Want to get angry? Proposed fees for photography on federal lands.

I don't want to start a political debate, but get a load of this. I got sent this from a friend, and while reading it, I thought I must be reading The Onion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/09/24/u-s-forest-service-wants-to-charge-1500-to-take-photos-on-federal-wild-lands/

This is ludicrous and won't go anywhere. Folks should submit comments into the site identified in the article to ensure. Fascinating question whether taking a photograph = free speech. Showing a photo to anyone certainly is. Since taking away pencils and typewriters would surely constitute a free speech infringement I think prohibiting the taking of photos should be seen the same way. Anyway, on with fall!!

I saw this and my head almost exploded. I really don't think it will go anywhere and if it does, they can kiss my ass.

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_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5109390.pdf 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!

Also, the forest service's process for permits for photo workshops is still a bureaucratic mess and this won't fix anything, as workshops aren't covered under still photography.

There is more. It includes commercial use or activity. See:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=44fd46e92926c627482784b0d9c17c1f&ty=HTML&h=L&r=PART&n=pt36.2.251

section 251.51

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.

So if you take a photo, even as an amateur, then sell it later, you are in violation.

Roger

Roger is correct...and we had better submit our comments on the new directive before something is passed that screws all of us.

I ran into this issue a couple years ago when I was shooting video at Great Sand Dunes, which technically is a wilderness area. In theory, some of the photos or video I shoot could end up generating income for me, so arguably it's commercial usage. Technically, It requires a multi-hundred dollar permit. But the rules don't clearly distinguish what I am doing vs what some big production company shooting a movie would be doing--we are both charged the same huge fee (and in the case of the production company, it's probably justified!) When I asked for clarification on the rules from the park service, I got no clear answer. I think they're just as confused as I am.

I would urge you to voice your concerns before the comment period runs out (Dec 4 I believe) I don't have the link handy but when I get a chance i'll dig it up...

Interesting article with perspective from John Fielder:
http://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/local/2014/09/25/sen-udall-denounces-forest-service-photo-law-wrong/16222735/

That's the definition they give of commercial use or activity, but I'm not seeing them say that all commercial use or activity requires a permit. I'm reading it as still photography or commercial filming requires a permit (which under they're definitions does not include commercial nature photography). But that is the problem - you need a lawyer to fully understand everything (where's CAZ ). At this time, I think the commercial filming regulations are more onerous, hence Stan's issue.

If you don't understand the proposals, they'll likely ignore your comments, as they say you need to comment on specific parts of the proposed regulations...of course, even finding the proposed regulations is difficult. I think it's still worth commenting if you can find a specific regulation to comment on. Never hurts to try to slow down any government overreach even if it doesn't currently directly apply to you.

Here's another article on it. http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/proposal-require-permit-media-filming-25747351 It sounds like the ambiguity of the wording is what's riling people up. So hopefully the forest service will make good on their statements and alter the wording to make it more clear.

The article also says "Professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors, props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs, the agency said in a release."

I've been in touch with our local national park and was told firstly that there is no change on the horizon for photographers like ourselves on NPS lands. It also sounds like the media has really made a big deal out of this proposed legislation and that it will probably not affect nature photographers who do not lead workshops or use props or models on forest service lands.

Here's a new article that helps clear things up: http://petapixel.com/2014/09/26/forest-service-delays-decision-controversial-permit-rules-amid-public-outcry

Thanks for sharing, Erik. A friend of mine shared a post from Yellowstone's Facebook page saying that permits ARE NOT needed for landscape photography, regardless of pro or amateur. Sounds like the media got people worked up about nothing.

Yellowstone is the National Park Service in the Dept of the Interior; The US Forest Service is in the Dept of Agriculture. Different bureaucracies. The proposed rule is USFS.

Roger