Not good ... Not good for St. Louis photographers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dao

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
6,427
Reaction score
462
Location
St. Louis
From News Channel 5 of St. Louis
Timeline Photos | Facebook

How can they tell if a photographer is a professional photographer? What if a wedding photographer want to take a family photo of his/her kids playing in the county parks after his/her working hours?


562357_10151563754354312_1289087700_n.jpg
 
I would roll the dice. Who is going to be enforcing that? But then again I'm just a college student, not a professional. So..that would be my loop hole.
 
how are they going to prove who is and who isnt?
they should make professional babysitters pay to use the park too then...make it fair.

EDIT: i read that the city took down those signs due to all the protests, and it is being reviewed by the city council.
 
Hey that's cool for the am's, now we can get all the prime spots and not have to be worried about getting in the Pro's way. Pack up all my lighting gear and get ready ;)
 
I don't even understand how that's legal. From what I understand, you are legally allowed to take photographs from a public area in which people don't have a preconceived notion of privacy...and...public parks are...public?
 
I don't even understand how that's legal. From what I understand, you are legally allowed to take photographs from a public area in which people don't have a preconceived notion of privacy...and...public parks are...public?

It's Big Brother keeping us down. (It's all about money, I bet. How can they make some extra cash off people).
 
I don't even understand how that's legal. From what I understand, you are legally allowed to take photographs from a public area in which people don't have a preconceived notion of privacy...and...public parks are...public?
They're like shopping malls. They are publicly accessible private property. The property owner can make pretty much any rules he likes. Enforcement however is a different story. That said, many municipalities have something similar for shooting on any city property. Try New York.
 
Good, I am glad that they take the sign down now and it is being reviewed.

Tirediron, I thought county parks should be public property. Of course, I could be wrong.
 
I am thinking that those signs are for any work that will be used for professional purposes... movies, magazines, ect... They would spend more money than its worth trying to enforce such a law against any person with a professional camera. I'm glad to hear they have been removed already. Pity that they were put up in the 1st place.
 
^ That's my take on it - like U.S. National Parks, where you're supposed to have a license for commercial photography/video.
 
This is true of a lot of venues. Sometimes it happens because of abuse, or a lawsuit, or complaints from the public ( because of some "PRO" telling Joe Q. Public not to walk on the sidewalk (in front of the camera), or to not let their kid interrupt the engagement shoot by playing on the swings). Sometimes it happens because the owners / politicians / cities / counties / states want money. Like John said above, most are private property... they can do this.
 
How much? $100 a year? That's only $8.33 per month. Or you can take the number of clients you have per year and divide $100 dollars by that number and I can bet your added cost to each customer will be less than $5. Add a $10 fee per customer who wants to shoot in the parks that require a commercial photography permit.

I find it funny that I, a non-professional, donate to my local park and yet there are all these "pros" bitching about having to pay to use public land to make a profit.


To anyone complaining: You should ask all the food vendors about the permits they need to sell their product on public land.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

Back
Top