U.S. Government Wants to Charge You $1,500

[Brad]

U.S. Government Wants to Charge You $1,500 for Photographing in Wilderness Areas

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/say-w ... ness-areas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a move that is sure to spark outrage amongst nature and wildlife photographers, the U.S. Forest Service wants photographers to pay for a $1,500 permit if they plan to shoot images on Federally-owned wilderness areas. Permits would be required even if you’re shooting images or video with a smartphone.

If you don’t have the permit and are caught taking photos, you could be fined as much as $1,000, according to a report in the Oregonian.

[Coyote]

I saw this last night and had to wonder, how can this be even legal?

[Brad]

I saw this last night and had to wonder, how can this be even legal?

I don't know. It started making the rounds on the photo forums yesterday and then today there were a few more articles.

It seems like there is still not a lot of good information out there. Some people think it applies to all commercial photography, while others think it will just apply to areas not open to the public.

[Brad]

I would also not object to a "Photo Permit" if it was reasonable. Right now I have a "National Parks Permit" which is good for all National Parks, National Forests, etc, etc, etc. If they had a reasonable priced photo permit they could add to that, I would not be opposed if the money went to maintaining the park lands.

However, if its not affordable, that only hurts the little guy. The big guys would pay that all day long and it would just help them eliminate the pool of photographers out there.

[Coyote]

According to the Statesman Journal, the rules are actually an extension of rules that have already been in place. The Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits exploiting wilderness areas for commercial gain and Liz Close, Acting Director of Wilderness for the U.S. Forest Service, says these rules simply spell this out more specifically for those in charge of issuing special media permits.

[Coyote]

From the Federal Government: Proposed Directive for Commercial Filming in Wilderness; Special Uses Administration. It looks like it is not taking pictures of Federal Parks but photographing in Wilderness areas.

[Brad]

I know, its not the national parks, but its the forest service doing this and they do run places like Maroon Bells.

My point was that I could buy one pass to get in to all of them (parks, Forest Etc), if they wanted to do a reasonable photo permit, I would like it to be similar.

[Coyote]

I would hope that the intent of this legislation would be to legitimately protect pristine wilderness areas without allowing an over zealous government agency taking a regulation and enforcing it beyond its intent. The question it begs is, what is the Feds trying to protect, and from what. What harm is committed and to whom?

[Brad]

Some photographers on the different photo forums think its more about bringing models, props, and other un-natural objects in to the wilderness and is not about nature photographers.

[Coyote]

When this has been enforced it was against a automotive company filming a commercial of one of their products in a wilderness area, and REI from shooting a raft trip...

[Brad]

Interesting. I do think its a slippery slope and we need to be careful where the line is drawn.

Also, where would it end? What if you were on private property but the background is Wilderness area?

Here is a good example. I am shooting from a County Road, however the road is located on Private Land, and the mountain range in the background is on the Forest Service Land?

[Brad]

Here are Grant Collier of Grant Collier Photography's thoughts:

This does sound outrageous, but I think the writer of the article is misinformed and/or being intentionally inflammatory. In the request for comments on the NF web site, it says that this precludes noncommercial still photography. And it sounds like this directive has been in place for a while on an interim basis but is expiring and they are trying to make it permanent.

If you look at that directive at http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOC ... 109390.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; you can find the the forest service's definition of a "still photography" is:

f. Still Photography. The use of photographic equipment to capture still images on
film, digital format, and other similar technologies on National Forest System lands
that:
(1) Takes place at a location where members of the public are generally not allowed
or where additional administrative costs are likely, or
(2) Uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site’s natural or cultural
resources or administrative facilities.

Then, farther down it says:

A special use permit:
1. Is required for all still photography (sec. 45.5) activities on National Forest System
(NFS) lands that involve the use of models, sets, or props that are not a part of the natural
or cultural resources or administrative facilities of the site where the activity is taking
place.
2. May be required for still photography activities not involving models, sets, or props
when the Forest Service incurs additional administrative costs as a direct result of the still
photography activity or when the still photography activity takes place at a location
where members of the public generally are not allowed.

So, this wouldn't include nature photography.

That being said, I tell people I'm an amateur photographer, as some rangers don't fully understand the rules and it's easier than trying to clarify things with them. If they don't believe I'm an amateur, I just show them my photos and then they're convinced!

[nebugeater]

So if the worst case becomes the norm how long before this type of policy roles out for all the federal property in Washington DC? This opens up a Very Dangerous path.

[Coyote]

So if the worst case becomes the norm how long before this type of policy roles out for all the federal property in Washington DC?  This opens up a Very Dangerous path.

I don't think anyone wants to preserve wilderness character of what is going on in DC

I think this is the main intent of the bill's renewal:

b. Would preserve the wilderness character of the area proposed for use, for example, would leave it untrammeled, natural, and undeveloped and would preserve opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation

Hence even in Brad's question of Maroon Bells, I think even he would guess that the land is far from being 'untrammeled' and in need of preservation, and that the photographers area in question would not be affected by this legislation... In its common intent.

[GetUrban]

I wonder how they came up with the amount of $1500? That just seems outrageous to expect a private, not-for-profit individual to be required to pay to photograph something they can see with their own eyes from 1 or more different vantage points. Sounds unconstitutional to me.

I noticed recently the Department of the Interior publishes photos of National Parks, public lands, etc. on Instagram. Makes me wonder if they get a cut of the advertising fees from Instagram. Maybe that's the reason they want to make it harder for anyone to take wonderful pictures of those things.

[schumatt]

Don't read too much into it, and certainly don't believe all the hype. The Forest Service is just trying to shore up some old legislation already on the books that discusses still photography but not commercial filming. The Federal Register notice refers to relevant several definitions in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Commercial filming—use of motion picture, videotaping, sound recording, or any other moving image or audio recording equipment on National Forest System lands that involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, or the use of models, actors, sets, or props, but not including activities associated with broadcasting breaking news, as defined in FSH 2709.11, chapter 40.

Commercial use or activity—any use or activity on National Forest System lands (a) where an entry or participation fee is charged, or (b) where the primary purpose is the sale of a good or service, and in either case, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended to produce a profit.

Still photography—use of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities.

The intent is not to require the average tourist to apply for a permit to take photos or videos on National Forest System lands. Even setting up a tripod for taking photos/videos wouldn't fall into the requirement to obtain a permit. As a former National Park Service employee, an agency whose mission is similar to the US Forest Service (to provide for the preservation and enjoyment of special areas), I know that the message of these types of changes doesn't always get communicated in the most effective way, and issuing any kind of rebuttal to the negative press the USFS is getting over this can be just as difficult.