Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Some Guy on January 08, 2015, 11:44:37 am
-
Basically, to restore the first amendment rights of Photographers to photograph on public lands without fear of equipment seizure, million dollar insurance policies, etc.
Text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5893/text (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5893/text)
Interesting.
SG
-
Already dead. The bill was a last-minute submission to an outgoing Congress.
-
Already dead. The bill was a last-minute submission to an outgoing Congress.
Curious as to where do you saw that?
Latest has it shown as being passed out to various committees as of Jan. 2, 2015 and introduced to the house on the same date.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5893/all-actions (https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5893/all-actions)
SG
-
As I said, it was literally last-minute for the ongoing, 113th Congress. The 114th is now in session.
-
Bah!
Found more of it here: http://consumerist.com/2015/01/07/ansel-adams-bill-wants-to-make-it-legal-to-take-photos-in-all-federal-spaces-open-to-the-public/ (http://consumerist.com/2015/01/07/ansel-adams-bill-wants-to-make-it-legal-to-take-photos-in-all-federal-spaces-open-to-the-public/)
Guess I still need my million dollar liability and silly $100-$300 day permits still. >:(
Swell.
SG
-
I just wrote to a professional association and to my congressman and referenced this bill in hopes we can get something to happen.
-
Well you can always come to the UK, where you're free to take photographs on public land, without need for insurance/liability policies, and no need for permits either.
-
I got a response from my congressman's chief of staff. Things are moving.
-
Well you can always come to the UK, where you're free to take photographs on public land, without need for insurance/liability policies, and no need for permits either.
Well, you're lucky.
I cannot even take photos in my own house since the CCR's stipulate we are not zoned for any commercial business, i.e. take a photo for a mag is illegal in my house unless I did it in a commercially zoned area. Pros are always going after new people trying to run a shop out of their house. Hand one of them a business card with you home address and expect trouble with zoning. Amazing.
Seems the word "Lawmaker" is just that: "The job is to write more laws, and some with my name on them too." At some point, where does it become a police state if all they do is sit and dream up even more laws? I was sort of surprised that this one appeared to be a roll-back on taking photos in national parks that may require a bunch of permits filled out well ahead of your visit so they can verify your insurance, intent, how much extra to charge, etc.
Yeah, I need to write my congress person too - like they'll listen unless I pay them. :- :(
SG
-
I got a response from my congressman's chief of staff. Things are moving.
In which direction? Is your congressman going to re-introduce the bill?
-
I cannot even take photos in my own house since the CCR's stipulate we are not zoned for any commercial business, i.e. take a photo for a mag is illegal in my house unless I did it in a commercially zoned area. Pros are always going after new people trying to run a shop out of their house. Hand one of them a business card with you home address and expect trouble with zoning. Amazing.
Bloody ridiculous. I can't simply turn my house into a commercial building without planning consent, but I can work from home, run a business from home, open a studio in my home, all without any permission from anyone else. When did you stop being the land of the free?
-
... When did you stop being the land of the free?
When other free people start objecting to increased traffic and visitors to your place of business, possible noise, smells, etc., impacting the resale value of their homes.
-
Bloody ridiculous. I can't simply turn my house into a commercial building without planning consent, but I can work from home, run a business from home, open a studio in my home, all without any permission from anyone else.
"If the answer to any of the following questions is 'yes', then permission will probably be needed (http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/workingfromhome/):
- Will your home no longer be used mainly as a private residence?
- Will your business result in a marked rise in traffic or people calling?
- Will your business involve any activities unusual in a residential area?
- Will your business disturb your neighbours at unreasonable hours or create other forms of nuisance such as noise or smells?"
-
The National Park Service website says:
Still photography and audio recording (whether commercial or noncommercial), in accordance with Public Law 106-206, and 36 CFR 5.5 will not require a permit unless
it takes place at a location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed, or
it uses model(s) or prop(s) that are not a part of the location's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities, or
it uses equipment that requires mechanical transport
it uses equipment that requires an external power source other than a batter pack; or
the National Park Service would incur additional administrative costs to managae and oversee the permitted activity to: avoid unacceptanle impacts and impairment to resources or values; or minimize health or safety risks to the visiting public.
This seems quite reasonable to me.
-
In which direction? Is your congressman going to re-introduce the bill?
Chief of Staff says he is passing the text of this bill on to the congressman and thinks it is likely something he will support. They will let me know the outcome.
-
The National Park Service website says:
Still photography and audio recording (whether commercial or noncommercial), in accordance with Public Law 106-206, and 36 CFR 5.5 will not require a permit unless
it takes place at a location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed, or
it uses model(s) or prop(s) that are not a part of the location's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities, or
it uses equipment that requires mechanical transport
it uses equipment that requires an external power source other than a batter pack; or
the National Park Service would incur additional administrative costs to managae and oversee the permitted activity to: avoid unacceptanle impacts and impairment to resources or values; or minimize health or safety risks to the visiting public.
This seems quite reasonable to me.
National Parks are specifically excluded from the regulations that stipulate applications, permits, and fees to photograph or record video on public lands. The public lands requiring applications, permits, and fees are BLM lands, National Forests, and National Wildlife refuges. These three categories of public lands make up the vast majority of federally owned lands. Also notice that video recording is missing from the list of reasonable requirements. That is unreasonable.
-
Chief of Staff says he is passing the text of this bill on to the congressman and thinks it is likely something he will support. They will let me know the outcome.
Support is good, but can't happen until someone first re-introduces the bill and sponsors it.
-
National Parks are specifically excluded ...
Only because they (National Parks) already had in place similar regulations.
-
There was a bill that passed the house last year and was killed in the senate that had been introduced by Don Young of Alaska and cosponsored by a democrat whose name slips my mind that would have fixed all these problems. When it was killed in the senate, the executive director of our association told me personally that she thought it might be past time to fix the problems through legislation and it was time to sue the government in federal court. I don't want to post the email from my congressman's chief of staff since it was a private correspondence, but the inference was that the congressman might reintroduce the bill.
-
Sorry - the Don Young bill was one that was introduced a few years ago and died a similar death. The most recent one before the Ansel Adams Act was introduced by Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and was called the Sportsman's Act.
One such bill is the Sportsmen’s Act (S. 1335) introduced July 18, 2013, by Sen. Lisa Murkowski . . .In addition to addressing sportsmen’s issues, the bill also offers a solution to increasing challenges faced by journalists, such as the assessment of exorbitant fees to access Federal public lands for filming, difficult requirements to garner permission to film on Federal public lands, and/or outright denial of access to Federal public lands for journalistic purposes.
This bill had multiple cosponsors from both political parties.
Passed in 2000, the current law often was applied inequitably and beyond the original intent of the legislation. The law was meant to address challenges presented by large Hollywood production companies that wished to film movies on public lands. The law set forth guidelines and usage fees for those massive movie productions, which often interrupted the publics’ access to and enjoyment of Federal public lands and/or caused damage to the land/facilities.
However, the law was grossly misconstrued and used to restrict or outright deny individual journalists or small film crews access to public lands¾individuals and crews that would not cause an interruption of the public’s use of the land and resources or cause damage.
“The Sportsmen’s Act grants small film/photography crews, of five people or less, access to Federal public lands through an equitable permit process and reasonable annual fee,” Dovey added. “It’s an excellent solution for all parties.”
-
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 (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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.