Posted by mark miller on December 3, 2009 at 12:19 PM
From this morning's Santa Cruz Sentinel a man and others were taking family pictures on the beach the day after Thanksgiving and were given warnings. SOunds like a tad too much gvoernment to me.
"California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 4316 Commercial Filming
Except when authorized by State Parks, no person shall photograph, videotape or film for commercial (profit and sale) purposes in any unit, or portion thereof, owned operated or administered by the department without a permit from the California Film Commission, pursuant to Government Code section."
That includes "stock" photography too. Maybe they should go after anybody who may indirectly benefit financially, like artists who paint seascapes, poets who become inspired, even surfers who might dream of becoming professional since practice on the beaches (means to an end) may just lead to a career, etc.
Posted by mark miller on December 3, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Here's the article: Family photo shoot at Seacliff State Beach captures obscure state law
By Jennifer Squires - Santa Cruz Sentinel
Posted: 12/02/2009 06:05:57 PM PST
Boots McGhee APTOS - Howard "Boots" McGhee and his family felt like they had an encounter with the Grinch when they tried to take a holiday card photo at Seacliff State Beach last weekend.
Friday, a State Parks ranger told McGhee and at least two other holiday card photographers they were breaking the law by shooting photos in front of the pier at the state beach without a permit. The ranger stopped short of ticketing the photographers, but McGhee, a longtime Seacliff resident and professional photographer who regularly shoots at area beaches, said the interaction left he and his relatives confused.
"I was pretty flabbergasted," he said. "There's the letter of the law and then there's the spirit of the law."
A little-known State Parks regulation requires commercial photographers to acquire a permit through the California Film Commission before embarking on still or motion picture shooting at any state-administered park or beach, including Seacliff.
"Up and down the coast throughout the year we have many issues with commercial enterprises doing commercial shoots on State Parks land," said Kirk Lingenfelter, superintendent for the Pajaro Coast sector of State Parks.
He said photo shoots and filming can involve considerable amounts of equipment and displace the public, which is why a permit is required. Also, the permit curtails commercial outfits from using parks for profit, Lingenfelter said.
Friday, McGhee was at the beach with his niece, her
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
husband and their two children, who were visiting from Phoenix. He was shooting them under the pier with waves crashing in the background for the "dramatic look," he said.
And he used his a Cannon 30D camera with a 70-200 lens.
"I happen to be a photographer," McGhee said, but he added, "it was the day after Thanksgiving. I don't know how obvious it can be that it was a family shoot."
Lingenfelter said McGhee's shoot and two others caught the ranger's attention Friday because they had the appearances of a professional photo shoot.
"What caught his eye was very, very expensive equipment and reflective equipment for lighting," Lingenfelter said.
The photography regulation is similar to the requirement people obtain a special events permit to hold a wedding at the beach, in that both aim to maintain access for the public, according to Lingenfelter.
Friday, the ranger motioned McGhee's family over to the base of the pier, where the law enforcement officer was talking to a man who had been photographing his family with a Nikon SLR camera.
"We didn't become irate or anything like that, we just told him it was not a commercial venture. It was just our family and we were doing Christmas cards," McGhee said. "He said it didn't matter and if we wanted to shoot, we had to go to the district office and get a permit."
The ranger also ran their names through a criminal records search to make sure they didn't have outstanding warrants, according to McGhee. He received a verbal warning and they went home, having finished taking the photos for the holiday card.
Lingenfelter said no one was ticketed Friday and that it's "very, very rare" for rangers in Santa Cruz County to cite someone for a non-permitted photo shoot.
"I can't remember the last citation we wrote for this," Lingenfelter said.
Still, the head ranger said his staff did the correct thing by speaking with McGhee and the other photographers.
"It was his responsibility to have a conversation and look into that and educate," Lingenfelter said. "If they're taking a holiday photo for family and relatives, it's not something we would pursue."
McGhee said he returned later in the weekend to take a Christmas card photo for his other niece and her family. He didn't encounter a ranger during the second photo shoot.
And he didn't have a permit.
"I look at it like you should be paying me to promote the state parks. I'm making it look so beautiful," he said, explaining his photos could inspire people to visit the parks and beaches. "They should actually promote stuff like this not, curtail it.
The onus is on the officer to in fact prove that the photographs are of a commercial nature (owning a D-SLR is not sufficient grounds to mark one as a professional or the output as commercial). The smartest thing any photographer can do is to be well aware of the laws (have a copy on your person) and stand your ground. This stuff has to end.
Adding to what M. Gordon said above: the photographs he was cited for taking need to be of a commercial nature. A holiday card photo intended only for family and friends does not meet that criteria. Otherwise, a professional photographer could never photograph family on the beach, which is clearly not the letter or intent of the law.
Now, he might shoot on state lands for profit when creating calendars for sale or a book, but I think he just needs to get a permit, right? That should be a tax deductible business expense, and I'm sure they come with "annual" permit options. If not, I say we take this one all the way to the supreme court.
Posted by Howard Cihak on December 3, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Just another instance of a bully with a badge wearing a uniform. It won't stop until someone challenges it in court and invites the media to hold the offending "officer" up to public ridicule for his unwarranted overzealousness.
"I look at it like you should be paying me to promote the state parks. I'm making it look so beautiful," he said, explaining his photos could inspire people to visit the parks and beaches. "They should actually promote stuff like this not, curtail it."
A-Men to this! Good grief!
Posted by Bill Brennan on December 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Thanks for the heads up. Probably best to say "thank you" for the alert and go back to what you were doing before the interruption; maybe offer to take and e-mail ranger's photo.
Bill Brennan
Posted by Cliff Beittel on December 3, 2009 at 3:50 PM
"He [Kirk Lingenfelter, superintendent for the Pajaro Coast sector of State Parks] said photo shoots and filming can involve considerable amounts of equipment and displace the public, which is why a permit is required. Also, the permit curtails commercial outfits from using parks for profit."
Superindentent Lingenfelter failed to mention that permits are a source of revenue for his bankrupt employer. Paraphrasing his words, permits allow the state to abuse photographers for profit.
Posted by Austin Booth on December 3, 2009 at 5:08 PM
I hate stupid laws like this that criminalize someone taking harmless photographs. The intent of the law is to prevent high profile commercial photo shoots with models and lots of expensive lighting without a permit because that can definitely get in the way of other visitors. This ranger took it completely out of context and it wasn't even commercial, the guy was just taking photos for their family holiday card. I think the rangers need to be educated that just because someone has an expensive camera and is using a reflector it does not make it a commercial shoot, commercial shoots usually involve much more. And if it isn't a big ordeal and isn't getting in the way then who cares?
Posted by Larry Fischer on December 3, 2009 at 6:53 PM
Read Modern Times by Paul Johnson.
This is a history from 1920 to 1990.
The discerning reader will understand how laws can lead to totalitarianism.
This was NYT best seller so its not radical.
The history lesson of the book reports in various places the concept of "will into power" and the conditioning of the public to allow usurpation of their fundamental rights. We are already there; over 70% of the taxes collected by the central government are NOT authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
The California law is questionable as are more and more in various areas.
National Geographice featured a quote which I'll present:
Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges ---The worse the state, the more laws it has.
Tacitus, Roman historian as quoted in National Geographic, Aug. 1997, pg. 64.
Be ready to stand against gradual encroachment.... If you don't, it will get worse, eventually much worse.
We expect to pay for an annual permit (and in fact do so) when doing model or product shoots in state parks up here. It wouldn't surprise me at all in CA. But the incident described here sounds like a miscarriage. I'd be talking to your local state representative or senator and bring some heat onto the situation from the top down. I bet it gets cleared right up! Especially if lots and lots of reps and senators hear about it.
Posted by D J Kuklinski on December 4, 2009 at 1:25 AM
So someone using a DSLR and a zoom lens automatically hints of a commercial shoot. Wow, I'll remember that the next time I'm in Kalifornia. I'll be sure to bring along my little P&S and if approached by a ranger, politely put the "professional" gear away and pull out the P&S and continue shooting.
I had an experience like this myself a few years ago in California state parks -- in Castle Rock State Park, to be specific, which is in the mountains not far from Santa Cruz. I wonder if rangers in the Santa Cruz district of California State Parks are, for some reason, especially on the alert for this? I've never had a hassle in other California state parks, where I've even had rangers stop and talk photography and nature with me as I'm shooting.
Anyway, I posted here about it then: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=15380&u=2968
Scott
Posted by Jack Graham on December 6, 2009 at 2:45 AM
Posted by mark miller on December 6, 2009 at 1:59 PM
I couldn't find out how much the permits for 'commercial shoots' are in California, but some of them are up to $400 a day (props and the whole shebang), plus it varies depending if the parks are state or local. The CA lands, Forest and National Parks do not require permits for ' passive' (my word for not props, etc) still photographers. One thing I gathered from the state parks was that $1,000,000 (one milliion) of liabiltiy insurance was required. I imagine that could run a thousand a year. All this is to say, that the quality of photography will suffer as it becomes so expensive to operate. I don't think Ansel Adams or Edward Weston would have ever made it in this environment.
Of course, none of this should bother us anyway, since everyone knows we photographers are raking in tons of money at this business. A snap shot on the beach could land a Geographic cover easily, and likely residual sales into the hundreds of thousands. It's just so darn easy as we all know :)
I guess that's why they don't go after artists planning on making paintings that will eventually sell, ie commercial, in nature, or poets and writers deriving inspiration from parks.
Mark Miller,
President, Billionaire Nature Photographers Club
That all sounds in line with what commercial photography requires in state parks up here, as well as in national parks- liability insurance, fees, the works. The distinction between commercial photography and professional nature photography rests on models, products, props or photo crews. We have to pay for photographing portraits in parks, with or without the photo crews and props. But in both our state parks and national parks there are exemptions for nature photographers, provided they don't require extra park personnel, disrupt other park users or require access to areas not open to the public.
In your shoes I'd look closely for those exemptions in CA state park regs. If they exist, shove them down the throat of the local rangers, even if it takes the help of the statewide parks office and your legislators.
Posted by Austin Booth on December 7, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I thought that if everything had happened as the article had described the event then it was definitely out of line and harassment on the part of the rangers. I emailed the California State Park Service about the article stating that I felt it was unfair if the guy was just taking family portraits for them to treat him like that. I received a personal response from the Pajaro Coast Sector Superintendent mentioned in the article and he told gave me their side of the story. It does sound like the article sensationalized the events that took place and left out important information. The law is the law and it is the rangers responsibility to enforce it if they feel like it is a commercial photo shoot even if the law is a little ridiculous. From the response I received it sounds like they had a very good reason to check with the photographers to see if it was commercial shoot and after checking in with them they did allow all the groups to continue with their photo shoots even though some of them may have in fact been commercial.
I really don't think us nature photographers have too much to worry about as we normally don't have a crew with us and we usually use the natural existing light or maybe a little fill flash. It doesn't sound like that is something they will really bother us about, it is the shoots with a big elaborate lighting set up and several assistants that will catch their eye and make them question whether it is a commercial shoot. Here is the response I received to my email:
Hi Austin-
One of the most fun things to do at the beach is take pictures and we certainly do not want to impede that recreational activity. The law that governs commercial photography in state parks is intended to provide an easy process for those that would like to do commercial filming and also to protect visitor safety, assist us in managing recreational activities and provide the proper liability protections for all those involved.
The type of equipment used is not what constitutes a commercial photo shoot (although the type of equipment may be a reason for staff to contact the photographer to determine if it is a commercial shoot). If a photographer is using state parks to complete a business transaction or is filming for publication purposes then the law requires that a permit be obtained. The permit process is governed by the California Film Commission in conjunction with the local park unit to provide the opportunity for commercial filming in state parks. State Parks does not charge a fee for small film shoots that do not impact normal public recreation or require additional resources from the park. I believe the California Film Commission charges a nominal permit fee.
The incident at Seacliff State Beach that you referenced included three photographers that were taking individual photos in the same vicinity at the entrance to the pier (which was closed at the time due to high surf). There was a lot of equipment set up including reflective screening and the ranger made contact with the groups to determine if a commercial photo shoot was taking place. Two of the three groups were employing paid professional photographers for the pictures which fits the definition of a commercial photo shoot as per the state law. The permit requirement and process was explained to the individuals. Each of these groups was allowed to continue with the photography for that day.
Please feel free to call me if you would like to discuss this issue further.
That sounds a lot more sensible than the impression that was created, and completely in line. Makes me wonder a whole lot about the motives behind all the fluff.
Discussion
19 replieshttp://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_13911270?source=most_viewed
"California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 4316 Commercial Filming
Except when authorized by State Parks, no person shall photograph, videotape or film for commercial (profit and sale) purposes in any unit, or portion thereof, owned operated or administered by the department without a permit from the California Film Commission, pursuant to Government Code section."
That includes "stock" photography too. Maybe they should go after anybody who may indirectly benefit financially, like artists who paint seascapes, poets who become inspired, even surfers who might dream of becoming professional since practice on the beaches (means to an end) may just lead to a career, etc.
By Jennifer Squires - Santa Cruz Sentinel
Posted: 12/02/2009 06:05:57 PM PST
Boots McGhee APTOS - Howard "Boots" McGhee and his family felt like they had an encounter with the Grinch when they tried to take a holiday card photo at Seacliff State Beach last weekend.
Friday, a State Parks ranger told McGhee and at least two other holiday card photographers they were breaking the law by shooting photos in front of the pier at the state beach without a permit. The ranger stopped short of ticketing the photographers, but McGhee, a longtime Seacliff resident and professional photographer who regularly shoots at area beaches, said the interaction left he and his relatives confused.
"I was pretty flabbergasted," he said. "There's the letter of the law and then there's the spirit of the law."
A little-known State Parks regulation requires commercial photographers to acquire a permit through the California Film Commission before embarking on still or motion picture shooting at any state-administered park or beach, including Seacliff.
"Up and down the coast throughout the year we have many issues with commercial enterprises doing commercial shoots on State Parks land," said Kirk Lingenfelter, superintendent for the Pajaro Coast sector of State Parks.
He said photo shoots and filming can involve considerable amounts of equipment and displace the public, which is why a permit is required. Also, the permit curtails commercial outfits from using parks for profit, Lingenfelter said.
Friday, McGhee was at the beach with his niece, her
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
husband and their two children, who were visiting from Phoenix. He was shooting them under the pier with waves crashing in the background for the "dramatic look," he said.
And he used his a Cannon 30D camera with a 70-200 lens.
"I happen to be a photographer," McGhee said, but he added, "it was the day after Thanksgiving. I don't know how obvious it can be that it was a family shoot."
Lingenfelter said McGhee's shoot and two others caught the ranger's attention Friday because they had the appearances of a professional photo shoot.
"What caught his eye was very, very expensive equipment and reflective equipment for lighting," Lingenfelter said.
The photography regulation is similar to the requirement people obtain a special events permit to hold a wedding at the beach, in that both aim to maintain access for the public, according to Lingenfelter.
Friday, the ranger motioned McGhee's family over to the base of the pier, where the law enforcement officer was talking to a man who had been photographing his family with a Nikon SLR camera.
"We didn't become irate or anything like that, we just told him it was not a commercial venture. It was just our family and we were doing Christmas cards," McGhee said. "He said it didn't matter and if we wanted to shoot, we had to go to the district office and get a permit."
The ranger also ran their names through a criminal records search to make sure they didn't have outstanding warrants, according to McGhee. He received a verbal warning and they went home, having finished taking the photos for the holiday card.
Lingenfelter said no one was ticketed Friday and that it's "very, very rare" for rangers in Santa Cruz County to cite someone for a non-permitted photo shoot.
"I can't remember the last citation we wrote for this," Lingenfelter said.
Still, the head ranger said his staff did the correct thing by speaking with McGhee and the other photographers.
"It was his responsibility to have a conversation and look into that and educate," Lingenfelter said. "If they're taking a holiday photo for family and relatives, it's not something we would pursue."
McGhee said he returned later in the weekend to take a Christmas card photo for his other niece and her family. He didn't encounter a ranger during the second photo shoot.
And he didn't have a permit.
"I look at it like you should be paying me to promote the state parks. I'm making it look so beautiful," he said, explaining his photos could inspire people to visit the parks and beaches. "They should actually promote stuff like this not, curtail it.
Now, he might shoot on state lands for profit when creating calendars for sale or a book, but I think he just needs to get a permit, right? That should be a tax deductible business expense, and I'm sure they come with "annual" permit options. If not, I say we take this one all the way to the supreme court.
A-Men to this! Good grief!
Bill Brennan
Superindentent Lingenfelter failed to mention that permits are a source of revenue for his bankrupt employer. Paraphrasing his words, permits allow the state to abuse photographers for profit.
This is a history from 1920 to 1990.
The discerning reader will understand how laws can lead to totalitarianism.
This was NYT best seller so its not radical.
The history lesson of the book reports in various places the concept of "will into power" and the conditioning of the public to allow usurpation of their fundamental rights. We are already there; over 70% of the taxes collected by the central government are NOT authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
The California law is questionable as are more and more in various areas.
National Geographice featured a quote which I'll present:
Corruptissima republicae, plurimae leges ---The worse the state, the more laws it has.
Tacitus, Roman historian as quoted in National Geographic, Aug. 1997, pg. 64.
Be ready to stand against gradual encroachment.... If you don't, it will get worse, eventually much worse.
the fisch
They belong to the people and big government dictates how we use them!
Won't stop me!
Give me free room and board!
Anyway, I posted here about it then: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=15380&u=2968
Scott
You can access it here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/
JG
Of course, none of this should bother us anyway, since everyone knows we photographers are raking in tons of money at this business. A snap shot on the beach could land a Geographic cover easily, and likely residual sales into the hundreds of thousands. It's just so darn easy as we all know :)
I guess that's why they don't go after artists planning on making paintings that will eventually sell, ie commercial, in nature, or poets and writers deriving inspiration from parks.
Mark Miller,
President, Billionaire Nature Photographers Club
In your shoes I'd look closely for those exemptions in CA state park regs. If they exist, shove them down the throat of the local rangers, even if it takes the help of the statewide parks office and your legislators.
I really don't think us nature photographers have too much to worry about as we normally don't have a crew with us and we usually use the natural existing light or maybe a little fill flash. It doesn't sound like that is something they will really bother us about, it is the shoots with a big elaborate lighting set up and several assistants that will catch their eye and make them question whether it is a commercial shoot. Here is the response I received to my email: