Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 65

Thread: Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,416

    Re: Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

    Quote Originally Posted by Marko View Post
    That's in the Santa Susana Mountains, not Santa Monica Mountains, BTW.

    Perhaps we could go for a group shoot over there one of the coming weekends?
    Count me in!

    All I need to do is bring my portfolio to convince any "Smokey the Bear" that I'm not a pro.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,416

    Re: Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

    Quote Originally Posted by ElRooster View Post
    Update email.. wow this is crazy!

    "Thank you for your e-mail. MRCA is ordanced to permit any commercial use, or potential commercial use, of any location that is managed by the MRCA.
    POTENTIAL????? Do they employ psychics?????

  3. #13

    Re: Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

    As a society we have moved from the old assumption of my childhood that unless something is explicitly forbidden, then it is permitted into the position that unless something is explicitly permitted then it is forbidden.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, CA
    Posts
    368

    Re: Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

    I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I'm just like most of you. Passionate about my hobby, so I have better cameras and lenses than the average person but I am not looking to make a profit. I just make prints for myself or friends. I was considering finding out how much a permit is but they also want additional fees like monitoring, certificate of insurance. Imagine every time I have a day off and feel like taking a picture I need to pay $50 or $100 or something for it? This can almost kill my hobby.

    What to do? Am I being whiny?

  5. #15
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,074

    Re: Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

    Quote Originally Posted by ElRooster View Post
    This can almost kill my hobby.
    If there is no commercial intent, then I don't see how the answer you received requires a permit. You could ask for clarification of what comprises "commercial use or potential commercial use". It is appropriate to politely ask them to be specific, and to provide references in state law, as to the definition on which the rule hinges. Rudeness will undermine your cause, and so will complaining. My response to the message you quoted would be something like: "Thank you for your response. I am confused as to the meaning of 'commercial use or potential commercial use'. Can you provide a specific definition of commercial use that I can use to guide my actions? And can you point me to the specific paragraphs in the state code that govern this definition and the permitting process? Thank you very much for your continued assistance."

    Rick "who has been approached only one by an NPS ranger, who had no issue when our non-commercial purpose was explained" Denney

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, CA
    Posts
    368

    Re: Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

    I followed your advice and wrote word by word what you said. I would like to know what the reply will be. Thanks Rick. I think I should chill out and see what happens. Thanks again.

  7. #17
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,074

    Re: Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Batchelor View Post
    As a society we have moved from the old assumption of my childhood that unless something is explicitly forbidden, then it is permitted into the position that unless something is explicitly permitted then it is forbidden.
    I don't think this is the case, though some may be trying to make it so.

    Example: I took my nieces to the National Gallery of Art last week. They asked if it was okay to take pictures. The response was "Always, unless it is specifically prohibited". There is not even a restriction on the use of flash. I made photos of a number of works, ranging from Rembrandt to Jasper Johns while we were there. I lifted my camera, noticed a guard, decided the picture wasn't that useful, and then lowered it, leaving the guard the impression I was afraid he would intervene. He politely told me that it was fine to use the camera. But in the exhibition of Arcimboldo's works, photography was restricted, and there was a plainly worded sign to that effect at the entrance to that exhibit. Likewise the wonderful display of 19th-century British photography, where they also had the lights turned down as expected. But stuff in their permanent collection was no problem. I would expect the same commercial-use permitting requirement there as in other federal public places.

    Rick "who did not, of course, have a tripod and large-format camera" Denney

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Montara, California
    Posts
    1,803

    Re: Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

    Quote Originally Posted by ElRooster View Post
    Michael D. Antonovich Regional Park at Joughin Ranch
    Just to be clear to readers not in the area, this is a California Park under management by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. It's an odd duck, not your regular state park. Their mission seems to be to buy up land and then turn it over (i.e. sell it) to the regular state and national parks services.

    My point being that you shouldn't extrapolate from an experience there to any other park or government land.

    --Darin

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Fernando Valley, CA
    Posts
    368

    Thumbs up Re: Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

    Quote Originally Posted by Darin Boville View Post
    Just to be clear to readers not in the area, this is a California Park under management by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. It's an odd duck, not your regular state park. Their mission seems to be to buy up land and then turn it over (i.e. sell it) to the regular state and national parks services.

    My point being that you shouldn't extrapolate from an experience there to any other park or government land.

    --Darin
    You sir are absolutely right. After emailing and researching I got up to talking with Lee Dickinson who is the Special Park Uses Program Manager, Visitor and Resource Protection for the National Park Service. He told me the following:

    "I am sorry you had such an unpleasant experience while you were shooting in
    Antonovich Regional Park. The Santa Monica Mountains are a magnificent
    resource that are managed by various land management organizations,
    including Federal, State, local and private. While the policy and guidance
    you quoted in you message are correct for areas managed by the National
    Park Service, the Antonovich Park is not one of our sites, and our policies
    do not apply.

    Should you have questions about National Park Service managed sites within
    the Santa Monica Mountain please feel free to contact the park at
    805-370-2301. And I'll be glad to answer any questions concerning still
    photography that you might have."

    In essence, you are right this is a fluke regional park that have this stern policy but I can feel free to photograph at any NPS sites and everything is fine. I feel much better although it is a shame this regional park is so strict, nice scenery there to photograph.

    ER

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,721

    Re: Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

    Quote Originally Posted by ElRooster View Post
    In essence, you are right this is a fluke regional park that have this stern policy but I can feel free to photograph at any NPS sites and everything is fine. I feel much better although it is a shame this regional park is so strict, nice scenery there to photograph.

    ER
    Well, I wouldn't call it a fluke, it is pretty clear that they maintain a great many resources for the State. And their policy, as stated in that email, is not really all that different from most other public places here.

    The only potential problem, as I see it, is the interpretation of the terms "commercial use" and "potential commercial use" by the enforcement staff.

    If the push really comes to shove, you do not need to prove that you are not breaking the rules, they need to prove that you are. If it does come to issuing a citation, I can imagine that it could be pretty successfully challenged in court. Much more successfully than a traffic citation, for example.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •