How do they define "pros"?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by richardsfault, Sep 29, 2005.

  1. There seem to be many public (not necessarily publically-owned) venues
    that prohibit or require permits for "pro" photographers, but not for
    others.

    The US National Park system is a good example, as are some cities like
    San Antonio, Los Angeles, and New York. A famous example is Chicago's
    "bean" sculpture.

    To the authoriities, "pro" can mean anything from using a tripod to
    nothing short of a full lighting crew. Definititions are vauge, and
    often law enforcement is clueless.

    Is anyone other than me concerned that such policies are yet another
    threat to our rights as photographers?
     
    richardsfault, Sep 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements


  2. Main Entry: 1professional
    Pronunciation: pr&-'fesh-n&l, -'fe-sh&-n&l
    Function: adjective
    1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b : engaged in
    one of the learned professions c (1) : characterized by or conforming to
    the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2) : exhibiting a
    courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the
    workplace
    2 a : participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of
    endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b : having
    a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c
    : engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional
    football>
    3 : following a line of conduct as though it were a profession <a
    professional patriot>
    - professionally adverb



    It is a ownership issue. See "The Lone Cyprus".

    *
    Photographs by Christian Bonanno
    http://christianbonanno.com/
     
    Christian Bonanno, Sep 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. richardsfault

    DBLEXPOSURE Guest

    Most National parks are open to the public. I don't understand the
    statement. I have been all over the Badlands National park. Not prohibited
    from going anywhere, however, there are places where it is a bad idea to
    wonder of the trail.

    Sure, I would love a front row seat at the next shuttle launch, or perhaps
    be on the front lines shooting combat, or on the sidelines at the super
    bowl, but there has to be a filter. I am sure there are times and places
    where this just make sense. I didn't know it was a huge problem.

    Tell us your story.
     
    DBLEXPOSURE, Sep 29, 2005
    #3
  4. richardsfault

    Cheryl Harms Guest

    I agree; please tell story. Sounds very interesting. Just curious about
    something, Richard...were you anywhere near the Cornhuskers when they told
    you that a permit was needed? ;))
     
    Cheryl Harms, Sep 29, 2005
    #4
  5. richardsfault

    Chris Down Guest


    Being in the UK I have no idea what laws and rules apply in the USA. But I
    would think that "pro" doesn't so much describe the person as the activity
    they are involved in at the time. That is to say that a person
    normally employed as and earning his living as a photographer would not need
    a permit if he were there on vacation snapping pictures for the family
    album. On the other hand anyone looking to take photographs and then publish
    them would need a permit.

    The issue is one of copyright and commercial exploitation rights. What
    owners of land and objects are concerned about is commercial exploitation of
    their property. You will probably find that the terms of the "permits"
    cover anyone taking a photograph, but they put up notices for "pros" to draw
    their attention to the need for the permit. The reasoning being that the
    family with their point and shoot cameras are unlikely to be looking to
    publish so don't need to see the document that details what they can and
    cannot photograph for publication.

    Prohibition other than for reasons of security probably means they have a
    deal with a pro for all the photos they need.

    I was questioned for taking photos in the street in the UK. Here we have
    CCTV watching most of the major streets in major towns. My "crime" was to
    be seen walking in the street in the middle of the day with an SLR camera
    photographing people and buildings. I politely pointed out that I was
    taking pictures for my own interest and was allowed to continue.
    I refrained from pointing out the irony of the situation wherby I was
    questioned for a few stills of people who happened to be in the street while
    they were following me and recording me on video!.

    As for threatening the rights of photoprahers. Well my view is that
    anyone has the right to take photopraphs, so long as these don't impinge on
    the freedoms and security of others. If you mean threatening your rights
    to publish the photographs you take for financial or other gain, then that
    is just business.
     
    Chris Down, Sep 29, 2005
    #5
  6. richardsfault

    Stan de SD Guest

    In this context, it means somebody who is going to use photos taken at a
    specific location for commercial work...
     
    Stan de SD, Sep 29, 2005
    #6
  7. My question was largely prompted by the experiences of others, along
    with a certain amount of my own.

    I have never been associated with a Cornhuskers (Nebraska?) event.
     
    richardsfault, Sep 30, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.