Angeles NF “Movie Slope” Business Owner Slaps the Faces of our Founding Fathers
Movie Slope Snack Bar Sign, Mt Baldy, Manker Flats, Angeles National Forest, CaliforniaPhotographers Rights is my least favorite topic to write about but it needs to be done. Today I went up to Manker Flats in the San Gabriel Mountains / Mount Baldy, Angeles National Forest area not too far from the Mt Baldy Ski Lifts in order to go sledding on the snow before it all melts away. As I was walking back to the car, I stopped to shoot a few pictures of the EXTERIOR of the “Movie Slope” Snack Shop from outside in the forest because it looked rather attractive (not necessarily the above photo). Well after two patrons left without buying anything, the man who presumably owns the snack shop comes out with a smug-looking smirk on his face and asks me, "Do you have a filming permit" "No." "If you want to shoot pictures then you need a permit. Jeep filmed a commercial here and they paid a lot of money for a permit." "This isn't commercial photography." "I don't care if it's commercial photography. This is private property and if Jeep paid money to film here then you have to as well otherwise get out of here." "This is National Forest property." (He points to the trees.) "Out there it is, this building is privately owned. If you aren't going to pay money then you can't photograph this place so put that (camera) away!" "Alright man if you say so." "So get out of here then!", then I left.
After three hours of sledding in which I had lost part of fingernail among other things, I didn’t feel like hassling with this clueless guy though I had every right to be there. If it is visible from public land that it is fair game for taking pictures. I have a U.S. National Forest Adventure Pass and since I was behaving in a non-threatening manner just like any other tourist there this morning then he had no right to harass me for taking pictures. If he doesn’t like that then he should pack his bags and set up shop elsewhere. He clearly has no idea about good PR and marketing skills. I get tens of thousands of visitors to my website each month and that kind of free exposure is potentially invaluable to a small business. However he would rather try and extort money from an Average Joe photographer such as myself by citing the TV commercial thus he missed out on potentially good PR not to mention having quite the opposite effect as a result. No one was paying me to be there and nor did I have a cast, crew nor props. There is a major difference between what I was doing and what he was referring to.
The National Parks rules regarding photography states that commercial photography requires permitting through the NPS system. That is understandable because commercial shoots require security and cleanup costs that potentially disrupt the environment. However, editorial / journalism / personal photography is protected by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Now if I was inside of the property he would have a legitimate argument but since I was outside where others were then that is B.S. I was acting in a manner not unlike that of any other tourist.
I emailed Photography Rights Attorney Carolyn Wright, Esq. about this situation (again!) and here is her response about this: “Hi Richard. I understand your frustrations. Think about what happened if you did not have a camera in your hands. Would you have been at risk for being arrested? It doesn't matter if you are trying to shoot or have a camera. Your actions are what's important.”
Photographers must stand united in the fight to preserve our Civil Rights because there are many cases of our liberties being stripped away these days by uninformed citizens such as the owner of the “Movie Slope” Snack Shop. I have a permanent link to this article regarding similar incidents published in Popular Photography magazine on my blog already but here it is again if you haven’t read it. The article is an interesting read.
“The War on Photographers.”
Labels: 1st amendment rights, California, images, Marketing, photos, pictures, travel
Richard Wong Photography: Image Boutique





16 Comments:
Sorry you had to deal with that headache Richard. There is a lot of misinformation out there that impacts both photographers and business owners a like. Keeping a level head is key in these situations. Glad you got a chance to share your experiences and the advice received about the situation. Personally given the ornery nature of the shack owner I'd be less inclined to even blog his image and give his business the publicity. He doesn't deserve it.
Thanks Jim. Good idea and one I had wrestled with, I will remove the first image. No need to give him any benefits.
Richard,
It amazes me the idiocy of people. I agree with Jim that you don't want to give him publicity, but on the other hand it may serve as guidance for other photographers. It's too bad you had to deal with that. I tend to go up to the Forest Sept. to Dec. and haven't had the pleasure of dealing with someone like this and I hope I never have to. If you are ever heading up there to shoot and need a shooting buddy, let me know.
Cheers!
Al
Hey Al. thanks for chiming in. Yeah it would be fun to meet up. Feel free to give me a ring or email. I don't live that far from there. BTW, you weren't the guy I spoke to about tripods at the waterfall this weekend were you?
Wow, that is an unfortunate story Richard. It seems to be happending more and more, it is frustrating!
Ron
Thanks Ron. I remember what you wrote about getting hassled for shooting in Downtown L.A. even w/ a private security guard escort. That is lame too.
Nope, wasn't me with the tripods. I'll definitely keep you in mind. My wife and I are doing a lot of portrait sessions, but I am a nature lover and any chance I can get I am out in the woods at at a park.
Have a great weekend!
Al
I didn't realize that you were into photographers' rights. I'll have to peruse your sites just a little more closely as I am absolutely clueless.
That said, I am sorry that you were harassed. It seems these days anyone with a camera in their hands is the bad guy. Don't get that. Maybe it's a remnant of the papparazi reputation.
Thanks guys.
Gloria: see the tag "1st Amendment Rights" and you will see a few stories. It isn't about paparazzi, it's about greed.
I wouldn't have put my camera away Richard I would have kept shooting, unless he was like a really huge man.
Let me tell you a quick story from the other side of this, you know the power plant right next to Clifty Falls Park, I had hiked out of the park last spring and was walking along the highway with my gear when a security guard from the plant drove up to me.
He asked what I had been shooting so I informed him it was none of his business, needless to say he wasn't happy with that remark. He asked me again and I then informed him that my brother-in-law and a very good friend were both lawyers and unless he wanted to spend some time in court he better take a hike since I was walking along a public highway he had no jurisdiction over me.
He stammered around for awhile then told me I better not be shooting the power plant and he went on.
And what the poor guy didn't know as well was that my father-in-law and brother were also long time employees of the plant. So the next day I called them they informed the plant manger and I quickly received a letter of apology from the guard and the plant.
I was also given the rules on what could be photographed as well(no photography while on the plant grounds) but outside they had no control since it was right next to a state park.
So sometimes we get a little revenge on the gungho wannabes that want to flash a badge.
Thanks for sharing the Clifty Falls story Bernie. Yeah I remember the power plant, you can see it from park hotel grounds. It doesn't make sense why he would harass you given that he didn't even see you shooting photos. Not to mention it would have been perfectly legal to shoot photos from the sidewalk anyway had you done so. I wonder if he harasses everyone that walks by the plant?
The guy in my story was quite big I think but that didn't matter to me. If he had taken a swing at me or touched my gear then I would have no remorse for anything I'd do in defense. I actually did get in a shot while the guy was lecturing me lol. Maybe I should have taken his portrait while I was at it, as it would show his "true character". :-)
If you're in So Cal sometime Bernie, we'll go photograph his shack.
Richard:
To make your point, I personally would have drawn one of those red circles with a line through it with the caption, "Don't patronize..."
I think I would like to have said, "Buddy, I'll give you three options. Go inside and leave me alone, Give me the keys to your business now, or you can give them to me after the lawsuit."
Hi again Richard: I read the article "War on Photographers" and while it doesn't seem fair, it's an interesting scenario that the author decided to write about -- I sort of understand that thinking for that case.
Today, we are security-minded and a person during odd hours with a tripod photographing a major power/fuel facility (whatever it is) can't go unnoticed. It could be a terrorist, or someone 'casing the joint' and we have to be vigilant and watch each others' backs. It's a different day and age whether we want to believe it or not.
Now, harassing a weekend photographer at a National Park snack shop is a different story. I agree with you that in your case it was greed. That's pretty sad and revealing of the man's short-sightedness. Like you said, you could have done his biz some good. Oh well. What are ya gonna do?
Lol Gary, that's a great idea and I might do that when I get a chance. Where were you when I needed you!?! We need to go shooting again.
Hey Gloria, that's good you read the article. I won't get into politics here but the law is the law. Now regarding that guy, I'm just going to make this blog post visible in several places on my website. I rank pretty high on the search engines for a bunch of stuff so the odds are that I could reach a fair amount of people thru this.
Being cautious in this sense is less about the political aspects of the idea and more about self preservation motives and instincts. The airlines, for example, have implemented new security measures and it doesn't matter if you're a Liberal or evangelical Christian, if they are, or who is our sitting President -- you're taking off your shoes just like everyone else.
Yes the law is the law, and I firmly believe in justice and following the law. But laws are changing all the time because of new and very real non-political security concerns. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some laws affecting nature photographers change, if they haven't already, directly because of these concerns.
We just have to try and remember that not all photographers are creative people and some will use their cameras with less-than-honorable intentions. For capturing detail, after all, photography has no rival. We're not the only ones who know that.
I wonder if they would have harassed a painter, set up with easel, paints and all. Hmmmm.
Yeah I wouldn't mind seeing the law change, strengthening our civil liberties rather than erode them.
Post a Comment
<< Home