What do you think?

[alaska teardrop]

Thanks for that explanation , Mark.

It must be remembered that we as the citizens of this country own those National Forests and Parks. The rules need to be explicitly written to separate where the line is as to what is considered commercial. I just see this as a way to squeeze more money out of people. This is to photography what red light cameras are to driving. Just another means of revenue.

Steve, your question: 'What do you think?'
Since the Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals and the corporations write the rules in Congress, we citizens will soon be paying corporations to take pictures on public lands.
I can see it now,
PHOTO FOR SALE

Genuine Alaska Husky with teardrop trailer.
$.01 + fed tax

[tony.latham]

While I do believe that large commercial projects should be permitted, but only because of the large footprint they leave do to the size of their en devour. A large movie crew creates more potential damage and congestion. But what about a single professional photographer that sells his pictures online or through galleries. He disturbs no more then the average tourist. We have small Bloggers on this site that according to this article would be considered commercial. If I enter a photo contest as a tourist photographer, and win, the compensation I receive be it cash or goods makes it a commercial en devour. I am now in violation. Do they then come back and fine me?
It must be remembered that we as the citizens of this country own those National Forests and Parks. The rules need to be explicitly written to separate where the line is as to what is considered commercial. I just see this as a way to squeeze more money out of people. This is to photography what red light cameras are to driving. Just another means of revenue.

I have no problem with the current regs for commercial endeavors on federal ground (or the proposed change in USFS for that matter). I pay when I stay in a federal campground or enter a National Park for personal reasons. If I were intending to enter (a legal Wilderness Area) for commercial reasons, then I should be charged a higher fee through an adjudicated permit system.

"If I enter a photo contest as a tourist photographer, and win, the compensation I receive be it cash or goods makes it a commercial en devour. I am now in violation. Do they then come back and fine me?" The USFS doesn't fine, that's the federal court system -after you get a ticket. Twelve-bits says there is not AUSA (federal prosecutor) that would ever take on such a case. I worked with many and a ticket like that would go out the door so fast the janitor wouldn't catch it. There's something called intent in criminal law and it holds great weight*.

If you start a web page holding yourself out as a commercial photographer and selling numerous photos obviously taken in violation of this rule (in legislated Wilderness Areas), then you may expect a knock on your door. Win a prize at the fair? Puff your chest out and go buy an ice cream cone.

Besides, this tweaking of the law only covers commercial photograph in legislated wilderness areas Such as the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness -not the National Forest system as a whole. Most forest don't even have any wilderness.

Tony

* "if you're there to gather news or take recreational photographs, no permit would be required," Tidwell said. - That statement eliminates it from a "strict liability" law where intent doesn't need to be proven.

[markhusbands]

Since I found this an interesting topic, I'll post this piece of a Forest Service published Q&A than I think helps a bit to grasp the intent of the USFS Directive:

"How does the Forest Service define commercial filming and still photography?
The following definitions for commercial filming and still photography, found in FSH 2709.11,
section 45.4, track the requirements for a permit for those activities in the Act of May 26, 2000
(16 U.S.C. 460l-6d):
Commercial Filming. The use of motion picture, videotaping, sound-recording, or any
other type of 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 actors, models, sets, or props, but not including activities associated
with broadcasting breaking news. For purposes of this definition, creation of a product
for sale includes a film, videotape, television broadcast, or documentary of historic
events, wildlife, natural events, features, subjects, or participants in a sporting or
recreation event, and so forth, when created for the purpose of generating income.

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:
• Takes place at a location where members of the public are generally 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."

As for the "models, actors, and props", I would suggest that your hiking partner is not a model, it is your actual hiking partner, and your backpack is your actual backpack, not a prop. You're taking pictures of the real thing...no make believe! And clearly, if you're taking photographs of the landscape and selling them, that appears to be no problem. If you're taking photographs of a paid model using Palmolive and then selling Palmolive, that's a problem.