Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Michael West on September 25, 2014, 01:02:05 pm
-
Forest Service Wants to Charge $1,500 to Take Pictures On Public Lands
Yes, it’s true that the lion’s share of the Forest Service budget is now going to dealing with wildfires, but is it so desperate for money that it has to hit up the people who do most of its marketing, photographers? A new policy, quietly proposed by the USFS on September 4 but now catching the public’s attention in a big way, would require $1,500 permits for media taking pictures in wilderness, with fines up to $1,000 for failing to comply. The rules could be applied to anyone taking pictures that result in some kind of commerce, from bloggers to amateur photographers who sell a print or two.
http://www.adventure-journal.com/2014/09/forest-service-wants-to-charge-1500-to-take-pictures-on-public-lands/ (http://www.adventure-journal.com/2014/09/forest-service-wants-to-charge-1500-to-take-pictures-on-public-lands/)
How about a Mass Photo Shoot At Yosemite??
-
Madness!!! :o But the fine is cheaper than the permit, so I'd take my chances. Seems as if this will require a giant bureaucracy to search for such images and investigate when they were taken (before the law?) and then press charges. Some pencil-pusher had a great idea for making money. Sad, really sad.
-
Madness!!! :o But the fine is cheaper than the permit, so I'd take my chances...
The fine is per image.
-
The federal government has done something stupid and counterproductive? Perish the thought. Tell me it isn't true.
-
Somehow the forests survived all these years of picture taking. Until now. Another government regulation to take away our freedom.
-
There has been a fee for commercial shoots for decades. Falls under the category of don't run your business in a state or federal park or monument -and lots of other places. While it may affect landscape photographers who have been sliding thru, pop open a reflector in Joshua Tree with a model at hand and a ranger will arrive shortly.
If you are a hobbyist the law will not make a difference and if you are a pro, or out to make a buck, own it. It is really that simple. Too many people want to be respected as a professional until it is inconvenient and then suddenly they're just a hobbyist.
http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/feds-you-cant-photograph-my-national-park-26671/ttp:// (http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/feds-you-cant-photograph-my-national-park-26671/ttp://)
-
There has been a fee for commercial shoots for decades....
We are not talking about those. And were not talking about pro egos either. We are talking about a basic freedom to take pictures.
-
I'd like to see the actual statute. If its not a whole lot more specific than "The rules could be applied to anyone taking pictures that result in some kind of commerce, from bloggers to amateur photographers who sell a print or two.", it's unlikely to stand.
Here's another version of the story that specifies 'media', and 'reporters', and goes no further in defining exactly what this is all about.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/09/forest_service_delaying_media.html
-
I'm not a US citizen but I am amused by threads of this nature that pop up from time to time. Odds are that this will turn out to be the usual tempest in a teapot about fees for commercial use.
But the outrage expressed that the guvmint charges people a fee to use public parks even though as citizens you already own it, is comical. I own my house, but I still to pay for maintenance, don't I? Why would you expect to use those public lands without paying for their maintenance?
Since those guvmint departments have had their budgets cut in recent decades, because taxes were too high being the usual silly obvious argument, they were simultaneously told to behave more like private enterprise. Why then would you be surprised that they raise their fees? What's the other option, magic? Those departments were put into that position by elected guvmints, weren't they? You can always change it back by changing the elected guvmint.
Or are you taking some sort of armchair libertarian position that all guvmint action is bad as a matter or principle. If that's the case, maybe you should be lobbying for Disney or someone else to take over the national parks system. Then the fees will magically come down and they'll let you take all the pictures you want for free, I'm sure, and even sell them.
So long as we're complaining about things, I have a complaint about visual space. Why is it that some company can rent space at the top of some building and from then on limit my use of that visual space? If I want to take a photo of an urban panorama to sell, I may find myself limited in the usage rights of that photo because of the presence of a company trademark or logo. But nobody compensated me for the loss of that visual space. Why did that company get that for nothing?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/proposal-require-permit-media-filming-073145270.html (http://news.yahoo.com/proposal-require-permit-media-filming-073145270.html)
-
The fine is per image.
Ah, the fine print.
-
I have never heard of "Adventure Journal" but they seem to be a typical sensation-seeking organ of the media.
Only the most perverse editor would choose to illustrate that article with a photograph of a wee lassie on a hiking trip taking a snap of a canyon on a tiny point and shoot compact camera.
The licence fee seems to be clearly aimed at commercial exploitation. We have the same in Britain where many public authorities charge fees for allowing photography for commercial purposes. That does not, in any way, get in the way of genuine amateur photography.
Presumably your main amateur photography organisations will be clarifying the issue for the benefit of their members and lobbying the government agencies should they consider that to be necessary.
-
"Forest Service Wants to Charge $1,500 to Take Pictures On Public Lands"
... and I want a solid gold toilet seat for Christmas. Doesn't mean I'll get it.
-
I have never heard of "Adventure Journal" but they seem to be a typical sensation-seeking organ of the media.
Only the most perverse editor would choose to illustrate that article with a photograph of a wee lassie on a hiking trip taking a snap of a canyon on a tiny point and shoot compact camera.
The licence fee seems to be clearly aimed at commercial exploitation. We have the same in Britain where many public authorities charge fees for allowing photography for commercial purposes. That does not, in any way, get in the way of genuine amateur photography.
Presumably your main amateur photography organisations will be clarifying the issue for the benefit of their members and lobbying the government agencies should they consider that to be necessary.
Are you really sure this won't effect non-pro shooters? What if they decide that a photo class given by a pro photographer is commercial because the pro-photographer gets fees from his students. Then all classes which are on public lands could be charged the $1500 which will be passed on to students in their fees. This would effect income for people like Reichman and Raber and higher costs for people who sign up for their tours
-
I wonder Michael and Kevin if you're using your esteemed positions and those of LuLa to present arguments against these fees?
-
Won't help, Alan. Canada already has risen above this kind of out-of-control government swamp.
-
Really? What happened and what did they do?
-
It would seem this was greatly exaggerated.
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/26/forest-service-delays-decision-controversial-permit-rules-amid-public-outcry/
-
Really? What happened and what did they do?
They elected a reasonably conservative government which has been partially dismantling the nanny state, which is one of the reasons Wendy's is moving north.
-
It would seem this was greatly exaggerated.
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/26/forest-service-delays-decision-controversial-permit-rules-amid-public-outcry/
According to this it wasn't exaggerated at all. What this says is that they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and the adverse publicity was giving them serious heartburn.
-
According to this it wasn't exaggerated at all. What this says is that they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and the adverse publicity was giving them serious heartburn.
I tend to concur with that assessment, Russ (see, we can agree sometimes).
This is such an old bureaucratic trick, used by many governments as well: use a broad, ambiguous language that will allow you to interpret it as you see fit, hoping no one would notice. But if they do, claim ignorance: "That's not what we had in mind." For instance "non-commercial still photography"... while experienced and educated readers would understand "commercial" to mean "used for advertising," those less familiar (e.g., most rangers) assume it means "making money" from it. The same with the term "professional"... you are one if you have a tripod and a big camera and a big lens (and if that lens happens to be white, you are oh, so busted).
-
My very brief reading of the proposal is that it is designed to make permanent a policy that is already in place for National Forrest Service lands that are generally NOT accessible to the public. This does not apply to the national parks and monuments so all you Yosemite photogs need not lose a moment of sleep as you plan your next outing. The Forest Service is trying to generate some badly needed revenue to cover their ongoing activities. Additionally, this focuses on commercial photography so you simply add the cost of the permit into your business expensing.
This proposal is in accord with many other governmental initiatives that have been implemented over the past 30 years; charge user fees to the impacted community to fund activities. I spent my working career in the pharmaceutical industry and the amount of fees that we had to pay on a yearly basis was very high. This is just reality. You either fund things through general taxes or through user fees. There is no free lunch.
-
Even if it is enacted, it's aimed at the media as stated in the first line of the article. Commercial media. I don't see this effecting the professional photographer or amateur photographer unless it's re-written or modified.
Paul
-
They elected a reasonably conservative government which has been partially dismantling the nanny state, which is one of the reasons Wendy's is moving north.
We Americans haven't woken up yet. We're still looking for a free meal.
-
Saying that Canada has elected a reasonably conservative government is, by American standards, false. Canada's "conservative" party is somewhere between Clinton Democrat and Johnson Democrat.
All major political parties in Canada support a single-payer health care system. Allowing a private for-profit system to spring up beside the government system is happening, but very, very slowly. For profit walk-in clinics are allowed, but they bill the public system for patient visits. Purely elective surgery (such as breast augmentation) is done in fee-for-servioce private clinics, but many doctors who go that route are then barred from performing not-so-selective surgeries in hospitals.
Photography is not protected speech. It can, however, be "cyberbullying", which is a crime.
American-style "private" universities don't really exist in Canada. Universities operate moderately independently from the government but the government pays 2/3-or-more of every domestic student's tuition (international students often pay full fare). In return, the government gets to approve which universities teach which programs, and to what standard. (There are a few Bible Schools that opt out of the model.)
Federal VAT up here is 5%, and provinces can choose to top that up. My province tops it up to 15%.
Canadians do not have a right to bear arms, nor a right to self-defence in their own homes. You can defend yourself, but you'd better make sure your attacker doesn't survive, because in court the burden will be on you to prove that you couldn't have fled (last thing you want is your attacker saying "sure, he could have run out his back door instead of defending himself"). Long guns are allowed for hunting, but they must be locked up, unloaded. Ammunition must be locked in a separate cabinet.
Criminals do generally have a right to parole ("statutory release") after serving 2/3 of their sentences.
Canadians do have a right to contact a lawyer after being arrested, but do not necessarily have the right to have a lawyer present during questioning. The right to not incriminate oneself under the Evidence Act is much narrower than the USA's Fifth Amendment. But the good news is, you've got that right to parole :)
Canada is a socialist country--in some ways, particularly the health system, far more socialist than Europe (where parallel health systems exist).
-
Still Photography and PermitsOn US and California Public Land (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/)
-
Thanks for posting the link. From reading the document, at least in CA, sounds like the State Parks are where you need to be careful. The National Parks, National Forest and Wilderness rules seem fine for a single photographer working without a model or props.
Paul
-
NANPA, ASMP, NPPA and others see this as a threat to photographer/journalist rights and are taking action. We would all be well advised to not be lulled to sleep over this issue. I was required to pay $100 per day to photograph in Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska. That was for one person photographing in areas that the general public is admitted to without restriction. There is no guarantee that a single image from that shoot will ever make any money back. That is the nature of shooting spec. A $100 per day permit fee along with a threatening speech from a clerk is a steep price to pay for that privilege.
-
Fees and permits have been a reality In Australia for several years now.
http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/media-and-artists-0
They do not cover amateur photography, but if you turn up with a big rig, park rangers may question you, and if you start selling your images, you'll have to keep it somewhat covert.
In reality, several well known locals have made careers out of landscape images from our national parks. Prints can sell for between $2,000 and $10,000.
I have no issue over those business people contributing to the management and upkeep of the resource they are exploiting (National Parks).
-
If a poet goes to a national park or state forest, writes a poem about it, and sells the book for million bucks... is he "exploiting" it? And should he fork out $1500 for the "privilege" every time he enters a park or forest for inspiration? And should every budding poet pay the same?
Those "business people" WILL pay their due through income tax, btw.
-
You're taking a picture directly of the scene, which is maintained by the park staff.
Ordinary citizens can take as many free pictures as they want by the way. But someone whose business earns almost exclusively from glossy landscape shots of National Parks (which several in Australia do), shouldn't complain about paying a little more for the right.
-
... paying a little more...
In the States, entrance to National Parks is about $50. The proposed fee for national forests (less upkeep than national parks, btw) was $1500. That would be 30 times more, hardly "a little more."
As for "business earnings"... no one knows in advance if a shot (or the whole photography business for that matter) is going to turn profitable. Yes, a print might be sold for $xxxx, but that is not profit, just revenue. Subtract expenses (equipment, travel, gallery cost, etc.) and you'd have to wait till the end of year for your accountant to tell you if you made a profit and how much. If you did, you'll pay income tax, a part of which goes for national parks and forests.
Besides, your whole argument is displaced, as even the originators of the proposal backed down, facing the outrage. They actually now claim they never even had in mind what you are advocating here.
-
You're taking a picture directly of the scene, which is maintained by the park staff.
Ordinary citizens can take as many free pictures as they want by the way. But someone whose business earns almost exclusively from glossy landscape shots of National Parks (which several in Australia do), shouldn't complain about paying a little more for the right.
I have two issues with your argument:
1) The broad distinction between an "ordinary" citizen and a businessperson. In my opinion all citizens ought to have the same rights (unless, for instance, you've committed a serious crime and thus forfeited your right to liberty for some period).
2) The specific case here that businesspeople, who own the public land just as much as other members of society own it, should pay a higher user-fee (in this case, an entrance fee) to enjoy the public land in the same way as others.
Now if a film crew (or a stills photographer, I don't mind) needed to use a swath of the Park and have it cordoned off from other people, well, at the point the Park needs to think about whether it's a good idea and what sort of rent might be charged. But that's not what's being debated here.