Check out Travel Photography - Tips and More section of our forum.
Creeping Government vs. Photography
Jan 17, 2014 09:20:24 #
joer wrote:
Any idiot can spend money, especially when its not their own.
It takes someone with a brain in government to be cost effective and budget conscious.
It takes someone with a brain in government to be cost effective and budget conscious.
You're depending on an oxymoron. Good luck with that. <in imitation Sarah Palin voice> Let us know how it works out for you. </Palin>
Jan 17, 2014 09:23:13 #
alf85
Loc: Northumberland, UK.
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
So who cuts the grass, trims the shrubbery, picks up the doggie surprises, maintains walkways, benches, public toilets, etc?
People just don't volunteer "over here".
People just don't volunteer "over here".
Hi, over here the council workers maintain the parks, thats what we pay our tax's for.
Jan 17, 2014 09:35:37 #
Wall-E wrote:
Geez, jerry. There's the lawful answer and then there's what goes under the radar. Do you ever speed? Or cross against the light? Both are violations, but the vast majority of us don't get into trouble for it unless we're being stupid besides. Same here. There's the letter of the law, and then there's the intent.
"When law and morality contradict each other the citizen has the cruel alternative of losing his morality or losing his respect for the law" -Fredric Bastiat
Unfortunately I think that is where the world is now, very confused on what the proper role of government is. (described accurately in filmstrip available on youtube titled Man, Freedom and Government)
Disneyland or the Adventure park are private properties and have a right to set rules for what is allowed on their property.
However when it comes to "government" facilities are into question, when is it justified to use force on another individual and tell them what they can or can not do?
Check out Printers and Color Printing Forum section of our forum.
Jan 17, 2014 09:50:19 #
Jan 17, 2014 10:01:12 #
rdgreenwood wrote:
Fascinating! I'm not a "my way or the highway" thinker, so my mind can be changed on this. Here's my problem: you go to the park with your squeeze. You have your high end DSLR on you, take a few shots, and then you say, "Take your sweater off." At that moment an officer of the law steps out of the bushes, quotes Rule #3 (change of clothing)at you, and confiscates your camera. Justified?
The Last time I asked a girl to take here sweater off in a park I got my face slapped and arrested for Lewd and lascivious whatever that means :roll:
Jan 17, 2014 10:12:47 #
I have been in places that require a fee if I sell the photos. Some didn't require it up front but before I sold them. An honor system for sure. In those cases I shot to my hearts content. If I got enough sellable photos to cover the fee,I filled out the form and sent a check. Often there was a clause that raised fee exhorbantly if they caught you selling without their permission.
I think the parameters the council setup maybe a bit strict and should be better stated,if the law is aimed at pros. If they want to control tripods that is another issue. This topic has and will continue to generate many articles and stories.
I think the parameters the council setup maybe a bit strict and should be better stated,if the law is aimed at pros. If they want to control tripods that is another issue. This topic has and will continue to generate many articles and stories.
Jan 17, 2014 10:15:15 #
rdgreenwood wrote:
I just ran across this, and wonder what your react... (show quote)
It's like this everywhere. In Newport Beach CA, if you have more than a camera hanging from a strap around your neck the police will ask for your permit.
Jan 17, 2014 10:30:36 #
jeep_daddy wrote:
It's like this everywhere. In Newport Beach CA, if you have more than a camera hanging from a strap around your neck the police will ask for your permit.
I'm not a lawyer but this is what the Justice Dept. has to say:
http://www.pdnonline.com/news/Department-of-Justic-5735.shtml
Jan 17, 2014 10:32:14 #
rdgreenwood wrote:
I just ran across this, and wonder what your react... (show quote)
I am no attorney but I believe the language of this ordinance may blowup like ordinance in an armory. For example it refers to ordinarily carries. It could be argued any good landscape photographer ordinarily carries a tripod. Another argument could be a pro is someone who sells their photos and should not be defined by equipment. Selling should be the only criteria. If a person wants to take family photos and in different outfits he or she should not have to pay a fee. What about a pro taking personal photos?
It sounds like this ordinance needs some rewriting.
Jan 17, 2014 10:51:20 #
Jan 17, 2014 11:10:20 #
Wall-E wrote:
The major cities have done this for a long time.
If you make money doing it, we need our cut.
And, if you think that's bad, there are parks where you need the permit whether you're a pro or not.
http://www.glendaleaz.com/ParksandRecreation/SRPHAphotopermit.cfm
And just *try* to get in DisneyLand/World with anything more than just a camera.
The major cities have done this for a long time.
If you make money doing it, we need our cut.
And, if you think that's bad, there are parks where you need the permit whether you're a pro or not.
http://www.glendaleaz.com/ParksandRecreation/SRPHAphotopermit.cfm
And just *try* to get in DisneyLand/World with anything more than just a camera.
Which bit of 'Land of the Free' did I misunderstand?
What America does now Britain usually follows!!! :(
I just hope our local council does not read this post as they are always on the lookout for new ways to screw the population. :evil:
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Jan 17, 2014 11:18:19 #
tainkc wrote:
Overland Park is pretty hard up. I know this personally. They are idiots. I live in Overland Park.
I still do not understand is this for all parks or just op arboretum they are talking about they did not make this clear and what is the cost I to live within a stones throw from op ks whats the next permit to mow are yards?
Jan 17, 2014 11:41:49 #
St3v3M wrote:
Most cities have a permit clause for professional photographers and filmmakers. Without it you might see a film crew shooting a movie down main street without warning.
You are correct on the permits. This is to allow for clearing of streets, notification of shop owners, and crowd control.
I think the OP is referring to a "tax" on using a city park to make portraits, or engagement photos.
Michael G
Jan 17, 2014 11:41:53 #
Remember, when dealing with a bureaucracy, it's always easier to get forgiveness, than permission. :P
Didn't the taxpayers pay for the the parks to be used by the citizenry at no charge when they were built, and aren't we still paying for their upkeep?? When did Free Parks become free for some but not all?
Didn't the taxpayers pay for the the parks to be used by the citizenry at no charge when they were built, and aren't we still paying for their upkeep?? When did Free Parks become free for some but not all?
Jan 17, 2014 11:44:11 #
WYp8riot wrote:
"When law and morality contradict each other ... (show quote)
I've long since lost respect for the law. (Fear, not so much.)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.