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

[nerwin]

Well it has begun.

Is this a new thing that will be happening across the country and throughout the world? Photographers wont allowed to take photos in public without a expensive permit?

https://petapixel.com/2017/06/09/laguna-beach-requires-100-permit-kind-photo-shoot-public/

This is an absolute joke.

Crap like this more and more is turning me off from enjoying photography. Will DSLRs (or "big cameras") become banned from public and can only be used with a permit or on private property?

I'm afraid someday I'll get in trouble for shooting with my DSLR because of its size and that I'll get fined or ticketed because I have a "big camera" and not using my phone or a dinky point and shoot.

They certainly are making it harder and harder for us photographers.

 

[smoke665]

Case of your rights end where mine begin. If in fact the popularity of the place for photography had made it a problem for the residents, and damage/trash had taken place then the city was within their right to seek a resolution. That said, if a resident of the city, desired to take photographs for their own personal use, then I foresee a lawsuit challenge if they were to be ticketed.

 

[Braineack]

if it breathes...

 

[nerwin]

Case of your rights end where mine begin. If in fact the popularity of the place for photography had made it a problem for the residents, and damage/trash had taken place then the city was within their right to seek a resolution. That said, if a resident of the city, desired to take photographs for their own personal use, then I foresee a lawsuit challenge if they were to be ticketed.

But say if I went there on vacation and used my DSLR to take some landscape shots for personal use, wouldn't I get in trouble because I don't have a photography permit? That's what I got from the article. Sounds like for ANY KIND of photo shoot.

 

[jpross123]

Drones I guess I can understand having a permit for that. But to take pictures with a DSLR...that's just not right. Photography is already an expensive enough hobby/career, lets not make it more pricy with permits and fees we have to pay, just to take a photo.

 

[pendennis]

Photographs, taken in or from a public area, have been considered part of the photographer's First Amendment rights. Requiring a permit to "normally" exercise one's First Amendment rights might be ripe for an action.

If the "rangers" catch someone littering or damaging the beaches, etc., then fine the litterers. Reads like using a howitzer to stop a mouse. But, if people are too sheepish to fight these infringements, then they deserve the government they get.

 

[table1349]

Photographs, taken in or from a public area, have been considered part of the photographer's First Amendment rights. Requiring a permit to "normally" exercise one's First Amendment rights might be ripe for an action.

If the "rangers" catch someone littering or damaging the beaches, etc., then fine the litterers. Reads like using a howitzer to stop a mouse. But, if people are too sheepish to fight these infringements, then they deserve the government they get.

Public area does not mean it belongs to the public. It is land held in trust for the good of ALL of the public. The courts have long found that government entities can regulate the use of the lands held in trust for public use.

Perhaps photographers should actually READ the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[KmH]

But say if I went there on vacation and used my DSLR to take some landscape shots for personal use, wouldn't I get in trouble because I don't have a photography permit? That's what I got from the article. Sounds like for ANY KIND of photo shoot.

Read the City of Laguna Beach NON-COMMERCIAL STILL PHOTOGRAPHY PERMIT PROCEDURES AND POLICIES:
Non-commercial still photo permits are for family portraits and engagement/wedding type photo shoots only.
and:
Only one hand held or one camera on a tripod may be used. Filming is not permitted on rocks at the beach, in tide pools or in the ocean.

So yes, you can take some landscape shots for personal use without the need to obtain a permit.
At the beach - stay off the rocks, out of the tide pools, and out of the ocean.

 

[cgw]

Well it has begun.

Is this a new thing that will be happening across the country and throughout the world? Photographers wont allowed to take photos in public without a expensive permit?

https://petapixel.com/2017/06/09/laguna-beach-requires-100-permit-kind-photo-shoot-public/

This is an absolute joke.

Crap like this more and more is turning me off from enjoying photography. Will DSLRs (or "big cameras") become banned from public and can only be used with a permit or on private property?

I'm afraid someday I'll get in trouble for shooting with my DSLR because of its size and that I'll get fined or ticketed because I have a "big camera" and not using my phone or a dinky point and shoot.

They certainly are making it harder and harder for us photographers.

No it's not a joke and nobody's "rights" are being affected.These sorts of bylaws usually result from near anarchy at popular parks and scenic locations where free-for-all shooting of weddings, engagements and other occasions by pros and hacks alike becomes a problem. Scheduled permits and fees, along with enforcement, thin the mob and allow the public to enjoy these areas. The case cited in the petapixel article was a clear violation. Freedom is knowing the rules, bro.

 

[480sparky]

.....Requiring a permit to "normally" exercise one's First Amendment rights............................

It used to be that way for the 2nd Amendment...................

 

[nerwin]

Just worries that I'll get in trouble someday for taking a picture in a public place even for personal use. But maybe that isn't the case, maybe it's just for more elaborate shoots.

 

[Shafty]

Typical bureaucracy ****.

 

[table1349]

Just worries that I'll get in trouble someday for taking a picture in a public place even for personal use. But maybe that isn't the case, maybe it's just for more elaborate shoots.

Refer to this.

 

[pendennis]

.....Requiring a permit to "normally" exercise one's First Amendment rights............................

It used to be that way for the 2nd Amendment...................

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...

 

[480sparky]

........... Makes sense. ............

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.