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

[Uhooru]

Fact is, there is many municipal parks and beaches and other sites that have that policy. I ran into it at a local train station. I had to pay $25 to shoot for a couple of hours as a student. Pros paid more. Likewise at local Newport Beach beaches like Corona Del Mar, they will require a similar paid permit for professionals. Its a place that gets a lot of portrait and wedding photographers. Its not an unusual practice at all.

[Uhooru]

In a world where professional cameras aren't necessarily large and tripods are not needed, it must be somewhat of a challenge for park employees to decide whom to harass. The last time I photographed "The Bean" in Chicago, I used a solar eclipse filter with a 13 minute exposure. I definitely needed a tripod for that shot. A park employee headed my way, but only to ask someone else to not stand on a picnic table.

 

Don't you think its usually fairly obvious to spot portrait shoots and engagement photos, etc.?

[samstevens]

Love it: the "evidence based" argument.

Yes, some evidence before making public assertions about park workers would seem a bare minimum of respect.

At this point no counter is worthwhile,

I couldn’t agree more.

nor is given.

I thank you.

[BeBu Lamar]

I went to the website and didn't see any rules about photography but I know that there are parks that have rules about photography.

[Ed_Ingold]

Don't you think its usually fairly obvious to spot portrait shoots and engagement photos, etc.?

How about landscapes, architecture, and fine art?

 

I went to the website and didn't see any rules about photography but I know that there are parks that have rules about photography.

Photography Permits - Parks | seattle.gov

[Ed_Ingold]

For the sake of curiosity, this is the result of a 441 second (7.35 minute) exposure in a busy park, using a 13 stop solar eclipse filter. Notice that the only person sitting still long enough to register was a photographer. Apparently my Sony A7Rii, 24-70/2.8 lens and large tripod were not enough to arouse suspicion.

 

[Uhooru]

How about landscapes, architecture, and fine art?

 

 

Photography Permits - Parks | seattle.gov

Not so much. Except I got tagged by the local transit center for taking a photo of the tower with a view camera and had to pay a fee to do it. They figured the use of that camera was a "professional" use even though I was a student. They kinda let me off with a lower rate for that. If I was just taking pics with my cell phone they wouldn't have cared, . . . unless they thought I was a terrorist:)

[andylynn]

You should have told him that you didn't need a permit to shoot him shooting his commercial shoot. If it's a public park and you are not impeding his work you can blast away at your leisure. I have done this numerous times if the tableaux interests me. I always stay out of the way of the crew and have never had a serious problem.

Yeah, I know, but by then I was ready to move on.

[Ricochetrider]

There are a lot of amorphous "rules" about photography in various places. For example, I work in entertainment. Most venues prohibit what they see as "more pro than average", citing "professional cameras or cameras with interchangeable lenses" atop the list of no-nos.

 

But come on, let's face it- who, by now, doesn't know that every single person who ever enters any place, any time, any (and every) where, is taking "photos" of everything ad nauseam, with their phones, pocket digital-cams, and anything else on earth? Anyone and everyone with a Costco or Sam's Club membership has a consumer grade DSLR around their neck, for crying out loud. In NYC or DC (2 U.S. cities I frequent), you couldn't swing a cat without hitting one! Anyone who wanted to seriously stop or discourage photo taking would need an army on patrol and a fleet of busses to cart away offenders.

 

Anecdotally, I was in a tourist-y area in England last week and the number of obvious (IE definitely not local/English) tourists using massive, full-on pro grade cameras and lenses was beyond anything I've seen, even in a city like Washington DC.

[Sandy Vongries]

https://kdwb.iheart.com/content/2019-08-21-friendliest-and-rudest-state-in-america-where-does-minnesota-rank/:D

[DavidTriplett]

F$ck the rules. F$ck the park workers. And f$ck the agencies.

Really?! Sounds like a formula for anarchy to me.

[ruslan]

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. :)

Who are they on Earth to give you permission or forget smth?!

F*ck them off and continue your business.

 

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.

No, who told you that? If it were this way, stock photography would die. In Europe, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine you don't need a permission to take photos on the street and then sell them. Be you pro, amateur... the law does not segregate this way.

If some dimwit approaches me in this situation I will say "I don't need a permission, I am gonna call the police, you violate our civil code".

Dmitry Medvedev said that photographers are free to shoot everything on the street, in every supermarket, but military objects.

[ruslan]

If I shoot a wedding in the luxury mansion (1912) now state owned, state protected. I do need a ticket for the wedding photoshoot. On weekdays I come there (to the yard) and shoot professional young models. Free. 2 years ago the woman estate keeper tried to stop me. This year somebody called the city hall and complained about them. And when I came they were very courteous. I do everything I want in the yard. Because the mansion yard is free for visitors.

Happily I don't live in a fascist state. :)

[Ed_Ingold]

Ruslan, you may not live in a fascist state, but with this attitude, you may soon be living at the state's expense ;) Commercial activity includes posting on monetized YouTube and other social media accounts. Activities which themselves require permits, such as drone operation, have even broader restrictions.

 

Certain landmarks, such as Mt. Vernon, have additional restrictions. Most of the furnishings in Mt. Vernon fell into private hands over the years, and are on display at the pleasure of their owners, who may impose conditions on their use.

 

"All commercial filming activities taking place within a unit of the National Park System require a permit. "Commercial filming" means the film, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the intent of generating income."

 

Commercial Filming & Still Photography Permits (U.S. National Park Service)

[ruslan]

Ed, I agree. Everything must be stipulated by the law. Outrage of casual "workers", "waitresses", "manor keepers" and "shop assistants" in shopping malls must not become normality.

[samstevens]

Ruslan, you may not live in a fascist state, but with this attitude, you may soon be living at the state's expense ;)

Yes, but isn’t it worth how manly it makes one feel to be so self assured and assertive, especially from behind the safety of a keyboard?

 

I don’t think the terms “authoritarian” or “fascist” need to be thrown around, other than for relatively impotent though hyperbolic effect. The fact is, civil societies that fall well outside either of these ridiculously inappropriate-to-this-discussion characterizations have rules and laws governing all kinds of public activity. Many of these types of photographic laws aren’t strictly enforced and some places are governed by stricter rules than others. Most will obey or not obey as the situation seems to suggest. I tend not to get too exercised about where I can photograph. There’s probably a better shot around some unknown corner anyway.

[ruslan]

Yes, but isn’t it worth how manly it makes one feel to be so self assured and assertive, especially from behind the safety of a keyboard?

 

I don’t think the terms “authoritarian” or “fascist” need to be thrown around, other than for relatively impotent though hyperbolic effect. The fact is, civil societies that fall well outside either of these ridiculously inappropriate-to-this-discussion characterizations have rules and laws governing all kinds of public activity. Many of these types of photographic laws aren’t strictly enforced and some places are governed by stricter rules than others. Most will obey or not obey as the situation seems to suggest. I tend not to get too exercised about where I can photograph. There’s probably a better shot around some unknown corner anyway.

Nobody is gonna violate the rules. I have never been to the USA and therefore I respect the laws about national parks. But I am just against the outrage of casual people. Try to read me attentively.

This article is very interesting for practicing street photographer. Not exactly the OP case but very teaching.

[samstevens]

Try to read me attentively.

I do read attentively. And I read your "outrage of casual people" comment to be a straw man. The OP wasn't about "outraged" casual people, so what relevance did it have to the discussion? Either it was irrelevant or it was attempting to conflate the park workers in the OP with "outraged casual people." I responded to that and the hyperbole of associating any of this with fascism. Having now read and re-read your comments, I happily stand by my response.

[ruslan]

I do read attentively. And I read your "outrage of casual people" comment to be a straw man. The OP wasn't about "outraged" casual people, so what relevance did it have to the discussion? Either it was irrelevant or it was attempting to conflate the park workers in the OP with "outraged casual people." I responded to that and the hyperbole of associating any of this with fascism. Having now read and re-read your comments, I happily stand by my response.

Then tell me "is it a direct duty of workers to establish eligibility of the photoshoot?" There must be other people like say, security staff... etc. Who have the right to tell the photographer about it. Not workers.

 

"is it a direct duty of waiters to establish eligibility of my photoshoot with girls in a cafe?!"

We had the case 2 months ago and I firmly and loudly told the waitress "WE DON'T NEED YOUR PERMISSION" And she left. I do know my rights.

[ruslan]

Because here I can shoot my friends in a coffee house with every type of camera be it big medium format still camera, 6K Red or 8K Arri Alexa. I have this right.

[samstevens]

Ruslan, you've made your position firm and clear (and bold and caps) both to the server in the restaurant and to us. I'm sure everyone in the restaurant had thoughts about your firm, loud commands, as do I. I have no inclination, and not enough direct information, to answer your questions. And I certainly wouldn't want to speculate about the responsibilities of the park workers in question. The only thing I have to go by the is the OPs description of events. He was the one who was there and nothing he said indicated to me there was outrage in the employees. As a matter of fact, just the opposite. It was described as a pretty benign and polite encounter. Edited August 23, 2019 by samstevens

[tomspielman]

No, the park workers weren't outraged. I was just surprised by the initial line of questioning. While not overtly hostile, it was clear that they were suspicious of what I was doing. Once they were satisfied that I wasn't doing anything wrong, the conversation got much friendlier.

[William Michael]

. . . The OP wasn't about "outraged" casual people . . .

 

Correct.

 

Even within this "Casual" forum, it is a long bow to continue continuing, along that and similar off-topic conversation.

 

WW

Edited August 24, 2019 by William Michael

[AlanKlein]

It was for non-professional use. Just wanted some B&W pictures to test a new (to me) developer. It makes me think though. Now and then I've considered posting a picture two on SmugMug or some place like that to see if anyone would actually pay money for one of my pictures. Strictly a vanity thing. I don't know that I would use a picture of Minnehaha Falls since they're pretty common and probably not in huge demand. But it strikes me as strange that to stay within the rules I'd have to get a $300 permit to do that. Photos of the falls have been taken and published since before there was even a city there to issue permits.

 

Which is why I wondered about the intent of those rules. I tend to think they are aimed at people using the scenery to sell something else. Like a portrait photographer using the site to sell portraits, or an advertising firm wanting to do a photo shoot in those surroundings.

 

And yes I'm sure the rules are there partially to manage the potential impact on other park visitors that a photo shoot could have.

 

Your original post complains there were hundreds of people there that weekend implying you weren't the only one, Then you said later, well, it was early in the morning and you were the only one photographing when they stopped you. Which is it? Above post shows more conflict and you state that you may sell the pictures. You seem conflicted, acting guilty, trying to justify your hidden plans. It sounds like you have it in mind to sell pictures. That makes you a pro. It doesn't matter if you don't like how high the fee is. Pay it or don't sell your pictures. Or go somewhere else where it is free. It's that simple.

 

Sorry for being frank.

[tomspielman]

Your original post complains there were hundreds of people there that weekend implying you weren't the only one, Then you said later, well, it was early in the morning and you were the only one photographing when they stopped you. Which is it? Above post shows more conflict and you state that you may sell the pictures. You seem conflicted, acting guilty, trying to justify your hidden plans. It sounds like you have it in mind to sell pictures. That makes you a pro. It doesn't matter if you don't like how high the fee is. Pay it or don't sell your pictures. Or go somewhere else where it is free. It's that simple.

 

Sorry for being frank.

 

No, I don't feel even a little guilty, but I could see where my various posts on the matter could be confusing so let me clear things up.

 

I was there early last Monday morning, - not that long after sunrise so I wouldn't have to rush. I stopped on my way to work. There were few people around at that time.

 

However on the weekend (or any nice Summer afternoon or evening really) that area would have been full of people, - lots of them taking pictures of the Falls and surrounding area. I live close by and have been there many times and haven taken many pictures. I've never seen or heard of anyone getting questioned by the staff for doing that. That doesn't mean it's never happened, but I've never experienced it, witnessed it or heard of it. I've lived here 20 years.

 

So that's what was surprising to me. Why me and why then, when on any given day there will be any number of people taking pictures and they won't be bothered? Not just taking pictures with phones either, people using honest to goodness cameras. Many will have nicer cameras than I've ever owned. So I was surprised that I was approached and I think understandably so.

 

To clear something else up. I've never attempted to sell a photo though I have considered it from time to time. I didn't go there with any thought of selling the pictures. My sole purpose was to shoot a roll of film so that I could test a new developer (XTOL) that I expected to arrive by that evening. I have a new (to me) Nikonos V which is an underwater camera. Along with the falls there's a creek that's still enough in places that I thought I could get some decent pictures of rocks and other underwater features in shallow water.

 

And even though I had no intention of selling the pictures, I also didn't realize that Pros were required to have permits in the park, - which is why I started this thread.

 

And finally even after checking the park board website, it's not clear that I would need a permit to do what they thought I was doing (Pro or not). There are two types of permits for still photography in Minneapolis Parks, one for photographers shooting portraits (which I clearly wasn't doing) and a $300/day permit for "commercial" photo shoots. Neither the examples they gave for commercial photo shoots nor the high fee would seem to apply to an individual photographer trying to sell a print of the Falls on something like SmugMug, but I'd probably have to call someone to know for sure.

Edited August 24, 2019 by tomspielman