just want to have a proffesional looking photo, I am not a commercial photography

[DNG]

Photographer Wants to End Discrimination Against High-End Camera Gear

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/05/pho...-discrimination-against-high-end-camera-gear/

A yet another article on a well equipped photographer hubbiest gets questioned on a personal shoot with a professional looking set up.

 

[KenR]

I have been looked at increduously by various officials when I explained that I was using a view camera for my own uses and not for commercial use. But, they always have let me continue taking photos. I have been required to get "tripod permits" which were generally free or nominally priced, although one place wanted $500 for the permit. I managed to hand hold my Crown Graphic and got a great shot. Ha.

 

[seakayaker1]

If the photographer is asking others to stay out of his area when he is shooting models or anything else in a public area then it would be reasonable to require a permit.

If a photographer does not bother anyone who decides to set up chairs, barbecue, throw a frisbee, take a swim, or use the area in a appropriate manner for the intended land use then I guess the Park Ranger or anyone else would not have a grip.

I think we have all come across a few commercial photographers who are taking photographs of a wedding party, family portraits, corporate work, etc., in public spaces. Most people don't seem to mind but I guess somebody along the way pushed the envelope and caused complaints. Then there is always the local, state, and federal government looking to raise revenues through fees for use. The state of Washington charges residents $30.00 a year to use State Parks and there are probably rules regarding photography and video permits.

Bottom line if you are interfering with the general public using public property then a permit would appear to be reasonable.

I'll leave the pricing to the professional legislators since I am sure it is a well thought out policy. 😉

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

They (PP) usually block my posts. Here is my reply...

Looks like a commercial shoot to me. If a permit is required, police are justified. Photog is obviously not a tourist taking snapshots and should be fined to the maximum.

Become a street / doc photog and not a tripod / staged photo photog then problem solved.

https://danielteolijr.files.wordpre...allen-copyright-2014-daniel-d-teoli-jr-mr.jpg

Even if no photos allowed, the expert street / doc photog comes homes with the goods...

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/de-wallen-project/

 

[codester80]

If you're going to base permits and user fees off the fact an activity is interfering with the use of the park by others than I guess there should be permits for people with dogs, loud music, frisbees, footballs, children, etc. All of these things interfere with my use of a park.

This is a simple case of the government eating away at civil liberties and it appears by the majority of the comments attached to the story that most people are glad to hand over their freedom. Government has almost succeeded in taking the proverbial mile.