Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

[toyotadesigner]

"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.
For students, they are able to pay 50% of whatever the location fees are. Other requirements are; a certificate of insurance, proof of an active enrollment in a film school- for the project, and additional monitor fees. We are unable to be flexible on these requirements. And yes- you can be cited by the MRCA’s Park Rangers.
In the future, I suggest that you contact the locations’ management to be sure you have the required permits, etc. This could include NPS, CSP, La City & County Recreation and Parks.
Best to you in the future,
Marsha"

I can't believe this is real. On the other hand - I don't think you would have posted it as a fake. If it is real, your nation appears to be gone totally nuts and lunatic driven.

That can't be the 'land of the free' as I remember it. It must be located in a parallel universe.

I am glad to live in Europe, and I really hope that I will never get an assignment in the US, because I don't want to be stripped naked at the immigration or thrown to ground and be arrested for using a camera.

No way.

But I really hope that the European governments will create new laws for Americans, so they will have to disclose all their private data and bank accounts prior to departure, that they will have to pass idiot tests at the immigration, be stripped naked, scanned with body scanners, examined by fat, ugly and brainless 'officers' who shove their fingers into their b*tts, etc., and that their cameras, devices with cameras, video et must be left at the point of immigration (for security reasons!) until they return to their 'home country'.

BTW, who is going to stand up to stop the lunatic development? Or would this already be an official offense against any unknown rules and laws?

America should return the Statue of Liberty [Official name: Liberty Enlightening the World] which had been given to the United States on October 28th, 1886, as a gift from France.

Just in case you don't know the last lines of the poem at the base of the statue:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore;
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

[Sanjay Sen]

Dude, I have no idea what your rant is about!

[Marko]

I am glad to live in Europe, and I really hope that I will never get an assignment in the US, because I don't want to be stripped naked at the immigration or thrown to ground and be arrested for using a camera.

No way.

You're kidding, right? Just try Googling "Photography Is Not A Crime" and see what you come up with... Hint: the term originated in Britain. Search and find out why.

Or try setting up a tripod in view of some landmark somewhere in Paris, for example.

Or go take street photos in Germany.

There was a guy recently in Oregon, I believe, who flipped the cops, got hassled, sued and won! The court found he had the right to express his displeasure with the police, as long as he didn't threaten or obstruct them.

Try that anywhere in Europe and see what happens!

But I really hope that the European governments will create new laws for Americans, so they will have to disclose all their private data and bank accounts prior to departure, that they will have to pass idiot tests at the immigration, be stripped naked, scanned with body scanners, examined by fat, ugly and brainless 'officers' who shove their fingers into their b*tts, etc., and that their cameras, devices with cameras, video et must be left at the point of immigration (for security reasons!) until they return to their 'home country'.

BTW, who is going to stand up to stop the lunatic development? Or would this already be an official offense against any unknown rules and laws?

Apart from the silly security theater at the airports, we still do not have to "show the papers" here, unless actually arrested or pulled over in traffic.

And we don't have to jump through heaps of red tape in order to obtain those few "papers" we do need.

Maybe you should come over for a visit and see what's real and what's BS. If you dare, that is...

[Jack Dahlgren]

I can't believe this is real. On the other hand - I don't think you would have posted it as a fake. If it is real, your nation appears to be gone totally nuts and lunatic driven.

That can't be the 'land of the free' as I remember it. It must be located in a parallel universe.

I think that the key part of the quote is:

"For students, they are able to pay 50% of whatever the location fees are. Other requirements are; a certificate of insurance, proof of an active enrollment in a film school- for the project, and additional monitor fees."

This clearly refers to filming in the park - being Los Angeles, this is a common thing to do and most places down there want their cut from the industry. Permitting is required because it is usually a crew of people, trucks, etc. Personally, I'd prefer that my parks aren't filled with film crews on location.

I don't think that the person responding understood that it was just still photography.

[GabrielSeri]

The problem is that they are treating me as a one man filming crew. haha Just me, my tripod and my camera. That is not a film crew. It's a little silly thank God the NPS parks aren't so strict.

[rdenney]

The problem is that they are treating me as a one man filming crew. haha Just me, my tripod and my camera. That is not a film crew. It's a little silly thank God the NPS parks aren't so strict.

Did you ever hear back on their definition of "commercial use"?

Rick "curious" Denney

[GabrielSeri]

No clear definition yet. This was her reply the same as I posted before.
-------
Gabriel-
I am out of town, presently- but, I felt that I wanted to address your concerns. Being a student- I am sure, at times- it can be frustrating to know all of the requirements for filming. I will be back in my office- around January 11th. If need be, please feel free to contact me, at that time.
Here you go- as stated in the MRCA Filming Permit:

Permittee understands and accepts the following MRCA Ordinance 1-2003 section 3.13: No person shall use parkland for any commercial or filming use without a permit issued by the Executive Officer or his designee. Commercial or filming use may be permitted only when to do

so would not damage or impair the natural features of any park, nor unreasonably interfere with public enjoyment of the area. Any person using MRCA parkland for commercial or filming purposes shall have the original signed permit in their possession and shall display such permit at the request of any employee of the MRCA or of the SMMC, or any peace officer. No person shall violate any term, condition, or limitation of any such permit.


Marsha A. Feldman

-------
Hi Marsha,

I apologize if I came across as rude. I was in shock and I felt like a harassed victim but I do want to 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.

Gabriel

[GabrielSeri]

Dude,

I mean I don't get it. Either she thinks I am part of a pro film crew or that I am a film (movie) student but she doesn't seem to understand that I am an amateur photography student without a crew, lights or model.

[Jack Dahlgren]

Dude,

I mean I don't get it. Either she thinks I am part of a pro film crew or that I am a film (movie) student but she doesn't seem to understand that I am an amateur photography student without a crew, lights or model.

I think you need to explain that more clearly.

Something like:

"I think there may be some confusion about my actions. I am not filming the park. I am engaging in casual nature photography for my personal enjoyment with an old camera. The camera is on a tripod because it is a heavy antique and is hard for me to hold still. I think that this is covered under the exclusion in MRCA Ordinance 1-2003 section 1.1 d. I assure you that my use is purely personal and not commercial. Do I still need a permit for this activity?"

Maybe accompany this with an old black and white of a photographer under the darkcloth.

This appears to be the ordinance:
http://smmc.ca.gov/MRCA-ordinance-10-03.pdf

[rdenney]

This appears to be the ordinance:
http://smmc.ca.gov/MRCA-ordinance-10-03.pdf

According to my reading of this ordinance, you are screwed. Make pictures elsewhere. Despite the dreadful summary of the law by the person who wrote the response that has confused us all, the law clearly states that a permit is required for "commercial or filming use" (emphasis mine), and clearly defines "filming" to include still photography. The only exclusion is for "casual" photography "of a non-commercial nature".

What will hang you is "casual". I think you'll have a hard time proving in court that setting up a 4x5 camera on a tripod for an extended period is "casual", if you are trying to fight a citation received by a park ranger. A plain reading of the law, and since I'm not a lawyer that's the only reading I can claim, would suggest a handheld camera as used by nearly all tourists.

"Commercial" is defined as "for profit" which is hard to prove before the fact, but that "or" in the permit requirement makes that point moot.

This is a law that needs changing, it seems to me, but I would not want to try to argue against it in court, and working to change the law seems the better course.

Rick "or learning to make art with a handheld camera when photographing here" Denney