Serious illegal activity by some photo workshops -- be aware, and forewarned

[alan a]

Some years ago congress passed a law the intent of which was to recover the costs associated with big motion picture productions that were produced on public lands.  Think of the westerns that were shot in Monument Valley, etc.  It was meant to cover the film industry that might have a crew of sixty. . .Agencies then forced the writing of regulations based on the law down as far as they could which is why it costs a $100 per day for a single still photographer to shoot images in an Alaskan National Forest and it will cost $100 per year to shoot in a National Wildlife Refuge Area in Oregon.  And the rest of the country has similar disparity of regulations.  That was never the intent of the law. . .I agree that if a permit is required of you, you should buy one and remain within the law.  Have you shot photographs on National Forest lands, National Wildlife Refuge lands, or BLM lands?  If you have and have any intent to sell an image at some time in the future, you were required to have purchased a photography permit.  This is not the case in National Parks, but that is the only exception.  Our professional associations point in this debate is that if an amateur has access to an area and can shoot a picture without a fee, the professional who has the same footprint should be able to shoot without a fee. . .I have no more impact, probably less, than the amateur.  I pay my permit fees, but it was not the intent of the law. 

David, many thanks for an excellent contribution to this discussion.  One question -- you are describing permits to take photographs, and the disparity between how amateurs are treated versus professionals.  While I greatly appreciate your insightful explanation, aren't you describing a different set of requirements than those that guides, outfitters, and workshops must meet?  The permit system that my post is discussing are the permits required for professional for-profit guides, outfitters and workshops.  They take groups of people on to the public lands, and they directly profit from doing so.  My understanding from talking with hiking and photo guides is that they all must apply for and purchase the same type of permit.  This permit is NOT for the purpose of taking photographs.  I believe you are discussing a different permit that is required for professional photographers?  (Which I was not aware of.)

Frankly, it strikes me as reasonable that the Park Service and BLM can charge professional guide services and workshops for permits, since those guide services, outfitters and workshops are directly profiting from taking groups on to public lands.  The BLM then uses those fees to maintain and support those lands.  It is either that -- or to expect that Congress will appropriate more funds for the BLM and National Parks.  That will happen when pigs fly.

In any event, photographers have a choice.  To use guide services and workshops that have permits and operate professionally, or to do business with those that don't, and run the risk that the BLM might shut down the workshop in question.  

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... they directly profit from doing so...

For which they will pay income tax.

The real question is if 5-10 people in a group cause more admin cost or any other kind of impact than if they walk around independently.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Would you condone snitching without the "fervor"?

The fervor makes me (more) suspicious of the motive

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

What we clearly need is objective, non-religious, bipartisan snitching.   

[Colorado David]

I clearly do not know of whom you are posting; either the permit-less workshop leader or the permitted guide service and I don't care who they are.  Frankly some people or businesses use and support regulation to create a false competitive advantage.  I am not very trusting about such things.  It is best to stay out of the pissing match.

[Colorado David]

Just to be perfectly clear, I do not condone operating outside the law.

[Some Guy]

Why not put just put an annual $50 green sticker on cameras used outdoors and make them much like a hunting or fishing license for all outdoor use?

No green sticker for you either unless you can show some $1M insurance bond too.  Then they can hire an entire camera warden ranger force on payroll to police for camera green stickers much like a fishing license by the game warden.  "Can't shoot in this here workshop unless you have the green sticker." which means you paid your $50 annual license which also shows proof of your liability insurance to be on public land.

I say this all tongue in cheek of course.  

Entire permit thing on public tax paid and supported land has gotten out of hand for individuals.  Some in our camera club have very expensive equipment which automatically makes them guilty in the ranger's eyes as being "commercial" or "Hollywoodish" and run off for not having filed their paperwork and paid all their fees ahead of time.  Should they have to pay some $300 permit to photograph some lichen or rock as well as show some $1 million proof of liability paperwork too and sit and wait for approval too?  A hobbyist, or family taking some self-portraits with a tripod shouldn't be required to pay one cent over what they paid to enter - but this permit stuff seems to be questionable by some rangers as a big cash cow for them.  More citations means more money and the need for more ranger enforcement too.

Example: Look at some of the permit requirements for Joshua Tree N.P. in CA. http://www.nps.gov/jotr/planyourvisit/upload/filmshort2013.pdf  It's costly and absurd.  Very loosely defined enough that they can ask you to leave if they suspect commercial gain of any sort.  So what if you sell one print for $50?  They want far more than that for that one sell you 'might' make and if you can wade through all the application costs, processing costs that are separate from application costs, site monitor costs, deposits, number of people costs, etc.

Sadly, more permits will lead to more policing which will lead to more cost to hire even more rangers to extort even more out of the visitors.  It's a big cash cow for them.

SG

[jwstl]

I don't believe the permits mentioned as required apply to professional fine art photographers. The BLM documents very clearly state:

"Still photography conducted on lands managed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) or the Forest Service (USFS) requires a permit when it involves models or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities, or when it takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed, or where additional administrative costs are likely."

Hee's a link to the U.S. Dept. of the the Interior, BLM California: http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/lands/filmpermits.print.html

As long as it's just you and your gear you should be fine. Or am I missing something?

[Colorado David]

Well, it was just me and my gear in Alaska and I paid $100 per day for the privilege of photographing our public lands. Now, what if you shoot video as well?

[Johnny_Johnson]

Well, it was just me and my gear in Alaska and I paid $100 per day for the privilege of photographing our public lands. Now, what if you shoot video as well?

Was that public lands in general in Alaska or just in Denali?

Later,
Johnny

[Colorado David]

I did not have to pay a permit fee in Denali.  The fee was for shooting on National Forest lands in Southeast Alaska.

[Johnny_Johnson]

Thanks for the info David. I was under the mistaken impression that a permit was required for Denali.

[Colorado David]

Denali conducts a lottery for a permit to drive your own vehicle beyond the Savage River at the end of the regular park season (the end of August, beginning of September, basically the moose rut).  At the time I was shooting in Denali there was no permit required for general shooting.  You can drive your own vehicle form the park entrance to the Savage River all you want.  There is an area that is typically closed to hiking during the moose rut, but there is still plenty of rut activity that takes place outside of the closures.  You drive the main road back and forth from near the park entrance to the Savage River bridge and turn around.  You do this over and over until you see or hear moose, then you pull over and park and begin to photograph on foot.  There will be a bunch of other photographers doing the same thing.  You can go beyond the bridge with a bus pass.  Buy an unlimited bus pass, catch a bus going beyond the river and look for what you want to photograph.  When you see something, stop the driver and they let you out.  You work the location and catch another bus.  Be sure you don't miss the last bus of the day heading towards your camp or it will be a very long walk. . . with grizzly bears.  Another method is to get a camping permit for one of the camp ground on the other side of the river.  You can drive your own vehicle to you campsite once and back to the bridge once.  While you're driving to or from your campsite, you are allowed to drive as much as you want within reasonable limits, you just can't cross the bridge.  So you can drive on the day you drive to your camp and on the day you leave your camp.  Campsite are not always easy to get so plan ahead.  I was fortunate.  I also didn't have to rent a vehicle.  I have a friend who lives in Wasilla who has a spare double cab pickup with a topper.

[Petrus]

I was at the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC once, shooting some photos of veterans looking for the names of their lost comrades. A park ranger comes up and asks if I am a professional photographer (maybe the 350mm f/2.8 lens on a motor driven camera on a monopod gave me away…). I says yes, sir. "Do you have a permit?" he goes. I go "what? on a public place?". He goes on to explain this is under National Park jurisdiction and all professional photography, yes, even press photography, needs a license. I claim honest ignorance, being from Europe. Fortunately he was lenient and just asked me to stop and get the permit form a booth somewhere near Lincoln monument. Never went to get a permit, I already had the picture I needed.

So, be forewarned...

[Some Guy]

.... A park ranger comes up and asks if I am a professional photographer (maybe the 350mm f/2.8 lens on a motor driven camera on a monopod gave me away…). I says yes, sir. "Do you have a permit?" he goes. I go "what? on a public place?". He goes on to explain this is under National Park jurisdiction and all professional photography, yes, even press photography, needs a license....

That's the rub I have with the entire permit matter.  If you say you are a professional, you can get fined without a permit, or asked to stop or leave.  Some people have been asked to delete their photos in CA.  If you look at some of the ridiculous fees involved in some permits, it is in the thousands of dollar for environmental deposits, plus the insurance matter.  They can pick and chose on fees too.  If I sell one print for $100, it costs much more than than with some parks and their interpretation of all the fees involved.

I've learned to never admit to being a pro if asked by a badger.  I just tell them, "My doc said I need to take up a retirement hobby and to get out and move around more.  So I bought this expensive thing which is more complicated than the sales guy said it would be."

I can see it if some huge Hollywood truck, generator trucks, star vans, RV's, and lighting trucks show up with a full crew, but a single pro, or even some club of old photographers, isn't a big resource drain or interference too others.

SG

[telyt]

One has to question whether the high cost of the permits drives some of the workshop leaders to risk getting caught and a lower permit expense would result in a higher rate of compliance.

[Colorado David]

I can see it if some huge Hollywood truck, generator trucks, star vans, RV's, and lighting trucks show up with a full crew, . . .

SG

That was the intent of the law.  It has become burdensome.  I was told by a Forest Service employee in Alaska that department employees spend their spare time reviewing magazines and television shows looking for violators so they can assess fees and fines.

[Colorado David]

This link should take you to the proposed bill amending the law;

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.2798:

Sorry. The link doesn't work right.  Here's what it says.

H.R.2798 -- To amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to require annual permits and assess annual fees for commercial filming activities... (Introduced in House - IH)

HR 2798 IH

113th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 2798
To amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to require annual permits and assess annual fees for commercial filming activities on Federal land for film crews of 5 persons or fewer.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 23, 2013

Mr. LATTA (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, and Mr. WITTMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


A BILL
To amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to require annual permits and assess annual fees for commercial filming activities on Federal land for film crews of 5 persons or fewer.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this title is to provide commercial film crews of 5 persons or fewer access to film in areas designated for public use during public hours on Federal lands and waterways.
SEC. 2. ANNUAL PERMIT AND FEE FOR FILM CREWS OF 5 PERSONS OR FEWER.

(a) In General- Section (1)(a) of Public Law 106-206 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6d) is amended by--
(1) redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;
(2) striking `The Secretary of the Interior' and inserting `(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided by paragraph (3), the Secretary of the Interior';
(3) inserting `(2) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS- ' before `The Secretary may include other factors'; and
(4) adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(3) SPECIAL RULES FOR FILM CREWS OF 5 PERSONS OR FEWER-
`(A) For any film crew of 5 persons or fewer, the Secretary shall require a permit and assess an annual fee of $200 for commercial filming activities or similar projects on Federal lands and waterways administered by the Secretary. The permit shall be valid for commercial filming activities or similar projects that occur in areas designated for public use during public hours on all Federal lands waterways administered by the Secretary for a 12-month period beginning on the date of issuance of the permit.
`(B) For persons holding a permit described in this paragraph, the Secretary shall not assess, during the effective period of the permit, any additional fee for commercial filming activities and similar projects that occur in areas designated for public use during public hours on Federal lands and waterways administered by the Secretary.
`(C) In this paragraph, the term `film crew' includes all persons present on Federal land under the Secretary's jurisdiction who are associated with the production of a certain film.
`(D) The Secretary shall not prohibit, as a motorized vehicle or under any other purposes, use of cameras or related equipment used for the purpose of commercial filming activities or similar projects in accordance with this paragraph on Federal lands and waterways administered by the Secretary.'.
(b) Recovery of Costs- Section (1)(b) of Public Law 106-206 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6d) is amended by--
(1) striking `collect any costs' and inserting `recover any costs'; and
(2) striking `similar project' and inserting `similar projects'.

And here's a link to the text of the law; http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/documents/pl-106-206.pdf  Please note that while it appears that still photography is excluded, that has never been my experience.

[Lonnie Utah]

Skip the "photo tours" and go out on your own. Besides, who wants to have the same shot as the other 20 people on the tour.  

^^^ This.

[telyt]

Skip the "photo tours" and go out on your own. Besides, who wants to have the same shot as the other 20 people on the tour.  

Absolutely agree... OTOH when someone begs to pay to learn from me in the field (this is not a hypothetical situation) do I turn him down because the permit cost is more than the one-time revenue?

My solution to this is to develop opportunities for these one-on-one workshops on my own property.  Obviously not a solution for large-scale landscape photography.