SmartAz Photography wrote:
I may lose in this matter, but before I do, I am going to make it VERY uncomfortable for someone

(shakes head) hmm ... you're gonna burn your bridges before you get the images; those people, wrong or not, have a way of remembering [such actions] ...

can do w/out all the negative energy,
FML

Stephen Dawson wrote:
I just a thought.

Get to know your local councillor. (Not sure what you call them in your part of the world).

The person you voted for (or against) in your municipal election.

I think that's a smart idea.  I would do that, but these people insulate themselves so much that they are untouchable.

I have a friend who told me that I have a former coworker who works in a key position regarding this.  As of yet, this former acquaintance hasn't returned my calls or e-mail.

Also, I checked the other surrounding cities in the metro area, they said that I could secure a permit within 12 hours or less.

T

SmartAz Photography wrote:
I was given tentative permission to shoot tonight -- and on Sunday.  This morning, however, I received an e-mail which said that they didn't "have a policy on this issue."  So for now, they said, I couldn't shoot.

1.  Email?  What email?  I thought you folks said I could do it.  (Other than maybe getting stopped, what's the penalty for going ahead with the shoot?)

2.  If you do just do it, I'll bet they formulate a policy in very short order.

ArtisticDigitalImages wrote:
If you shoot a building and want to ever use the images commercially you can be shut down without a release from the property owner.

I don't know how this relates to a municipal owner, but I would work with the city.

Do a preliminary or test shoot without the equipment and firm up what you want to spend your time on when you get the approval to set up for a formal shoot.

I think he stated he wanted to use PUBLIC BUILDING

Mike Walker wrote:
It's up to them whether or not to let you shoot and most palce decied to err on the side of caustion unless you are CBS or a big contributor. It is thier rep on the line if you make the palce show in some unflattering light. Not that you would but this is the thinking I have encounterd. And then there is the fee for the off duty cop at double time to control traffic. the fee for the permit, the insurance has to name the city (or whoever is in charge) as the benificery..etc etc aud nausium!
Ben there too back in my fashion days! Now when I was with CBS it was a couple of phone calls and we were set!
Mike

I used to be a photojournalist and worked at a newspaper that is less than a mile from this place.  Like you and your CBS affiliation, I could do whatever I wanted. 

It's funny, freedom isn't really a hallmark of this country anymore.

BTW Mike, every time I see your pictures, I am amazed.

images by elahi wrote:
http://www.commerce.state.az.us/Film/default.asp

did you check the above?

http://www.governor.state.az.us/ftc/meetings.asp

Now, an elected official can be of assistance to you.

aLso, if you guys have anything like a "community board".

I want to thank you for your input.  Because of it I made a phone call and it seems as if I now have someone on my side.  The shoot for today is out of the question (I've already sent the model home), but maybe I am shooting on Sunday (if all goes well).

SmartAz Photography wrote:

I used to be a photojournalist and worked at a newspaper that is less than a mile from this place.  Like you and your CBS affiliation, I could do whatever I wanted. 

It's funny, freedom isn't really a hallmark of this country anymore.

BTW Mike, every time I see your pictures, I am amazed.

man, not only is their the absence of freedom in this regard, elitism...see If I am with a network shouldnt privilege me in any way...however, that's the way it is....I have been on productions and worked with powerful people who and "pulled strings"...It's unfair but that's the way it is..

also, you know what else I have found and still do...how incompetent  a lot of folks are in governmental positions...you ask them questions they should have answers to and they do not have the slightest clue..you wind up telling them their jobs....

anyway, I hope it works out and maybe you can consult them and get paid for drafting the rules, policies, guidelines, procedures, etc for SHOOTING STILL PHOTOGRAPHY IN MESA

CaliModels wrote:
Just because something is public, doesn't mean you can use it for photography. It's true dogs poop on grass, skateboards damage concete, and homeless people live on public land for free. But, that's the way it is and they don't know what you're doing with the photos. There are also building/property releases. This is why I always have some sort of permit for our group shoots.

no, but as it is public and therefore being a taxpayer, you have rights to use it...if any governmental authority tells you you cant, you should fight it......first check your STate Laws to see what they say.....tell me what public spaces you would not be entitled to use if you went through proper procedures....?

SmartAz Photography wrote:
I'm pretty pissed right now.  I was given tentative permission to shoot tonight -- and on Sunday.  This morning, however, I received an e-mail which said that they didn't "have a policy on this issue."  So for now, they said, I couldn't shoot.  They said that in June, I could reapply -- as long as I gave them two-weeks notice. 

Tony

THIS is the reason I use 'private estates, mansions and unincorperated locations' whenever possible (like our April 30th event).  With 14+ years of doing this, you're looking at loads of experience here dealing with government dunderheads.  If you give some braindead city, county or state appointed gestapo moron the opportunity to fuckup your photoshoot... THEY WILL...

Ken Long wrote:
I think the problem is with the fact you want to bring in lights, and make it into a studio. If you used the outdoor area with just an on camera flash, there probably wouldn't have been an issue.  While you may have 2 million in insurance, they may still not wish you to do this in such a "production" manner simply because it will be a distraction to not only those that work there, or are visiting.   How about having visitors walking behind the shots, or getting close to the lights to see what's going on and wanting to catch a glimpse - Gotta luv those rubber neckers!  How many places are willing to close areas down for a photoshoot?  You'd be hurting business for them. 

And yes, I spent 3 1/2 years on Arizona doing shoots in Sierra Vista, Tucson, Phoenix, Mesa, Pomerane, and Yuma.  I do know about the heat issue.

in other cities, you would use some kind of barrier and possibly an officer to "flow the traffick" so as not to obstruct"
In some cities, you wont need their permission if you dont have equipment, for instance, a tourist with a camera and flash and their three family members....

they should accomodate him regardless..

Wayne Bockmon wrote:
Right after 9/11 I almost had my camera confiscated by the police for shooting in downtown Houston. I guess they thought I was scoping out a building to hit. Terrorists probably don't use portable lighting, but they didn't see it that way.

interesting....i guess photogrpahers should starting carrying around whatever the State and City Law Ordinaces allowing photographing public spaces and be prepared to whip it/them out on the gestapo

images by elahi wrote:
in other cities, you would use some kind of barrier and possibly an officer to "flow the traffick" so as not to obstruct"
In some cities, you wont need their permission if you dont have equipment, for instance, a tourist with a camera and flash and their three family members....

they should accomodate him regardless..

Accomodating people starts to cause trouble.  I'm sure they didn't think that photographers would want to do photoshoots there - rather just allowing people to view the areas.  Next thing you know, you have 30 photographers there all bringing lights, MUA's, and the infamous llama herders and other people aren't going to be able to see the exhibits.  Whose going to supply the officer?  Should the city pay for that?  Nope... that should fall to the photographer.  Setting up barricades - how much area should you be allowed?  How much do you take away from others to let this one person shoot an image? 

Maybe if they could sit down, set up an agreement so that either one day a month or something the place could open early, for photographers that sign up in advance and pay a fee could use it.  That way, the general public isn't being put out. 

Just because your a photographer doesn't mean that everyone should bend to your will or way so you can get a photo.

SmartAz Photography wrote:
I'm pretty pissed right now.

I'm wondering if anyone has been in the following situation, and what did you do?

I live in Phoenix, Az -- specifically, I live in Mesa.  The city is a Mormon community and there is a definite "Good ol' Boy" mentality.  Recently, the city (which is in financial straights) decided to use tax dollars to build an arts center.  It's fukkin beautiful.

I want to photograph a model at the arts center -- so I started jumping through hoops to get permission.  You may be asking -- why do I need permission?  Why don't I just go there?  Well, I want to bring my lights.  I want to do this in a highly stylized manner.  I want my pictures to be beautiful.

For a week, the public affairs office of the arts center and the city ignored my phone calls and e-mails -- until yesterday. 

I was given tentative permission to shoot tonight -- and on Sunday.  This morning, however, I received an e-mail which said that they didn't "have a policy on this issue."  So for now, they said, I couldn't shoot.

They said that in June, I could reapply -- as long as I gave them two-weeks notice.  Now I don't know if you've ever been to Phoenix in June, but you can trust me when I say that it is fukkin' HOT.  Nobody wants to go outside, let alone model and get their clothes all sweaty.

The funny thing is:  The City, in order to get a film permit asks for a certificate stating that I have $1M of liability insurance.  I have $2M.

Is it me -- or has anyone else been in this situation?

Tony

As a technical and legal matter, they can't hold you up indefinitely because they don't have a policy.  That's arbitrary and capricious.  Technically, you could file a lawsuit and seek immediate equitable relief, e.g., a temporary restraining order prohibiting the city from continuing to bar you from shooting and/or from failing to provide you with clear guidelines.  Eventually, you'd probably win.  But in the real world, it's probably not worth the time and money.

Ken Long wrote:
I think the problem is with the fact you want to bring in lights, and make it into a studio. If you used the outdoor area with just an on camera flash, there probably wouldn't have been an issue.  While you may have 2 million in insurance, they may still not wish you to do this in such a "production" manner simply because it will be a distraction to not only those that work there, or are visiting.   How about having visitors walking behind the shots, or getting close to the lights to see what's going on and wanting to catch a glimpse - Gotta luv those rubber neckers!  How many places are willing to close areas down for a photoshoot?  You'd be hurting business for them. 

And yes, I spent 3 1/2 years on Arizona doing shoots in Sierra Vista, Tucson, Phoenix, Mesa, Pomerane, and Yuma.  I do know about the heat issue.

Here's the funny thing, Ken:  The City of Mesa says you need a permit to shoot in the public areas.  In order to gain the permit they say you need e-mail your insurance to their office.  They never really tell you how to apply -- or even let you know how to physically obtain the permit.

I do want to turn portions of a public area into a studio.  The City says that I can do that as long as I have a permit.  The trouble is with the arts center who is trying to supercede the city regulation and denying me access because THEY don't have a policy.  The real trouble is:  The City turned me over to the arts center and the arts center is dictating policy for something they have no right to dictate.

For more than 20 years I worked in newspapers.  During that time, I would go on location and light my subjects.  I know about the flow of pedestrian traffic, etc.  But frankly, the permit covers this.

One last tidbit of info for everyone:  I plan to shoot at night -- after people have left.

Ken Long wrote:

Accomodating people starts to cause trouble.  I'm sure they didn't think that photographers would want to do photoshoots there - rather just allowing people to view the areas.  Next thing you know, you have 30 photographers there all bringing lights, MUA's, and the infamous escorts and other people aren't going to be able to see the exhibits.  Whose going to supply the officer?  Should the city pay for that?  Nope... that should fall to the photographer.  Setting up barricades - how much area should you be allowed?  How much do you take away from others to let this one person shoot an image? 

Maybe if they could sit down, set up an agreement so that either one day a month or something the place could open early, for photographers that sign up in advance and pay a fee could use it.  That way, the general public isn't being put out. 

Just because your a photographer doesn't mean that everyone should bend to your will or way so you can get a photo.

okay I am basing my opinions on actual expereince with film and tv production in NYC....not opinions...

there are actual laws, procedures, policies governing stipp photography and motion picture shoots.......so are you basing your opinion on the laws of the land where you are on speculation?

CaliModels wrote:
Theorectically, being a Taxpayer gives you rights to speak and petition. It doesn't grant an individual to change the rules, by themselves. A Taxpayer (citizen) can obtain signatures and petition some council. If they don't want it though, you don't get.

Here's an example. Walmart. The City of Rosemead, despite being outvoted by citizens to build a Walmart, are building it. They even tried a marathon council meeting to outlast citizens. Can you imagine that? Citizens now want a recall of officials. But, officials say they can't do that.

LOL well every city and stae municipality should have codes and ordinances governing public spaces...you know why? because in every city and state municipality you have photographers, tv stations and radio stations.....media....now if a municipality doest have laws on the books, doesnt mean they shouldnt...laws are obsolete and antiquated...and they need to be updated

so, If were living in a city where there werent any laws, I could us either political or legal means to address the issue...

now If i wanted to use a city public space and they said "no...we dont have any laws..." I would see if the State Laws cover such...as a city municipalty is overruled by state..if the state didnt have then I would either politic and talk to my elected officials and tell them all the wonderful reasons why they shold have such laws...now if they didnt make it happen through legislation.....there is always the lawsuit........

SmartAz Photography wrote:
Here's the funny thing, Ken:  The City of Mesa says you need a permit to shoot in the public areas.  In order to gain the permit they say you need e-mail your insurance to their office.  They never really tell you how to apply -- or even let you know how to physically obtain the permit.

I do want to turn portions of a public area into a studio.  The City says that I can do that as long as I have a permit.  The trouble is with the arts center who is trying to supercede the city regulation and denying me access because THEY don't have a policy.  The real trouble is:  The City turned me over to the arts center and the arts center is dictating policy for something they have no right to dictate.

For more than 20 years I worked in newspapers.  During that time, I would go on location and light my subjects.  I know about the flow of pedestrian traffic, etc.  But frankly, the permit covers this.

One last tidbit of info for everyone:  I plan to shoot at night -- after people have left.

okay is the arts centre owned by the city? is it a city facility? or a governmental facility?

WHether they have apolicy or not, if it is a governmental facility, they should accomodate you. Too bad that they done have a policy...seems to me the administrators should have had the vision to know to always have media related policies and procedures for governing an insitution...

however, be nice, you have just opened their eyes to soemthing that had never considered and they will accomodate you...they just need to cover their asses...LOL

SmartAz Photography wrote:
Here's the funny thing, Ken:  The City of Mesa says you need a permit to shoot in the public areas.  In order to gain the permit they say you need e-mail your insurance to their office.  They never really tell you how to apply -- or even let you know how to physically obtain the permit.

I do want to turn portions of a public area into a studio.  The City says that I can do that as long as I have a permit.  The trouble is with the arts center who is trying to supercede the city regulation and denying me access because THEY don't have a policy.  The real trouble is:  The City turned me over to the arts center and the arts center is dictating policy for something they have no right to dictate.

For more than 20 years I worked in newspapers.  During that time, I would go on location and light my subjects.  I know about the flow of pedestrian traffic, etc.  But frankly, the permit covers this.

One last tidbit of info for everyone:  I plan to shoot at night -- after people have left.

Finding out that you want to shoot after hours could lead to some changes.  The only other question for you would be this.  While the Art Center is a public place, is it still "privately" owned?  I knew of some malls over there that were "private" property, and therefore had thier own enforceable rules on certain issues regarding cameras used on the property and such.

Please understand, I hope that you can do the shoot.  I just don't want you to end up in Jail in the process.

Ken Long wrote:

Finding out that you want to shoot after hours could lead to some changes.  The only other question for you would be this.  While the Art Center is a public place, is it still "privately" owned?  I knew of some malls over there that were "private" property, and therefore had thier own enforceable rules on certain issues regarding cameras used on the property and such.

Please understand, I hope that you can do the shoot.  I just don't want you to end up in Jail in the process.

lOL hey im sure he'd go to jail for his craft! LOL