Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands

[GabrielSeri]

Handheld Pentax 67with a grip it is then! haha

[GabrielSeri]

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

I finally spoke to someone on the phone and they now say that I have the right to photograph at this park as an amateur photographer and they called the ranger to tell him to let me do my thing. I have a right to photograph as I please. Good news and this shows that it is worth fighting for your rights! I am really happy thanks to everybody for their input and advice especially rdenny.

Gabriel

[GabrielSeri]

"Hello Gabriel,

I am pleased that I was able to clear up any misunderstandings there may have been regarding our policy. Non-commercial, amateur photography does not require a permit. Student film projects or still shoots do require a permit.

Thank you for visiting our parks and for taking the time to contact our office with your concern.

Have a wonderful day!"

[rdenney]

I finally spoke to someone on the phone and they now say that I have the right to photograph at this park as an amateur photographer and they called the ranger to tell him to let me do my thing. I have a right to photograph as I please. Good news and this shows that it is worth fighting for your rights! I am really happy thanks to everybody for their input and advice especially rdenny.

Gabriel

Hey, I'm glad it worked out. Being polite and persistent paid off. I was afraid you were out of luck when I read the wording of that ordinance. But apparently they've decided that amateur photography, even with a view camera is "casual", which is great.

Rick "have fun, and be real friendly with the ranger if he comes around" Denney

[Steve Smith]

Public lands are paid for by public dollars. I pay a huge amount of taxes and will photograph anything I darn well please as long as the park is open. Period.

It would be fun to challenge this nonesense of permits and insurance by setting up a plain wooden box on a tripod.

The health and safty/insurance aspects would be the same if it was a camera or a box but it would be an interesting excercise to be charged with photographing without a permit and/or insurance then bring in exhibit A, a box which cannot take photographs.

I will cheerfully disobey this oppressive law.

Is it actually a law though? Or is it just one of their terms and conditions for being on the land?


Steve.

[Steve Smith]

According to my reading of this ordinance, you are screwed. Make pictures elsewhere.

I have just read that and I would say that amateur use is fine without a permit, with or without a tripod.


Steve.

[rdenney]

I have just read that and I would say that amateur use is fine without a permit, with or without a tripod.

That's not what I read. What I read makes filming, specifically including still photography, a permit-requiring activity, and it also makes "commercial use" a permit-requiring activity. Note the "or" in the ordinance--there is nothing in their statement that requires that photography be commercial. The only exclusion from the permit requirement on filming is "casual use of a non-commercial nature". So, the non-permit-requiring photography must be both "casual" and "non-commercial". The non-commercial part is easy enough in this case. But what about "casual"? The ands and ors are important in any plain reading.

(Often enough, I see things in written laws would suggest the lawmaker intended for the "casual" to be defined by the "of a non-commercial nature", but this is an example of law-speak, not plain language. If they intended "casual" to be defined by "non-commercial", they should have just said "non-commercial". After all, they had already defined "commercial use".)

My experiences suggests there is a different standard required when fighting a citation versus when getting permission, depending on the judge. If one asks permission, is told a permit is required, uses a complex-looking 4x5 camera anyway, and is cited, then one must hinge one's defense on the notion that using a 4x5 is "non-commercial". The judge, after all, would know that Gabriel had asked and been told a permit was required, unless he used an alias with his emails, and unless the ranger forgot his previous warning. But a plain reading indicates that it must also be "casual". What does that mean? In court, it will mean whatever the judge wants it to mean (it is not defined), and your only recourse if you disagree will be an expensive appeal process. This would be the case no matter the intent of the law--that is an argument for a different venue. Would a judge, who is sympathetic to the rangers, overrule their citation on the basis that using a 4x5 camera non-commercially is "casual"? I would not want to risk my $175 plus court costs on it. There is nothing casual-looking about using a 4x5 camera. Now, if they defined "casual" as photography not requiring a support crew, or not requiring commercial models, or whatever, then it would be easier. But they don't offer that definition. One would probably win eventually, but at what cost?

Arguing with the park staff that because it is for amateur use that it is casual is different--they are not trying to protect the legal decisions made by someone with whom they are sympathetic, and they can be swayed by the original intent. Granting their permission is probably no skin off the ranger's nose--he is just doing his job, and if that job is redefined, so be it. But having one of his citations overturned is another matter.

Rick "who might push things further himself that what he would advise a student to attempt" Denney

[Marko]

Would a judge, who is sympathetic to the rangers, overrule their citation on the basis that using a 4x5 camera non-commercially is "casual"? I would not want to risk my $175 plus court costs on it. There is nothing casual-looking about using a 4x5 camera. Now, if they defined "casual" as photography not requiring a support crew, or not requiring commercial models, or whatever, then it would be easier. But they don't offer that definition. One would probably win eventually, but at what cost?

This is the inherent (and hidden) danger in those little nibbles at our rights. They don't call the concept "death by a thousand cuts" for nothing, after all.

The problem is not so much in the encroachment, but in the fact that encroachment looks too tiny to be worth a fight. But one little cut leads to another and before too long, we will wish we fought the very first time. Every time we do choose to fight, a precedent is set which influences all the future fights. Every little battle we decide is not worth fighting is a good potential precedent lost.

There are people who choose to fight this kind of gradual loss of liberties at every opportunity and while they may look like the fringe or goofy types, they are doing us all a great favor. Search for "Photography Is Not A Crime" and explore some of the links.

[GabrielSeri]

"Hello Gabriel,

I am pleased that I was able to clear up any misunderstandings there may have been regarding our policy. Non-commercial, amateur photography does not require a permit. Student film projects or still shoots do require a permit.

Thank you for visiting our parks and for taking the time to contact our office with your concern.

Have a wonderful day!"

I printed this and will have it with me the next time I go to this park. I believe I am in the clear, because I am a not a professional. The office called the ranger and let him know that what I was doing was fine and didn't need a permit. He was a little confused but was just doing his job and I think it will be fine now. In my case talking to the authorities helped my case, if I didn't ask questions politely I feel that nothing would have happened.
Oh I remember something else the woman on the phone told me; when I said I was a student the ranger was confused because if you are a student doing a student project you DO need a small permit for some reason, but if you are an amateur then it's ok. No different than other park visitors.

[rdenney]

This is the inherent (and hidden) danger in those little nibbles at our rights. They don't call the concept "death by a thousand cuts" for nothing, after all.

We must be careful to distinguish what we would do for ourselves and what we would like those with means and will to do on our behalf, from what we would advise a student of limited means to attempt.

Given that Gabriel had already inquired and been told a permit was required (later revised, of course), he would not be able to invoke the common-sense defense based on the wording of the ordinance. He likely would have been out $175, and without the means to carry it further, would have not achieved your objective of clarifying a poorly written law. He'd be better off writing a polite letter to his elected representative.

I have read the online sources for these issues, linked earlier in the thread, and the lawyer who wrote that web site has all but said he doesn't have the time to do all the work of pursuing it. If he has boundaries of what he can pursue, then so would a student.

Rick "thinking the cure for a death of a thousand cuts is not to proceed directly to the fatal cut by applying it to oneself" Denney