Discussion in 'Articles of Interest' started by nerwin, Jun 10, 2017.
Refer to this.
In Michigan, there's a move afoot in the legislature to "undo" the permit requirement for concealed carry. Open carry has always been constitutional. People are asking why a permit is needed just because one wears a coat. Makes sense. Now, if they'd just do away with the stupid registration forms...
Ya gotta remember your dealing with the gubbamint. NOTHING makes sense. If the gubbamint designed a race horse, they'd end up with a one-legged giraffe.
I mean I completely understand what the article is about. So basically they are trying to limit the amount of photographers doing photoshoots in that area that's full of tourists trying to enjoy their day. It's understandable. Just like national parks require photography permits for commercial work or drone usage....but amateur photographers shooting personal use, don't need it.
I'm just scared that these rules someday will rub off to all photographers if you use a camera over a certain size. Maybe I'm just crazy. Haha.
You've never heard the expression, "it's not the size, it's how you use it"?
I dispute this. IMO, it's more about the money than the number of photographers. If it was a simple matter of knowing who is taking photographs and for what reason, and to make sure everyone picks up their trash when leaving, then the permit would be $5. They charge $100 because they can. Takes a lot of moola to run a city these days.
Petapixel got it wrong - their article says '...you'll need to pay a hefty permit fee just to shoot any photos...' . I highlighted 'any' because that is incorrect. According to the Laguna Beach website it says the permit is '...for limited use, single camera shoots such as family portraits, holiday cards, etc.'. It doesn't list any restrictions on taking pictures of the scenery.
In my area this is nothing new, it's been going on for several years now. Most places have their policies and info. on their websites, or call and ask before you go. Having done sports this is definitely nothing new, but it has gotten more restrictive in more recent years. Teams and arenas have their policies on their websites, in media guides, programs, posted in the arena, etc.
The photographer in this case had an assistant, equipment, and a client with him and apparently was doing a commercial (business) shoot. The photographer's friend (who is apparently also a photographer) said they've been doing this (apparently knowing they shouldn't) because the policy hasn't been enforced. So that sounds like the photographer knew about the policy and knew to get a permit but didn't.
A community park/beach being intended for recreational shared public use means park management sets whatever policies. The cost is higher than around here but then the cost of living is much higher where they are so I don't know if the fees are 'hefty' or not - that's the opinion of the self proclaimed 'editor in chief' whose experience is in computer programming not journalism. These articles seem to be written to get people to look more than to provide accurate information.
You're probably right. They saw an op to get more money haha.
Look at the positive side, it will thin out the M.W.C.'s and the Craigslisters, since they won't want to spend more than what they are probably charging for their shoot anyway.
We have a small downtown park that is very photogenic and is also a nice little place to grab lunch and eat. A couple of years ago some of us had grabbed our lunch and settled in a nice spot to eat. A few minutes later along comes a photographer an his clients and he proceeded to try and run us off as he wanted to use it for his shots. He became quite indignant when we refused and threatened to call the police telling us he had a permit to use the park for photography.
He was a little taken aback when I cheerfully suggested that yes, maybe he should call the police. He was down right floored when I stood up, produced my badge and then asked him what it was I could do for him. As he stood there, very red faced and stammering I then asked him for the Permit that he claimed to have. I was fully aware that the city does not issue such permits and that this particular park had no facilities that any sort of permit would be issued for.
As he stammered and stuttered I then explained to him that this particular park was not here for the pleasure of the photographers, but for the people of our city and especially for those downtown. I happened to have a little inside information on the park, the land and how and why it was built, because it was bought and paid for by the previous who also happened to be the original owner of the bank where my wife is a Senior V.P. We had known the owner and his family for well over 30 years and knew ALL about that particular park, the purpose it was built before being donated to the city.
He was one of the quietest photographers I have ever seen as he left with his clients in tow. He didn't even try to use some of the other commonly used areas, of which there were plenty.
What's M.W.C? (forgive me, I never heard of it)
Mommies With Camera's
Separate names with a comma.