Permits Required

[Shadowman]

At first glance the requirement seemed reasonable, but then I read you'd need one just to photograph your dog.

https://petapixel.com/2017/06/09/lag...-shoot-public/

[William W]

I am not saying I am expert at interpreting USA municipal by-laws: but I think that the news item has some intentional hyperbole at the most or an honest misunderstanding at the least.

In most western/capitalistic based countries/economies, the rules and laws applicable to Photography have a separation between "commercial use" and “non-commercial use”, BUT (important point) – both can be applicable to "professional photography".

"Commercial Use" refers to the USE of the image. Professional Photography (or photography for professional purposes) refers to the action of MAKING the image: it is possible (and it happens all the time) for one to make photographs professionally, but NOT to be making the photographs for Commercial Use. A "professional" Wedding and Portrait Photographer is the most typical example.

I think that the fees (and laws) which are applicable at Lugana Beach, are quite similar to those applicable at the foreshore areas of Sydney Harbour and many other similar areas around the world.

The salient point is that whilst Luganu Beach has separated “Commercial” and “Non-commercial”, I think that both refer to “professional” photography only. What I mean is, the Photographer is being paid for his/her service and the “commercial” in the application form refers only to the USAGE of the resultant image(s).

I think that if one, as an amateur photographer were to be walking with one’s dog (or girlfriend or boyfriend or family) and happened to make some “family photos” or some photographs of the puppy, then no forms would be required or fees would need to be paid.

In summary, it appears to me to be a bit of a beat up.

WW

[LePetomane]

This is what our elected officials do instead of meaningful work. They create regulations and obstacles for all of us so we will be constantly inconvenienced.

[Mike Buckley]

They create regulations and obstacles for all of us so we will be constantly inconvenienced.

There are several potential benefits to people for a regulation such as this one. Naturally, when a law benefits a particular group of people, it almost always creates an obstacle for others. Such is life.

[LePetomane]

There are several potential benefits to people for a regulation such as this one. Naturally, when a law benefits a particular group of people, it almost always creates an obstacle for others. Such is life.

This is exactly why I live in Wyoming.

[rpcrowe]

Sometimes, laws go on the books for fairly valid reasons (I have no idea if that applies to this case) but, the laws are written so poorly that they interfere with everyone's freedom.

When I was a young man (and that was eons ago) it was illegal to shoot in New York City's Central Park using a tripod unless you had a license to do so.

That law was written in the very early days of the motion picture industry when, New York City (rather than Hollywood) was the center of that industry. Central Park is 8.43 acres (3.41 square Km) of relatively virgin parkland in the center of some of the priciest real estate in the world.

Obviously, this was a great place to shoot the silent movies of the early film era. However, the film crews crowded out the park's other patrons and generally made pests of themselves.

How to stop that Make a law that shooting with a tripod is illegal Of course, that didn't just impact film crews. As with many laws of its ilk, this "no tripod" regulation was left on the books but, was not enforced after the film industry generally moved to sunny Southern California - where they could shoot about 300 days a year.

[mknittle]

One more reason to move out of this decaying state.

[mknittle]

I am not saying I am expert at interpreting USA municipal by-laws: but I think that the news item has some intentional hyperbole at the most or an honest misunderstanding at the least.

In most western/capitalistic based countries/economies, the rules and laws applicable to Photography have a separation between "commercial use" and “non-commercial use”, BUT (important point) – both can be applicable to "professional photography".

"Commercial Use" refers to the USE of the image. Professional Photography (or photography for professional purposes) refers to the action of MAKING the image: it is possible (and it happens all the time) for one to make photographs professionally, but NOT to be making the photographs for Commercial Use. A "professional" Wedding and Portrait Photographer is the most typical example.

I think that the fees (and laws) which are applicable at Lugana Beach, are quite similar to those applicable at the foreshore areas of Sydney Harbour and many other similar areas around the world.

The salient point is that whilst Luganu Beach has separated “Commercial” and “Non-commercial”, I think that both refer to “professional” photography only. What I mean is, the Photographer is being paid for his/her service and the “commercial” in the application form refers only to the USAGE of the resultant image(s).

I think that if one, as an amateur photographer were to be walking with one’s dog (or girlfriend or boyfriend or family) and happened to make some “family photos” or some photographs of the puppy, then no forms would be required or fees would need to be paid.

In summary, it appears to me to be a bit of a beat up.

WW

With California there is a huge push for government to extract as much money as they can out of the people.

[William W]

With California there is a huge push for government to extract as much money as they can out of the people.

That maybe so. People might have the same view of Sydney City Council in NSW, AUS, but it does neither corroborate nor deny the point that was made in Post #2: i.e. the unanswered question that in this case the money is being extracted from people who are in the act of conducting a business enterprise: which is not "the" people.

WW

[chauncey]

If ya wanna push it to the Supremes, you will win.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/photog...photographers/

[mknittle]

That maybe so. People might have the same view of Sydney City Council in NSW, AUS, but it does neither corroborate nor deny the point that was made in Post #2: i.e. the unanswered question that in this case the money is being extracted from people who are in the act of conducting a business enterprise: which is not "the" people.

WW

I may be wrong but I read the $100 fee is for the public for pros(Business) the fee starts at $400 and goes from there.

[Mike Buckley]

I may be wrong but I read the $100 fee is for the public for pros(Business) the fee starts at $400 and goes from there.

I believe you're interpreting the information inaccurately. I interpret it to be that the two fees apply to photographers who are charging for their services and that the distinction between the two fees has to do with how the photographs are then used.

[Mike Buckley]

If ya wanna push it to the Supremes, you will win.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/photog...photographers/

I believe you're conflating two issues: the right to take the photo and the right to take it without paying a fee. I only briefly scanned the article you provided, but it seems to cover only the right to take the photo and doesn't delve into the appropriateness of charging the photographer a fee to do so.

[William W]

I may be wrong but I read the $100 fee is for the public for pros(Business) the fee starts at $400 and goes from there.

then:

I believe you're interpreting the information inaccurately. I interpret it to be that the two fees apply to photographers who are charging for their services and that the distinction between the two fees has to do with how the photographs are then used.

I concur with Mike Buckley.

(Obviously) I was of that view when I first responded in Post #2 where I also outlined some of my reasons for that point of view.

Notwithstanding those reasons, the "news" article reeks of hyperbole indicated by the tag line; the alluding and implication style of writing: my experience tells me that, that hyperbole is mainly meant to create (emotional) discussion - parts of conversation could be classified as evidence of that.

Subsequent to posting that initial comment in post #2, (and because of my own curiosity and not because of any responses), I am in correspondence with two friends in the USA each of whom has first hand experience and might shine a clearer light.

WW

[lunaticitizen]

This confusion happens because the author of the article didn't do his/her due diligence (which is as simple as calling the city to confirm the policy). I'm not a lawyer either but I believe Bill and Mike's interpretation is the correct one.

[Mike Buckley]

as simple as calling the city to confirm the policy

Sadly, me life experience is that doing so probably won't or at the minimum won't necessarily clear up anything. That's because the office staff so rarely has a true understanding of the policy; you could talk to three different people and possibly get three different explanations of the policy. Therefore, I think the best solution, albeit a weak one, is to rely upon the city's written policy.

[William W]

One of my friends responded (30+ years professional photographer and published author, residing in CA) Salient points of our conversation:

1. “ . . . [all] the [photography] permits I've seen are only for professional use.”

2. “ . . . [an amateur being cited or confronted by the authorities] . . . [usually] comes down to whether or not you are blocking the sidewalk. A tripod on the sidewalk, unless it's next to a structure or right at the street away from the crosswalks, can be considered an obstruction.”

3. “I doubt anyone [amateur user/photographer] has been cited by the police for it, but they have probably asked people to move on. [if it considered an obstruction]”

4. “. . . [the statement cited in the article you sent me] is a bit unclear.”

***

In my spare time I researched the Laguna Beach Municipal Code.

I think that this is the statute / bylaw (not sure of correct legal term) which underpins the “Community Service Department Statement” which is shown in the news article

Laguna Beach Municipal Code

Title 5 BUSINESS—TAXATION, LICENSING

Chapter 5.66 COMMERCIAL MOTION PICTURE FILM, VIDEO TAPE AND STILL PHOTOGRAPHY PRODUCTION

5.66.010 Permit required.

(a) No person shall engage in the business or the activity of filming, still photography production, taking or producing motion pictures on movie film or electronic video tape for educational, entertainment or other commercial purposes, other than for news purposes, anywhere at any time if the services of city employees, or if the rental or other use of city-owned real or personal property and/or utilities, other than utilities paid for by private service users serviced by the city, is or are involved, unless a permit for such business or activity during such period of time has first been granted by the city manager.

(b) In no such event shall such activities be performed or conducted in excess of the time period for which the permit provided for in subsection (a) of this section is issued. Extension of time shall require a new permit application with a fee to be established by city council resolution. (Ord. 1214 § 1, 1991; Ord. 948 § 1, 1978).

My (lay) understanding is that code is quite clear and it certainly does not refer to amateur photographers taking photos of their dog or family. . . and as I mentioned - it resembles may similar bylaws which exist in many cities/locations around the world.

WW

[Shadowman]

Here's a copy of the permit application. http://www.lagunabeachcity.net/civic...x?BlobID=17450
The wording is vague enough that it could be interpreted multiple ways, commercial use may not be purpose of the shoot but the photographers setup (assistant, external lighting, time spent) may make it appear so.

http://lagunabeachcity.net/cityhall/...lm_permits.htm
Sponsored photo contest
http://lagunabeachcity.net/cityhall/...st/default.htm
City right to use image.
http://lagunabeachcity.net/civicax/f...x?blobid=18142

[William W]

Here's a copy of the permit application. http://www.lagunabeachcity.net/civic...x?BlobID=17450
The wording is vague enough that it could be interpreted multiple ways, commercial use may not be purpose of the shoot but the photographers setup (assistant, external lighting, time spent) may make it appear so.

Hi John,

We might be at crossed purposes.

The point I have been making is that "commercial use" is irrelevant. "Commercial Use" (in mostly all western/capitalistic countries) has to do with the usage of the images.

And the use of the word "commercial" can extend to describe the particular type of photography that a professional photographer does.

For example the majority of my professional photography comprise: Weddings, Social Events; Family Portraiture and Editorial Sports. None of these is intrinsically "commercial use".

I do/did some "Commercial Photography", mainly comprising: Corporate Portraiture; Real Estate Advertising; Record Covers and Band Promotions; Models' Portfolios and Table-top Products - and these ALL are "commercial use".

My point is: I think that the necessity for getting a permit is based upon the the Photographer being "professional" - that is to say "taking photos for a business purpose" - that does not necessarily mean the photos are for "commercial use".

Photos made by a Wedding and Portrait Photographer are rarely ever for "commercial use": BUT - if I were to take the B&G down to Laguna Beach for some Bridal Portraiture, even if I only had one camera and no Assistants, I would require a Permit to make those photos. It is because I am conducting my business when I am making the photos and that is why I need to get the permit.

The same applies to many areas of Sydney and many other cities and locations around the world: in some particular areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane (as three example) the by-laws are enforced and on the spot fines apply, often a big surprise to the weekend photographer who has started up their Wedding Photography as a sideline income.

My interpretation appears to be correct, given that the title of the form is "Commercial and Professional Photography Application"

WW

[Shadowman]

Hi William,

Not at odds on the term "commercial use" as I use the term to determine whether or not a model release is used. I included the permit application to illustrate how the city officials might interpret "commercial use", they specifically include wedding, engagement shoots; one activity which is usually very easy to spot (wedding) while the other has to interpreted (engagement), also the permit does not specifically include model portfolio shooting but the line "other"_____ could be used to cover any type of shooting. Linked video is for another city but the thought process is the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk6CR_7MYFU