Rules:
These rules apply to every area of ModelMayhem.com (forums, shout box, comments, messages, etc).

[8] You will not discuss, suggest, engage, or encourage any ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. Links provided to locations that deal with any such activity are also expressly forbidden.

BCG woulda gotten banned for this.

This crime is almost as bad as the other I've witnessed you commit.  You know, the one where you picked up a brochure.  It said 'Take One'.  You took TWO!

Where's the cops when we need 'em?

Digital Soup wrote:
I ran a stop sign!

You're in California.
It's only news when a Californian actually STOPS at a stop sign.

rp_photo wrote:
There are two extreme types of photographers:

Butt-lickers: Obey all rules, check in advance if permits are required, pay for them with a smile if they are. Berate others who question the rules or stand up for photographers' rights.

Butt-kickers: Do what it takes to get the shot, rules, fences, and private property be darned. Cheer on those that question authority.

Check out the following (excerpts from Glamourmodels.com forums)

L.A. Times wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-shutterbug21jul21,1,32387.story

Perfect Spot for a Photo -- and a Fine
O.C.'s Little Corona beach draws lots of pros shooting clients. So many that Newport Beach is now enforcing an ordinance requiring permits.
By Mike Anton, Times Staff Writer
July 21, 2006


As Joel Olivares trained his video camera on the lovebirds perched on a rock along Little Corona beach, the couple kissed and waves crashed behind them — the perfect backdrop for a film the couple plan to show at their wedding next month.

"Stay a bit longer with the kiss," Olivares instructed the 24-year-olds, Elizabeth Delgado and Daniel Navarro of Los Angeles.

Take two was a lovely shot. And both were illegal.

For years, photographers have used the inspirational bluffs, rocky coastline and picturesque arch of the pocket beach to frame life's treasured moments: wedding shots, anniversary poses, multigenerational family photos.

But now officials are cracking down, handing out citations to professional photographers like Olivares who fail to buy a city permit. The move comes amid increasing complaints from beachgoers and residents in the ultra-tony Corona del Mar neighborhood who say a growing number of photo shoots are infringing on the tiny beach's calm and are damaging sensitive tide pools.

"At times you can find 10 to 15 photographers down there … sometimes more. We've had verbal exchanges when one photographer is staking out their plot and they feel other photographers are infringing," said Glen Everroad, Newport Beach revenue manager. "We felt we needed to get a better handle on this."

Some blame digital technology, which can make one with a point-and-shoot look like a pro. Greg Figge, whose family has run a commercial photography business in Newport Beach for 34 years, says the surge in popularity of Little Corona as a backdrop in recent years has forced him to take clients elsewhere.

"It's kind of a circus down there," said Figge, who recently witnessed two photographers getting into a shoving match while jockeying for position in Little Corona's tide pools.

While the ordinance requiring a city permit is similar to those in other beach towns and has been on the books since 1968, it has rarely been enforced, Everroad said. Shooters with a Newport Beach business license pay $149, out-of-towners without a local business license $408.

In recent days, 10 professionals pointing a camera without a permit have been handed $100 citations and many others have been given warnings, he said. A second offense costs $200, while a three-striker is out $500. Eventually, the city plans on moving to an online reservation permit system to control the number of photo shoots at Little Corona.

"The fees they want to charge are substantial," Figge said. "It's about half of what we charge just to go there. To double our fees, people will probably balk at it."

The big trouble in Little Corona is most prevalent around sunset, when the warm, soft light sparkles off the beach's azure waters and puts the rocky coast in sharp relief.

Todd Teach, who frequents the beach and has seen plenty of soon-to-be newlyweds tramp through the sand, is more amused by the scene than bothered.

"It's kind of fun to watch and poke fun of some of the stupid poses people make," said Teach, who was catching rays Thursday. "One guy was doing push-ups in the sand to get himself all pumped up before he got into the water with his girlfriend for a photo. It was bad form."

His fiancee-to-be, Elizabeth Todd, said she knew where she wanted her wedding photos taken: anywhere but Little Corona, which she said had become a local cliché.

"Everybody and his dog gets their picture taken here," she said.

For Olivares, who regularly suggests Little Corona to clients who don't have a special spot of their own, Newport Beach's crackdown will probably force him to find another free public studio.

"Risking a ticket — it's not worth it," he said as his clients embraced on a rock. "I'll have to call some friends and see where else guys are going. Get some suggestions. I heard of a place in San Pedro that's nice."

Good old California logic:

Charge a hefty fee for people to legally do something.
Charge 'em a much smaller fee if people are caught doing something illegally.

Proof that crime DOES pay!


"While the ordinance requiring a city permit is similar to those in other beach towns and has been on the books since 1968, it has rarely been enforced, Everroad said. Shooters with a Newport Beach business license pay $149, out-of-towners without a local business license $408.

In recent days, 10 professionals pointing a camera without a permit have been handed $100 citations and many others have been given warnings, he said. A second offense costs $200, while a three-striker is out $500. Eventually, the city plans on moving to an online reservation permit system to control the number of photo shoots at Little Corona."

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
put on your best blonde model face , apologize profusely.

...or try not to speak english and pretend you're a tourist...

J n X Photography wrote:

...or try not to speak english and pretend you're a tourist...

nope that will probably get you arrested as a terorrist not a tourist

J n X Photography wrote:


Some of the best beaches to shoot are private...

thats hilarious!

DanThePhotoMan wrote:
Am I the only one guilty of ignoring the NO TRESPASSING signs on occasion... *grins*

I did it yesterday for the first time, or was it my first, anyways- the setting was perfect and I didn't get caught-even when myself, my model and her assistant were climbing the fence haha

Fun times!

So you risk the model/assistant being injured without adequate medical coverage or potential legal action to take a photo?

That’s just something I can’t bring myself to do, good luck with that.

Tim Hammond wrote:
Last time this thread came up it was clear I'm in the miniority on this issue.  You can talk all you want about "standing up for photographers' rights."  The fact is, your rights end at my property line.  In the past five years, tresspassers have cost me close to $10,000 because of gates left open, property damage (mostly out of ignorance, but that didn't make it cost any less), and ruined crops.  I also shoot nudes for paying clients on my private property, and once a tresspasser stumbled onto a shoot.  The client cut the session short and asked for a refund.  The cops didn't have time to mess with something as mundane as tresspassing, even though I provided them a very clear photograph of the gulity party.  To top it all off, a kid wrecked his 4 wheeler while tresspassing on my property, and his parents tried to say I should pay his hospital bills!

If it were up to me, it would be legal to execute tresspassers on the spot.  If you think you have a "right" to tresspass to get the shot, you're nothing but an arrogant, immature asshole with no respect for anyone else's rights or property.  Grow up and get used to the fact that you live in a civilized society and your rights end where the next person's begin.

Start a petition, I'll sign it.

It’s all about respect, ignorance or false ignorance does not equal respect.

ADGibson wrote:
If you are one of these "rebel" types then post your address.

I shoot Nikon!

ADGibson wrote:
If you are one of these "rebel" types then post your address.

rp_photo wrote:
I shoot Nikon!

I shoot Remington, Marlin, and Winchester.  You'd better hope I'm only carrying a Canon when you come tresspassing here.

Tim Hammond wrote:
If it were up to me, it would be legal to execute tresspassers on the spot.

That's not a very civilized approach either, although Texas has such laws on the books that go back to cattle rustling and the Old West.

Tim Hammond wrote:

ADGibson wrote:
If you are one of these "rebel" types then post your address.

I shoot Remington, Marlin, and Winchester.  You'd better hope I'm only carrying a Canon when you come tresspassing here.

For this I think I would go Benelli. The choice of ammo is amazing.

rp_photo wrote:
I think we can all agree that photographers don't need to and shouldn't trespass, and that there are plenty of public places to shoot.

Of greater concern is the increasing restrictions on using public places.

True, that is a concern.  Keep in mind, however, that public doesn't mean unowned.  To the contrary, it means owned by the public, which includes you and me.  Upkeep costs money (our money), and we also live in an excessively litigious society, so when one dumb photographer gets injured doing something stupid then sues the city/state/fed govt., our money pays the costs.  Considering that, I appreciate the managers of public property restricting use of it when they know there are safety hazards there. Likewise, when commercial photographers use public property for work that generates income, doesn't the public (us) have a right to expect that usage of the publics property will be compensated fairly?  That's generally the concept behind a permit fee.

I'm not saying it's never excessive, but there are good reasons for many restrictions and permits.  Public property doesn't mean free for any and all uses.  Look up "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garret Hardin if you want to know what that concept of public property leads to.

Vince wrote:
Tell me about it - I was escorted off of some property here in NY where thousands of people shoot every day because I was "commercial" (which wasn't the case).

That's the core problem. People with no knowledge of photography assume that a photographer is commercial on a whim. It makes about as much sense as barring drivers that have hot-looking cars because they might be there to race!

J n X Photography wrote:


Some of the best beaches to shoot are private...

Why the heck is she wearing clothes on US Government property?

A late-night run could lead to a confrontation with police, a case of rotten bananas or a huge score.

Satan Bug wrote:
A photographer has got to do what a photographer's got to do.  More power to you!

The only group that might agree with that sentiment are photojournalists. I was a very proud member of that group for many years.

But in general photographers don't have any more or any less rights than the average citizen. By virtue of having a camera hanging around your neck does not translate in special priviliges.

The "photographers got to do" may work with others who share your views but stand in front of judge and tell him that. After which you can tell your new friend "bubba" how cruel the world is.

Captured Live wrote:
It's only tresspassing if you get caught!

No, its only trespassing if you get caught and cant schmooz your way out of the tkt/fine.

Captured Live wrote:
It's only tresspassing if you get caught!

It’s only stealing if you get caught
It's only speeding if you get caught
It’s only rape if you get caught
It’s only murder if you get caught