DragonflyDM wrote:
Reading all of this I had my opinion develop into one clear statement--
Why are you so worried about other people? You have the permit, they walked away when they asked to shoot illegally. You got your shot.
The illegal photographers shouldn't do what they are doing. You let the lady know about the problem. You should be done with the matter. It is not your park, you do not write the tickets, you are not the police: worry about what YOU need to do.
I don't say this because I condone their behavior, but why get high blood pressure because of someone else. How important is this to you really?...Show more →
Josh, on the top of page 3 and a reply to jcurtis, I said I wasn't the police, and none of the 3 photographers walked away. They just shot behind me, beside me, and even once in my background. You are wrong about the park not being mine. The places that I pay for are mine to use for two hours. That's why they post signs so that the general public will know that we have the area for shooting. Sometimes, I do have to work around the general public and I understand that. I only told the lady on Monday because she was off on Friday. The update came after my second problem occurred. As far as worrying about what I need to worry about, part of my worry is making sure my location is clear so that I can get what I need before loosing my light.
These people are not guest at a wedding with a point and shoot. As you said above, they are illegal being there and they are stealing from my bride.
I know this is a bit extreme to someone shooting in the park in my location, however if a man comes up to me in the grocery store and says he wants my purse. Am I just supposed to stand there while he picks it up and walks out? After all, it's not my store. I guess I'll just tell the manager after he leaves.
The lady at the city asked me for the name of the photographer that gave me his card. I didn't give it to her. I felt that he got the point when he was there.
Yvette
On top of what Yvette stated I would like to add that I believe she is doing the absolute right thing. You are basically saying people should turn their backs on wrong doing. This is how people get away with things over and over. I'm not saying anyone should chase down wrong doers, but I am saying that people should do what is right to *help* the permit process be effective. Management, security, police, etc can do only so much.
What I am saying is that people are jerks. Do the right thing, when the occasion arises let the park know, and move on. People get into a lather about issues and end up having heart attacks over things that they should just "let go."
Is it right? No. Should you let it get under you skin? No. Life is too short.
cordellwillis wrote:
Josh,
On top of what Yvette stated I would like to add that I believe she is doing the absolute right thing. You are basically saying people should turn their backs on wrong doing. This is how people get away with things over and over. I'm not saying anyone should chase down wrong doers, but I am saying that people should do what is right to *help* the permit process be effective. Management, security, police, etc can do only so much.
In several places in this thread, there have been public places mentioned that were so inundated by photographers that they have been ultimately closed. So there is another reason to try to make the system Yvette is working under succeed, to preserve the ability for those of us willing to follow the rules to use the space.
Do I feel lucky .. I live in Newfoundland Labrador, which is 405,720 km2 and would rank fourth in size behind Alaska, Texas and California if it were one of the United States. It's almost twice the size of Great Britain.
Although much of it is frozen tundra, about a third of the land mass is absolutely breathtaking with ocean vistas available within a few minutes drive. You're more likely to run into a moose than another wedding photographer.
If I was in a situation like Yvette outlined and I saw other "professional" photographers coming in without a permit and shooting I would say something as well. For one thing, their behavior is exactly why permits are becoming so pervasive now here in So. CA, on the other hand it is simply not fair to the client who paid for the park use by paying the permit fee to have other photographers using the same area during her allotted time.
As I said before, I have seen an incredible increase in the clamping down on photographers' ability to shoot because of the ones that seem to feel that the permits and other restrictions, like not walking on foliage do not apply to them. I've seen this in a number of national parks where permanent damage was done by those who felt entitled to get their shots. On one instance, I saw a film crew hanging around a high overlook in the desert, I presumed, waiting for sunset. After the rangers left they cut down a pine tree that they felt interfered with their panning shot. That's only one of many examples I can give that I know.
Until we behave as professionals we can only expect others to try their best, usually without success, to influence our behavior for the common good.
Again, there is one thing to be a good citizen. Another to get a coronary over other people being jerks-- that is all I am saying.
No where during this thread have I reported having chest pains. At least not yet. If I do it will because of Dennis' 84 year old aunt. We have the responsibilty of keeping caregivers with her and seeing after all her doctors, drugs, groceries, etc. She cusses caregivers, she cusses me, and other day she cussed the clerk in the shoe store.
So you see..having my blood boil a little over someone taking my spot at the park is a piece of cake compared to the aunt.
I feel this way about things..If I'm in the grocery store and the clerk gives me too much change back, I am honest and will give it back to her. If she shorts me, she will hear about it. So, if any lurkers are from Greenville, SC, you better start pulling your permits.
I think we have beat this dead horse enough..Let it die!!! Yvette
dennisyvette wrote:
I feel this way about things..If I'm in the grocery store and the clerk gives me too much change back, I am honest and will give it back to her. If she shorts me, she will hear about it. So, if any lurkers are from Greenville, SC, you better start pulling your permits.
I gotta say that this entire thread has been an eye opening experience for me as a newbie. I have always shot at the church/reception hall or the adjacent property without problem. I have recently considered creating a list of public locations where I could get out and capture some more "natural" images. Now, I realize the complications that could be involved and have added the court house to check on the permit regulations for each venue. Thank you for your painful review of some of the issues that y'all have shared. (Wow, another lesson.)
Rick Rosen wrote:
A permit policy for any commercial shooting in public parks and beaches, etc. has been in effect here in So. CA since the 1930's. Until the last few years it has been aimed primarily at the movie studios and commercial advertising shoots and wedding/portrait shoots flew under the radar. Then we had a huge influx of new wedding photographers who were not always considerate. One favorite beach is Little Corona in Corona del Mar, just south of Newport Beach. Historically it was not unusual to see one or two portrait shoots there in the evening pretty much any day of the week. That wasn't a problem until the hordes of jerk wedding photographers started showing up. It got to the point that any night of the week it was not unusual to see 10-20 photographers down there shooting on a beach that is about 1/4 mile long. They would yell at the moms to "get your f-ing kid out of my shot!" type stuff and when it got really jammed some of these jerks would start shooting on the steps and porches of private homes. It was a madhouse. The city was unaware of the problems because the lifeguard and rangers were off-duty at 5pm and the photographers didn't show up until 6-7pm to take advantage of the sunset. The residents complained, the city installed hidden video surveillance for a month to watch the activity and were astounded on what they saw.
Not only was the beach jammed with unruly and aggressive photographers but they were also walking through the tide pools and protected foliage in this nature preserve. Permit signs went up and most of the photographers ignored the signs and shot anyway. One guy told me that the permit was more expensive than the $100 ticket he risked getting so he'd take his chances. The situation got worse and some photographers actually got arrested and thrown in jail overnight to see the judge in the morning. It seemed to slow it down quite a bit.
As is always the case, the jerk "professional" photographers are the ones that ruin the situation for the rest of us. They are now walking around on city streets in the beach cities, even shooting in the middle of the street. There is still a population of "self-entitled" wedding photographers that seem to feel that they have a right to interfere with the public at large and shoot anywhere they want. I often hear on forums the statement that it is better to apologize later and plead ignorance than it is to actually ask permission first. One recent post said that he usually can shoot for 5-10 minutes before the police come over so he does that and he recommended that all photographers just learn to use the "shoot fast and ask questions later" approach.
As for the opinion that this is public land and as such we photographers are free to use it as we see fit. Public land of any kind can be used by the public until you want to run any form of commercial venture on it. You can't set up a hot dog stand on the beach or a city sidewalk nor can you shoot commercially without the necessary permits.
It can be difficult to photograph in certain locales and if you paid for the permit and the others did not. It is yours to do with as you please. I do not see the harm in doing what you have been doing.
Josh,
you got it in for Yvette... It appears you are not happy w/ many of her posts??
just an observation...
Check out this report about a small Alabama town (Mooresville) which is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. They are implementing a permit fee of $500 annually for commercial photographers (with subjects, so you know it is aimed at wedding/portrait shooters) who want to shoot there.
I found this statement particularly revealing on why these permit policies are popping up all over:
"McLain said the $500 fee was needed to cut down on the tide of photographers who would flood the town at springtime and fight over space at the historic church, post office and tavern."
Rick Rosen wrote:
Check out this report about a small Alabama town (Mooresville) which is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. They are implementing a permit fee of $500 annually for commercial photographers (with subjects, so you know it is aimed at wedding/portrait shooters) who want to shoot there.
I found this statement particularly revealing on why these permit policies are popping up all over:
"McLain said the $500 fee was needed to cut down on the tide of photographers who would flood the town at springtime and fight over space at the historic church, post office and tavern."
Rick I found that interesting. It's exactly what Greenville has done. They found that Falls park was being flooded with photographers on the weekend and were even asking family to move out of the pictures. The lady at the city told me that anyone that is making money with the shoot has to pay. It doesn't matter if they are shooting the falls or a bride. If you're selling the pictures then you have to get the permit. The problem is that some say they are a cousin, uncle, aunt, the easter bunny in order to not have to pay. Like she said, the permit process is not fool proof but they do try. Yvette
