Charleston’s New Photography Policies Spark Controversy Among Professionals

Professional wedding photographers filled a recent tourism quality of life subcommittee meeting in the City of Charleston, expressing their concerns regarding potential modifications to photography regulations that might necessitate obtaining expensive and time-intensive permits to capture professional images in front of iconic Charleston sites such as Rainbow Row, churches, city parks, alleyways, and cobblestone streets.

New citywide filming and photography guidelines are currently being evaluated. The new guidelines stipulate that “any film and/or photography activities impacting public property or the public right of way” would necessitate a formal permit; this includes requiring photographers to file a permit application at least 15 days prior to a proposed photo shoot and send a notification letter directly to residents and businesses within a two-block radius of the shooting site, as well as informing that district’s council member.

Photographers would furthermore need to demonstrate coverage of no less than $1 million in liability insurance for permit acquisition.

Alexia Sosa, the Film and Photography Manager for the City of Charleston, mentioned the city has received grievances from residents regarding commercial photography occurring near their residences, particularly when it involves transporting a large group of individuals to a location via bus that disrupts traffic.

At present, there are no city specifications regarding the minimum number of individuals being photographed at a single time — such as a sizable wedding party — that would trigger the need for a permit; however, Sosa indicated that based on the width of a specific street, photographing more than eight individuals simultaneously might necessitate a film and photography permit due to the impact on the public right-of-way.

During the meeting, it was noted that currently, the maximum penalty is $500 for failing to secure a permit for photography and film activities that affect a public right-of-way (including the introduction of large buses that disrupt traffic). With additional court costs, this can escalate to over $1,000.

While subcommittee members underscored that a film and photography permit would only be mandated for substantial production endeavors that genuinely obstruct traffic and pedestrian passage — rather than for “one-man band” photographers conducting minor engagement, graduation, or portrait shoots — the language remains vague about which scale of shoots would necessitate a permit, nor does it clearly define what “affecting the right of way” entails, effectively leaving it open to interpretation by complaining residents and tourism enforcement officials.

“What you are stating verbally (today) does not align with the written descriptions (in the guidelines),” remarked Tim Shields, a local wedding photographer. “The way (it’s drafted), anyone can interpret it to apply to any commercial photography. We’re two photographers; we don’t have lighting; we don’t employ catering. If I’m on the sidewalk taking a photo, I’m not instructing anyone to halt their passage.”

Permit fees, along with any supplementary neighborhood fees, for film and photography under these new guidelines, would be determined by the city council.

“Once we conclude this process, the fees will proceed through ways and means and city council for approval,” explained Amy Southerland, Director of Livability and Tourism.

As per Sosa, a photography and film permit would almost certainly be necessary for any shoot that includes stationary props like lighting, a changing tent, and other substantial equipment. A permit would also be needed for shoots on narrow sidewalks, such as Chalmers Street downtown, where pedestrians might need to step onto the street to navigate around a photo shoot taking place on the sidewalk, as well as for shoots featuring vintage cars that obstruct traffic.

“If you’re snapping a couple of pictures and then pausing to review them while allowing traffic to flow naturally, you do not require a permit for that,” stated Sosa, while also acknowledging, “If (photographers) are positioned on the sidewalk, it is deemed as affecting the public right of way.”

Regarding enforcement, Sosa added, “I will be overseeing areas, especially if we receive numerous complaints from property owners.”

Sosa personally examines and approves every new permit application.

“We are maintaining a film and photography calendar (of permits) to ensure that a number of activities do not occur simultaneously to mitigate some of the complaints we’ve received from property owners hoping to enjoy their homes while still allowing individuals the chance to capture photos,” Sosa stated.

Photographers’ feedback against the new regulations highlighted “bad apples” that may not show respect for residents, pedestrians, or rights-of-way.

“As professional photographers, we never obstruct roadways or traffic. We never request anyone to relocate, and we never block sidewalks for tourists or pedestrians,” asserted Robbin Knight, owner of Robbin Knight Photography and former president of the non-profit Carolina Film Alliance that advocates for the film and television sector.

Knight proposed that similar to city tour guides, professional photographers possessing current business licenses could be granted badges to wear on lanyards for identification purposes.

Southerland pointed out that new filming and photography guidelines have been in development since 2017, but the COVID-19 pandemic delayed meaningful discussions.

The subcommittee unanimously voted to postpone a recommendation on new guidelines to the tourism commission so that city staff and legal advisors can present more precise language regarding what “adversely affecting right of way” means, as well as clearer wording on what scale of photo shoot would necessitate a permit and who would be impacted.

At least one subcommittee member, Liz Fort, mentioned there was value in assessing the city’s film and photography guidelines.

“I reside South of Broad and there are many changing tents (on sidewalks),” Fort stated. “I appreciate what we are striving to accomplish and trying to find a suitable path forward.”

The Tourism Commission: Quality of Life Subcommittee will carry on discussions at their January meeting. Following their recommendation, the matter would need to go before the City’s Tourism and Livability Committee and ultimately Charleston City Council for enactment.

i