On Behalf of All Local Wedding Photographers...

Did you know that if you want to have your wedding pictures taken in front of one of the local monuments that you have to get a PERMIT and pay between $50 and $250 to the National Park Service?

As a photographer myself, this really irks me. I mean, do we really need one more line to separate the have's from the have not's? Do the costs of a wedding not already reach sky high? The intentions behind this rule clearly target commercial photography that requires a big to-do. Sure, you should file for a permit if you need to go about setting up equipment, clearing the space around the monument, etc. But there really is no need for a permit when a person with a camera has to walk up, snap some pictures of 10-12 people in fancy clothing, and walk away. For the love of Pete, Washington, you're taking the free out of freedom. (note: until recently these permits were free, but this has changed on May 15, 2006.)




The fees are as follows:

1-10 people–$50/day
11-30 people–$150/day
Over 30 people–$250/day

If I had more time, I would email the contact (Lee_Dickinson@nps.gov) that this is a grievous wrong against local brides -- a group, I hear, that you really don't want to tick off. Am I right? I wish we could post a bunch of bridezillas on the mall to chase down any park ranger trying to enforce this rule on some poor bridal party. But as my loving fiancé reminds me, this is all done through politics and funding. Since the District of Columbia itself doesn't have the power to change its own socks, we'd have to appeal to a national advocate and I personally don't have any of those in my pockets.



Do other areas protected by the National Park Service require a permit with fees? Yes, some random place called Clinton Castle states on their web site that members of the media must pay $50 for a permit to shoot there. Hovenweep, which is located along the border between southeast Utah and southwest Colorado, just north and west of Cortez, Colorado, also requires a permit for professional filming.


However, it states:

Permits are not generally required for:

• Visitors engaged in filming/photography intended for their personal use and enjoyment

Sounds a lot like wedding photography, doesn't it Mr. Lee Dickinson?

I'm probably putting a bullseye on my forehead, but I plan to have my wedding pictures taken at one of the monuments before the reception. I refuse to file for a permit. (Here's where Gary rolls his eyes.) If I fail to stride through the ballroom doors at 7 p.m. at the Hilton on October 25 when the bridal party is announced, somebody should probably call the park police.



P.S. All these photos were taken by me sans permit.