Permits Required

[William W]

Understood, thanks.

The fellow who made the video appears to me to be a professional photographer (with a crew too).

By the way, the video mentions that in the park you can hold "other activities" such as a yoga class . . . I know that in Sydney and Melbourne doing so attracts the same type of fee, that is if the yoga instructor is engaged in their business activity.

The same applies to Personal Trainers. In all these cases the business is using the public land to conduct their business and logically (well logically to some people - including me) it is proper that those businesses pay a fee for the use of Public Land, which if you like that are renting for a short period of time specifically for business purposes. It is no different to a person setting up a stall and selling widgets or flowers or booze, the photographer, yoga teacher or personal trainer is selling a service, not goods, but equally they are all performing their business on public land which is administered by the local authorities.

In my opinion, the written commentary in video reeked of the same allusive hyperbole and it sought to push an agenda rather than portray the facts, which I think very likely are the fees payable at that park would be aimed at professional photographers shooting for business their purposes - it is hyperbole, and in my opinion simply wrong to align that type of photography with the general amateur who visits the park.

Obviously there is always the klutz official who will determine who is or is not conducting business activity by an assessment ONLY of the gear that s/he is using; and there are also the officials who simply do not know the Law – these latter type I have encountered a few times working as Security Guards, especially in Shopping Centres.

WW

[mknittle]

One more reason to move out of this over regulated state.

[mknittle]

Understood, thanks.

The fellow who made the video appears to me to be a professional photographer (with a crew too).

By the way, the video mentions that in the park you can hold "other activities" such as a yoga class . . . I know that in Sydney and Melbourne doing so attracts the same type of fee, that is if the yoga instructor is engaged in their business activity.

The same applies to Personal Trainers. In all these cases the business is using the public land to conduct their business and logically (well logically to some people - including me) it is proper that those businesses pay a fee for the use of Public Land, which if you like that are renting for a short period of time specifically for business purposes. It is no different to a person setting up a stall and selling widgets or flowers or booze, the photographer, yoga teacher or personal trainer is selling a service, not goods, but equally they are all performing their business on public land which is administered by the local authorities.

In my opinion, the written commentary in video reeked of the same allusive hyperbole and it sought to push an agenda rather than portray the facts, which I think very likely are the fees payable at that park would be aimed at professional photographers shooting for business their purposes - it is hyperbole, and in my opinion simply wrong to align that type of photography with the general amateur who visits the park.

Obviously there is always the klutz official who will determine who is or is not conducting business activity by an assessment ONLY of the gear that s/he is using; and there are also the officials who simply do not know the Law – these latter type I have encountered a few times working as Security Guards, especially in Shopping Centres.

WW

Believe me Kalifornia is a whole different world.

[chauncey]

Most of these local rules and regulations have been authored by Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse Club.

[mknittle]

Most of these local rules and regulations have been authored by Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse Club.

Highly likely

[William W]

Believe me Kalifornia is a whole different world.

As before, that may be correct. Kalifornia might have an overabundance of overzealous and ignorant officers administrating the laws there - I have no reason nor the experience to debate that: but I do think that the comments that I have made about the news article; the local law at the Beach concerning the permit; and the video and the video man are reasonable and also accurate.

Also I think it proper and also morally correct that business pay "rent" in the form of a fee, if they use public spaces to perform their business activity.

WW

[mknittle]

As before, that may be correct. Kalifornia might have an overabundance of overzealous and ignorant officers administrating the laws there - I have no reason nor the experience to debate that: but I do think that the comments that I have made about the news article; the local law at the Beach concerning the permit; and the video and the video man are reasonable and also accurate.

Also I think it proper and also morally correct that business pay "rent" in the form of a fee, if they use public spaces to perform their business activity.

WW

Agreed if that is the case.

[Mike Buckley]

The policy has been officially clarified. See this.

[Shadowman]

The policy has been officially clarified. See this.

Mike,

Thanks for the update. One commenter, below the article wondered how this policy would be implanted to distinguish between professional and personal photographers and I'll bet that officials acting as ordinary citizens will simply ask the photographer if they have a business card; those photographers who readily offer a card will very likely be cited if they don't have a permit.