Laguna Beach Requires a $100+ Permit for ANY Kind of Photo Shoot in Public

But Man With a Camera is different than Guy With a Camera. You don't want to call a MWC a GWC.
Which could also be called a Girl With Camera or a Gorilla with Camera, or even a Green Mountain Stater With Camera.
 
But Man With a Camera is different than Guy With a Camera. You don't want to call a MWC a GWC.
Which could also be called a Girl With Camera or a Gorilla with Camera, or even a Green Mountain Stater With Camera.

Ohhhh you funny.
Bowing.gif
 
They're just trying to make money. I mean, is $100 really going to stop a wedding/engagement or family portrait shoot? Nope. So it's not to limit traffic. Just a money-making scheme IMO. If it morphs into something more, then I'll be concerned.
 
If I have 2 locations, both of which are great for wedding photography, and one charges 100 and the not... guess which I'm picking most often. It will limit traffic. Wont eliminate it, but will limit it. (Assuming they really enforce the rule closely)
 
They're just trying to make money. I mean, is $100 really going to stop a wedding/engagement or family portrait shoot? Nope. So it's not to limit traffic. Just a money-making scheme IMO. If it morphs into something more, then I'll be concerned.
Not at all; the way municipal governments work, it will likely cost them a LOT more to administer that $100 permit than $100. There are two reasons for this sort of thing, for which I am totally in favour.

1. It prevents a public area, meant for the enjoyment of ALL of the public from becoming a free photographer's studio and preventing the public from enjoying it; and

2. If you or I as the photographer are making money from our gig there, why should we be entitled to free use of a space maintained at public expense?

I never shoot in public spaces (unless I know it's permitted) without obtaining permission. If there's a permit fee... the client pays it. Plain and simple.
 
If I have 2 locations, both of which are great for wedding photography, and one charges 100 and the not... guess which I'm picking most often. It will limit traffic. Wont eliminate it, but will limit it. (Assuming they really enforce the rule closely)

And you will just might find half a dozen like minded photographers there with the same opinions! Some places invented the fee's due to the over crowding and fighting between parties. The permits are priced high yes, but like others mentioned, keep the wanna bee's out.

We have a state sponsored logging mill near us. They charge a photo fee. And there is no additional access allowed by it, nor special treatment. And it's only for commercial or commercial like uses (familys taking portraits within their own family ok). So, my wife who likes to take friends who want their pictures taken by her there. She got mad when they asked for the fee. Even though she doesn't charge for the pictures they still have to pay the permit. I can't remember but it's like $15. She thinks it's unfair since she doesn't charge. The facility is normally free of charge. So, I tell her, it sounds fair to me for them to get a little money from people using their hard work to keep the mills in shape that you want to take pictures of.
 
They're just trying to make money. I mean, is $100 really going to stop a wedding/engagement or family portrait shoot? Nope. So it's not to limit traffic. Just a money-making scheme IMO. If it morphs into something more, then I'll be concerned.
Not at all; the way municipal governments work, it will likely cost them a LOT more to administer that $100 permit than $100. There are two reasons for this sort of thing, for which I am totally in favour.

1. It prevents a public area, meant for the enjoyment of ALL of the public from becoming a free photographer's studio and preventing the public from enjoying it; and

2. If you or I as the photographer are making money from our gig there, why should we be entitled to free use of a space maintained at public expense?

I never shoot in public spaces (unless I know it's permitted) without obtaining permission. If there's a permit fee... the client pays it. Plain and simple.

Amen. It's the out-sized sense of entitlement among some photographers--mostly hacks and wannabes--that makes for the problems. My only beef is iffy enforcement at permitted/pay venues when goofs-with-cameras(new acronym?)get in the way with their "clients." Hard-bitten pros I know who still play by the rules routinely involve law enforcement to clear venues they've paid for of these lice. Suspect it's no different in BC. Big problem around Toronto and its 'burbs.
 
They're just trying to make money. I mean, is $100 really going to stop a wedding/engagement or family portrait shoot? Nope. So it's not to limit traffic. Just a money-making scheme IMO. If it morphs into something more, then I'll be concerned.
Not at all; the way municipal governments work, it will likely cost them a LOT more to administer that $100 permit than $100. There are two reasons for this sort of thing, for which I am totally in favour.

1. It prevents a public area, meant for the enjoyment of ALL of the public from becoming a free photographer's studio and preventing the public from enjoying it; and

2. If you or I as the photographer are making money from our gig there, why should we be entitled to free use of a space maintained at public expense?

I never shoot in public spaces (unless I know it's permitted) without obtaining permission. If there's a permit fee... the client pays it. Plain and simple.

Amen. It's the out-sized sense of entitlement among some photographers--mostly hacks and wannabes--that makes for the problems. My only beef is iffy enforcement at permitted/pay venues when goofs-with-cameras(new acronym?)get in the way with their "clients." Hard-bitten pros I know who still play by the rules routinely involve law enforcement to clear venues they've paid for of these lice. Suspect it's no different in BC. Big problem around Toronto and its 'burbs.
Yep... a little while I did a team shoot for the local contingent of the Battlefield Bike Ride which is riding to the Vimy memorial this year for the 100th Anniversary. Veteran's Memorial Park in Langford has a miniature of "Mother Canada" and i thought that would be a great backdrop. I called the city, explained what I wanted, quick e-mail with details and everything is good. The day of the shoot, I'm setting up around 7.00 on Sunday morning and who roles up? By-law enforcement (You know, never around when you need them, but at 7.00am on a Sunday...). Asked my name, checked his computer, and all was good... BUT.. had i not done my due diligence... Point being why, when you're going to be blocking a large part of a public, tax-payer funded space, would you think that you DON'T need permission??????
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top