The internet is up in arms about a recent law enacted in Overland Park, KS. Professional photographers are now required to obtain a permit to photograph clients in any of the 83 parks under the jurisdiction of Overland Park Parks and Recreation. For some reason photographers worldwide are upset about this. Given that this author is actually a resident of the area, I'm going to ride the line between news and opinion a bit.
The first piece we need to understand is that technically under city legislation commercial photography or videography is, and has always been banned in this city's parks. In fact, city code (until recently) completely prohibited commercial use of public parks altogether. Since around 2007 there have been 3 parks that city required a permit for use in commercial photography. They are the most popular destinations in the area for sentimental photos, and as such they get a tremendous amount of photo traffic. Each of these three park's fees will remain unchanged with the new law. For each of the other parks the commercial permit fee is $50 for up to 5 days.
Those are the facts, now let's talk about why it's ridiculous to be upset about something like this.
In virtually every city I have ever been to, both in the states and worldwide, there has been a permit requirement for professional photography. Some places do not require a fee be paid, but many do. This is not a unique situation. In fact, I believe that most of the irritation at what this city is doing stems from the ignorance of common laws pertaining to professional photography in public places. Most of these policies are in place simply to mitigate the damage caused by commercial use.
The argument that I keep seeing on the news and hearing from annoyed peers is really what gets me though. the prevailing thought is that since parks are paid for via taxpayer dollars, and are public places...that photographers should be able to use them freely.
No.
First and foremost, the land is not actually public. It is privately owned by the city, and they have sanctioned it for public use. Yes, the parks are funded by tax dollars and as such the general public is allowed to use it free of charge. However, when you bring a business onto the property it can interfere with general public use, and create potential liability issues for the city. Make no mistake, as unobtrusive as you think you are, you are still a business. Moreover, you are a business that is attempting to use a tax-payer funded property for profit while potentially interfering with it's intended use and safety.
Understand that I fully expect to get attacked like crazy from many of our readers, and really that's ok. Just stay with me for a second because there is a more important point to be made.
If you want to use a studio space and you don't have one, you have to rent a location. Right? If you want to shoot in someone's house, you need permission. Don't you?
So, if you already have to make a little more effort to use a location that isn't yours...is it really that big of a deal to do the same for a local park? After all, you are profiting from the existence of the location...Shouldn't you be at least willing to give something back to assist with it's upkeep?
Depends on the park and arrangement. Sometimes a private non-profit sees a public space that has been ignored and make a deal with the city to renovate it.
Your example is legally flawed. The park is public property. What you don't know about the law could fill several books.
Regardless of the park being public property, the city has the legal authority to regulate its use. Even the federal government requires commercial photography permits in some lands run by the National Park Service (owned by the federal government via the Interior Department).
The problem with the Overland Park law has to do with their definition of "commercial photographer" and it's interpretation which is contrary to the definition generally used throughout the nation.
I understand what the city wants to do. If a photographer is taking a photo for commercial purposes, ie. advertising, the city wants to control that when on city owned property. That's up to the City. They have that power. The city also wants to ensure that photographers when doing a shoot don't negatively affect citizen use of the park, by damaging it, or blocking its use for unreasonable periods of time from normal park use. They don't want flowers or trees damaged, or paths and access to the parks blocked. That's perfectly reasonable.
The problem is, the law goes way beyond that and stifles all kinds of legitimate photography which doesn't harm the city or its citizens and visitors, nor doesn't utilize city property for objectionable "commercial" use.
The law states, "Commercial photography is defined as a shoot that is done for a fee, that uses special equipment, that promotes products or that involves models, sets, changes of clothing or props." Had they taken out the "done for a fee" portion out of the definition, it would conform more to what is generally thought to be commercial photography, although it still would be off.
More troublesome is the interpretation of the law by Overland Park. The City's parks manager is quoted as saying, “If they’re going to sell those photos, if they’re going to promote a business, a brand or something with those photos, they do need to get a permit.” That first sentence is the problem. Sale of a photo, and what is intimated, getting paid for taking a photo, doesn't mean "commercial photography" in the normal sense. A press photographer, a photographer making photos to illustrate a book, or a photographer creating art for a gallery showing are editorial photographers, not commercial photographers. For example, this law apparently requires a permit and a fee to make news photos of events in the park. That's absurd and a violation of the First Amendment in my opinion.
Even more troublesome is the ridiculous statement by the manager of the parks, "People taking snapshots while visiting the parks are exempt from the permit requirement, as is most nature photography." Believe it or not, many images are made of nature settings to be used as backgrounds for studio settings for advertisements, and as such are very much commercial photographs, yet are exempted, unlike other kinds of images make in the parks, and therefore the law will be inconsistently enforced, which is a violation of due process. Governments in the US aren't permitted to pick and choose with whom they enforce the law.
This law is poorly thought out, poorly written, and in part, in my opinion, unconstitutional in that it seeks to limit freedom of the press, and has already been interpreted in such a way that due process will be violated. It may not have been written to limit photographer's First Amendment rights, and violate due process, but it does, and it's interpretation by the parks manager makes that abundantly clear.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/17/4759818/overland-park-adopts-new-ru....
The city's parks are for the enjoyment of everybody. If you are there taking some pictures of flowers or your kids, etc. without bothering others, then all is fine. If you actually make your living from photography, stopping or blocking sidewalks or parts of the park, you are using a public space for your own profit and using a disproportionate part of the park so regardless of whether it's a public park or privately owned, it's reasonable to ask you to pay more.
You're not too clever to think you can make money without paying rent for a studio and you haven't outsmarted the system.
What's worse is that many photographers even in a park that doesn't yet require permits abuse their "rights" by destroying the park and keeping others from walking in a particular space!
"First and foremost, the land is not actually public. It is privately owned by the city, and they have sanctioned it for public use." How can the city privately own something when their money and 'ownership' of property comes through taxation?
I assume you can shoot or video if not for commercial use? Like taking your family and photo them? Curious