SCPG Forums

[a.hoglen]

Pretty silly.


http://www.iop.net/FAQs.aspx

I think I might drag all the gear out there and see what happens. I shoudl be good as lng as no $$ is changing hands right?

[Steve]

Beyond silly. Unbelievable. It's a public beach after all... doesn't sound very American does it ?

[kwinkeler]

That's absolutely absurd! So, if I take pictures while I'm at IOP one day, then later sell a print of that photo, is that illegal?

Surely they have better things to do than to hunt down illegal photographers (or at least I hope they would!).

Idiots.

[a.hoglen]

apparently the law is up for review to exclude photogs and other people involved in legitimate services (anything involving wedding type stuff).

I guess the law was originally created to keep people from harassing beachgoers with stuff like chair rentals and tourism flyers.

I'm going to be if you walk down to the beaches @ wild dunes no one would think to question you (Wild Dunes is on IOP right?).

[DiamondDc]

It is a two way street. On the face of it it seems like a REALLY silly thing.

BUT

my favorite spot (not IOP) for beach photography is a favorite spot for a lot of photographers and it can actually get crowded with multiple photo shoots at the same time. The last time I was there, there were three other shoots at ruffly the same time and I just moved to a different location. It is no problem for me, but for locals, non-photogs, it could become irritating quickly. Two of the shoots were smallish family shoots, but one was a large wedding party, they were nice and all but they took up a lot of space, right by the path and people were having to pause and some felt like they needed to walk around the shoot.

The next step for IOP is to require license/Permits for each and every shoot. This provides some control to the residents/Town and funds for administration etc.

Been there done that, more fees are no fun

[Steve]

It's a public beach... and as such, gatherings, congregations inside the norm, like weddings, parties, etc... should be allowed. If needs demand it, there might be provisions for groups in excess of a certain number and there might be guidelines that prevent the blockage of access ways, etc... All of which could be handled by the local police. I understand they do have a beach patrol.

Making commercial photography against the law, doesn't make sense to me. I can't come up with any reasonable rational to fit the scenario.

You don't outlaw wheels if your streets are too full of cars.

The way the FAQ is worded, it is an ordinance that disallows commercial activity in its entirety, and photography is added as a note, to ensure clarity. They would not have mentioned it so, if it had not been an issue for them in the past. Somewhere, someone has run amok of the council in this regard.

This is a case of head-in-butt in my opinion. Photography as a commercial activity can hardly be that terribly disruptive to the residents, who don't have anymore rights to the beach than any other citizen of the entire country.

With possibly the exception of a major production.... I doubt they have a lot of people breaking out sets like David LaChapelle might.

Again, I disagree with the need for the existence of such an ordinance. It's constraining beyond what's reasonable in our supposed free society.

Knowing the general attitude of the council out that way, based on news reports and previous experiences on the island, I'm not surprised however.

[DiamondDc]

I am not saying that i like or agree with the Ban. I am saying that the best way to effect change is to understand the opposing viewpoint.

Public does not mean free from cost, free from restriction, or free from regulation.

Lots of Public beaches have access controls, most exercise this right in the form or permits or fees for commercial activity.

Think of a business license. They want you to conduct your business in a responsible, controllable, taxable way.

Same goes for commercial activities on the beach. Public Parks often have similar restrictions and are NOT "free fire" zones either.

Commercial is different than non-commercial, fact of life.

Banning is NOT the best way to deal with commercial activities, but that is your and my view. The actual residents of that area have a greater say than you or I and they can speak with their votes, their elected representatives theoretically have done this because their constituents want it that way.

It is possible to change the voters’ minds and the representatives minds but it will require us, the commercial users, demonstrating the benefits we would bring to the table. No benefits-->no change.

[a.hoglen]

I don't understand how they can mandate this type of thing here in SC.. Correct me if I am wrong but are not all shorelines in SC public state property?


I know when I was living in CA they could get away with this sort of thing because sections of shoreline were community owned or privately owned.

[Steve]

Well.... In thinking about it... if you weren't conducting a major production, and you had your wits about you, getting away with it, would probably be mostly easy.

Which is what I think will tend to be the norm. I don't see this being very well enforced.

I could be wrong... but it seems like it would be pretty easy to avoid attention. If you were caught in the act, wouldn't the burden of proof be on the municipality to show that the photographer was being paid.

The photographer could deny the exchange of funds, or if in a real bind, just truly forfeit the monies for the shoot.

Diamond... I get your points completely. Still... It feels really wrong.

Seems to me...

They've created an ordinance, to protect people that are enjoying the beach from solicitation... I've seen people walking the beach trying to sell things right out of a duffle bag... and I suppose you could imagine a hot dog cart or drink cart, on the beach, with the purveyor blasting a boom box to get attention.

If this is the case... well, in my mind, that's all well and good. No one wants to be bugged while enjoying family time, usually hard earned, by some random sales guy or whatever... but they've thrown an unreasonable blanket across all commercial activity, and rather than seeing that it's wrong....then being willing to do the work to write out provisions for photographers or other types of business that would not disturb folks, they just stick to their unreasonable guns, so to speak.

Not too cool. IMO.

If an artist sets up a easel and paints a beach scene for which he or she will try to sell at a later date... does this too fall under the ordinance ?

[Monte]

It may well be that someone who had a stick up their butt about a rude person with a camera complained to the right person...sometimes that's all it takes...
As for selling a print later that you shot in the past...that wouldn't constitute a breach, the way it reads, as while you were there shooting the photo, you were not in the midst of a transaction...
Just a couple thoughts...

[Steve]

I like how you put that... very eloquent !

I can visualize two suit types chattin' it up, with one of them standing there with a stick up his butt and the other guy shaking his head in agreement.

Need to make that into a comic sketch.

[Jason]

I think what is fundamentally distasteful about it is the way it is worded...

"Commercial activity, including photograpy, is prohibited on the Isle of Palms beach. Unless a special exemption is granted by City Council, photographers who take portraits or photographs on the Isle of Palms beach as part of a commercial transaction are in violation of City ordinances. Photography that is not part of a commercial transaction is permitted"

The way it's worded suggests that it is not legal to partake in commercial activity, which is of course, the ludicrous part. They would have been better advised to phrase it so that commercial photography requires a permit, not "an exemption from City COuncil".

Now while most people would think it's a toe-may-toe vs toe-mah-toe kind of thing, there is an important distinction here.

Photography, in and of itself cannot be construed as a crime. Can it be regulated and managed? Yes, of course it can, but the verbiage of the law suggests that it is a crime to take photographs. I really am surprised that the ASMP hasn't jumped on this...

IOP better watch out before a rather large national organization comes down on them like a herd of lunatics!