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

[Steve5D]

So, apparently, the majority of people here are unable to tell the difference between some guy taking pictures of his kids in a park and a photographer who's dragging along lights and reflectors and a bridal party.

If you seriously don't think it can be proven who's making money and who's not, well, that's pretty damned pitiful.

Then again, if that's the path we want to go down, I guess we can also say that it's unnecessary for wedding photographers to get business licenses and insurance, and blow off contracts, simply because "it's impossible" to prove that the wedding photographer was getting paid.

I swear to God, if people around here actually used their heads and approached discussions intelligently, this place wouldn't be nearly as much fun...

Steve, I'm not saying that at all. but here is you an example. I am a hobbyist and do not charge my friends and their family. I could just as easily take my equipment, lights, reflectors and multiple lenses to that park and take pictures without a permit. But a professional bringing in the same equipment to shoot a family would be required to have a permit. How is a Officer supposed to determine which needs one and which doesn't?

I wouldn't know, as I'm not an officer who'll be called upon to discern that.

What I'm saying is that, conceptually, I don't have a problem with a professional being required to obtain a permit. How a determination is made, as to who is a "pro" and who isn't, is for someone else to make...

 

[runnah]

It's St. Louis, people taking photos in the park is the least of a beat cops worries.

 

[Steve5D]

So, apparently, the majority of people here are unable to tell the difference between some guy taking pictures of his kids in a park and a photographer who's dragging along lights and reflectors and a bridal party.

If you seriously don't think it can be proven who's making money and who's not, well, that's pretty damned pitiful...

Hmmm... so the other week when I was doing a TF MM shoot in a local park (perfectly legally) where not one cent changed hands (and in fact, factoring in fuel, etc, I LOST money)... some local by-law enforcement officer should be expected to be able to figure out whether I was making money or not? Ummmm... I think you're stretching it a bit their Steve. In almost all cases these laws are NOT to generate revenue (they usually cost way more to enforce than they bring in in fines) or prevent us from making a living, they're there to ensure that the park/facility isn't over-run with commercial enterprises preventing the public from enjoying themselves and creating hazards/liability issues.

What point are you trying to make?

TF MM isn't what I think most people would consider a commercial enterprise.

My point isn't with this particular scenario or that particular scenario. My point is a simple one: I don't have a problem, at all, with the concept.

Asking me for all the answers is silly, for a few reasons. First, I don't know how they'll do it. I'm in Portland, and we're talking about St. Louis. Second, I don't care how they'd do it. Again, I'm not in St. Louis.

As a concept, I don't see a problem with it...

 

[ronlane]

Steve, I agree that it's not my call about who and who isn't required to have a permit. And Runnah just made a good point, don't police officers have a LOT more important thing to do than have to enforce something like this?

 

[pixmedic]

So, apparently, the majority of people here are unable to tell the difference between some guy taking pictures of his kids in a park and a photographer who's dragging along lights and reflectors and a bridal party.

If you seriously don't think it can be proven who's making money and who's not, well, that's pretty damned pitiful...

Hmmm... so the other week when I was doing a TF MM shoot in a local park (perfectly legally) where not one cent changed hands (and in fact, factoring in fuel, etc, I LOST money)... some local by-law enforcement officer should be expected to be able to figure out whether I was making money or not? Ummmm... I think you're stretching it a bit their Steve. In almost all cases these laws are NOT to generate revenue (they usually cost way more to enforce than they bring in in fines) or prevent us from making a living, they're there to ensure that the park/facility isn't over-run with commercial enterprises preventing the public from enjoying themselves and creating hazards/liability issues.

What point are you trying to make?

TF MM isn't what I think most people would consider a commercial enterprise.

My point isn't with this particular scenario or that particular scenario. My point is a simple one: I don't have a problem, at all, with the concept.

Asking me for all the answers is silly, for a few reasons. First, I don't know how they'll do it. I'm in Portland, and we're talking about St. Louis. Second, I don't care how they'd do it. Again, I'm not in St. Louis.

As a concept, I don't see a problem with it...

IF they are dragging a bridal train sure...duh
what about regular portraits?
engagement photos?
family photos?
child photos?

is it still so easy to tell?

for a concept you dont care about, you were sure fast to call someone pitiful over it.
thats exactly the kind of thing that gets these threads taken from a civil discussion to a blown out arguement.

 

[manaheim]

So, apparently, the majority of people here are unable to tell the difference between some guy taking pictures of his kids in a park and a photographer who's dragging along lights and reflectors and a bridal party.

If you seriously don't think it can be proven who's making money and who's not, well, that's pretty damned pitiful.

Then again, if that's the path we want to go down, I guess we can also say that it's unnecessary for wedding photographers to get business licenses and insurance, and blow off contracts, simply because "it's impossible" to prove that the wedding photographer was getting paid.

I swear to God, if people around here actually used their heads and approached discussions intelligently, this place wouldn't be nearly as much fun...

Do you have to be insulting?

 

[runnah]

Steve, I agree that it's not my call about who and who isn't required to have a permit. And Runnah just made a good point, don't police officers have a LOT more important thing to do than have to enforce something like this?

I always do.

Look up "Maine use tax" if you want a giggle.

Manner have to "report" any goods bought online out of state and then pay maine sales tax on it.

Always makes me chuckle at tax time.

 

[Steve5D]

Hmmm... so the other week when I was doing a TF MM shoot in a local park (perfectly legally) where not one cent changed hands (and in fact, factoring in fuel, etc, I LOST money)... some local by-law enforcement officer should be expected to be able to figure out whether I was making money or not? Ummmm... I think you're stretching it a bit their Steve. In almost all cases these laws are NOT to generate revenue (they usually cost way more to enforce than they bring in in fines) or prevent us from making a living, they're there to ensure that the park/facility isn't over-run with commercial enterprises preventing the public from enjoying themselves and creating hazards/liability issues.

What point are you trying to make?

TF MM isn't what I think most people would consider a commercial enterprise.

My point isn't with this particular scenario or that particular scenario. My point is a simple one: I don't have a problem, at all, with the concept.

Asking me for all the answers is silly, for a few reasons. First, I don't know how they'll do it. I'm in Portland, and we're talking about St. Louis. Second, I don't care how they'd do it. Again, I'm not in St. Louis.

As a concept, I don't see a problem with it...

IF they are dragging a bridal train sure...duh
what about regular portraits?
engagement photos?
family photos?
child photos?

is it still so easy to tell?

for a concept you dont care about, you were sure fast to call someone pitiful over it.
pitiful indeed.

Maybe you could show us where I said I didn't care about the concept.

Oh, wait, no you can't do that, because I never said that.

I said I didn't care about how they determine who the pros are. What I said about the "concept" is that I support the concept of pros paying for a permit, nothing more, nothing less.

Clearer now?

 

[pixmedic]

What point are you trying to make?

TF MM isn't what I think most people would consider a commercial enterprise.

My point isn't with this particular scenario or that particular scenario. My point is a simple one: I don't have a problem, at all, with the concept.

Asking me for all the answers is silly, for a few reasons. First, I don't know how they'll do it. I'm in Portland, and we're talking about St. Louis. Second, I don't care how they'd do it. Again, I'm not in St. Louis.

As a concept, I don't see a problem with it...

IF they are dragging a bridal train sure...duh
what about regular portraits?
engagement photos?
family photos?
child photos?

is it still so easy to tell?

for a concept you dont care about, you were sure fast to call someone pitiful over it.
pitiful indeed.

Maybe you could show us where I said I didn't care about the concept.

Oh, wait, no you can't do that, because I never said that.

I said I didn't care about how they determine who the pros are. What I said about the "concept" is that I support the concept of pros paying for a permit, nothing more, nothing less.

Clearer now?

not really, because the main point of your post seemed to be more of calling someone pitiful than trying to make any civil point, like the entire rest of the thread has been. nothing had gotten personally insulting into you waltzed in here.

 

[Steve5D]

So, apparently, the majority of people here are unable to tell the difference between some guy taking pictures of his kids in a park and a photographer who's dragging along lights and reflectors and a bridal party.

If you seriously don't think it can be proven who's making money and who's not, well, that's pretty damned pitiful.

Then again, if that's the path we want to go down, I guess we can also say that it's unnecessary for wedding photographers to get business licenses and insurance, and blow off contracts, simply because "it's impossible" to prove that the wedding photographer was getting paid.

I swear to God, if people around here actually used their heads and approached discussions intelligently, this place wouldn't be nearly as much fun...

Do you have to be insulting?

When someone asks how to tell the difference between an amateur and a pro, sometimes "insulting" just happens.

Seriously, if you see someone in a park shooting a bride and groom, and there's an assistant and lights and reflectors and such, are you honestly going to think there's more than a snowball's chance in Hell that they're not pros?

So, yeah, sometimes people simply don't use their heads, and sometimes it's glaringly obvious when they don't. If that fact being pointed out upsets people, so be it...

 

[Steve5D]

IF they are dragging a bridal train sure...duh
what about regular portraits?
engagement photos?
family photos?
child photos?

is it still so easy to tell?

for a concept you dont care about, you were sure fast to call someone pitiful over it.
pitiful indeed.

Maybe you could show us where I said I didn't care about the concept.

Oh, wait, no you can't do that, because I never said that.

I said I didn't care about how they determine who the pros are. What I said about the "concept" is that I support the concept of pros paying for a permit, nothing more, nothing less.

Clearer now?

not really, because the main point of your post seemed to be more of calling someone pitiful than trying to make any civil point, like the entire rest of the thread has been. nothing had gotten personally insulting into you waltzed in here.

Who did I call pitiful?

Would it be the guy who completely mischaracterized what I said about the concept, and said I didn't care about the concept when, in fact, I was quite clear what I think about the concept?

Well, yeah. Maybe that guy...

 

[pixmedic]

Maybe you could show us where I said I didn't care about the concept.

Oh, wait, no you can't do that, because I never said that.

I said I didn't care about how they determine who the pros are. What I said about the "concept" is that I support the concept of pros paying for a permit, nothing more, nothing less.

Clearer now?

not really, because the main point of your post seemed to be more of calling someone pitiful than trying to make any civil point, like the entire rest of the thread has been. nothing had gotten personally insulting into you waltzed in here.

Who did I call pitiful?

Would it be the guy who completely mischaracterized what I said about the concept, and said I didn't care about the concept when, in fact, I was quite clear what I think about the concept?

Well, yeah. Maybe that guy...

why is it you had the burning desire to call anyone "pitiful"?
and, it seems you did so here again. so again, why the need for that word to even be used in the first place?

 

[manaheim]

So, apparently, the majority of people here are unable to tell the difference between some guy taking pictures of his kids in a park and a photographer who's dragging along lights and reflectors and a bridal party.

If you seriously don't think it can be proven who's making money and who's not, well, that's pretty damned pitiful.

Then again, if that's the path we want to go down, I guess we can also say that it's unnecessary for wedding photographers to get business licenses and insurance, and blow off contracts, simply because "it's impossible" to prove that the wedding photographer was getting paid.

I swear to God, if people around here actually used their heads and approached discussions intelligently, this place wouldn't be nearly as much fun...

Do you have to be insulting?

When someone asks how to tell the difference between an amateur and a pro, sometimes "insulting" just happens.

Seriously, if you see someone in a park shooting a bride and groom, and there's an assistant and lights and reflectors and such, are you honestly going to think there's more than a snowball's chance in Hell that they're not pros?

So, yeah, sometimes people simply don't use their heads, and sometimes it's glaringly obvious when they don't. If that fact being pointed out upsets people, so be it...

Did it ever occur to you that there might be a point buried in there under their presumed ignorance?

You use the example of a photographer following a bridal party around... probably pretty obvious for the most part... but then I know a few people who do that for friends... or otherwise don't get paid. I did that for a couple recently. I clearly have all the gear, but I was not being paid. So the cop comes up and asks me "Are you a pro?" and I'm going to say "No." Now what? Does he fine me anyway? Why? Because I have $30K in gear? How is that reasonable?

Now think of the other side of it... someone is being paid to shoot, but it's just them, a camera and a single model. For all we know it could be boyfriend and girlfriend. He's not getting accosted because there's no way to know he's a pro... but that professional wedding photographer feels he is being treated unfairly because that guy is getting away with it and he is not.

So, really now... how "unintelligent" are our arguments?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Tax man wants his cut

 

[skieur]

The reason for the law in the US is to prevent movie crews or photography crews from taking over a park for a shoot and preventing normal use by the general public That is what has lead to complaints in some areas.
It has become rather silly, with some overzealous park employees telling anyone with a camera that they need a permit, which is untrue and some amateurs with point and shoot cameras asking where they can get a permit.