I had an experience a couple of weeks ago, that I've read of before, but never personally encountered.
While photographing near sunset at Castle Rock State Park (in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California), I was approached by a ranger who, after a pleasantry or two, asked about "the nature" of my photography. When I asked what he meant, he asked whether it was for personal use or commercial. I told him I'm a hobbyist, which is essentially the truth - I've sold about 10 prints in my "career", all to family, friends, or friends of friends.
Curious, and anticipating his explanation but wanting to hear it from his own mouth, I asked him why he asked. He explained that a permit was required for any kind of commercial photography in the park. With me standing there, with a large tripod mounting a Pentax 67II rig, and an open backpack on the ground sporting a Pentax 645 and several lenses, I guess he thought it looked like I counted.
Now, I've heard of this sort of thing before, generally re: the national parks, and have always heard that this sort of claim was not true. Misinformed rangers, and so forth.
Surprise, surprise. I get home and actually look it up online, and he's right. California state parks are among the few large public-lands agencies that - if I'm reading this correctly - consider all forms of still photography that maybe, might-be, sold by you in future - whether stock or art, whether on assignment or speculation, whether including props/models or nothing but the scenery - to be subject to permitting. This handy page http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/ seems to pretty-accurately summarize various agencies' policies - including California state parks. But the relevant California statement is here: http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=1027
Now - how many people actually follow this? What to make of it? This is unusual, in comparison with federal and other states' lands, right? Or maybe I have it the other way around - maybe it is only the federal lands that are so laissez-faire as to not require permits of us. Or have I just understood the California policy wrongly?
I'm posting this to the general forum because I'm not only interested in a California photographer's perspective, but any sense from people in other states whether this is as unusual or commonplace. And what you do about it.
Scott
Posted by Matt Dallos on February 12, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Here in PA I really never run into anyone else while i'm on state land...let alone a ranger trying to make me show him a permit. I can't really remember anywhere that I have been on the east coast that requires a permet...but maybe that is just because there wasn't anyone to enforce it!
Matt, I also have never had this happen before, though I've been photographing seriously on California state park land for about 9 years. Case in point: last November, I spent a half-day at Caswell State Park along the Stanislaus River, where I crossed paths with a ranger several times. He saw my equipment but never said a word about this.
Scott
Posted by Matt Dallos on February 12, 2007 at 8:09 PM
That is really strange, Scott. It sounds like one of those permit rules that was initially intended for the entertainment industry in the state but was at some point directed towards professional photographers.
Posted by Darrin Doss on February 12, 2007 at 9:12 PM
well.....here in Virginia this is out of the VA state parks admin code.....all are class 1 misdemeanors -- 1 year in jail and/or $2500!!
4VAC5-30-350. Photographs.
No person shall, without a permit, take photographs or moving pictures within the limits of any park for the purpose of selling the negatives thereof or the prints therefrom.
I had exactly the same thing happen to me in Columbia State Historic Park, CA a few years ago. I spoke to head ranger later in the day and he told me that I could get a permit from the California Film Commision. What I found interesting was that as long as I stayed on the streets, which are owned by the County of Tuolumne, I could shoot all I wanted, even if I were to sell the prints! The state park has no jurisdiction on the streets in Columbia, just the land and the buildings!
I never did get a permit and now I go to other parts of the park to shoot.
-PB
Posted by Lon Overacker on February 13, 2007 at 2:10 AM
Scott,
I have no doubt that the letter of the law is true for nearly all public, state and federal lands. Not withstanding recent security issues post 9-11, but previously I believe these laws were put in place thanks in most part to Hollywood, advertising firms, etc. - who, in an effort to make their movies and commercials, bring in tons of people, equipment and can literally ruin a landscape quite quickly. Unfortunately, the "letter of the law" now trickles down to us. The law was originally meant to protect lands from Hollywood "clearcutting (severe over-generalization for a point), and has now morphed in to a money-maker for big brother.
Additionally, most folks could spend their life in a local, state or national park photographing and never see a ranger. Then, someone comes along who just got their brand new Linhoff, trying large format for the first time and get busted for being a "professional." go figure.
We watch the regs really carefully because we are pros. Not all our shoots are for pro purposes, but we're vulnerable any time we're out and about. For us the distinction lies in the various definitions of "commercial" photography used by the various states and parks. Best idea is to review regs for each, then carrry relevant copies when you visit the parks. If in doubt, ask.
In the local state parks we use for portrait shoots we most certainly buy the $200 annual permit, then go out of our way to be "good citizens" in the eyes of managers, including not only staying out of the way of other users, and even packing out litter and reporting neat natural phenoms to the rangers. In turn, they think positively of us and share their enthusiasm for the park and our use of it. Best $200 we've ever spent.
After reading the second paragraph of your post above, I will likely apply for a permit from the California Film Commission. You make a very good point regarding the creation and maintenance of a good relationship with park employees and rangers.
I can't say for state parks, but if they're suffering budget shortfalls like the national parks, I'm more than willing to contribute to those parks I use most. I've always felt that regular annual use fees are way too low. My $50 annual NP pass is probably the best buy in the country. I bet it doesn't work out to 50 cents a visit, and I certainly get more than that in return. No idea what the California Film Commission permit costs, but on a per-visit basis it is probably a bargain. My lingering question about that specific permit is the fate of the funds. Do the parks see any of it?
Posted by John W. Wall on February 13, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Personal photography and news media photography are the only exceptions to the permit requirement. The permit is free, but the insurance that is required along with the permit is another matter....
That's an interesting way to deal with insurance concerns the parks might have, John. I'm assuming it's liability insurance at a certain minimum of coverage. We have the stuff coming out our ears, and carrying a permit that assures proper coverage would simplify proving your coverage to park employees. Free makes the permit even better.
I've come back to try to articulate my response. I am trying to comprehend this information in relation to what I read in 'Photographer's Right,' where it basically says that if you are on public land and not defying anyone's reasonable expectation of privacy, you can shoot. No permit, no fee, no nothin'. On the other hand, I would pay a resonable permit for National Park lands in support of their mission. I am just dismayed about photographers being challenged by officials about what and why they are shooting. If that gets to be common practice it sure would take a lot of the fun out photography, whatever the purpose. And it kinda feels like too much interference with personal freedom, especially when I'm not wrecking anything or (hopefully) not disturbing anyone with noise or blocking a view or such. This probably is a bad analogy, but I think there'd be an outrage if people were challenged about why they were roaring their buggy, 4-wheeler, motorcycle, bicycle, horse etc., all over the dunes, beaches and trails for what purpose. I guess I am saying I am dismayed.... and mad....
Did I get the wrong perspective on this? Am I overreacting? Arrgghh!
Talk about a one-size-fits-all misfit! I agree that it seems to be what the state wants to apply to us professional and less-than-professional, maybe-might-sell-in-future shooters. But if there was ever a case of misapplied standards, rules and regulations, this is it.
Just reading the first few pages makes it clear that this policy was formulated for ventures larger than the single nature photographer making shots of the scenery. Ranger monitors? $1M liability insurance? Location scouting? Reserved dates? Cleanup of the landscape afterward? Good grief.
Still, next time this happens (if ever), I'll ask further what it takes to get a permit. Just in case.
Scott
Posted by Mike DiVita on February 14, 2007 at 1:28 AM
If I'm reading the rules correctly, you need to apply for a new permit each time you plan to shoot in a different park since you have to supply the filming schedule. You also have to contact the park ranger who is assigned for filming ahead of time. The insurance requirements are $1M general liability, $500K auto liability, and the State of California needs to be named as additionally insured. It also says a filming monitor will be present. I'm sure the park service has enough of them to go around! Hopefully most parks will continue to not enforce these ridiculous rules.
It's also not the only the state parks that have this type of permit requirement. A lot of cities and counties are doing the same thing. These are also listed in the same webpage listed above.
That sounds very much like the standards applied to commercial film crews in national parks and elsewhere, and I agree that it's not a fit for individuals. As always "one size fits all" is aimed at the largest/worst offenders to the detriment of the individual.
I can understand and strongly recommend liability insurance for anyone shooting pro or potentially selling a picture, simply as protection for yourself (and all your worldly possessions, should you be proven to have caused someone harm). We pack $2 mil per person per incident. That's just a prudent business outlook on our part, but the parks could want to make sure you have it simply to protect themselves in case you sponsor a mishap.
The other stuff is way out of whack for general application, however. Calls to state legislators would seem to be in order.
Discussion
15 repliesWhile photographing near sunset at Castle Rock State Park (in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California), I was approached by a ranger who, after a pleasantry or two, asked about "the nature" of my photography. When I asked what he meant, he asked whether it was for personal use or commercial. I told him I'm a hobbyist, which is essentially the truth - I've sold about 10 prints in my "career", all to family, friends, or friends of friends.
Curious, and anticipating his explanation but wanting to hear it from his own mouth, I asked him why he asked. He explained that a permit was required for any kind of commercial photography in the park. With me standing there, with a large tripod mounting a Pentax 67II rig, and an open backpack on the ground sporting a Pentax 645 and several lenses, I guess he thought it looked like I counted.
Now, I've heard of this sort of thing before, generally re: the national parks, and have always heard that this sort of claim was not true. Misinformed rangers, and so forth.
Surprise, surprise. I get home and actually look it up online, and he's right. California state parks are among the few large public-lands agencies that - if I'm reading this correctly - consider all forms of still photography that maybe, might-be, sold by you in future - whether stock or art, whether on assignment or speculation, whether including props/models or nothing but the scenery - to be subject to permitting. This handy page http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/ seems to pretty-accurately summarize various agencies' policies - including California state parks. But the relevant California statement is here: http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=1027
Now - how many people actually follow this? What to make of it? This is unusual, in comparison with federal and other states' lands, right? Or maybe I have it the other way around - maybe it is only the federal lands that are so laissez-faire as to not require permits of us. Or have I just understood the California policy wrongly?
I'm posting this to the general forum because I'm not only interested in a California photographer's perspective, but any sense from people in other states whether this is as unusual or commonplace. And what you do about it.
Scott
Scott
4VAC5-30-350. Photographs.
No person shall, without a permit, take photographs or moving pictures within the limits of any park for the purpose of selling the negatives thereof or the prints therefrom.
I had exactly the same thing happen to me in Columbia State Historic Park, CA a few years ago. I spoke to head ranger later in the day and he told me that I could get a permit from the California Film Commision. What I found interesting was that as long as I stayed on the streets, which are owned by the County of Tuolumne, I could shoot all I wanted, even if I were to sell the prints! The state park has no jurisdiction on the streets in Columbia, just the land and the buildings!
I never did get a permit and now I go to other parts of the park to shoot.
-PB
I have no doubt that the letter of the law is true for nearly all public, state and federal lands. Not withstanding recent security issues post 9-11, but previously I believe these laws were put in place thanks in most part to Hollywood, advertising firms, etc. - who, in an effort to make their movies and commercials, bring in tons of people, equipment and can literally ruin a landscape quite quickly. Unfortunately, the "letter of the law" now trickles down to us. The law was originally meant to protect lands from Hollywood "clearcutting (severe over-generalization for a point), and has now morphed in to a money-maker for big brother.
Additionally, most folks could spend their life in a local, state or national park photographing and never see a ranger. Then, someone comes along who just got their brand new Linhoff, trying large format for the first time and get busted for being a "professional." go figure.
Keep photographing.
Lon
In the local state parks we use for portrait shoots we most certainly buy the $200 annual permit, then go out of our way to be "good citizens" in the eyes of managers, including not only staying out of the way of other users, and even packing out litter and reporting neat natural phenoms to the rangers. In turn, they think positively of us and share their enthusiasm for the park and our use of it. Best $200 we've ever spent.
After reading the second paragraph of your post above, I will likely apply for a permit from the California Film Commission. You make a very good point regarding the creation and maintenance of a good relationship with park employees and rangers.
-PB
I can't say for state parks, but if they're suffering budget shortfalls like the national parks, I'm more than willing to contribute to those parks I use most. I've always felt that regular annual use fees are way too low. My $50 annual NP pass is probably the best buy in the country. I bet it doesn't work out to 50 cents a visit, and I certainly get more than that in return. No idea what the California Film Commission permit costs, but on a per-visit basis it is probably a bargain. My lingering question about that specific permit is the fate of the funds. Do the parks see any of it?
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/782/files/film.pdf
Did I get the wrong perspective on this? Am I overreacting? Arrgghh!
Talk about a one-size-fits-all misfit! I agree that it seems to be what the state wants to apply to us professional and less-than-professional, maybe-might-sell-in-future shooters. But if there was ever a case of misapplied standards, rules and regulations, this is it.
Just reading the first few pages makes it clear that this policy was formulated for ventures larger than the single nature photographer making shots of the scenery. Ranger monitors? $1M liability insurance? Location scouting? Reserved dates? Cleanup of the landscape afterward? Good grief.
Still, next time this happens (if ever), I'll ask further what it takes to get a permit. Just in case.
Scott
It's also not the only the state parks that have this type of permit requirement. A lot of cities and counties are doing the same thing. These are also listed in the same webpage listed above.
Mike
I can understand and strongly recommend liability insurance for anyone shooting pro or potentially selling a picture, simply as protection for yourself (and all your worldly possessions, should you be proven to have caused someone harm). We pack $2 mil per person per incident. That's just a prudent business outlook on our part, but the parks could want to make sure you have it simply to protect themselves in case you sponsor a mishap.
The other stuff is way out of whack for general application, however. Calls to state legislators would seem to be in order.