H.R. Bill 5893 - "The Ansel Adams Act"

[Some Guy]

Here is a PDF for "Joshua Tree National Park" for video or still photography permits with less than 10 people.  They have another for larger production units (>10 people.).

http://www.nps.gov/jotr/planyourvisit/upload/10-931-final-9-11-2013.pdf

The problem is the word "Commercial" which is undefined and very much open to interpretation by the ranger.  A big or expensive camera "could" mean commercial sales as it falls under their interpretation.  Almost guilty first before you can prove your innocence.  The saying "If you think you need a permit, you probably do." still holds true.

For fun, here are Joshua Tree National Park Fees from the link:
$120 non-refundable application cost.
$195 non-refundable processing cost.
Minimum two hour monitor (ranger) that I guess is after the above two items for approval.

...and now wait several days to wait to see if they approve the above $315 application and processing fees which then leads to the following:

Maybe now the monitor/ranger fees above.  $80 (?).
$1,000-$5,000 deposit.

Video and Still location fees added:
For video, 1-2 people, camera and tripod is free.

However, still photography with 1-10 people is $50 per day.

And it goes up...

Plus, the $1 million General Liability certificate naming USA as additional insured.

So to just sell one print of some Joshua Tree National Park cactus probably costs you about $450 if you do it legally, and hope you get your deposit back.  Good luck selling it to a current magazine for that or even some free web photo or blogger.

Bad thing in dealing with the government is that it really is up to the ranger who writes, interprets, enforces and/or sells the permits.  They may overlook somethings one day, and next day a whole new matter.  Some days they may need to justify their existence so fees will rise.  Been through this mess prior and we had to cancel due to extreme costs - and even with the toilet fees they brought up (Not kidding!).

Somewhere there was mention of the feds hunting out web photos taken by individuals on "their land" and then finding out if they had filed a permit to justify their sales of prints taken there.  This could be "Your illegal usage ticket is in the mail" if this keeps going on.

SG

[Colorado David]

I was threatened with that in Alaska.  The clerk in the office who sold me my $100 per day permit told us that in their free time rangers watched television and searched magazines to find video or stills from THEIR national forest that had been shot without a permit.  I know there are a lot of people who don't think this applies to them, but it does and it needs to be stopped.

[Some Guy]

I was threatened with that in Alaska.  The clerk in the office who sold me my $100 per day permit told us that in their free time rangers watched television and searched magazines to find video or stills from THEIR national forest that had been shot without a permit.  I know there are a lot of people who don't think this applies to them, but it does and it needs to be stopped.

We had a small camera club of 8 of us who thought we might need a permit for an old log cabin on forest service land.  Just to shoot it, rocks, lichen, flowers, etc. around it near a campground of theirs.  Better to be safe and find out.

Forest service officer told us they would lock their vault toilet up and that we would have to have a company haul in porta-potties, and then have them pumped out (This is 80 miles out of town.) before they could be pulled back out onto the highway to go back to town.  Absolutely absurd, not to mention whatever fees they could drum up.

When we left, another person came outside and told us "To hold our club event, but don't tell anyone like their boss."

What a joke.  Ansel would have gone broke with their lunacy and fees.

SG

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Please people, stop spreading those horror rumors. To protect yourself from individual ranger misinterpretation, print a National Park or National Forest official explanation that clearly states "commercial" does not mean "expensive-looking" camera, tripod, white lens, etc.