Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-28-2016, 12:40 PM   #31
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
MadMathMind's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,717
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by lmd91343 Quote
I am sorry, but I am not seeing your problem here. This specifically relates a couple of very, very old buildings in downtown Philadelphia. Here are the first few paragraphs:
These clauses, from the NPS site:

QuoteQuote:
Filming and Photography permit applications will generally be approved provided that the requested activities:
  • are appropriate to the purpose for which the park was established; and
Unacceptable impacts are impacts that, individually or cumulatively, would:
  • be inconsistent with a park's purposes or values, or
Suppose the park official thinks Donald Trump is contrary to the park's values. He decides you can't take any photos there dressed like Donald Trump because of this (but show up like Obama and he's fine with it). The problem is that political speech often does run contrary to the purposes of the object. We need to be afraid of clauses like this. Read it carefully--it sounds like a law restricting speech based on "we don't like that," doesn't it? That's something the federal government can't do.

If the point is to eliminate things like nude photos at Independence Hall, then the rules need to say that. But "consistent with the park's values"? What are the parks values? Can I question the park to ask it? This clause is a broadly worded statement that allows a park official to decide what he does and doesn't want in there on a whim by appealing to "values." A federal official with the power to restrict speech is something we can't have.

02-28-2016, 12:47 PM   #32
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,140
@ MadMathMind I don't specifically know in the case of Discovery Green who owns the property, but the Foundation operates the property. They're a non-profit. They do have authority to make rules. They do publish rules, and specific rules for photographers. You weren't approached because you had a camera. You were approached because you were photographing a group of people in Cos. What you were doing would most definitely Iook commercial to me if I saw it.

It's no different than Forest Park in St. Louis, which is operated by Forest Park Forever. The city unloads a headache and financial burden; the citizens get a clean, patrolled, safe park. Certain classes of user pay a fee to support free use by other classes of users. That's just the way it is.
02-28-2016, 01:10 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 328
I have yet to encounter anyone commenting on any of my non-professional ventures and am in public locations/parks all the time.

If I do venture to my local park and want to ensure that I can the Picnic Pavilions I must pay to reserve them. If I want to play a game of ball, soccer or football, the same is true. If I want to venture down to the park and casually use those same facilities, as long as I am not interfering with anyone else, it's all good. No fee. No reservation needed. But if someone paid to use them - their use takes precedence over mine. I see this as much the same thing.......
02-28-2016, 01:23 PM   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
MadMathMind's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Houston, TX
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,717
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
@ MadMathMind I don't specifically know in the case of Discovery Green who owns the property, but the Foundation operates the property. They're a non-profit. They do have authority to make rules.
Asking some lawyers who know better, but this is not necessarily true because the use of private companies to circumvent restrictions on their authority is definitely not within their power. Example: the city delegates maintenance and operation to the land in front of city hall--which they still own--to a private company so that the private company can make rules that say "No protesting here" in effort to suppress political speech. The city can't say "Oh, no, private company runs our building, so they can make the rules."

They can make some rules but there are limits. The use of a permit to assemble, for instance, is permissible but it cannot be an approval process. The permit must be granted without delay unless the government can show that the demonstration includes, by its nature, inherently disruptive elements such as blocking of streets. Furthermore, the disruption has to be come from the assembly itself, not the people around it. Example: suppose some hate group decides to hold an assembly in the park where they just stand there doing absolutely nothing but holding up signs. Others will obviously come and throw things, riot, etc. The police are under obligation to protect the demonstrators, not say "People dislike you so you need to leave."

That was this case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminiello_v._City_of_Chicago

02-28-2016, 01:37 PM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,255
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
But "consistent with the park's values"? What are the parks values? Can I question the park to ask it? This clause is a broadly worded statement that allows a park official to decide what he does and doesn't want in there on a whim by appealing to "values." A federal official with the power to restrict speech is something we can't have.
The national parks (and wildlife refuges) actually do have written down "values" / mission statements / strategic plans -- you can in-fact look them up.

For instance, a federal national wildlife refuge is there for the wildlife -- sometimes they don't allow people at all, or parts of them anyway. And so if someone asks for permission to have a volleyball tournament there, they are obligated according to their mission statement to say no to that sort of thing. What if you want to make a documentary about the nesting birds? Well, maybe that's something that could be accommodated as long as best practices are observed to not interfere/disturb/damage, etc. Or NOT, if it is going to be disruptive, or some other documentary crew already has their permit and they only want a limited number of crew around.

Same with any national park. No one is going to bother you just walking around shooting stuff (even with pro gear and tripods, etc), and the NPS rules say that most still photography does not require a permit (unless you are using models or big equipment). The rules are aimed squarely at commercial video.
02-28-2016, 02:16 PM - 1 Like   #36
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Wingincamera's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Spanaway, WA. USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 714
I am just an amateur photographer. I've been to a lot of parks with SLR gear, including national & state parks, and never had a problem with anyone. I have started conversations with park employees asking about different locations and never questioned about any problems. What I have seen is photographers leaving designated paths and trampling on vegetation to get that special photo. They should be kicked out of the park. I've seen other photographers being rude to other people because they assume they had exclusive rights to do their own thing and everyone else should not get into their way. One of you said that your not a professional and only charge a few dollars. If you make a dollar, then you are a professional, you just work cheap.

My take on all this if a person is having problems everywhere they go, then maybe the problem is not with everyone else, but the guy/woman in the mirror. The problem maybe the way you approach people. Kindness and being respective of others goes a long way.
02-28-2016, 03:22 PM   #37
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,140
Dude. Read the website. It isn't a for-profit corporation; it isn't contracted operation of the greenspace like a NPS Vendor. It is a 501(c)3 Non-Profit Foundation, established as a City-Private partnership to create and maintain this greenspace next to the Convention Center, where prior to 2008 there was only concrete. It is 100% dedicated to the general public good. Generous donors established an endowment so the city doesn't need to maintain the space; the city bought and donated some of the land. It was a $125MM investment of private gift and public funds. The Mission of the Foundation expresses a desire to make the space useful and available to the largest number of people - which sometimes means there are restrictions placed on small numbers of specific people and specific uses. Fees help support the greenspace. You were doing something they've decided to charge for. You weren't doing something they've decided not to charge for.

They probably shouldn't have asked you for a fee because you were acting as a private person, doing private work. But you looked like a commercial photographer and your subjects looked like paying clients.

They have the right to make and enforce reasonable rules. You used their space to make your photographs. They charge a fee to people who want to make formal photographs, just like they charge a fee to have a gathering. Sure, it's a gray area and you don't want to be restricted nor pay the fee, but you qualify to be regulated according to the rules.
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
Asking some lawyers who know better, but this is not necessarily true because the use of private companies to circumvent restrictions on their authority is definitely not within their power. Example: the city delegates maintenance and operation to the land in front of city hall--which they still own--to a private company so that the private company can make rules that say "No protesting here" in effort to suppress political speech. The city can't say "Oh, no, private company runs our building, so they can make the rules."

They can make some rules but there are limits. The use of a permit to assemble, for instance, is permissible but it cannot be an approval process. The permit must be granted without delay unless the government can show that the demonstration includes, by its nature, inherently disruptive elements such as blocking of streets. Furthermore, the disruption has to be come from the assembly itself, not the people around it. Example: suppose some hate group decides to hold an assembly in the park where they just stand there doing absolutely nothing but holding up signs. Others will obviously come and throw things, riot, etc. The police are under obligation to protect the demonstrators, not say "People dislike you so you need to leave."

That was this case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminiello_v._City_of_Chicago
02-28-2016, 05:11 PM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,480
If it's of any interest, here's a similar thread on the Disco Green Flickr group:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/discoverygreen/discuss/72157619792842153/

02-28-2016, 05:16 PM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 666
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
These clauses, from the NPS site:

Filming and Photography permit applications will generally be approved provided that the requested activities:
are appropriate to the purpose for which the park was established; and

Unacceptable impacts are impacts that, individually or cumulatively, would:
be inconsistent with a park's purposes or values, or

Suppose the park official thinks Donald Trump is contrary to the park's values. He decides you can't take any photos there dressed like Donald Trump because of this (but show up like Obama and he's fine with it). The problem is that political speech often does run contrary to the purposes of the object. We need to be afraid of clauses like this. Read it carefully--it sounds like a law restricting speech based on "we don't like that," doesn't it? That's something the federal government can't do.

If the point is to eliminate things like nude photos at Independence Hall, then the rules need to say that. But "consistent with the park's values"? What are the parks values? Can I question the park to ask it? This clause is a broadly worded statement that allows a park official to decide what he does and doesn't want in there on a whim by appealing to "values." A federal official with the power to restrict speech is something we can't have.

There is still something that I am missing. The first clause seems to disallow permits that would have photographers climbing on the roof of Independece Hall or set up barricades to keep crowds from the Liberty Bell in order to take unobstructed photographs.

The second clause seems to prohibit a photographer digging a reflecting pond in front of the Liberty Bell pavilion for that "perfect picture"

The examples I mention are based on what is said further down in the document. Obviously there is something I don't understand.
02-28-2016, 05:50 PM   #40
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,383
Carry a point and shoot I guarantee nobody will bother you...
02-28-2016, 11:07 PM   #41
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 9,528
QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
It feels like if you're not using your phone to take photos, you must be up to no good.
So is owning a Black Panel van and following women around in the dark with night vision goggles. It just comes with the territory, SLRs and ILCE cameras are big - they make you an obvious target.

QuoteOriginally posted by MadMathMind Quote
My point is that there's a lot of activities people do that are annoying and disruptive to others.
Like answering a phone call in the middle of a crowded cinema.

QuoteOriginally posted by mgm2 Quote
We do after all have our 1st amendment rights!
You also have the 2nd amendment, which means basically everyone has the right to bear arms. Ergo,there is a chance you could get shot by a trigger poppy security guard/law enforcement official who is unaware of exactly what the rules are regarding photography.

Last edited by Digitalis; 02-28-2016 at 11:20 PM.
02-28-2016, 11:29 PM   #42
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
sherrvonne's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,950
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
So is owning a Black Panel van and following women around in the dark with night vision goggles. It just comes with the territory, SLRs and ILCE cameras are big - they make you an obvious target.


Like answering a phone call in the middle of a crowded cinema.
In my area, the majority are camera phone users or they have little canon sure shots or the like. When I have the K3, even though no one has ever seen the brand, they side glance it, step aside, go around me ( for the most part), and think I'm photographing something important. No one even questions the brand or how 'Pro' it is or is not since to them it's a big black square with a big lens and to bother hauling that around must mean it's important. So the DSLR in itself is a target it gets stares and is not inconspicuous anymore. At the local fair.... Yes Ferris Wheels and Zipper rides for kids, I was stared down by all the policemen. "What the heck is that black thing .... Oh... Not a gun...." This is when I realized it was different now and I was not among the phone camera crowd and there are different rules to get used to.
02-28-2016, 11:40 PM - 1 Like   #43
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 9,528
QuoteOriginally posted by sherrvonne Quote
es Ferris Wheels and Zipper rides for kids, I was stared down by all the policemen. "What the heck is that black thing .... Oh... Not a gun...."
Probably a good thing you left that photosniper lens at home:

02-28-2016, 11:50 PM   #44
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
sherrvonne's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,950
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
Probably a good thing you left that photosniper lens at home:
Now I want one of those....not the big lens, the thing it's on....
02-29-2016, 01:20 AM - 1 Like   #45
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 9,528
then you will approve of this:



A rare find, a Leica IIIa with a Wetzlar PLOOT mirror housing what I take to be a 200mm f/4.5 lens
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
activities, convention, fee, future, guidelines, hours, impacts, issue, nps, park, people, permit, photographers, photography, photos, portraits, post, property, resources, saturday, security, shoot, sidewalk, values
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
People "Peace on Earth, goodwill toward men." Tonytee Post Your Photos! 4 12-11-2015 11:27 PM
Landscape Hostility Branch, GSMNP CreationBear Post Your Photos! 4 12-05-2013 09:51 AM
Do teleconverters count toward diffraction equation? barondla Pentax Q 33 05-14-2012 06:15 PM
Walk toward the light, it's okay... khardur Post Your Photos! 29 05-26-2008 07:39 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:34 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top