Reading mode: Light Dark

Professional Photography and Passerbys

Go to last post
Funny thing, the world doesn't revolve around photographers taking pictures in public. If you decide to conduct your business in public you gotta take the good with the bad. I;ll bet if you asked those evil inconsiderate people who were trying to ruin your pix by getting the back ground didn;t even notice you where there and would have moved if you had asked. And if they did notice you they probably thought they were out of the way because they were behind the bride and groom...

i don't know who is the rudest, the oblivious beach goers or the guy who want to have the beach to himself to make a buck or two...You want privacy? Cough up enough $ to make it happen, until then be glad PS exists!

K2K
 
Unfortunately I think he confused the wedding portraits with commercial photography, and applied for a commercial license even though his customers were private individuals. It would indeed be something seriously wrong if any authority assumed it could control speech on public property.
natureman said:
What amazes me is that you would pay, to take pictures on public
land. If that's a requirement of the law there, I'd suggest doing the
photos somewhere else or lobbying to get the law repealed.
Click to expand...
 
Just the kind of moronic selfishness that has been demonstrated by these members of the public.
Kel Toookay said:
Funny thing, the world doesn't revolve around photographers taking
pictures in public. If you decide to conduct your business in public
you gotta take the good with the bad. I;ll bet if you asked those
evil inconsiderate people who were trying to ruin your pix by getting
the back ground didn;t even notice you where there and would have
moved if you had asked. And if they did notice you they probably
thought they were out of the way because they were behind the bride
and groom...

i don't know who is the rudest, the oblivious beach goers or the guy
who want to have the beach to himself to make a buck or two...You
want privacy? Cough up enough $ to make it happen, until then be glad
PS exists!

K2K
Click to expand...
 
Martin Caie said:
natureman said:
What amazes me is that you would pay, to take pictures on public
land. If that's a requirement of the law there, I'd suggest doing the
photos somewhere else or lobbying to get the law repealed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If you want to take pictures for your personal use thats fine. If you want to run your bizness on public property (customers = business) expect to pay to play. Wedding pics as free speech? That's a new one!
 
People don't think about your needs or your schedules. They only think about their needs. Did you have an assistant or someone with the party manage traffic?

I had a commercial shoot on Newbury Street in Boston on a Saturday afternoon. Quite a busy time. The shoot required a few external shots of the Brownstone of the gallery I was shooting for.

After setting up the shot, and about 30 seconds of repeated passers-by getting in my shot, I politely asked that they hold up for a minute. Those that wouldn't wait walked around, and those that were curious held up and watched. All were more than accommodating and patient. More often than not, all you have to do is ask.

Aaron
 
The law protects the people who paid for that facility.

It keeps it from being stolen by commercial vendors so that nobody else can use it.
The fees are small and help maintain the park.
natureman said:
What amazes me is that you would pay, to take pictures on public
land. If that's a requirement of the law there, I'd suggest doing the
photos somewhere else or lobbying to get the law repealed.
Click to expand...
....................................................
illegitimati non carborundum est
....................................................
 
The facts are an 8000 pound gorilla.
You cant ignore them even when you dont like them.

You thought that Tiger Woods was intefering with a photographer doing his job when in actuality the photographer interfered with Tiger.

Shows that you have everything backwards.
Just like this guy thinking he owned the beach.
Your priorities if not ethics are in question.

I would love to see Tiger come to your shoots and start whacking golf balls at you. Let you see what it is like from the other side.

....................................................
illegitimati non carborundum est
....................................................
 
Kel Toookay said:
If you want to take pictures for your personal use thats fine. If you
want to run your bizness on public property (customers = business)
expect to pay to play. Wedding pics as free speech? That's a new one!
Click to expand...
No, it's an old one. And well protected in most countries.

This is not "running your business" - that's what offices are for. The wedding photographer, the landscape photographer, the newspaper photographer, the blog photographer, the I-don't-have-an-outlet photographer and the painter and sketch artist are all entitled to make and take images of and from public places.
 
Martin Caie said:
No, it's an old one. And well protected in most countries.
Click to expand...
Thats what you think.
LiveM said:
This is not "running your business" - that's what offices are for.
The wedding photographer, the landscape photographer, the newspaper
photographer, the blog photographer, the I-don't-have-an-outlet
photographer and the painter and sketch artist are all entitled to
make and take images of and from public places.
Click to expand...
Should I want to book a local park where I live for wedding portraits or family portraits, I need a permit from the local council and rates range from $50 per hour to $440 per hour. Some even have a minimum booking.

They also require you to provide proof of liability insurance, for the odd chance someone may trip over your bag or tripod and sue the council. Its a new world, get with the times.

--

http://notsharing.anymore.tired.of.the.abuse.com
 
5D Monster said:
Should I want to book a local park where I live for wedding portraits
or family portraits, I need a permit from the local council and rates
range from $50 per hour to $440 per hour. Some even have a minimum
booking.
Click to expand...
A local park is not a beach. It is an enclosed area with limited access.
5D Monster said:
They also require you to provide proof of liability insurance, for
the odd chance someone may trip over your bag or tripod and sue the
council. Its a new world, get with the times.
Click to expand...
They can only sue the council because the council controls the park and issued the permit. It's a non-issue on the beach. Further, that is your country and your state. In NZ we don't have your pitfalls of "liability" as it is recognised that with living comes risk and ascribing fault to a pure accident is pointless. Moreover, you will find that British Commonwealth common law stipulates that when one knows of the presence of a risk, such as parking one's car near the side of a play area where people are kicking a ball about, then if the ball should accidentally damage your car then it is your problem.
 
Martin Caie said:
5D Monster said:
Should I want to book a local park where I live for wedding portraits
or family portraits, I need a permit from the local council and rates
range from $50 per hour to $440 per hour. Some even have a minimum
booking.
Click to expand...
A local park is not a beach. It is an enclosed area with limited access.
Click to expand...
Tell that to australian local councils, and they will argue that a beach is no different to a local park.
LiveM said:
LiveM said:
They also require you to provide proof of liability insurance, for
the odd chance someone may trip over your bag or tripod and sue the

council. Its a new world, get with the times. NZ laws may be different from the rest of the developed world, and thus thats why they are still just a spot on the map that most people dont even care about...
Click to expand...
They can only sue the council because the council controls the park
and issued the permit. It's a non-issue on the beach. Further, that
is your country and your state. In NZ we don't have your pitfalls of
"liability" as it is recognised that with living comes risk and
ascribing fault to a pure accident is pointless. Moreover, you will
find that British Commonwealth common law stipulates that when one
knows of the presence of a risk, such as parking one's car near the
side of a play area where people are kicking a ball about, then if
the ball should accidentally damage your car then it is your problem.
Click to expand...
I guess NZ is still in the dark ages still then...

As for british common law, it doesnt mean squatt, even in australia which is still part of the commonwealth (big scam by the queen mind you)... if you trip over on the sidewalk because its wet, you sue the council becasuse they didnt put anti slip sealing over the path... if you dive in a beach drunk and break you neck, became a quadraplegic, you sue the council for not putting up a sign for telling you not to swim while drunk... if you walk into a shop fixture and cut your leg, yuo sue to shop for impropper care of duty by putting a shop fixture in your way... if a cricket ball or gold ball breaks your window, yuo beat the living cr@p out of the person who did it and then give them the repair bill...

Enough said!!!

--

http://notsharing.anymore.tired.of.the.abuse.com
 
Martin Caie said:
Kel Toookay said:
If you want to take pictures for your personal use thats fine. If you
want to run your bizness on public property (customers = business)
expect to pay to play. Wedding pics as free speech? That's a new one!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
LiveM said:
This is not "running your business" - that's what offices are for.
Click to expand...
I don't have a studio. I shoot on location. That is where I do business.
LiveM said:
The wedding photographer, the landscape photographer, the newspaper
photographer, the blog photographer, the I-don't-have-an-outlet
photographer and the painter and sketch artist are all entitled to
make and take images of and from public places.
Click to expand...
The wedding photographer is collecting money for performing a service, I am not sure why you don't think wedding photography is a business...

The newspaper photographer is obviously protected by the first amendment (in the US)

The rest of those you list sound like people taking photos, which is waaay different than formal wedding pix at the beach.

K2K
 
Kel Toookay said:
Martin Caie said:
Kel Toookay said:
If you want to take pictures for your personal use thats fine. If you
want to run your bizness on public property (customers = business)
expect to pay to play. Wedding pics as free speech? That's a new one!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Kel Toookay said:
This is not "running your business" - that's what offices are for.
Click to expand...
I don't have a studio. I shoot on location. That is where I do business.
Click to expand...
weddings are often shot on location, I only used the stusio during major storms, or portraits after the wedding day if the B&G wanted a formal studio portrait, otherwise out in the parks, city and beachs all the way...
Kel Toookay said:
The newspaper photographer is obviously protected by the first
amendment (in the US)
The rest of those you list sound like people taking photos, which is
waaay different than formal wedding pix at the beach.
Click to expand...
Newspapers arent restricted in public places due to freedom of press laws, but commercial enterprise such as commercial, wedding and portrait photographers are not as they are using public land for commercial gain. Which means they need a permit to work on such sites. Same applies to movie sets.
--

http://notsharing.anymore.tired.of.the.abuse.com
 
I had two assistants POLITELY ask the beachgoers to go around the photographer. But no, these people wanted to walk in the water. There was at least ten feet of space behind me where they could have walked around and NOT mess up the image.

When I see a photographer (it doesn't matter if they are professional or a tourist), I respect their desire to shoot images and NEVER get in their way.

Yes, the majority of people out there are very inconsiderate. All one has to do is look into public restrooms and see how these people do not even care about the next user. So long as their needs are met, who cares about the next person?
 
joe and jane average will not even notice that there is a camera in front of the couple!

I am always amazed at how little respect there is for the photographer's art/passion... even with tripod, good-size dSLR (5D + 70-200) and an OBVIOUS subject... the passerbys still walk into the frame either behind or in front of the subject... at random!

on a busy beach, I would expect NO sympathy from the crowd, none at all...

in fact, I would be on the lookout for 'spoilers' - 'hi mom!' etc...

In your shoes, I would look for a less popular beach - there are always some, often within minutes drive of the busy ones! and do the shoot there - the B&G may have suggested the popular one, but it is up to you to come up with the solution that works for the whole party... with particular attention to the B&G's wishes..

S.
--
My XT IS Full Frame -- APS-C/FF of course!
So is my 5D -- 35mm/FF
 
5D Monster said:
Tell that to australian local councils, and they will argue that a
beach is no different to a local park.
Click to expand...
No, they won't. Try it for once in your life.
5D Monster said:
As for british common law, it doesnt mean squatt, even in australia
which is still part of the commonwealth
Click to expand...
Oh, yes it does.
5D Monster said:
if you trip over on the sidewalk because its wet, you sue the
council becasuse they didnt put anti slip sealing over the path... if
you dive in a beach drunk and break you neck, became a quadraplegic,
you sue the council for not putting up a sign for telling you not to
swim while drunk... if you walk into a shop fixture and cut your leg,
yuo sue to shop for impropper care of duty by putting a shop fixture
in your way... if a cricket ball or gold ball breaks your window, yuo
beat the living cr@p out of the person who did it and then give them
the repair bill...
Click to expand...
I don't dispute the stupidity of Australians but you are confusing negligence with coincidence. You need to re-read my post, word for word.
 
Kel Toookay said:
I don't have a studio. I shoot on location. That is where I do business.
Click to expand...
Unless you work exclusively in-studio, where you perform your duties and whence you run your business are two entirely different things.
Kel Toookay said:
The wedding photographer is collecting money for performing a
service, I am not sure why you don't think wedding photography is a
business...
Click to expand...
So is the photojournalist. It is neither here nor there whether a business is involved.
Kel Toookay said:
The newspaper photographer is obviously protected by the first
amendment (in the US)
Click to expand...
So you think a celebrity wedding has First Ammendment protection but not others? There is least as much merit in the capture of a traditional or religious event as deserving protection under free speech as anything else that happens in public.
Kel Toookay said:
The rest of those you list sound like people taking photos, which is
waaay different than formal wedding pix at the beach.
Click to expand...
I'm going to assume you now realise how ridiculous your statement is and have come around. Otherwise I look forward to more entertaining reading shortly...
 
Martin Caie said:
5D Monster said:
Tell that to australian local councils, and they will argue that a
beach is no different to a local park.
Click to expand...
No, they won't. Try it for once in your life.
Click to expand...
I have, and copped a nasty fine for operating a commercial enterprise without proper permits.
LiveM said:
LiveM said:
As for british common law, it doesnt mean squatt, even in australia
which is still part of the commonwealth
Click to expand...
Oh, yes it does.
Click to expand...
he who comes from NZ... go find some sheep
LiveM said:
LiveM said:
if you trip over on the sidewalk because its wet, you sue the
council becasuse they didnt put anti slip sealing over the path... if
you dive in a beach drunk and break you neck, became a quadraplegic,
you sue the council for not putting up a sign for telling you not to
swim while drunk... if you walk into a shop fixture and cut your leg,
yuo sue to shop for impropper care of duty by putting a shop fixture
in your way... if a cricket ball or gold ball breaks your window, yuo
beat the living cr@p out of the person who did it and then give them
the repair bill...
Click to expand...
I don't dispute the stupidity of Australians but you are confusing
negligence with coincidence. You need to re-read my post, word for
word.
Click to expand...
no I dont and this same thing happens all around the world, not just Australia the lucky country... lucky becasue we dont have stupid idiots like you here...
--

http://notsharing.anymore.tired.of.the.abuse.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top