$500 to take a photo in Mooresville, Alabama

[WarEaglemtn]

Self-Important Alabama Town To Photogs: Scram!
The town of Mooresville, Ala., has done itself no favors by demanding a $500 fee from professional photographers who dare take pictures of its historic buildings.

After a photographer was told to stop taking photos in a public place, he wrote a letter to the local paper, unleashing a flood of bad press.

The Huntsville Times reported last week: "Huntsville photographer Don Broome said Wednesday he was standing in a public street in Mooresville taking pictures of the town's historic buildings when he was served a notice that advised him to 'cease photography and leave immediately.'"

TV stations and the Associated Press picked up the story, too. There is some question about whether Broome was violating the letter of the law, or just the spirit. Either way, the news stories depict Mooresville as a place of cantankerous fogies who feel besieged by photographers, who apparently overrun the town like a plague of rats. (How many other small towns dream of having such a problem?)

The town's commercial photography guidelines, posted on its Web site, are so stunning that they're best enjoyed in full. (I'm not sure which rule I find more fascinating – the one requiring commercial photographers to wear a badge, or the one banning photography during "festivals.") I've pasted the rules at the end of this message for your enjoyment. Read them and laugh, or cry, or just give thanks that our Constitution still applies in most places, more or less.


Town of Mooresville, Alabama 2008 Commercial Photography Policies and Guidelines

All commercial photographers (any person who sells photographs whether or not he or she operates a business for such a purpose) are required to obtain a Town of Mooresville Commercial Photography Permit and Business Privilege License annually. The Town of Mooresville considers all portrait, children, and family/group photographers who receive payment for photographs a commercial photographer. Commercial photography on Town of Mooresville owned properties cannot begin without a prepayment of the Commercial Photography Permit and Business Privilege License.

Commercial photographers who take still images on Town of Mooresville owned property are required to obtain an annual non-refundable Commercial Photography Permit before any such activity occurs. Violators will be treated as trespassers. The annual Permit allows the photographer to take still images on the following Town of Mooresville owned properties:

Mooresville Brick Church - 25035 Lauderdale Street
Mooresville Post Office - 24995 Lauderdale Street
Mooresville Stage Coach Tavern - 3946 High Street
The Commercial Photography Permit does not provide access to the interior of these buildings.

There can be no alterations made to the buildings, benches, or landscape.

There is no public restroom available for changing purposes. This includes the Town of Mooresville Post Office.

Parking is only allowed on the paved section of North Street located between High and Broad Street. NO EXCEPTIONS!

Commercial photography on private premises in the town limits are subject to the permission of the property owner. It is within the property owner's rights to press trespassing charges against violators and to request that the Commercial Photography Permit and Business Privilege License be revoked.

A Commercial Photography Permit badge MUST be visibly worn by the photographer at all shoots on Town of Mooresville owned properties.

The permit holder is required to reimburse the Town of Mooresville for any property damages that may occur during a photo shoot.

The permit holder agrees that the Town of Mooresville and its governing body is not responsible for any loss or injury that might occur during a photography session.

Scheduled events at these locations (such as weddings, parties, and festivals) take precedence over Commercial Photography Permits. Photography is not permitted directly before, during, or after these events. It is the photographer's responsibility to get the schedule of events for these locations.

Any violation of the above guidelines by the permit holder, assistants, or clients will result in the termination of the photographer permit and business license. Violators will be asked to cease photography and leave immediately.

 

[RoNinHeart]

I wish I lived close to there, I'd show up with a big tripod and several cameras and take lots of photos. When questioned, I'd pull out my student ID and photography class schedule and tell them I'm working on a class assignment.

Other than the utter stupidity of the rules, how do you prove that someone is or isn't a professional photographer. Is it by the size or cost of the camera?

The world just gets stranger by the day.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You know, I was former director of still photography at Cape Canaveral and served as director for some of the first manned space pictures. A few of my friends know this and have asked me take family portraits or candids for them just for kicks. It is no big deal to me, but seems to be to some of them. Others could care less. They are pleased with the results ( I hope ), but if I ever go to Mooresville, I will charge them for my presence on their town property.

What a crock, and I hope that you forgive me. This was not meant as any form of arrogance on my part. It was meant to show how stupid Mooresvilles 'fathers' are being. So, please understand the 'joke' inherent in my comment. I do know several other photographers who truly would merit charging the town for their presence.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Looks like quite the town--

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Moore...503,-86.880972&spn=0.002114,0.003605&t=h&z=18

 

[Photo Engineer]

Looks like with a good telephoto, we can avoid all of their ordinances.

PE

 

[MikeK]

I thought Post Offices were federal property? So who has jurisdiction here - the town or the Feds

 

[23mjm]

Just looked at the website--the PO is a historical building likely not owned by the Feds anymore.

The next problem I see--is the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. If I were to take a photo and they arrest me--the city has to prove I am a commercial photographer.

Wish I lived near--it might be a fun little fight---ending with a nice fat lawsuit.

I wonder if their City Attorney knows anything about this??? I would like to hear his rational on how this is legal.

 

[RobC]

Hmmmm,

Since all Americans seem to refer to taking a photo as shooting, it seems reasonable to assume that a camera is their weapon of choice and under the constitution you all have the right to bear arms. Therefore, isn't the town of Mooresville breaching the constitution with it's rules.

Sue the Bastards

 

[Marc Akemann]

This article may shed more light on the subject:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003729465

Marc

 

[David Grenet]

Scheduled events at these locations (such as weddings, parties, and festivals) take precedence over Commercial Photography Permits. Photography is not permitted directly before, during, or after these events. It is the photographer's responsibility to get the schedule of events for these locations.

Wedding photographers beware!

 

[mabman]

I'm not a lawyer, nor an American, but being on public property wouldn't this run afoul of free speech laws, professional or not?

 

[David Brown]

This article may shed more light on the subject:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003729465

Marc

What? You mean there just might be two sides to the story? Well, that's no fun! :rolleyes:

 

[Vonder]

Assuming none of us can paint worth a damn, lets get a bunch of people to set up easels and canvas right on these historic properties.

 

[weasel]

How about organizing an amateur shoot, with dozens, if not hundreds, of amateur photographers descending upon the town with all sorts of gear, run amok shooting the town?

 

[mark]

What? You mean there just might be two sides to the story? Well, that's no fun! :rolleyes:

 

[arigram]

It looks like they just want to limit the depiction of their town to their own hired photographers, so they can sell a touristic book or two.
Not uncommon in many historical and photogenic places in the world.
For example, limiting the use of a tripod definately helps congestion inside a crowded place but also indicates someone who might be a threat to their postcard and photo books sales.
One many well pay the license to photograph inside closed parts of the Forbidden City, but a tiny little obscure town, who really cares?

 

[eclarke]

It also could be an issue where wedding photographers are crapping up the properties, stomping flower beds, being rude to sightseers and generally being a nuisance. That's how it seems to be at our botanical garden in Milwaukee...EC

 

[pauliej]

I wonder if Brittany (or Lindsay, et-al) is thinking of moving to Mooresville, to try and cut down on the size of the crapparazzi that continually hound her nearly to death... Just a thought.

paulie

 

[msuchan]

Well I will be in the mooresville area next weekend. I will have to stop by take some photos. Nothing motivates me more then being told I can't do something.

 

[JBrunner]

As far as being on the property of the city, they can do as they damn well please, even outlawing photography completely, however, from public property, like the street or sidewalk, they can't do a damn thing. It seems they, or at least the person who ran off the photographer, were confused.

In the second linked article, they admitted as much.

It is a very small town, and they are probably just trying to reap a little booty in what they perceive as people profiting from their resources. Instead of accomplishing their goal, they have created a PR nightmare for themselves. Hopefully they will come up with something less onerous, more clearly worded, and not quite as steep.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a small town trying to get a little revenue from it's attractions, they just need to be smarter about it. Right now they have created a policy that will cost the town money, rather than help support it. They need to rethink, which they will when they realize revenue has been impacted negatively.

 

[Monophoto]

Well lets speculate about what might be happening here.

Could be that the town fathers are facing a budget deficit, and looking for new sources of revenue. Of course, about all that imposing a ridiculous fee would accomplish is to drive those pesky photographers to other towns that don't require expensive licenses, where they would pay for motels, meals, booze, etc. That would be really smart. Yeah, most politicians I know think that way.

Could be that they are concerned about terrorists. Unfortunately, no self-respecting terrorist would waste his time in Mooresville, AL. Of course, even some of our national leaders don't understand "strategery" either, so the town fathers in Mooresville are in good (?) company.

Could be that they are running for re-election, and need to demonstrate that they are doing something. Now that sounds more like it. Don't have to do anything significant or even effective, just something to get their names in the newspaper.

Yeah, there are a number of possible reasons for this stupidity. All starting with the fact that it originates with politicians. Where do we get these people?

 

[Bearclaws]

New to APUG and the thread-thing

Places like this probably didn't think this thing out to the end. There are plenty of people and organizations (ACLU, for example) that might take on the legal issues of this.

If this had been me, I'd have told the authority the cited me that I was an amateur photographer.

There you go. My first response to a thred.

Bob

 

[vet173]

Other than the utter stupidity of the rules, how do you prove that someone is or isn't a professional photographer.

If you use a tripod, you is, and must prove you are not. Puts the photographer in the same light as a child molester. Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[copake_ham]

If you use a tripod, you is, and must prove you are not. Puts the photographer in the same light as a child molester. Guilty until proven innocent.

The "Child Molester Anti-Defamation League" will clearly take issue with you regarding such a damning analogy!

 

[Dave Krueger]

If you use a tripod, you is, and must prove you are not. Puts the photographer in the same light as a child molester. Guilty until proven innocent.

Exactly why I gave up child molesting, but dammit, I'm not giving up photography. One has to draw the line somewhere.