Local County to Require Permits for Professional Photography in Parks

<p>This is the first I've heard of something like this although I imagine it is done elsewhere. Seems a little overbearing to me or more like, yet another way to bring in some money to the government coffers.<br>

<a href="http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/region_kansas/johnson_county/johnson-county-to-require-permit-to-take-pictures-in-public-parks">http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/region_kansas/johnson_county/johnson-county-to-require-permit-to-take-pictures-in-public-parks</a></p>

<p>Just another example of the State interfering with our freedoms. </p>

<p>Looks like another jurisdiction hard up for revenue!</p>

<p>Seems reasonable. Professionals shooting with models/clients should pay a fee for a permit. That's been standard practice in National Parks for as long as I can remember. For the NP you need a permit. You also need liability insurance, which professional photographers working with other people should have. Presumably the local park will be the same. It's very likely that any and all other commercial activities allowed in local parks (hot dog or ice cream vendors for example) are required to have a permit.</p>

<p>The NP fee does <strong>NOT</strong> apply to solo professional photographers who are simply acting like any other member of the general public, shooting images of animals, landscapes etc. It applies to film crews shooting commercials, wedding photographers shooting weddings, advertising photographers shooting products and models, photographers leading tour groups etc. Solo professional photographers shooting for art (including selling that art) do NOT need a National Park permit.</p>

<p>Old news. Popular publicly-owned and tax payer-maintained venues around the Greater Toronto Area have long charged user/permit fees to professionals shooting weddings/groups/portraits. Heavily used sites have scheduled times and are monitored to keep cheats in line and limit disputes. Parks/sites don't maintain themselves.</p>

<p>In the Fort Worth Botanical Gardens a few years ago you could not go in the park (it's a good size) without almost tripping over Photographers, Models,Lights etc... They started a permit system and the number was vastly reduced.</p>

<p>I've had this come up. And I agree that it keeps the parks useful for the public, photographers present a hazard sometimes and make people feel like they have to walk around them in a public space.</p>

<p>I can see it in certain high traffic locations but a blanket across the entire county's parks doesn't seem right. Since digital has become viable there are a lot of people that are doing photography on the side. It's just some extra income and for the subjects it's much more affordable than a true professional photographer. I think it will needlessly hurt many people making a few extra bucks and those that would like some nice pictures at an affordable price. </p>

<p>Good idea. Parks are public spaces. Professional photographers should pay for the privilege of using a public park for profit and should be regulated in terms of location and duration. This has little to do with photography per se and everything to do with business interests and individual interests meeting and working together.</p>

<p>The folks just making a few extra bucks very likely do not have liability insurance, which is reason enough to prevent them from using tripods, light stands, etc in public places.<br>

Professionals don't mind having to have permits, it's just another cost of doing business. It's the wannabes who are hurt the most.<br>

<Chas></p>

 

Sounds good to me...

<blockquote>

<p>Since digital has become viable there are a lot of people that are doing photography on the side. It's just some extra income and for the subjects it's much more affordable than a true professional photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just because they "do it on the side" doesn't mean they shouldn't be carrying liability insurance and pay for permits like "real" professionals. If they want to do everything on the cheap, I'm sure they can find areas that don't demand a permit and if someone gets injured as a result of their shooting they can deal with the legal consequences themselves.</p>

<p>I knew a fellow who wanted to shoot professional photos in Griffith Park in Los Angeles, Ca. It is a very big park. He needed a permit and $1 million in insurance. At that time that amount of insurance did not cost very much.<br>

You need a permit to shoot photos in Joshua Tree National Park, a federal park. If a park ranger sees a nice "pro looking" camera and a model-type person, you will probably be questioned.<br>

Charlie Chaplin used to say that, in the early days of silent film, he used to grab a stepladder, a bucket of paint, a paintbrush, a cameraman and actress Mabel Normand and go to Echo Park (a city-owned facility with a lake) and make a movie.<br>

Times have changed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The point is Bob their not making a living wage and therefore cannot afford the insurance and the permit so yes they will go somewhere else. The point is, up until now none of this has been an issue. Has there been a public outcry to protect the parks from professional photographers? No, that's not the case. I still see it as a "public" park, paid for and maintained by taxpayers including the photographers be they professional or otherwise. You may disagree but I see it as government overstepping their bounds, restricting and regulating. <br /><br />The city/county's reason is: "a way to keep tabs on professional photographers and protect the environment and atmosphere in the park". Why not charge a fee to everyone that enters the park? What if they are injured? Shouldn't they have insurance? Are they going to destroy the environment and atmosphere more so than a photographer? <br /><br />I know you see it different. I think its B.S. but yes, it is or it is becoming the norm. ;-) </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I still see it as a "public" park, paid for and maintained by taxpayers including the photographers be they professional or otherwise... ...I see it as government overstepping their bounds... ...I think its B.S."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />If we apply this principle fairly, then any business can just set up all sorts of operations in these public parks unfettered merely because its taxpayer supported. An interesting position to hold.</p>

<p>nm</p>

<blockquote>

<p>up until now none of this has been an issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>City, county, state, and national parks have been regulating "commercial photography" for as long as I can remember. This is not a new policy.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Has there been a public outcry to protect the parks from professional photographers?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. But there are lots of people out there who will happily sue the county if they trip over your tripod, light stand, or camera bag. The insurance policy protects the community - AND the photography - against such judgments. Pay the insurance and get on with your project.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The point is Bob their (sic) not making a living wage and therefore cannot afford the insurance and the permit....<br /> I see it as government overstepping their bounds, restricting and regulating...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So it shouldn't apply in National Parks either? Film crews can setup and shoot in Yosemite Valley in the summer and shouldn't be required to get permission or pay for a permit?<br /> <br /> I'm not making a living wage. I can't afford my car insurance. Can I drive without it? I can't afford to pay my Taxes. Is it OK just to skip them? I can't afford to pay the entrance fee to a National Park. Is it OK if I sneak in past the barriers?<br /> <br /> Nobody is restricting anyone's right to shoot in the park when the images are for their own use and don't interfere with the operation of the park and the enjoyment of other users. All it is is that if you use the park for commercial photography, and by that I mean taking pictures of people and charging them for the pictures (e.g. weddings), or shooting a movie or TV commercial, you need to get a permit and (presumably)show proof of insurance. What's so unreasonable about that? You can't run a business and operate in a park and then claim you don't make enough money to cover the permit fees the park requires. In that case don't shoot in the park.</p>

<p>It's like freelancing as a plumber and claiming you can't get certified because you don't make enough money to cover the costs of certification, or not getting a building permit because they are too expensive and you'd lose customers if you charged them for it. It's a cost of doing business.<br /> <br /> <br /> See for example http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/pl106-206.pdf</p>

<p>The problem with this is there is no clear cut definition of "professional". I often use a medium format camera in public. It's not uncommon for me to show up someplace only to be turned away because "professional photography is not permitted." I try to explain to them I'm not a professional but you can guess how far that gets me. I guess if I sit in a race car, I'm really a Indy 500 driver right? I especially like how I get denied entrance someplace because my camera is "too big" like they have a chart someplace that has diagrams of how big a camera has to be to be classified as big. Even when I explain I'm not going to use a tripod, they won't listen. I've always chalked it up to money...everyone has to get their hands in the pie even if it looks like someone is going to make a buck from something.</p>

<p>"if a photographer is making a profit, they'll now need a permit"<br /><br>

I'm sure there are ways of tax efficient working that ensure that no profits are made from a trip to the park.</p>

<p>I'm with Bob Atkins on this. I don't think it unreasonable to require permits and nominal fees for this sort of thing. Particularly when the whole evolution is more than just the photographer, and extends to lights, cables, stands, etc.</p>

<p>About a year and a half ago, I was driving through a local National Wildlife Refuge when a wedding party stopped their bus in the middle of the road, and proceeded to get out and take photos, etc. The entourage was blocking the only road for entrance and egress from the Refuge, which was already very narrow. It didn't take long for the Fish & Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Officer to chase them off the Refuge, as they were causing a nuisance, and also did not have the required Special Use Permit. I'm sure had they made the proper inquiries, they would have been granted a permit, and also advised on the best places to be so as not to be a nuisance to regular visitors.</p>

<p>Larry took care of one of the two points I was going to make. The other one is that these guys are usually there all day and never seem to do a good job of cleaning up after themselves when they leave. The park staff has to take care of that, and bear the cost of the work. Should the pros with crews have to pay a fee? Hell, yes. My only question is whether they're paying enough.</p>

<p>Yeah well I guess its all in the definition of professional photographer. Certainly if someone is bringing in crew and taking over an area, yes we have a problem especially if it's happening all the time. What I'm getting at is, I frequent these parks on a regular basis. An easy 9 out of 10 photographers (or more) is one person carrying a single bag and they are with a couple or a family of four. They bother no one. They are not affecting the atmosphere of the park. They are not trashing the park. They are as inconspicuous as any family or larger group visiting the park. The difference is they are taking pictures. So for the occasional large crew and out of those, the few that cause a commotion or "trash" the park, all of the simple photographers have to pay and be regulated. For me, I live across the state line, the fee is $80. I still feel that its overkill and I'll leave it at that. </p>

<p>I can recall being in a park in Madrid, years ago, leaning on the stone wall at the edge of the park and catching the decent view over the city from a high spot. A photographer and assistant walk up and demands that everyone in a hundred foot zone must walk away because he had a wedding party to photograph. Unless he's paying for an official permit, why should he even have the right to ask that, never mind act like he had rights? Why shouldn't he have to explain to his customer why their wedding pictures had strangers in them? The point is that there are many forms of photography that interfere with the use of the facility by other people. Why should they be permitted to do that without contributing to upkeep?</p>

<p><em>"So for the occasional large crew and out of those, the few that cause a commotion or "trash" the park, all of the simple photographers have to pay and be regulated."</em></p>

<p>That will likely not be the case. The law has to be applied and the application of laws is a whole different ball game than their being on the books. It's hard to imagine that, if I'm with a couple whose paying me a few bucks to do some engagement pics in the park and I come with my 5D and no other equipment that I'm going to gain the attention of the park police, who are rather scarce in most jurisdictions anyway. On the other hand, if I've got tripods, lighting, and crews, the law is much more likely to be applied to me.</p>

<p>Sometimes, in the laws themselves as with our reactions to laws, we just have to take a breath and use common sense and not buy into the notion that big brother is as all pervasive and out to get all of us as some would have us believe. Fear is a great political tool and it turns a lot of thinking on its head. Fear of the government is a current meme. Healthy skepticism is usually of value. Irrational fear is often not.</p>