Thanks for the comment. Very glad you found your way over here.

Y’all come back a’ggin, y’hear. (from Beverly Hillbillies)

Great job with the blog! I’m glad I stumbled across it, it is very well done.

“Just tell them you are not a professional. “But what about this fat Canon/Nikon ? I have a good practice as a civil rights attorney” ”

Tuan, that is hilarious, I will have to remember that one. Great to finally meet you in person recently in Alaska.

I’m glad to see the LA Times write about the issue – it is really out of hand there. I shot for 3 days in LA last winter and was approached at least 7 times by security. I had even hired an off-duty police officer for one day and that didn’t help. It got to the point that I would try to avoid using a tripod whenever possible. If I did need a tripod, I would scout things out first without any gear, and then have my tripod / grads and all ready so that I could shoot really fast. One more thing to love about the Alaska backcountry! I have never been bothered at CDM, Laguna or Huntington Beach.

For my own 1 cent opinion, I use the NPS as my guideline. If I am acting in a manner with no greater impact than your average tourist, then I should be exempt from permitting fees when shooting on any public property. If I am bringing models, props, or extra equipment onto the property, and have a direct line to commercial payment, i.e., I am being paid by a client to be there, shooting for an immediate and specific reason, then a permit is reasonable. Two good examples are weddings or commercial assignments. If my photos are for stock, whether editorial or commercial, without bringing models, props, lights, etc., and where the direct line to fiscal income isn’t there; it’s speculative, then we should be expempted. One photo may sell three years from now. None may ever sell, or I may sell nine pics a week after the shoot for $5,000.00. In that case, I believe I shouldn’t have to pay a permit fee.

And for those cities that do require permits, and if I was a wedding or portrait shooter, I could imagine paying a permit like to the City of Santa Barbara, which (if I remember correctly) charges an annual permit fee of a few hundred dollars, and allows wedding and portrait photographers to do their work in city parks. Charging a $150.00 / day fee for a photographer taking engagement photos really seems to be a money grubbing attempt to fill city coffers and pay for all that extra city bureaucracy which we all know works so very well and efficiently. In fact If I lived in Newport, and Laguna Beach had a decent annual permit fee to use their parks, I’d be happy to pay them, if not also just for the benefit of ’stiffing’ the other guy. Besides, Laguna Beach has this really great coastal park.