One of the greatest parts about living in Los Angeles is the sheer amount of creativity and inspiration that can be found if a person looks hard enough. To circle the city is 342 miles, encompassing a wealth of knowledge, cultures, landscapes, and countless other areas of interests that spark young individuals in their pursuit to find themselves and their careers. Thousands of youth and other transplants find themselves here every year searching for something that only this city can give them. And, for the most part, the city does embrace new ideas made with passion and skill. However, in recent years, this once earnest endeavor from the city's higher ups has stagnated and is slowly causing a crisis to new creatives like myself and my peers.

It is not often, I get political on this blog, and even when it does I try to remain focused on how it relates to the field of Photography (well, except for the one 'Chuck' post anyway). This is no exception! There are a few issues, however, that I feel inevitably get discussed my anyone interested in seriously pursuing this field. The use of digital manipulation is one example; when a photographer should stay disinterested or step forward in photojournalism is another. This post is about the topic of the rights of a photographer in public areas, which I believe is one of the biggest issues of all.

I, like most beginning photographers, have been involved in discussions and debates on rights and actions as a camera-bearing soul. It's one of those topics that simply come up. The debate focuses on when a photographer should be allowed to take photos in public spaces and often leads directly into the First Amendment with "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" generally being cited. there are many circumstances of photographers being bullied by law enforcement or other individuals when no cause was given. Another debate is in regards to when permits are needed, what is commercial, and what freedoms you should be given on an average day in a public space. Like many individuals, I often talked about these subjects but did not have any experiences of my own to really draw on to make these discussions and ideas hit home.

That changed recently with a photo shoot in Griffith Park. Specifically, in the Old LA Zoo picnic area. I have shot there multiple times on various subjects ranging from taking photos of the landscape to headshots for my friends. It is a great location and fun to explore on a beautiful day. So, after a long bout of creative block and simply wanting to take pictures of something, I got in contact with a friend of mine who agreed to model for me. We set a date, met in the park, and went out to enjoy the day.

This was not an intensive shoot, which is the first thing I feel needs to be clarified. This was simply me, my hotshoe flash, mt friend, and our backpacks of clothes or extra accessories. I did not even have so much as a tripod, which tends to be the litmus test in most park areas. The shoot went well, and was nothing more than a way to catch up with a good friend of mine and try something different as far as clothes and fashion go. She had enough of a portfolio already, and vice versa. There was no intention to sell the photos, nor did either of us ask for payment from the other. I generally have my models sign a license, but seeing as this was a close personal friend, have not even had her do that yet.

Now, obviously, there would not be a story here if everything went well. Well, after about two hours of shooting and getting about 300 photos, along came an LA Parks and Rec vehicle stopping near us. We knew something was about to happen, and in all honesty, we thought it would be regarding her outfits, which were alternative to say the least. However, out stepped a man who identified himself as Albert Khod of LA Parks and Rec Services. He had papers explaining that we needed a permit to shoot in the park and that if we continued, LAPD would be called, and we would be fined. At first I refused, stating that we were doing a noncommercial shoot without stands, and was well within my rights to shoot on public space.

Albert continued to argue with us, stating he had been informed to restrict anyone from taking photos that were not "families" and that he had "evicted" hundreds of people, "even students," over his years of working in the park. This was what truly began to worry me the most. After much bickering back and forth, my friend and I realized this man had no idea what he was talking about, especially after I asked him to clarify why, exactly, I was being asked for a permit for a simple, non-professional shoot and he could not answer. Relenting, we packed our things and left to get lunch instead.

Now, after getting back to my apartment, I began doing some research regarding what I could do regarding the situation. After digging around, here is what the Los Angeles Administrative Code states regarding filming permits:

---------------------------------------------

[Los Angeles Administrative Code]
[Division 22, Departments, Bureaus and Agencies Under the Control of the Mayor and Council]
[Chapter 13, Department of Public Works]
[Article 8, Motion Picture Coordination]
(Title Amended by: Ord. No. 148,883, Eff. 11-13-76.)

LAAC 22.350 Sec. 22.350. Permit Required to Use City Property for Commercial Filming Purposes.
No person, as defined in Section 11.01 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code,
shall use any property belonging to or under the control of the City of Los
Angeles for the purpose of making any commercial motion picture, or still
photograph, of, or including such property, without first having obtained a
use permit to do so from the City Council, or whomever the Council by
order, resolution or ordinance may delegate such authority.  No such use
permit shall be issued until the permit applicant has paid the application
fee and the use and service charge required in connection therewith, and
until the permit applicant has furnished proof of insurance with coverage
as required by the Director of the Office of Administrative and Research
Services in a form approved by the City Attorney.

Added by Ord. No. 144,744, Eff. 7-8-73.
Amended by: In Entirety, Ord.  No. 170,515, Eff. 6-18-95; Ord.  No.
173,363, Eff. 7-29-00, Oper. 7-1-00.

[Los Angeles Municipal Code]
[Chapter VI, Public Works And Property]
[Article 3, Public Parks, Playgrounds, Beaches And Other Property]

LAMC 63.44 Sec. 63.44. Regulations Affecting Park And Recreation Areas.
(Added by Ord. No. 153,027, Eff. 11/16/79.)

B. Within the limits of any park in the City of Los Angeles:

3. [Suspended until further action by Ord.  No. 176,929, Eff.
10/1/05.] No person shall rent or offer for rent, or sell or offer for
sale any commercial merchandise, or any article or thing of any kind or
nature whatsoever; or practice, carry on, conduct or solicit any trade,
occupation, business, or profession, except by contract with the Board,
Department, Commission or their authorized representatives.  Nothing in
this subdivision, however, shall prohibit the sale or offering for sale of
newspapers, periodicals, books, pamphlets and other forms of communication
except that said sale of offering for sale is prohibited in museums, in
those portions of a park to which access is restricted by the payment of an
admission fee or in those facilities which are operated under contract with
the Board, Department or Commission.
(Amended by Ord. No. 159,064, Eff. 7/16/84.)

-------------------------------------------------

As stated, the permits required do encompass still photographs. However, the situation becomes fuzzy when regarding what defines the term "commercial." After deliberation, my friend and I decided that since Mr. Albert Khod had seen someone with a nice looking camera and someone obviously in costume, he decided that it must have been a commercial shoot and decided to act without any knowledge of the situation. Despite that neither of us had any sort of lighting or stands with us, were shooting handheld, and her costumes was made mostly from a year-round Halloween store, we were deprived of what was an otherwise fun shoot.

The most troubling aspect of this is that he stated, repeatedly, that he had "evicted" so many others, even students. However, he on the very website for the LA Park Film Office, it states this at the very bottom:

--------------------------

The location fee may be waived for students, press (with valid I.D.),
non-profit organizations with proper documentation, government entities,
and those  producing programming for broadcast over public access
channels in the City of  Los Angeles; provided they do not require the  
area to be expressly reserved for their use and are willing to work
around all other park activities.

---------------------------

This to me is the worst part of all, which is a blatant lack of knowledge about the very rules he was being asked to enforce.  While one could argue that said students or press still need to go through the LA Park Film Office, I find it highly suspect that these "hundreds" of students all had lack of proper permits or even need for one.

Upon looking farther and talking with others, I find that one of the biggest culprits in all this is the Los Angeles City Council who would pass a measure that would put at risk the very creatives that it hopes will one day hold up the city's reputation. As written, the law is extremely vague and puts at risk practically anyone who has a DSLR camera out on city streets. While I could expect some sort of crackdown at something along the lines of the Occupy Protests or our annual Laker game riots, this situation was entirely unwarranted and unnecessary.

I cannot understand the need for a city such as LA to require permits to any photographer who may remotely have a decent camera or commercial success. The permit fees, according to the LA Film Office, for a still photo shoot are $75 per day, even if the photographer is by himself. This means that someone who is potentially by himself taking landscape photos of the mountains is technically required to pay a $75 permit, in addition to other fees, if he may eventually put that photo on his website (something some courts have ruled as being commercial use).

Such a mindset, in addition to incentives from other cities, is why California has seen a dip in local production over the past few years with the only resurgence coming back slowly over the past few months. If even local students are being told not to take photos in one of the country's largest parks, how can the city expect large studios to want to stay in the area? And why stifle the youth base that eventually turns around to carry the very production industry the city is based around? It is ludicrous, short-sighted, and reeks of bad decisions from our city council and Mayor Villaraigosa. Speaking of, the funniest part of all this is that I was spotted with my camera at ArborFest in the very same park a few years ago with the very same camera and was asked by some of the sponsors/officials to actually send them the photos afterwards since they liked what I was taking! No surprise these photos also included several shots of Antonio Villaraigosa himself meeting with people.

To clarify, I do not dislike the idea of permits in general. For commercial shoots of a larger scale, permits are a great revenue to an area. It also limits the amount of production moving into an area and holds them accountable for any damage that may occur to the surrounding environment. This is one of the biggest reasons for many parks across the country using "stands" or tripods as a litmus test for what should require a permit, as larger equipment and stands will eventually cause more damage to the surrounding areas. My complaints rest solely on restricting the small, personal, nondescript shoots that are able to work around the general public, remain mostly hand-held, and consist of smaller teams. There is no need to harm the people who are generally trying to get their foot in the industry or even losing money on these shoots.

I now have an experience that really hit home in regards to those earlier debates with fellow photographers regarding our rights. I feel this entirely situation was a violation of my rights as a photographer, an abuse of power by Mr. Albert Khod, and representative of why Los Angeles is struggling in meeting the growing needs of newer creatives. If I renew my membership with ASMP in the near future, I will discuss this matter with their union's legal counsel to not only see if anything can be done, but to also educate myself on permits and other matters to help other photographers understand what is needed in such situations. Until then, I urge other LA residents who may be reading this or are otherwise affected to write their city council to demand a more clear, concise wording of the administrative code that does not harm the amateur shooters of the city.

In the meantime, I will be using my home of Burbank for future shoots. I feel they have a wonderful template that not only ensures revenue from the major studios in the city, but also protects the youth culture trying to get their foot in the door. Burbank's codes are clear, concise, and add very simple exceptions that would have prevented this whole situation and others like it. From the Burbank film permit website:

-------------------------------

When is a film permit not needed?
A permit is not required for filming that uses hand-held cameras
(video or digital), wireless microphones, hand-held light diffuser or
other related hand-held equipment and, if your filming does not involve
exclusive use of any sidewalk or other public property. Equipment must
be held in the photographers or filmmaker's hand and carried at all
times with the photographer or filmmaker or subject(s) of the filming
during the course of filming. If a tripod is used as a
camera-stabilizing device, no permit required as long as the tripod is
of such size and weight that it will not interfere with the safe
ingress, egress, or access to any public facility, or that it will not
otherwise negatively impact the public safety during filming. We
recommend that you contact the Burbank Film Permit office to review your
film request at (818)238-3105.