mpix345 wrote in post #17390687
I think you have to draw a line between our use of public property as individuals and commercial use of public property. You simply can't have unmanaged commercial use of public streets or parks or wherever. Maybe a big fee isn't necessary. Maybe just a permit and a relatively small processing fee so it can be managed. It shouldn't just be a money grab . . .
What I find objectionable is imposition of a fee whenever the use is "commercial," defined as "resulting in income." A session involving one photographer and one clothing model or one high-school senior will be classified as commercial because money changes hands, no matter how small the amount is, although the activity doesn't differ physically from Joe Blow posing his family in front of the waterfall. Briefly using a scene on public property as a backdrop doesn't use anything up, materially inconvenience the public, or require work by public employees. If a fee is charged for that, I can't imagine that it is anything but a money grab.
I think the line should be drawn between disruptive and nondisruptive uses. Living where I do, I sometimes see movie companies' personnel and equipment. Shooting a scene on city streets for a feature film means bringing in several very large trucks and blocking off streets for hours or days, often in a business district. So this is a disruptive use; it ought to be paid for. Cities maintain a liaison office to deal with studios. They welcome the film folks because the fee is large. Some of it goes to compensate for the lost parking fees and the extra police activity--putting up barriers, rerouting and directing traffic. The remainder goes into the city treasury. But nothing is done to compensate local people for dealing with the traffic congestion, not finding a parking place, not going where they intended to shop, walking farther to or from a temporary bus stop. (What about the residents of apartments above stores? Can they use the front entrance? Do they have to stay away from their windows? I don't know.) Merchants in the filming area lose business. (Other merchants gain because the Hollywood people use local hotels and restaurants while they're here.) The city gets the money, and individuals get the disruption. It doesn't seem to me that this all works out so well.
snerd wrote in post #17390713
I live near the Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge. . . . Some "professional" gal, dressed in holey jeans and 11 yards of other clothing, was shooting what looked to be a couple, man & woman. But, and this is a big but, she had maybe 3 assistants with her that had brought 2 green chairs and a green couch. Not the trailer house size stuff, full size furniture! Set it all up right in the middle of the hiking trail! Totally oblivious to the natural order of things in this quiet, scenic habitat. Folks were having to detour around the jamup.
This is a great example of disruptive use, but a fee paid to the refuge wouldn't have helped people who came to hike.