Isn't anything free anymore?

Mainecoonmaniac · Jan 18, 2014

http://petapixel.com/2014/01/17/city-kansas-fire-requiring-photogs-buy-permit-use-public-parks/

Jeff Kubach · Jan 18, 2014

Ain't that somthing!

Jeff

snapguy · Jan 18, 2014

isn't

This "news" is not news. Many, many parks and so on have required permits and a minimum amount of insurance for professional photographers to make use of the space. And have done so for years.
Professional photographers, including movie crews, can be a great big pain in the neck. A lot of film and TV shows have been shot in Southern California and they love to hog the streets, clog the traffic and try to tell people they cannot go on their own property or park in front of their own house.
LAPD cops in uniform complete with badge and gun will hassle citizens and you will find out that the cops are, in fact, moonlighting for the film or TV producers. They act like God decreed that their film be made -- like it is a sacred undertaking.
Still photogs and video shooters without permits will use pubic and national parks to shoot porn and if your kiddies are there -- tough.
Professional photographers act professionally -- they get the proper permits and insurance.
Of course this can present a minor hassle or a non-professional photog who just wants to take some photos with a "professional-looking" camera, whatever that is.
Thomas Jefferson said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. When is the last time you went down to city hall and told them how you feel? Do you belong to a photogs' organization that lobbies and hollers for what they want? Preaching to the choir won't cut it.

BrianShaw · Jan 18, 2014

Oh, snapguy.... how long I could rant on that topic. I HATE that and my commute is lengthened about 30 minutes quite frequently because those activities clos a major thoroughfare and cause huge volumes of traffic to share a much smaller intersection. What's worse... more than half the time they aren't shooting... just occupying. But the city makes lots of much needed money from the movie business and this is part of it. So it a 'grin and bear it' situation. I have more problem with the moonlighting cops who misuse city resources and authority to support these activities. And when they are complete jerks... I have even more of a problem because there is literally nothing we can do about it but grumble.

gone · Jan 18, 2014

Dorthy: "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore".

Toto: "Good! Arf"!

cliveh · Jan 18, 2014

I note it says professional photographers would be required to purchase permits if they wanted to shoot in any of the city’s public parks. Who is to say they are professional? Surely this law would be unenforceable?

cowanw · Jan 18, 2014

Around here, it's about wedding photographers in the park. In part, limiting the numbers, so there are no conflicts amongst bridal parties or overwhelming public use. As to taxplayers use, professional photographers making money off public property usually does involve a fee.

markbarendt · Jan 18, 2014

http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/upload/grca_filming_guidelines.pdf

AgX · Jan 18, 2014

I know at least one public building where you have to pay if you use it as background for portrait work.
I don't know whether one differs between commercial and non commercial work. But some commercial photographers use it regularly and by this most likely will identify themselves.

lxdude · Jan 18, 2014

snapguy said:
Still photogs and video shooters without permits will use pubic ... parks to shoot porn

Didn't know about those- I'll have to check them out. Do you know if any are around here?

Wayne · Jan 18, 2014

Some photographers feel they are entitled. Its unfortunate that regulations like these have to be put in place to control them and protect the rights of others but since you can't punch the inconsiderate ones it seems a necessary evil.

AgX · Jan 18, 2014

Is it to protect others or refrain the photographers from molesting others or is it just because there is a commercial interest in the location and by that a chance for the municipality for an additional fee?

ArtO · Jan 18, 2014

The small town where I live has had a similar ordinance since I moved here in 1992. I've never gotten a permit and no one has ever asked me for one. I know that the pros in town use a few of the parks for sittings and I believe they have paid the fees but again I doubt if anyone has checked. (They have a similar license requirement for folks who want to use a metal detector in any city park. I've seen lots of folks detecting but never anyone checking for permits.)

analoguey · Jan 19, 2014

I think it makes better sense to charge and get a permit for it. That wayy you get any residential associations or busybodies out of the way and not interrupting your work.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

AgX · Jan 19, 2014

We are speaking of public places. Obtaining a permit for commercial photography does not changes the statute of the place or make it private. Everybody including "residential associations or busybodies" may still walk along. And that is fine.

AgX · Jan 19, 2014

We are speaking of public places. Obtaining a permit for commercial photography does not changes the statute of the place or make it private. Everybody including "residential associations or busybodies" may still walk along. And that is fine.

Though photographers may be tempted to say "I paid my fee, so get out of my picture."

BrianShaw · Jan 19, 2014

You may be correct legally, but where I live a permit gives God-like privileges and even more so when armed security and law enforcement are enforcing those privileges.

bdial · Jan 19, 2014

I can see why permits might be required of pros who are bringing lights, generators, assistants and all the rest, but it seems a little over the top for one guy and a family getting a portrait or some such.

In the case of the OP, I read about this in some other forum, and the ordinance deems a photographer a "professional" if he is using a tripod, or a camera with interchangeable lenses, among other things.
So, if you're going to make a photo in one of Overland Park's city parks with anything other than a P&S or a Holga, congratulations, you are a pro.

AgX · Jan 19, 2014

No professional photographer I watched over the last years still used a tripod when doing wedding or model photography on location.

BrianShaw · Jan 19, 2014

That is a good fact to know. I think I should cite that if challenged but I hope I can keep a straight face as I say "only a amateur would need a tripod to hold this big camera with the large interchangeable telephoto lenses whilst metering with this very complicated light meter because my camera is so old it doesn't have a built-in light meter... so that makes me the most rank amateur there is. Now leave me alone, please."

markbarendt · Jan 19, 2014

AgX said:
No professional photographer I watched over the last years still used a tripod when doing wedding or model photography on location.

You didn't watch me then.

I do agree though that the use of 'pods is pretty limited, regardless of the utility they bring.

analoguey · Jan 19, 2014

AgX said:
We are speaking of public places. Obtaining a permit for commercial photography does not changes the statute of the place or make it private. Everybody including "residential associations or busybodies" may still walk along. And that is fine.

Though photographers may be tempted to say "I paid my fee, so get out of my picture."

Absolutely they may walk along, what I was pointing to was more of the 'you cant stand here' mentality that you referred earlier. Busy bodies might determine that 'you cant photograph here' and unnecessarily bother you.
It's not to make the public park a private space as much as to keep it 'public'.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

Isn't anything free anymore?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency