By Robert Washburn
Northumberland Today photojournalist Pete Fisher is on a crusade to stop all the bylaw violations going on in Victoria Park and Cobourg Beach for the past few years.
To fan the flames of public outrage, he takes pictures of illegal BBQs and overflowing trash cans as evidence of infractions and implied incompetence at town hall.
However, it appears Mr. Fisher may also be potentially breaking bylaws in his role when recording the evidence on his digital camera.
The town’s Parks Bylaw in Section 36 states:
36. Filming and Videotaping
“No person in any park shall take any pictures or produce any film, video tape, commercial, or program for remuneration, except wedding pictures, unless a permit has been issued for the production or filming by the Municipality.”
Does this mean he needs a permit to take these pictures? What about RibFest this weekend? Will local photojournalists need a permit to take photographs to capture this important fundraiser for the Rotary Club?
Photojournalists will tell you as long as they are on public property, they break no laws. But if he was standing on the beach or in the park while clicking his condemning photographs, it may have been a good thing no bylaw enforcement officers were around. Otherwise, he could be facing fines, too.
Like the other wording within the bylaw, it needs interpretation. But, until Municipal Clerk Lorraine Brace makes it clear, it does seem a bit confusing.
As for Fisher, this may be a case of the kettle calling the pot black.
Thanks to local blogger Ben Burd at the BurdReport.ca for pointing out the clause. Too much fun.
BTW on my walk through Vic Park at 1500 hrs I saw two park police – one was kibbitzing at the police trailer and the other said hello as he passed me on the pathway. Both clutching their ticketbooks very close to the vest.
Then I assume has has edited all of NToday’s pics out of new book because he knows the difference between “commercial” journostuf as opposed to his NToday stuff
Sure newspapers are a business, but journalism is a public service, too. When Pete is shooting, he is providing us with a record of events and what goes on. No doubt, there is a commercial aspect to the work, but when a reporter or photojournalist is out there doing their job, it is for the public good. The monetary aspects are the last thing usually on a journalist’s mind.
Besides, you can wish all you want, but I would say there is little for anyone to worry about since the “park police” are as scarce as hen’s teeth.
And while photojournalism is a commercial purpose, most would grant a blanket exemption for that purpose.
So can we assume that permission has been asked and given for NToday to take pictures for a commercial purpose – sell newspapers? If it hasn’t then those photos featured in the MSM are illegal. Can’t wait for the park police to seize his film just like illegal beers in the cooler.
Thanks for the clarification, Dave. Interesting the bylaw is not specific, as is the case with so many faulty pieces of legislation. Under these rules, people taking family photos would need a permit. It is also interesting how the wedding exemption is in place. Great for newlyweds. But what about people getting a family portrait. Is there really that big a difference? Yes and no. Still, as you point out, an argument could be made that photojournalism is a commercial enterprise and not exempt, especially in the case of a freelancer. On the other hand, photojournalists should be allowed to do their good work in the context of public service. And with every bylaw, it is important to give people a break, sometimes.
The Bylaw talks about obtaining a permit, and does so in the context of commercial photography.
As long as no pics are being used for commercial purposes, all should be good. And while photojournalism is a commercial purpose, most would grant a blanket exemption for that purpose.