Have you ever been harassed?

[SoulfulRecover]

These Photos Got Me Kicked Off a Beach in Toronto

Just curious to hear other peoples stories about situations similar to this. I always find it interesting

 

[Braineack]

people wanna cop.

just ignore everyone. cops legally allowed to not have to understand the laws they enforce in the US. People in power like power and like being a pain in the ass for no good reason.

take the ticket, keep shooting, and win in court. take videos of encoutners so you can publically shame them on YT in the process and then win your settlement with teh city out of court.

 

[astroNikon]

this is the real reason people are switching to Mirrorless

 

[vintagesnaps]

In my area many places now issue permits and/or charge for a photo shoot to be conducted on the property/at the venue (parks, etc.).

This is not to him 'commercial' because he didn't have a client - but what's he doing?? He's not out there sight seeing or taking a walk, he's set up with a model doing a shoot. Even if it's in trade or portfolio building, it's related to doing work as a photographer.

It depends on who owns the property but if there are employees that clean up and a PR person then it's run by an agency of some sort; it's up to them what they allow as far as someone conducting business on their (city/county) property. He could have looked at their website or called and gotten informed before he went out there. Don't assume. He did, found out he made a wrong assumption, and found a public way to air his complaints. This is not the way to establish a good reputation as a photographer. If he had a complaint instead of arguing with the maintenance worker (who only seems to know that commercial shoots require a permit) then leave, go to the offices and talk to someone about it.

So now I suppose they'll need to change the municipal law to cover that it requires a permit to do a photoshoot, period (with a model, for the purposes of a portrait session, in trade, for portfolio building, etc. etc.).

He should have checked it out ahead of time. There are restrictions in sports - some places don't allow longer telephoto lenses, etc. So find out before you go someplace and don't assume.

edit - And notice the publicity this got him... a link at the bottom to his website, facebook page, instagram etc. etc. Thought he was acting as if he isn't a pro photographer... what bs. And look at all the places he says he's shot weddings - so how does he NOT know that he may need to get a permit??? what a load... this kind of behavior just helps bring photography down as a profession.

 

[Designer]

"And yet, in this strange world of permits and photography, there’s a presumption of guilt if I use a certain type of camera, bring a certain type of equipment, take pictures at a certain time of day, or wear a certain type of clothes."

Appearances are everything to people of a certain mindset.

 

[Braineack]

In my area many places now issue permits and/or charge for a photo shoot to be conducted on the property/at the venue (parks, etc.).

This is not to him 'commercial' because he didn't have a client - but what's he doing?? He's not out there sight seeing or taking a walk, he's set up with a model doing a shoot. Even if it's in trade or portfolio building, it's related to doing work as a photographer.

all moot. he in no way violated the ordinance.

So now I suppose they'll need to change the municipal law to cover that it requires a permit to do a photoshoot, period (with a model, for the purposes of a portrait session, in trade, for portfolio building, etc. etc.).

YES! if they want the ordiance to cover people taking pictures of other people, then yes, they need to write it in the law in that manner.

the law, as written, is clear.

plus the ONLY reason for the ordinace as written is because money is invovled. and no gov't is going to allow a transactions to take place without getting their beak wet.

If the law says that if money was exchanged, you need a permit to shoot, then that the ONLY way he can be in violation of the ordinance. No money was exchanged for the pictures, therefore there was no violation.

This was nothing more than a lonely park employee, who has the reading comprehension of a turtle, with nothing better to do but to pretend he had a real badge and real authority, without any reasonable suspicion of an actual violation of the ordinace.

 

[Vtec44]

Canadians... j/k

 

[tirediron]

all moot. he in no way violated the ordinance.

First, unless you've actually read the legislation, and were present at the event, I'm a little unclear on just how you can make that assertion. We only have one side of the story, so there are two sides missing.

plus the ONLY reason for the ordinace as written is because money is invovled. and no gov't is going to allow a transactions to take place without getting their beak wet.

Mmmmmm... not necessarily; in many cases there's no actual charge for permits, the intent is actually to exercise some control over what people are doing. Is it really fair that a photographer can waltz into a public park and hog the best area for a photoshoot?

If the law says that if money was exchanged, you need a permit to shoot, then that the ONLY way he can be in violation of the ordinance. No money was exchanged for the pictures, therefore there was no violation.

Again.. Mmmm... is that what the legislation says, or could it perhaps read, "commercial". Just bcause there was no cash changing hands, this could indeed be considered a commercial shoot. Both the photographr's time and the model's time have value, and an exchange of value for value can be considered commerical (if you don't believe me, ask the IRS).

This was nothing more than a lonely park employee, who has the reading comprehension of a turtle, with nothing better to do but to pretend he had a real badge and real authority, without any reasonable suspicion of an actual violation of the ordinace.

More probably this was someone who had an incorrect idea of what the rules were, and was trying to do his job as he understood it. Make no mistake, I'm not fond of petty functionaries, and people who don't know the rules, but I'm also not fond of photographers who don't follow rules, and who think that they should be above the law - as Vintage said, they give us all a bad name. Had this person exercised his due dilligence, he would have known that he was in an area where a permit was not required, and could have explained that to the official; if that wasn't satisfactory, then indeed, call the by-law enforcement person who would be able to verify it.

 

[JoeW]

These Photos Got Me Kicked Off a Beach in Toronto

Just curious to hear other peoples stories about situations similar to this. I always find it interesting

I think that the author of the article is being a bit unreasonable. In public land, it's appropriate for authorities to manage it so it isn't abused or made unavailable for public use. Case in point: imagine if a film crew had set and effectively pressured people to stay away from that stretch of beach b/c the actress was changing? Or imagine if something on the lines of a real commercial beach photo shoot was going on (with photographer, assistant, MUA, production assistant, a couple of models, a changing tent or at least someone holding up big towels). Or a wedding party showing up at the flower garden and trampling some of the grass and flowers or taking over the gazebo?

So what most public venues do is that require a permit for "commercial" photography. So what is "commercial" photography? Generally it's determined by most venues as to whether or not you use a tripod, if you have lights, a crew of people helping out.

Yep, you're right--there is commercial photography that uses ambient light, no crew, and no tripods. And noncommercial stuff that involves all of those (for instance, a light-painting get-together I set up with a group of 25, steel wool on fire, everyone with a tripod, some speed lights and other various forms of light and other equipment out the wazoo...but completely amateur and noncommercial). So it's not possible for the authorities to be accurate and precise with the laws. Instead, if you look like you're commercial (dominating a location, a model posing, changing clothes, using a tripod, using lights), in most public spaces in the US (and evidently some in Canada) you can expect to get a ticket if you don't have a permit. And no, I don't see that as government graft or trying to grab money (though I'm sure it is in some places). There is a venue (a public garden and park) here where I live that is so popular for wedding portraits that they park not only has permit requirements for this (and other commercial photography), they have to limit the number of permits per day to avoid overuse or to keep photographies and wedding parties from getting in to each other's way. This is about how to manage public space.

And yeah, it's a hassle when as a photographer I have to get a permit. Or I can't stay as long as I'd like. Or I can't bring all of the equipment that I'd like to (without it being labeled a commercial shoot). But public land and park authorities really do need to try and manage the resources for the good of all. And that's why you get laws in almost all North American public lands about permits being required for commercial film and video shoots--not just to make money, but mostly to control the use of the land and make sure it's available for everyone.

 

[480sparky]

If I own a hockey stick in Canada, am I automatically a professional hockey player?

 

[tirediron]

What brand of hockey stick?

 

[480sparky]

What brand of hockey stick?

A really really expensive one.

 

[imagemaker46]

Yes, been lead out of venues at gun point on a few assignments in other parts of the world. Been asked to leave some zones because the rules say I can be there, but the one one person that hasn't read the rule book says different. I just roll with it, I used get upset, not worth it, and besides if you smile and talk quietly it really pisses people off.

 

[JoeW]

Yes, been lead out of venues at gun point on a few assignments in other parts of the world. Been asked to leave some zones because the rules say I can be there, but the one one person that hasn't read the rule book says different. I just roll with it, I used get upset, not worth it, and besides if you smile and talk quietly it really pisses people off.

Yep, there's way too much of this...where security guards or even cops don't know the law.

But the article in the OP is talking about a situation where someone is working with a model on a beach and doesn't have a permit. Here's another example to illustrate why requiring a permit for use of public land is sometimes a good thing. Lafayette Park is in DC and across from the White House. During the Reagan Administration it became common for groups to camp there b/c they insisted it was "free speech" and making a point about homelessness. The US Park Service had trouble getting permission to kick them out even though it destroyed the park (grass turned to dirt, park not usable by the public). Eventually, the US Park Service won the right to require that groups get permits for use of a range of public land (like farmers demonstrating by parking 20-30 large combines and tractors on the DC Mall b/c family farms were doing poorly). It allows the US Park Service to deny use to groups who might create damage, or to make sure there are opportunities for the public to have access, or at least space out the big events to the park can recover and the staff and do upkeep. Imagine if there was a concert at the park every day--how much trash would collect and spill over.

Now you're saying...what does this have to do with one individual photographer taking shots on a beach (or in a park)...and the answer is: when it's public land, someone has got to make sure that some individuals aren't using it in ways that degrade the park or reduce it's availability to the rest of the public. And one way to do that is to restrict commercial use and require permits. And it gets fuzzy as to what is commercial or not--a film crew there to make a Hollywood product is clearly "commercial." Someone who brings 3 lights, a blanket and an assistant (plus parents) to video a birthday party of 20 kids who are 5 years old...probably not commercial but still worth regulating b/c of the size and impact on the rest of the public.

 

[table1349]

One of the issues not mentioned in the article, probably for good reason by the author, is that people just don't pay attention to the fact that just because you may pay taxes, the world does not become yours to do with as you please. Permits are a common thing. In my part of the world we have state parks. If you want to use the state park you must buy a permit. Either a one day permit or an annual permit. Taxes don't pay for the up keep etc at the state parks. Permits do. Camping permits, boating permits, fishing permits etc.

Simple fact is, you need permits for many things in this world. In this country you do not have a RIGHT to drive a vehicle. It is a privilege. Part of being granted the privilege is learning the laws and passing a driving test. Not all that tough. Same thing with piloting a plane, you need a license commercial pilot or private pilot, makes no difference.

Perhaps, with the explosion of photographers, since any idiot can now afford a camera, there should be a simple photographers license. Might make life simpler. Besides, look what happened with the explosion of drones. Now you have to register your drone because some of them are idiots. May not be long before you will have to get a drone operator license if the trend does not change.