Snap a NON-commercial photo in Laguna Beach, CA ... get fined or jailed
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
http://petapixel.com/2017/06/09/laguna-beach-requires-100-permit-kind-photo-shoot-public/
The crooks in LB may have been inspired by the scum bureaaucrats in LA CANADA/FLINTRIDGE...
I once had the same problem with a BLM ranger in the west desert. I had stopped to photograph an approaching storm.
He said he could confiscate my camera for not having a permit.
He was dumb enough to give me his card, so I could send him a 14x20 print.
He is still waiting.
Cheers
Ron
Don't know if ot's still there, but there was a tree in Monterey that was copyrighted. No one was allowed to take a picture of it!
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
http://petapixel.com/2017/06/09/laguna-beach-requires-100-permit-kind-photo-shoot-public/
The crooks in LB may have been inspired by the scum bureaaucrats in LA CANADA/FLINTRIDGE...
Did you read the very very end of the article - it appears they may not be requiring permits for amateurs.
I attended Brooks Institute in Santa Barbara (69-71), where most everything was free to use, but if you started to freelance and collect $ you had to obtain a Pro License. After all when you have 500 photographers in a smallish town they simply overran the established pros and we all worked for dirt fees! We had a number of assignments that used local landmarks that were required assignments--and the typical gear was a large tripod and a 4X5 view camera. The city fathers generally generally liked the idea that our wives provided cheap labor, we rented apartments and provided all the things local businesses wanted to sell us. A good friend and I worked for a law firm re-staging car accidents--I think I got $25 per session where I mostly just parked a car at an intersection and sat there.
Later on I had heard that the city fathers also put in a public land fee for shooting assignments, but I don't know how they determined amateur, pro and student levels.
When I first moved there, the effects of the large Union 76 oil spill were very evident, so I can't image photographers putting that much stress on the culture and financial impact of the area as that spill caused!
rehess wrote:
Did you read the very very end of the article - it appears they may not be requiring permits for amateurs.
I took pictures of said tree back in 83 when I was here on vacation. Back then, nobody bothered me about it, so I don' know if that restriction was in place, or not ( not that it would have made a difference)!
ELNikkor wrote:
Don't know if ot's still there, but there was a tree in Monterey that was copyrighted. No one was allowed to take a picture of it!
The tree of which you speak is the world-famous Lone Cypress along the 17-mile drive:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/17-Mile_Drive The tree was copyrighted as part of the logo of the Lone Cypress Company, a subsidiary of the Japanese resort company Taiheiyo Club Inc. that owned the Pebble Beach Golf Club from 1990-1999.
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
ELNikkor wrote:
Don't know if ot's still there, but there was a tree in Monterey that was copyrighted. No one was allowed to take a picture of it!
Not quite accurate. The Lone Cypress is not copyrighted, but has been registered as the trademark of the Pebble Beach Company. You can take all the photos of it you want, but they will go after you if you try to sell prints of it, or drawings or paintings, for that matter.
So the guy shows up with lighting accessories, big dSLRs and big lenses, and a big crowd, for the express purpose of taking the pictures there, and he's carping because they wrote him a ticket. What did he think was going to happen? The law is clear, he needed to get the permit.
If your a visitor and you take a few pictures with your iPhone for your vacation scrapbook, you don't need a permit, and nobody will care.
There is a lot of production in the greater Los Angeles Area, it can be disruptive to local activities, and production companies are making money in the process, the cities want their cut, so many cities, entities, areas, require a permit be obtained in advance. Welcome to LA.
ELNikkor wrote:
Don't know if ot's still there, but there was a tree in Monterey that was copyrighted. No one was allowed to take a picture of it!
You mean this one? The Lone Cypress? No permit needed.
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
You mean this one? The Lone Cypress? No permit needed.
I don't think that's it..
That looks like the "Cypress and a Nearby Friend".... A little farther down the road. I drove that road a number of times when I was stationed at Fort Ord. I also did guard duty at the Presidio of Monterey. We raced 3/4 ton and Deuce and a half trucks on the Laguna Seca race track during the week for Truck Driving School.
I recall the Lone Cypress as being a "lone" cypress.
I live very near La Canada; what are you referring to regarding the scum b...? I haven't heard of any photo restrictions there, although they are hell on freeway usage and retail :)
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
http://petapixel.com/2017/06/09/laguna-beach-requires-100-permit-kind-photo-shoot-public/
The crooks in LB may have been inspired by the scum bureaaucrats in LA CANADA/FLINTRIDGE...
AlohaBob wrote:
I live very near La Canada; what are you referring to regarding the scum b...? I haven't heard of any photo restrictions there, although they are hell on freeway usage and retail :)
the referenced scum bureaucrats have backed off on their onerous rules and endless greed, due to severe public anger and widespread criticism:
http://www.lcf.ca.gov/administration/film-permits
Wow! Is this the backed off version???
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.