applies equally to major motion picture productions and individual photographers. Sometimes it seems a bit out of scale, but consider how hard it would be if you were a ranger and had to make a judgement call on where a commercial video production crossed from one side of the line to the other.

This makes sense to me. Doesn't it to you?

Seems like it would be really difficult to enforce if all you have to say is that you're sight-seeing.

Accept this as a good thing. If it wasn't enough to say you're sight-seeing, imagine how angry you'd be. Instead, just saying so got you where you want to be. Take that as a win.

David provided a reasonable answer for this.

 

This makes sense to me. Doesn't it to you?

 

Accept this as a good thing. If it wasn't enough to say you're sight-seeing, imagine how angry you'd be. Instead, just saying so got you where you want to be. Take that as a win.

 

I'm not angry. Just surprised. Maybe it was the time of day since the place was pretty empty that early. But you'd find much more professional looking cameras all throughout the day and I doubt they ever get questioned.

 

And it also leads me to wonder what the intent of the law is. I completely understand if the intent is to keep photo shoots or film productions from unduly interfering with the public's enjoyment of the park. Or to make sure people aren't damaging the area.

 

Do they really care if somebody sells a print of the park building for $30 without getting a permit?

Edited August 19, 2019 by tomspielman

Do they really care if somebody sells a print of the park building for $30 without getting a permit?

 

Yes . . . They do . . . So do most zoos and other public/private enterprises. . .

But you'd find much more professional looking cameras all throughout the day and I doubt they ever get questioned.

You seem to think you were singled out. Yet, from what you've told us it seems pretty random.

And it also leads me to wonder what the intent of the law is. I completely understand if the intent is to keep photo shoots or film productions from unduly interfering with the public's enjoyment of the park. Or to make sure people aren't damaging the area.

It could also be a way for the park to make money. As I generally like to support parks, I don't mind them making money like this.

Do they really care if somebody sells a print of the park building for $30 without getting a permit?

Ed's answer seems reasonable.

At one time, Mayor Daley (the younger) of Chicago claimed that the skyline was copyrighted by the city. In Millennium Park, photographers were chased away from "The Bean" for the same reason. The ban was widely ignored, and photos of both frequently appeared in art fairs and publications. Ultimately it was unenforceable because the City held copyrights on neither. There are restrictions on photography in the Pritzger Pavilion, but due to union rules, not city ordinance.

I think, this practice of permit for professional photography is there for two main reasons, among others. One is of course the point of earning revenue for the park, and most importantly imposing a 'tax' on professionals who can potentially earn revenue by using the park's venue. The other point is, professional photographers (e.g. wedding pros) can bring whole teams with reflectors, assistants, in some cases custom lightings, and if two or three such teams gather in the park at one time, they can be disruptive to the general public. Permits make sure, their access can be controlled and managed by the park authorities. Such policies are not at all uncommon in Southern CA. Our local arboretum (which is not a state park but a LA county property I think) has a very similar policy.

 

That said, many employees who enforce the rules enacted by their management sometimes don't realize the spirit of the rules and enforce them to the book. In this case, Tom was not disrupting the park's ambience with photo equipments, so this seems like a case of over-vigilance to me. In such cases, I think it is best to answer questions to diffuse tension and avoid raising further suspicion. I am happy this ended amicably.

Consider the restrictions due to copyright on nighttime photos of the Eiffel Tower. The night lighting is a copyrighted piece of art, and I understand there have been some substantial prosecutions for copyright infringement against pros who have sold or published images without license.

Consider the restrictions due to copyright on nighttime photos of the Eiffel Tower. The night lighting is a copyrighted piece of art, and I understand there have been some substantial prosecutions for copyright infringement against pros who have sold or published images without license.

 

Yeah, that make some sense to me. Not quite as sure about the bean in Chicago. It is iconic but at the same time I think people seeing images of it helps promote it and the city in a way that a written description couldn't. A "giant shiny bean shaped object" is probably something I wouldn't go out of my to see if I were in Chicago based on that description, but seeing a picture of it is more likely to make you want to see it in person. So I think clamping down on professional quality photos hurts more than helps.

 

The Eiffel tower and Paris don't really need promotion. And given how protective the French are about their language, I can see them wanting a lot of control over how the Eiffel tower is presented.

 

What I would question a little bit more is requiring permits for taking professional pictures of natural features like Minnehaha Falls. Again, assuming you aren't being any more disruptive than the person taking a selfie. The city is providing access I suppose but they are to everyone else as well. I just wonder how many images of the Falls that have appeared on postcards over the years were taken by photographers with a permit. Maybe most. I just hadn't given it any thought.

 

Anyway, I did check the park board website over lunch and sure enough you can download still photography permit applications right there. $300 per day for commercial photography. $45 an hour for individual/group portraits but you can get an annual portrait photography pass for $300. For commercial photography you also need a certificate of insurance for $250,000/$750,000 for bodily injury and $300,000 for property damage.

 

I'm not sure either is really intended to apply to an individual taking a picture of the sites, whether they intend to sell the photos or not.

 

All this is probably just my ignorance but it's made me curious. At the other end of my commute is downtown Minneapolis and about the last mile or so is along the Mississippi. I see a lot of portrait work being done in that area on my way home this time of year (senior photos, engagement photos, etc). There are some ruins of old mills along with the river itself that are popular backdrops. There are few park workers ever around. I'm tempted to ask the photographers if they need/have a permit to shoot in those spots. I'd be clear that I'm just curious, - not out to bust them. :)

Edited August 19, 2019 by tomspielman

No. I'm just a guy

 

I was photographing our local river, where it passes a set of sluices that let some of the flow into a channel that once served some water-driven mills. I was accosted not by a Council employee, but by an enraged citizen who assumed I was from the Council, and how could we let the sluices get into such a dilapidated state. That 'I'm just a guy' seemed, just for a moment, to make him even angrier, like I'd made him look a fool.

 

I'm tempted to ask the photographers if they need/have a permit to shoot in those spots.

 

Print a wad of permits, and sell them for a few dollars!

You seem to think you were singled out. Yet, from what you've told us it seems pretty random.

 

In this instance I wasn't really singled out but it definitely wasn't random. It was very early and hardly anyone else was there. And no one else with a camera. - not at that moment. So it's not like they picked me over 20 other photographers standing around, because I was the only one. ;)

 

But yeah, over the course of the day there will be lots of people there with cameras. So I think it's natural to be curious why I was approached. I've been there many times and taken many pictures. I've lived within a couple of miles for about 20 years. Never heard of this happening. For now I'm blaming the bright orange Nikonos. Should have have gotten the camouflage model.

 

And no I don't object to them making money to operate the parks. In terms of photographs of park itself, the city could be more purposeful about it than requiring permits. They could commission photographers and actually sell photos themselves, but they don't as far as I know. State and federal parks certainly do.

So I think it's natural to be curious why I was approached.

 

They had probably just come from a seminar that discussed the regulations . . .

Without evidence to the contrary or strong reason to believe otherwise, I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy. My guess: You were innocently doing your thing early one morning with your camera and the park workers were doing their job. They're working stiffs. Cut 'em a break.

. . .

 

Then she says. "Oh, it's fine, but professionals need a permit".

 

I think that you're placing too much emphasis on the second clause and not hearing what she said first: "Oh that's fine".

 

It occurs to me that she said the second clause, "professionals need a permit", because she was explaining why she asked in the first place - totally professional behaviour, nothing more nothing less.

 

WW

I think that you're placing too much emphasis on the second clause and not hearing what she said first: "Oh that's fine".

 

It occurs to me that she said the second clause, "professionals need a permit", because she was explaining why she asked in the first place - totally professional behaviour, nothing more nothing less.

 

WW

 

Well, like I said, - I was surprised and not angry. It just was an odd experience from my perspective having witnessed lots of picture taking of all types in that area.

And just to be clear my original source of surprise was that an individual professional photographer with just a camera (no other equipment, no makeup artists, no models or clients) needed a permit.

 

Now I know.

 

The park workers are part of the story but not my reason for starting the thread. I understand they were just doing their jobs.

Edited August 19, 2019 by tomspielman

Too much concern over nothing. F$ck the permit. Just do what you’re doing as long as you’re not bothering anyone else and minding your own business.

 

I had a sense that if you posted a response to this thread it would be something along those lines. :)

 

If I was making a good living as a photographer and thought I could add significantly to my income by taking a picture of the park building maybe I'd go ahead and get a permit. But if I were just selling some prints online as a side business, $300 seems pretty steep.

It was understood you were surprised and not angry: my point was that your interpretation was from your perspective. And, indeed, lots of other people were taking pictures.

 

The underlying premise of my point was: her interpretation of the scene was that you were different, to the others.

 

Having established that you were not different she said "OK" and then explained why you were questioned in the first place, i.e. the implication being that her interpretation was that you seemed to be "a professional".

 

It might not have been your gear, though as you mention the camera is an oddment - it might have been your demeanor or action.

 

WW

It was understood you were surprised and not angry: my point was that your interpretation was from your perspective. And was that indeed lots of other people were taking pictures.

 

The underlying premise of my point was was: her interpretation of the scene was that you were different, to the others. Having established that you were not different she said "OK" and then explained why you were questioned in the first place, i.e. implication being that her interpretation was that you seemed to be "a professional". It might not have been your gear, though as you mention the camera is an oddment - it might have been your demeanor or action.

 

WW

 

Maybe. One knock against digital is that people end up taking way more pictures than necessary, but with a digital camera people don't do what I was doing at that moment, - taking pictures of more or less random stuff trying to finish a roll. I wasn't really interested in the bikes or the building, - which is why I had a little trouble explaining what I was taking pictures of. :)

 

What tripped her "professional photographer radar" was me doing something that was about as far from professional as I can imagine.

Some of my gear is professional grade, and I sometimes have the time to take the level of care and preparation that I would expect of a professional. More than once I've had people assume I was some form of professional, rather than a hobbyist (due to appearances only, not the outcomes). For example, If I want to make photos at a public event, such as the pipe band at the local cemetery on Memorial Day, I'll dress and act the part and people ignore me. This is handy, as they might be annoyed by my intrusions otherwise. Most of the time I'm just another middle-aged guy with too much camera. One unintended consequence: I get asked by a lot of tourists if I would take their picture using their camera/phone, on the assumption I'll do it better than somebody else, when I don't know their equipment from a bag of rocks, and must settle for the settings they've already selected. I smile and do my best, and hope they're happy with the outcome... I've only once had to assert my standing as a hobbyist in the face of official questioning.