• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Tripod in Los Angeles?

athanasius80

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
645
Location
Huntington B
Format
Multi Format
I'm planning on doing some large format shooting in downtown LA this week. Has anyone had experiences pro or con using tripods on public property there? Thanks!
Chris
 
Make sure your tripod does not pose a tripping hazard to the public when it is set up.

You might contact City Hall for any rules about tripod use. There might be areas where they require a permit.

The key is public property. Some areas might look like public property, but could be private. Mainly, when set up on a sidewalk, you can't impede others from walking by (but since everyone drives in southern Cal, this should be a problem - grin).
 
Things might have changed since then, but a few years ago (post 9-11), I set up a 4x5 on an island in the middle of Grand Ave. to photograph the Disney Concert Hall during it's construction. I was pretty nervous about getting in trouble, but when a cop passed right by and just looked at me then I knew it was alright. But, when I crossed the street to photograph the Dorthy Chandler, a rent-a-cop was all up in my shit within five minutes. I gave him my "student ID" and he ran it by his supervisor, who said it was ok for me to be there.

My thought is to not ask for permission, (unless you are trying to get onto the roof of something, but somtimes even then, just get in the elevator and go). In most cases, it is easier to ask for forgiveness that permission.
 
Richard Boutwell said:
My thought is to not ask for permission, (unless you are trying to get onto the roof of something, but somtimes even then, just get in the elevator and go). In most cases, it is easier to ask for forgiveness that permission.
Click to expand...

This approach (attributed to Admiral Grace Hopper, but probably originating someone even before her) is the approach taken by many photographers.

There have been a few discussions on this and other 'fora' about tripod restrictions; my recollection is that tripod issues have been reported in some parts of Washington, DC and New York City, but I haven't heard of problems in other places. I suspect that setting up a tripod on a busy sidewalk in just about any large city could present potential pedestrian risk and is probably pretty dumb (a larger concern: if one of those pesky pedestrians trips over your tripod, your camera could be damaged), but if you are not in anyone's way, my tendency is to take the Nike approach - 'just do it'.

I was photographing in downtown Boston a couple of weeks ago with a 4x5 on a tripod, and no one seemed to care.
 
The best thing to do is smile, and show them your equipment (police, security guards, etc.). There's enough shooting of film in LA that people pretty much know what a tripod's for. Where you run into problems are when you pose a tripping hazard or run into a building that has been copyrighted (the binocular building in Venice). Even at Union Station, if you go directly to the security guards, they'll have you sign a release of liability (for them for any damage to you/your gear), and they'll let you shoot. The danger is being under a darkcloth without having someone watch your back. You could lose your gear, wallet, etc.
 
Stever said:
What and where is the binocular building?

Steve
Click to expand...


I forget the advertising or management company that owns it, but the building has been copyrighted and the security guards WILL run you off if you try to shoot it. It's in Venice somewhere...I forget exactly which street.
 
I see tripod mounted

athanasius80 said:
I'm planning on doing some large format shooting in downtown LA this week. Has anyone had experiences pro or con using tripods on public property there? Thanks!
Chris
Click to expand...

cameras all over L.A. being used without any problems. Everything from view cameras to video rigs. L.A. is not a camera shy town! Just be courteous and sensible and you won't have any difficulties.
 
Steve,

It is a Frank Gehry designed building that incorporates a facade that is shaped like a giant binocular. Wikipedia "Venice CA" and there is a photo down near the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:052607-006-Chiat-Day.jpg

The address is:
340 Main St
Venice, CA 90291-2524

But there are lots of other highly-phographic sites on Main St and adjacent areas so plan on walking the sidewalks!

Somehow, I have doubts about the legitimacy of any photography restrictions on this building as mentioned by Schmoo. (The ad company, BTW, is/was Chiat/Day). First, it is viewable from a public street; second, Frank Gehry has designed lots of other buildings that people take pictures of all the time. Also, there are plenty of published pics of this building that don't include a "Photo used by permission" statement. Perhaps there are restrictions of commercial usage of pictures taken of Gehry-designed buildings, but I wouldn't profess to know any details. Personally, I would view any attempts by police/security/thugs to prohibit photography of any building viewable from a public street in the US to be ignorant (at best) on the part of police/security/thugs.

While photographing private venues that are viewable from public places (e.g. the carousel at Griffith Park) I have been asked more than once to sign an agreement/release since they thought my camera looked "too professional". But I have never been hassled or denied the photographic opportunity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As to tripod restrictions in DC - for the most part there are none. The US Capitol Building is about the only place I know of that requires a tripod permit. You're supposed to go to the Visitors Center to get one (they're allegedly free). I have photographed the Justice Department buildings, the Old Post Office Pavilion on Pennsylvania Avenue (say that five times fast!), on the Mall, at the WW II Memorial, the WW I memorial (what, you don't know about the WW I?... it's a hidden gem amongst the monuments), and on the steps to the Potomac behind the Lincoln, without needing permits or getting in trouble. I asked at the WW II Memorial about tripods, and they said there was no issue whatsoever. I think if you tried to use the spike feet on your Ries while photographing inside the Jefferson or Lincoln, or you tried to shoot with a tripod during the Cherry Blossom Festival, you'd probably have issues.
 

Question is, are you under any legal obligation to sign such a release/agreement, or can you tell them to p--- off; and if they try to interfere with you, are they themselves in the legal wrong (eg harrassment, assault, battery?) Not a lawyer myself....
 
As far as I am aware, in any reasonably free country, if you are photographing from a public place and there are no specific, genuine legal restrictions (e.g. 'prohibited places' within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act in the UK, and equivalents elsewhere), you can always tell them what to do with their release, preferably folded into a painful origami pattern.
 
MikeSeb said:
Question is, are you under any legal obligation to sign such a release/agreement, or ....
Click to expand...

In one situation I signed a release using the name "Byte Mei". As the chap walked away wit the clipboard I'm quite certain he was wondering why I didn't look Chinese.
 
BrianShaw said:
Somehow, I have doubts about the legitimacy of any photography restrictions on this building as mentioned by Schmoo.
Click to expand...

I ran into this locally when photographing an old house here that's being renovated by a new owner. I was told that the house was copyrighted. I work in publishing, I'm familiar with copyright law, and this sounded dubious to me. So I looked it up. Architectural plans and renderings are copyrightable. BUT, the copyright law explicitly makes an allowance for photographing (or otherwise rendering--painting, etc.) buildings normally in view from a public space (i.e, the sidewalk, etc.), regardless of copyright status. Section 120a of the copryright code, as I recall. If you're on their property, they can tell you not to photograph, but off it, they have no authority.

Whether one can claim copyright interest in a building that's already been standing for over 100 years, is a different question, and even more dubious, I think.
 

I was photographing in a State (Hawaii) owned boat harbor a few weeks ago, and the owner of one of the boats suggested I pay him for the right. I simply told him "not likely" and walked off.
 
Moopheus said:
So I looked it up. Architectural plans and renderings are copyrightable.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. This is an interesting issue to me. Doesn't the copyright simply prevent someone from reproducing the plans themselves or building an identical looking structure without permission of the creator?
 
Re encounters with jerks

Two weeks ago I was capturing images of people dancing to the wonderful sound of a live swing band outdoors at a local open-air mall near my house, in its central open-air courtyard. One of the assistant managers of the mall, a female in her 40s, stopped dancing at the end of a song and approached me and asked, "Did you successfully get anything?", she assuming I was using a digital camera. I was not; I was using my Leica R8, so I said, "I know that I did, based on my experience level, but I can't show you what I captured since this is a film camera". She merely said, "Oh!" nicely and walked away. Ten minutes later, a short, young, thin, hyperactive additional assistant manager, a male, walked up to me and asked, "Are you photographing the swing band?" I responded, "No, I am photographing the people dancing." He said, "Well, get some images of the swing band as well because I want to use some of your images in some promotional literature we will be creating shortly." I then said, "Since these are my artistic creations, I'm certain you can expect me to quote a price; is that correct?." He said, "We don't pay the public for shooting photographs on our property." I said, "And do you intend to affix my name within the publications pages as the creator of the images?" He said, "Yes. Anyway, e-mail me the photos tomorrow. Hurry, because I've got to get this project going." He obviously assumed, just like his associate did, that I was using a digital camera. Two days later, having developed the two rolls of film but not having printed them yet because of excessive work hours, I went back to the mall and captured images of people again dancing to the wonderful sounds of another swing band. Guess who "swung" into my space at one point, ala Spiderman? Yep, the same male associate who belligerently asked, "Where are my images???" I said, "Work hours have prevented me from completing them." That was a test of his character, his attitude, and his demeanor. His next response? Oh, boy, what an asshole! "You better get those images to me immediately or you're not going to be allowed to photograph at this location ever again!" Mind you, my mate and I have been going to this open-air mall for almost 30 years to dine and see movies in its theaters. But that doesn't matter in the here-and-now because management has obviously hired a moron who clearly doesn't know how to positively interact with good people and doesn't have a clue about acknowledging film property rights and credits. And I'd not exhibited an attitude at all! To date, I've kept to my decision to not give him any images since it is clear to me that he is not trustworthy. My mate has suggested that I give him what I've been able to print since then, but I told him that I clearly cannot discern any assurance that this jerk will either pay me or give me credit in any publications as the author of the images because of his personality and attitude. Now, about him stating I will be forbidden from capturing images on the property? I could give him a few prints and state that the other negatives from a second roll were no good because the lighting was so low and the film speed was too low, so nothing printable was captured. What do you think?
 
Well, yes, the mall can forbid you to take pictures, because it's private land. The young man in question needs to learn some manners, but he is within his rights. Given what he said the first night, it might have been predictable thay something like this might happen when you went back and shot some more without having given him any pictures. I make no defences of him, because there are none: but as Cicero said, "When the law is against you, plead justice, and when justice is against you, plead the law."
 
Roger, my thoughts keep telling me the only way I will reach closure on this matter is to not go back to the mall to capture images and not give the jerk any of those I've already printed. That would be consistent with the assistant manager's claim to property rights but would penalize him for being so arrogant and uncooperative. Matter closed!
 
Followup: Had a great time, no trouble from rent-a-cops or destitute people. Here's a neg scan of one image I got.

Now since I'm a dork, what could I have done to reduce the converging parallels between the blade sign and the two buildings? On the camera I have front rise, rear tilt, and rear swing.

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • LApalace.jpg
    70 KB · Views: 151
To answer your question,
Since you appear to be shooting upwards beyond your front rise capabilites, I would think that you could have tilted the camera back with the tripod head and then brought the rear tilt forward to a point parallel to the building and sign. You may have had to compensate for the out of parallel front standard by stopping the lens down to acceptable sharpness but the keystoning would be eliminated...the next question is if your lens has a large enough image circle to allow this.
 
In this case, I would not change it. The way you composed this photo is more interesting because of the diagonals from the converging lines.

Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register