What do you think?

[Woodbutcher]

This was an posted in my Roadtrippers app in today's email. What do you think of the attempt to charge anyone for any reason to take pictures in National Parks that we all pay for?

National Forest Service will soon fine photographers $1000 for taking pictures [UPDATED]
National Forest Service will soon fine photographers $1000 for taking pictures [UPDATED]
Greg Newkirk Greg Newkirk
25 September, 2014

In the worst bit of news for professional (and amateur) photographers since personal drones were banned from National Parks, The U.S. Forest Service has set into motion plans to fine picture-takers at least a grand for snapping images in any of the wilderness areas under their care, nearly 36 million acres of wilderness in all.


UPDATE: Seems all the attention from The Washington Post, Esquire, and more has convinced The National Forest Service to back away from its new fines. Via Esquire:

When readers of the original reports in The Oregonian and Esquire.com saw the potential fine—$1,000—the story went viral, and the agency scrambled to clarify its stance.

"The U.S. Forest Service remains committed to the First Amendment," the agency's chief, Tom Tidwell, said in a statement. "To be clear, provisions in the draft directive do not apply to news gathering or activities."

More on the agency's clarifications, their implications, and what still needs clarifying at the bottom of this post.

Original story below:

If the plans are finalized in November, any media with a camera, even a simple cell phone camera, will have to purchase a permit from the Forest Service if they plan on taking photographs in places like Mount Hood or Mount Jefferson, permits that can cost nearly $1500. If they refuse, they risk being fined $1000 for the infraction. As you can imagine, this has given photographers everywhere reason for concern.
nophotos4

"It's pretty clearly unconstitutional," Gregg Leslie, legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Alexandria, Virginia, told Oregon Live. "They would have to show an important need to justify these limits, and they just can't."

According to Leslie, the Forest Service hasn't shown any real-world justifications for the new law. Others belive that the new limitations are being set into place for a more nefarious purpose: to punish media outlets that report unfavorable stories about wildnerness areas by refusing future shooting permits.\

Via Yahoo! News:

According to the text of the regulation, the USFS requires a permit for any photography that “uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site’s natural or cultural resources.” So technically, if your mom in your hiking photo, she’s a model, and you owe USFS a thousand bucks. Want to take a picture of your backpack on top of a summit? Sorry, that’s a prop, fork over another grand.

If you want to follow the rules and get a permit, guess what, the Forest Service is able to approve what sort of message your photo or video will deliver. From the updated regulations, photo or video must have: “a primary objective of dissemination of information about the use and enjoyment of wilderness…”

nophotographs3

"The Forest Service needs to rethink any policy that subjects noncommercial photographs and recordings to a burdensome permitting process for something as simple as taking a picture with a cell phone," U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said. "Especially where reporters and bloggers are concerned, this policy raises troubling questions about inappropriate government limits on activity clearly protected by the First Amendment."
nophotography1

The only time that new rules wouldn't apply is in regard to breaking news, such as a natural disaster.

Regardless of the reasoning, it's easy to see why such a change is a terrible idea, particularly when it comes to the fuzziness between who qualifies as media. Would a national news network, with the ability to throw away nearly two grand, be considered the same media as a self-funded photography blog? Is a journalism student with an iPhone comparable to a salaried news anchor for a local network? The new rules don't answer these questions, and the room for interpretation could mean that media access to wilderness areas will be only be available to those who can afford it.

Luckily, the Forest Service have opened themselves up for comment. Photogs, give 'em hell.

UPDATE: The Forest Service took the time today to clarify their stance on the new rules, releasing a statement that insisted that the regulations applied only to commercial projects, exempting news crews.

“The fact is, the directive pertains to commercial photography and filming only – if you’re there to gather news or take recreational photographs, no permit would be required. We take your First Amendment rights very seriously,” said Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “We’re looking forward to talking with journalists and concerned citizens to help allay some of the concerns we’ve been hearing and clarify what’s covered by this proposed directive.”

Though the clarification is nice, the rules are still a major bummer for photographers who want to sell their work, as the line between amateur and professional is becoming increasingly blurred.

For example: Say you set out into a wilderness area and take some recreational photographs. As it turns out, one of them is spectacular, and a large media company stumbled upon the image online and offers to purchase it from you. In that one transaction, your photo has gone from recreation to commercial. Are you then fined by the forest service? Sounds like more clarification might be necessary.

Looks like you better purchase that permit just in case...

[pohukai]

HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE! Its not like Hollywood is setting up a lot of equipment that would inconvenience a lot of visitors; This does require a permit in most places. Vote these guys out of office ASAP! Votes do matter and this is ridiculous!

[aggie79]

This is not a position one way or the other on this issue. My intent is to present some facts for consideration.

What do you think of the attempt to charge anyone for any reason to take pictures in National Parks that we all pay for?

While both have recently expressed/enacted (different) limitations on photography, the National Parks Service and National Forest Service are two distinct agencies. They are similar in that lands for both are owned by the government. Their revenues for capital and O&M expenses, however, differ greatly. The National Forest Service is sustained by revenue from commercial activities such as logging, grazing livestock, minerals and mining, etc. So deriving income from commercial photography is not inconsistent with deriving income from other commercial ventures.

HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE! Its not like Hollywood is setting up a lot of equipment that would inconvenience a lot of visitors; This does require a permit in most places. Vote these guys out of office ASAP! Votes do matter and this is ridiculous!

Unfortunately or fortunately there is no vote on Forest Service or National Parks Service officials. Except for the highest level - cabinet positions that are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate - officials are employees that are hired and not elected.

[Woodbutcher]

Tom, I understand where you are coming from in that revenue from the National Forest System comes from commercial endeavors. But it seems to fly in the face of the reason that Federal Land was set aside for. Plus the article states that the rules are not specific as to what constitutes a professional photographer. So we little people could be caught up in this under certain circumstances.
If this law/rule stands then what precludes the owner of any property like The Space Needle, St. Louis Arch, Disney World, your home, ETC. from demanding money for taking photos? I understand that a huge movie company could disrupt things in a National Park or Forest and permitting should be in order. But a small independent photographer or a Blogger could also be fined.

I just find the Spirit of this law, distasteful, if it comes to be. But since 128 people have opened this thread with only 2 responses, I guess most people will not care about it unless they get fined.

[wagondude]

It's the law of unintended consequences. Someone noticed a bunch of people taking photos with "professional looking" cameras (read that any DSLR). The fact that these cameras even in the hand of a novice photographer will produce near professional results has caused a boom in "photographic art" for sale in galleries and all over the 'net. With web based printing services, the number of postcards and calendars for sale has exploded. Before, the number of such items were limited in production because they were produced with the permission of the parks for sale by the parks. Many semi-professional artists have started to produce works for sale without the proper permits/agreements in place. It is only natural for them to try to recover the lost revenue. Unfortunately, They write the regulation "quick and dirty" to address the problem and unintentionally leave the recreational photographer in a grey area that is open to interpretation by the agency. The only remedy is for the unintended victim to challenge the regulation in court at considerable expense of both time and money.

[sagebrush]

Appears to be another example of runaway bureaucracy.

An unelected bureaucrat, in a knee-jerk reaction, creates a "rule" which becomes a "law".

Lots of grey areas and unintended consequences.

If a government agent is having a bad day, is suffering from "Tin God syndrom" ,or just doesn't like your looks, said agent can make YOUR life miserable.

True, it can be contested in court, but, governmental agencies have a legal staff (paid for with our tax dollars).

Not many citizens have the time or funds to take on "Big Brother's Bureaucracy"

[Racquetman]

I agree with woodbutcher and Sagebrush, another example of our Gov. throwing it's weight around and trying to sqeeze more money out of the tax payers......JMHO!!!

[Corwin C]

I'm going to keep this short because it's borderline political and in my case inflammitory.

All US Citizens need to be aware of who you are voting for and their adgenda's (both visible and hidden.) You are only a few short weeks to get up to speed before making these decisions which will affect ALL of us. DO NOT trust just one source for news and information ... study up and do your civic duty.

The federal government has been taking public lands away for years while claiming to "preserve" these resources. Restricting photography is just another drop in the bucket of limitations that are being quietly jammed down our collective throats. Increase funding?!!! Ppppsssttttt ... if they weren't wasting our dollars by the trillions, they wouldn't need our money. The reality is that they are making access and responsible use more and more difficult and the lands and resources are actually suffering because of it. Even camping in many areas requires un-necesary equipment (in my opinion), permits to camp, build a fire, use the bathroom, drink the water, etc. Places like the Grand Staircase are seriously considering requiring registration documentation about when and where you come and go, and so on. This is only one issue among many where our rights are being eroded away while they claim that its safer, healthier, greener, less racist, pro-immigration, anti-homophobic, and the list goes on and on ad nausieum.

We don't need all this regulation detritus to make it a better world ... we just need to become responsible, educated, and contientious citizens.

[Racquetman]

Well said Corwin!!!!

[Woodbutcher]

I agree, well said Corwin. My reasoning for posting this was to bring attention to something that touches us all. Taking photos on a trip has been a major part of all our camping trips since film was invented. I must say I was surprised that there has not been more discussion about this.

[rebapuck]

What I read was a permit needed to do commercial work, such as an advertisement or movie. Did I read the same thing you guys did?

[markhusbands]

The proposal is one that has always been in place but has been ambiguous in terms of enforcement, namely that COMMERCIAL entities filming or photographing in wilderness designated lands be subject to a special use fee. This changes nothing about visitors' rights to take pictures for personal use. This is about for profit entities using public lands to make movies and film commercials without paying a red cent to the taxpayers that pay for land management, but of course it has been totally misrepresented as some big brother issue. Nope. Same old profiteers at work. They don't like to pay. My opinion.

[jstrubberg]

I don't have a problem with commercial project being required to have a permit. If you intend to make money off of those pictures, I don't have any problem with the forest and parks services getting a cut to maintain those areas for you to photograph. Also, in the case of a production, you are looking at wear and tear on roads and access issues for larger equipment.

Where this comes apart is trying to enforce it on smaller projects. It really becomes a matter of opinion whether an individual taking pictures is doing so for commercial reasons or for personal use.

[Woodbutcher]

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.

[markhusbands]

You have identified the real challenge. "Commercial enterprises" are banned by the Wilderness Act (1964) with a narrow exception provided for "commercial services" - things like outfitter guides and scientific or educational endeavors. The prohibition on "commercial enterprises" was never interpreted as preventing a painter from painting a scene or a still photographer from taking a photo and then selling it later. It was interpreted as banning the obvious things like extractive resource use, hotels, and, yes, commercial television and film production. Until the digital age it wan't hard to distinguish the film crew from the painter, but now it is far more tricky. The agencies are trying to sort out policies that draw an appropriate line, not trying to prevent regular folks from using cameras or paintbrushes.

For those of you that are interested, consider as a thought problem "The Muir Project", a documentary film about backpacking the very popular John Muir Trail.

http://themuirproject.com/

A documentary might very well be the kind of thing that could be permitted since it might serve educational purposes about wilderness, but to my knowledge, these folks never obtained a permit and never paid any sort of use fee for making this movie on public lands (the trail crosses both National Forests and National Parks). On top of that, you can buy the film, and you can buy T-shirts, jewelry , and other gift shop items online. And the "supporters" of the film include REI, Camelback, Osprey, and other outdoor equipment vendors.

Is this about art, science, or education, or is it about making money? And when Congress set these lands aside as unspoiled wilderness for public recreation use, and banned commercial enterprises as incompatible with that public use, did they intend for this sort of thing to be permitted or not permitted? On the one hand, you have a group that is having no on the ground impacts especially different from any other backpacker group. On the other hand, they're using a publicly managed resource as a backdrop for a film that has as many product plugs as a hollywood movie, and has private profit as a primary motive.

The line between sale-able art and commercial film has become rather blurry these days.