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

[pixmedic]

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.....

im just saying it should be fair. they are targeting photographers. what about professional babysitters using the park? or professional dog walkers?
its easy to prove who is making money as a food vendor. not so much for the others. the enforcement is the problem.

 

[manaheim]

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.....

It's a slippery-slope/freedom of expression issue. No pro is going to cry over $100 a year, but that's not the point.

 

[runnah]

I think are within their rights to do so. It's a liability situation. If you are shooting a couple and the bride twists her ankle and can't get married, she might sue the park.

Also if you are selling hotdogs in the park, you'd have to get a permit. If you were grilling hotdogs for your family it's fine.

Apply that example to photos.

 

[Canuk]

It's a slippery-slope/freedom of expression issue. No pro is going to cry over $100 a year, but that's not the point.

I think it has little to do w/ freedom of expression and more to do w/ commercial use of a public park. Food vendors, carnivals, and even farmers markets that use public spaces can be required to pay user fees. If you are profiting from using the park for photography should you be expected to pay a little extra to the city to help maintain it?

 

[manaheim]

I think it has little to do w/ freedom of expression and more to do w/ commercial use of a public park. Food vendors, carnivals, and even farmers markets that use public spaces can be required to pay user fees. If you are profiting from using the park for photography should you be expected to pay a little extra to the city to help maintain it?

That may be the city's perspective, but I'm speaking from the photographer's.

And it seems like fine logic, but next it will be the city streets.

And then the complaints will come up about defining what constitutes a pro... We have a clue here and it's a raging argument on a weekly basis. Imagine city hall arguing it.

Then they'll just say "screw it- no camera without a permit, period".

Then some kid will be taking pictures of a police brutality situation and a cop will go, "got a permit for that? No?" (Confiscate)

And on and on.

I understand the hot dog vendor analogy, but no one is out there expressing their freedom or monitoring cops with an Oscar Meyer.

 

[pixmedic]

I think are within their rights to do so. It's a liability situation. If you are shooting a couple and the bride twists her ankle and can't get married, she might sue the park.

Also if you are selling hotdogs in the park, you'd have to get a permit. If you were grilling hotdogs for your family it's fine.

Apply that example to photos.

how do you prove who is taking pictures for money? everyone will simply claim its free for friends or family.
if the hotdog guy is grilling for friends and family, and giving away his stuff, he would be ok too.
they arent likely to catch any photographers accepting cash in the park. or dog walkers. or babysitters.

 

[runnah]

I think are within their rights to do so. It's a liability situation. If you are shooting a couple and the bride twists her ankle and can't get married, she might sue the park.

Also if you are selling hotdogs in the park, you'd have to get a permit. If you were grilling hotdogs for your family it's fine.

Apply that example to photos.

how do you prove who is taking pictures for money? everyone will simply claim its free for friends or family.
if the hotdog guy is grilling for friends and family, and giving away his stuff, he would be ok too.
they arent likely to catch any photographers accepting cash in the park. or dog walkers. or babysitters.

Well you can't. Its one of those laws that they make to cover their asses but then doesn't get enforced.

p.s. dog walkers are a shady bunch.

 

[pixmedic]

its just another way the city was trying to sneak in revenue.
its like the red light cameras here in Orlando....
oh, they said it was all about "safety".....THEN, once the private company handling the red lights and profiting from them installed the cameras....they SHORTENED the length of the yellow light by as much as 1 second in some major intersections. shady as heck if you ask me.

 

[runnah]

its just another way the city was trying to sneak in revenue.
its like the red light cameras here in Orlando....
oh, they said it was all about "safety".....THEN, once the private company handling the red lights and profiting from them installed the cameras....they SHORTENED the length of the yellow light by as much as 1 second in some major intersections intersections. shady as heck if you ask me.

Don't get me started on shady government/private partnerships.

I see it as one of those "meh" laws that you really don't have to worry about unless you are flagrently breaking it.

 

[LinusM]

Seems like a crazy thing for them to try but a similar practice goes on over here in London. When i worked for the National papers we sometimes had to use some of the Royal Parks - Regents Park, St James etc for portrait sessions etc.
On numerous occasions we were intercepted by Park police asking for permits, which cost an arm & a leg. It often led to us leaving and working outside the park areas utilising a less desirable background.

It the good old days news organisations did have the permits, but these days they cut corners and save the money. For myself as a freelancer - there was no way I would buy one as the times it would be used were few.

But to shoot there without wasn't worth the trouble as any liability would I am sure be thrown back at the feet of the photographer, should he shoot without license.

I never could work out how the Police so easily differentiated between me as a pro and someone taking some pics of his girlfriend. Most amateurs have bigger & better gear than the pros! ;-)

 

[ronlane]

I think are within their rights to do so. It's a liability situation. If you are shooting a couple and the bride twists her ankle and can't get married, she might sue the park.

Also if you are selling hotdogs in the park, you'd have to get a permit. If you were grilling hotdogs for your family it's fine.

Apply that example to photos.

how do you prove who is taking pictures for money? everyone will simply claim its free for friends or family.
if the hotdog guy is grilling for friends and family, and giving away his stuff, he would be ok too.
they arent likely to catch any photographers accepting cash in the park. or dog walkers. or babysitters.

Well you can't. Its one of those laws that they make to cover their asses but then doesn't get enforced.

p.s. dog walkers are a shady bunch.

It will get enforced but it will most likely be done so in a questionable manner at the discretion of the Officer on patrol.

 

[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...

 

[PropilotBW]

Perhaps you all are digging too deep and the date on the sign explains it all? A cruel prank that really got everyone!

 

[ronlane]

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?

 

[tirediron]

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.