PKR
Veteran
It also applies to still photography. I have a business license, so anything I do, personal or commercial is seen as needing a permit. In the case of the bridge, it is required for any bridge property. i could be a thousand yards form the bridge and a permit would be required. The district is currently trying to restrict/permit the air space above and around the bridge. It's a money machine! I'm not going to look for citations for this.. If you're a tourist, you're okay. If not, in addition to the permit fee, the district wants $8,000 for the first published instance of any photo taken under permit.
http://search.goldengate.org/?index=156574&query=film&psel=all&search=Search
go to item #7 and then to page 17. I couldn't find the publication fees on the new web site. It's a mess and a lot of documents are missing.
http://search.goldengate.org/?index=156574&query=film&psel=all&search=Search
go to item #7 and then to page 17. I couldn't find the publication fees on the new web site. It's a mess and a lot of documents are missing.
Last edited:
PKR
Veteran
I do this for a living. I pay fees if I have to. I avoid them if I can. You must think I'm foolish working for a living.. or maybe being honest?
larmarv916
Well-known
California like so many blood thirsty governmental groups is so worried that anyone might make a nickel from photographing an object that was built with taxpayers dollars to start with. But in California the cities have full time vultures who stand around and watch to see if your shooting photos that "might " be professional?? Yes even at the San Juan Capo Mission then even have list for inspectors to carry to tell them what cameras....are professional!
I Costa Mesa, Calif. they cite photogrpahers who appear to be shooting professional photos! Without the required city permit. I Australia I read that they now hassle tourist for shooting natural formations with out a permit!
Oh yes big brother is growing larger and more lustful everyday.
I Costa Mesa, Calif. they cite photogrpahers who appear to be shooting professional photos! Without the required city permit. I Australia I read that they now hassle tourist for shooting natural formations with out a permit!
Oh yes big brother is growing larger and more lustful everyday.
PKR
Veteran
If you're a pro there is a 2 or 3 hundred dollar fee for packing a camera into golden gate park. i think the wedding photographers use the park for a background. The city can run your license plate to see if you have a business license and what field the license is for. Darkrooms are now against city law if you're a pro. If you're a student of an amateur you're okay .. so far.
FrankS
Registered User
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
So now we're talking about commercial photo permits (which are not needed in national parks unless:
In other words, in Yosemite you don't need a permit unless you're unless you're going to get in other peoples' way, or are shooting an advertisement. I'm against over-permitting, of course, but if this is the most onerous restriction on your activities in Yoesmite that you can think of, well, it seems a bit far from the fear of creeping totalitarianism that suffused your earlier posts. And it seems darned unlikely that even that permitting requirement has anything at all to do with the Sierra Club or any other environmental group.
I think someone is pretty confused, and it isn't me.
Here is where we may find a point of agreement. Permits for photographing the GG Bridge from a distance (as opposed to commercial photography on-site) are stupid, probably can be successfully challenged, and sound like nearly everything else we know about the GG Bridge administrators: they've long been among the biggest twits in all of Northern California (the pathetically inefficient and expensive ferry system is emblematic). Absolutely nothing new there.
In other words, in Yosemite you don't need a permit unless you're unless you're going to get in other peoples' way, or are shooting an advertisement. I'm against over-permitting, of course, but if this is the most onerous restriction on your activities in Yoesmite that you can think of, well, it seems a bit far from the fear of creeping totalitarianism that suffused your earlier posts. And it seems darned unlikely that even that permitting requirement has anything at all to do with the Sierra Club or any other environmental group.
I think someone is pretty confused, and it isn't me.
Here is where we may find a point of agreement. Permits for photographing the GG Bridge from a distance (as opposed to commercial photography on-site) are stupid, probably can be successfully challenged, and sound like nearly everything else we know about the GG Bridge administrators: they've long been among the biggest twits in all of Northern California (the pathetically inefficient and expensive ferry system is emblematic). Absolutely nothing new there.
Last edited:
larmarv916
Well-known
Yes this "crap"...fees and non-photo regulations are way out of control...and getting worse. Next thing you know will have our "politically correct" telling us what we can or cant shoot....Oh wait that's already happening. The Hollywood "Sacred Cows" have already don that. Now if we could just ban bad acting!
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
So do the pro labs in SF now send their work out of town?
And how does Rayko continue to rent darkroom time?
(Yes, I am that rarest of beasts, a native San Franciscan – though I now live in Seattle).
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I think that has a great deal more to do with creeping corporatization and ubiquitous "branding" and trademark control than with anything else.
larmarv916
Well-known
The camera was made with "private investment" and not "taxpayer money". But lets carry your logic farther....so anything that was made with taxpayer money that is "shown" in any photo must be "paid for" as a rite of usage TAX. So, every photo taken anywhere in the USA, that has any sidewalk, freeway, ballpark, public park, beach, mountain, light poles, public buildings...and so on needs to command a usage fee?? That is what your saying.
You do not seem to understand the difference between private investment and taxpayer funds. So you need to send in your past due...."guilt tax" for images you shot during your time as a photographer!
My camera are paid for with my money not taxpayer funds. Same with my film developed at my cost.....also remember any professional pays....income tax, sales taxes, business license fees and much more....so at what point do you draw the line. what you really saying is that the federal and state governments should tax your creative ability as they own that also.
Remember that even after the death of a great artist...the taxes do not stop. As any collector pays capital gains taxes on any print that is sold. When the Government gives me the camera of my choice and free film and pays from my prints and all other expenses...then may be the have a rite to expect to collect something.
So public property was created to generate income...just the word "freeway" means that by law a toll can never be collected for usage...that was paid for with muni bonds and that was written into the bond covenant !! Which I sure you do not know.
Get Real.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Also, completely agree that Anne Geddes is glurgetastic. As for the poster above who said all Rolling Stone photographers are overrated, I disagree. Jim Marshall was not overrated. (And now that I have mentioned Marshall and Geddes in the same paragraph, I feel dirty.)
Last edited:
PKR
Veteran
I don't have time for much more of this but may I can clear up a couple of things. I take pictures for a living. I'm a SF local and paid taxes in SF for 30+ years. The bridge, according to district records, was paid for many years ago. I can't always choose what photo (angle view)a client may want of the bridge. The district property is vast. There is a map at the end of the PDF doc. GGNRA has good spots for shots of the bridge. The bridge people recently threatened me with "trouble" if I used GGNRA property (that the district can't control) for photo access. I have a good relationship with the Feds amd there was no trouble..so far. The City is licensing the "image" of the bridge. Darkrooms were restricted to pro photographers. Not labs. Though most of the labs have gone. Jim Marshall's b+w printer (Kirk) moved his operation out of SF. The SF EPA will visit, unannounced,to inspect for darkrooms. One friend still had an enlarger + sink in place (this is legal) and an unopened package of Dektol on site (not legal). I think he was fined. 20 years ago, I could take a model, (in the case of the Valley this would have been a person dressed as a school teacher) and client (insurance Co. for Cal. State teacher's Assoc.) and photographed for a couple of hours and had lunch at the awani lodge with all involved, including the ranger we paid to keep an eye on us.. and we would have been done. Today, we would look for a location that looked "yosemite like", rather than deal with all the paper work.
As for taxes and GG park.I don't use the park for photos. But just the same, i can't take a snapshot of my neighbor in the park for fear, some park employee will think I'm sneaking a job in under his nose. In years past when the City asked for a freebee (symphony photo done gratis) I would help out, paying my fees and covering my assistant out of my pocket. i no longer do any free work for the City. It's a two way street. I think I covered all the questions. if not, sorry, I need to get back to paying for my taxes.
It may be interesting to Mr. Zumbido, that the client for the "bridge photo" is another city department.. One that is bigger, and with more money than the bridge district. Rather than wait months for these two city groups to duke out the money thing, and having weather issues at the time I found another way to get the photo.. this time. And remember, this is a city, with some bus drivers who earn near and in some cases above $200,000 a year. Names, places and department details in the above text may have been changed to protect the innocent..me
As for taxes and GG park.I don't use the park for photos. But just the same, i can't take a snapshot of my neighbor in the park for fear, some park employee will think I'm sneaking a job in under his nose. In years past when the City asked for a freebee (symphony photo done gratis) I would help out, paying my fees and covering my assistant out of my pocket. i no longer do any free work for the City. It's a two way street. I think I covered all the questions. if not, sorry, I need to get back to paying for my taxes.
It may be interesting to Mr. Zumbido, that the client for the "bridge photo" is another city department.. One that is bigger, and with more money than the bridge district. Rather than wait months for these two city groups to duke out the money thing, and having weather issues at the time I found another way to get the photo.. this time. And remember, this is a city, with some bus drivers who earn near and in some cases above $200,000 a year. Names, places and department details in the above text may have been changed to protect the innocent..me
Last edited:
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Isn't it also a city where a house can't be bought for less than $500,000 ?? In that case, bus drivers ought to make $200,000 a year, you can't live on less. I honestly don't understand how people can live on normal salaries in places like that. People here would revolt if it cost that much for a place to live. You can buy a NICE house in Indianapolis or Fort Wayne (Indiana's two biggest cities) for $150,000 while $500,000 buys a small mansion. People don't make as much money here as in California, but from the research I've read, the difference is only about 20-25% between Indiana and California average earnings. That's not enough to justify the extortionate cost of living in those places.
Mister E
Well-known
Hell, I bought my house in Fort Wayne for $14,000.
PKR
Veteran
It's an expensive place. Most of the cops and fireman live outside the city. i think 500K would be a down payment in some cases. Now if the fireman were paid as well as the bus drivers, it would make a bit more sense. i think the bus drivers have a better union. A cop retired recently with his ending pay for the year of $500,000. His retirement is based on this figure. Businesses are leaving as their suppliers close and move. As this happens, taxes go up to cover the lack of funds. the studio i work out of pays the city $90,000 a year in property tax. Business is bad and it will likely close (to be clear, this is not my building). It's not smart.. my opinion.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Wow. Where I live, its illegal for cops and firemen to live outside the city, so the city pays wages that allow them to live middle class lives here. Starting pay for cops is $45,000 but older ones make more and many of them make a lot of extra $$ with overtime. $5k isn't bad, you can support a family with a housewife who doesn't work and a couple of kids and live well here on that. Cost of living is very low.
$90k in property taxes comes from the inflated property values, not high tax rates, right? I'm assuming this building isn't that large or fancy but gets charged a fortune in taxes cause its 'worth' four million dollars in SF's market, yes? I've thought about that for a while when I've read about the problems California is having. I wonder if a drastic reduction in housing and commercial real estate prices wouldn't be the best thing for the economy there. It would allow people to live decently on middle class salaries, would allow businesses to grow and make profits easier and keep them from fleeing the state to places where costs are more rational.
Ranchu
Veteran
End Time is nigh, fellows. Things simply cannot go on in this crazy manner.
PKR
Veteran
The studio is huge. Lots of TV spots and print Ads are made within. The main studios are rentals when not in use by the core group. This is where i meet all the Kinder-Digi wonders..
There are many of these in SF. i hope a few survive the economy.
There are many of these in SF. i hope a few survive the economy.
Last edited:
