Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.  (Read 3001 times)

Some Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729

Get a load of the new permit law proposed:

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/local/2014/09/24/feds-want-restrict-filming-wilderness-areas/16138087/

Here is the public comment page.  Click on "Submit A Formal Comment" to make your opinion known, or perhaps be run off by some authority who thinks you may make a few bucks off a online print and who can pay their $1,500 permit fee, or pay the $1,000 fine.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/09/04/2014-21093/proposed-directive-for-commercial-filming-in-wilderness-special-uses-administration

Link also has links to the proposed regulations, and instructions for submitting comments by fax or by post.

Wonder how many permit fees Ansel Adams would have paid for at $1,500 in his day to sell a $30 print back then?  Probably wouldn't have even take a shot.  Even a $10 Instagram online print makes this fee totally absurd.  Write an article for maybe $300 to some travel magazine with a photo of federal land, and pay $1,500 to do so.

SG
« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 08:18:15 am by Some Guy »
Logged

pcgpcg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 490
    • paulglasser
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2014, 01:43:32 am »

Thanks for the heads up.  The second link doesn't work though... "The page you were looking for doesn't exist."  Can you repost please so I can give the gubmint a piece of my mind?
Logged

Some Guy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 729
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2014, 08:25:45 am »

Thanks for the heads up.  The second link doesn't work though... "The page you were looking for doesn't exist."  Can you repost please so I can give the gubmint a piece of my mind?

Fixed the link, I think.

I've run into this matter before when they use the word "commercial."  Seems to some that a tripod or a large camera makes it "commercial" in their eyes, but a $1,000 fine is absurd.  Especially if you are shooting for a speculative article paying you maybe $400 for a magazine travel piece.  Imagine paying $1,500 to get back $400 - maybe.

They really are out of touch with what pays, like everyone who shoots stills makes a million like a Hollywood movie studio.

SG
Logged

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4559
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2014, 05:22:01 pm »

I wonder how much Google Earth will owe.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2014, 05:35:47 pm »

This is what happens when we give government the power to control our lives.  We lose our freedoms.

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2014, 10:58:00 pm »

The Feds are out of their minds. We, the photographers, are their best publicists. The kind of publicity that we give the Parks, FWS sanctuaries, and National Forests is invaluable in helping them reach their public and supporters aka tax-payers and voters. If they want to make sure that voters speak up in their support, they need to make sure that the voters visit their parks/forests/sanctuaries, and these visitors come after seeing attractive photos.

Charge the big production companies commensurate fees.

Charge the tour leaders modest fees (similar to any paid by non-photo-tour guides) and make sure that the tour participants are paying the usual park/forest use fees (again similar to any paid by non-photo-tour tour participants).

Don't charge the individual photographers packing in their gear on foot and shooting on spec. A photographer abiding by "leave no trace" (LNT) philosophy is no different from a standard visitor also abiding by LNT. Who the heck can tell by sight who a "professional photographer / videographer" is nowadays in the age of cell phones, GoPros, and such.

Rangers need to attend to preservation of the parks/forests/sanctuaries, but they are also the human representatives on site speaking for the park/forest/sanctuary. Their time is best spent in keeping forests and humans safe, educating the visiting humans about the value of the forest, etc - not inspecting for cameras.  Better they should inspect stoves and instruct the unwary about fire prevention, stove safety, etc. There are a lot of visitors, novices to the outdoors, who appreciate the knowledge and assistance of the rangers, and happy visitors become better LNT campers and happy citizen lobbyists for their NPS/ NFWS/ NF system.
Logged

langier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1503
    • Celebrating Rural America, the Balkans and beyond
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2014, 09:33:14 am »

More incrementalism to create a solution in search of a problem just to create more busywork for bureaucrats to hire more people and create more power over you, fellow comrade!

My two cents worth.
Logged
Larry Angier
ASMP, ACT, & many more! @sacred_icons
https://angier-fox.photoshelter.com

framah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2014, 10:30:26 am »

Just found this news article:


SEATTLE (AP) — Faced with increasing criticism of a proposal that would restrict media filming in wilderness areas, the head of the U.S. Forest Service said late Thursday that the rule is not intended to apply to news-gathering activities.
The rule would apply to commercial filming, like a movie production, but reporters and news organizations would not need to get a permit to shoot video or photographs in the nation's wilderness areas, Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said in a phone interview Thursday.
"The U.S. Forest Service remains committed to the First Amendment," he said, adding: "It does not infringe in any way on First Amendment rights. It does not apply to news-gathering activities, and that includes any part of news."
Forest Service officials had said earlier in the week that news organizations, except in breaking news situations, would be required to obtain a permit and follow a number of criteria if they wanted to film in designated wilderness areas.
At least two public TV stations, in Idaho and Oregon, said they have been asked to obtain a permit before filming their programs in wilderness areas. Press advocates criticized the proposed rules as a violation of the First Amendment, saying it raises concerns about press freedom.
"I understand what he's saying the intent is, but the language doesn't not reflect that intent," Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, said Thursday in response to Tidwell's comments.
"If they're serious about it, they need to craft unambiguous language that exempts news-gathering if that's their alleged intent, so there's no question that someone out on a news story wouldn't have a ranger or other employee saying 'You need a permit'," Osterreicher said.
Osterreicher noted that the proposal clearly refers to permits for still photography, but Tidwell said Thursday that "the intent is not for it to apply to still photography." When this discrepancy was raised to him, Tidwell said: "This is an example of where we need to clarify."
Tidwell said the agency wants feedback to help make sure the rules are clear and consistent.

(AP) In this 2013 photo provided by Oregon Field Guide, photographer Andy Maser, right,...
Full Image
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.
Tidwell acknowledged that fees are applied differently by the agency across the country. He said the goal is to have a consistent approach to permitting commercial filming activities.
Commercial-filming permits currently run anywhere from $30 a day for up to three people to as much as $800 per day for production involving dozens of people.
A separate proposal would charge as much as $1,500 for the bigger film productions involving dozens of people on federal lands.
The plan "is a good faith effort to ensure the fullest protection of America's wild places" and has been in place for more than four years, Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers said in a statement earlier Thursday.
Tidwell, whose agency manages nearly 190 million acres of public lands in national forests and grasslands, including 439 wilderness areas, said he welcomed feedback from the public at meetings to help craft clearer rules. The comment period has been extended through Dec. 3.
Under the rules, permit applications for commercial filming would be evaluated based on several criteria, including whether it spreads information about the enjoyment or use of wilderness or its ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic or historical values; helps preserve the wilderness character; and doesn't advertise products or services. Officials also would consider whether other suitable film sites are available outside the wilderness.
Logged
"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2014, 11:03:09 am »

"Under the rules, permit applications for commercial filming would be evaluated based on several criteria, including whether it spreads information about the enjoyment or use of wilderness or its ecological, geological, scientific, educational, scenic or historical values; helps preserve the wilderness character; and doesn't advertise products or services. Officials also would consider whether other suitable film sites are available outside the wilderness."

Even after you're willing to pay the fee, they can deny granting the licenses based on  how you intend to use the movies you take and what position your movie takes.  So you lose freedom of speech which is constitutionally protected.  They might be able to impose a fee, but they cannot screen your political position, for example, if you say federal forests should be private property, they could deny your taking movies.  That won't pass Constitutional muster.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2014, 11:22:58 am »

I wonder Michael and Kevin if you're using your esteemed positions and those of LuLa to present arguments against these fees?

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2014, 01:42:06 pm »

Alan, we have appropriate use issues here. I personally think that if the large production can be made elsewhere and doesn't need features unique to a delicate ecosystem, the Feds are perfectly correct to deny a permit. I am going to use an example from a local National Forest biological research area very popular with scientists and the general public. Thousands of miles of country roads that you could use to shoot a car commercial - do you really need to drive on "Snake Road" (a 3 mile stretch of Shawnee National Forest road with a unique local ecosystem) while the snakes are migrating, to get photos of the car and incidentally kill off the snake population and raise the ire of every Midwestern professional and amateur herpetologist?

If you wanted to come to Snake Road and shoot a documentary on life cycles of the snakes resident there, that's appropriate use of the unique features of the area. In fact, that is an action highly beneficial to the FS and to the snakes. You would still need to get clearance on erecting any temporary platforms for shooting on the limestone bluff face, no doubt. John (and occasionally Joan - I am definitely in the gender minority of herp fanciers) Q. Public can walk in with a hand held camera and light source, do a bit of a scramble at their own risk, and see if they can spot snake hibernation holes in the bluff face. JQP will be evicted if found trying to capture or otherwise harass the snakes. Let's try to abide by the "leave no trace" philosophy.

The NPS/ FS/ NFWS have multiple constituencies, only some of whom vote and pay taxes. Those of us who do vote and pay taxes should remember those other constituencies without voices in Congress - the snakes, trees, rock formations, fish, insects, prairies, birds, streams, etc.

Yep, First Amendment must allow * news gathering * specifically related to the NPS/ FS/ NFWS areas. It's 2014 - you can get 6.5K rig in your backpack, and a 4k camera in your (large) pocket. Nowadays, there is no reason to indiscriminately allow giant production companies to bring in heavy equipment to do the job, though, when modern technology can enable similar quality shooting with far less impact. If ATV racing can be banned from some areas, I see no reason why heavy motorized equipment can't also be banned.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2014, 02:29:08 pm »

Your are creating a straw man.  Park officials can currently close off delicate areas during migration periods.  Creating a new law to charge photographers $1500 to take photos is not required to implement policies like that.

If production companies wish to film the migration, then public policy should be to allow it even if it's for commercial use.  The parks belong to all of us including business.  After all they pay federal taxes too.  Certainly the environment should be protected.  But the park should grant reasonable use.  If it becomes a large expense to the park, then I would agree some payment to offset those costs might be required.  But that should be the exception.

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2014, 04:53:55 pm »

You yourself said it - reasonable use. Reasonable use of a delicate resource - meaning, if you can use some non-delicate resource and get the same results, for heavens' sake do so. Of course the FS can close off areas - "Snake Road" is a local and well-loved example -they should be able to keep on doing so

I am not in favor of the vagueness of the proposed fee regulations, by the way. Fees and regulations need to be pegged to size of group, presence of heavy motorized transport, and so on. To my mind, the fees should be levied to recoup predictable expenses. Large production company: why should the company not have to pay for daily use permits AND also not have to pay for the recuperation of any damage produced by their production company.

Joe or Jane Doe, solo photographer-hiker working on spec, no gear brought in that doesn't come on the hiker's back, no devices or props that could damage the setting that belongs to all of us (jack-ass drone users flying their gear into the Grand Prismatic Pool, we are looking at you) - If "Leave No Trace" Doe wants to sell fine art photos or a short travel video advertising a tour, all I can say is, pay up your annual interagency pass, and that should be all the fees that the Fed. wilderness agencies charge. The Feds ought to be grateful for the good publicity generated - maybe they need to require that photographers selling work credit the park or forest featured in the photo.

Tour leaders, don't be a**holes, make your tour members pay their daily permit or annual pass fee up front. Tour leaders should be subject to the same regs as govern for-profit guide companies. Whether or not the tour leader or tour members take photos is irrelevant.

The feds need to write more precise regulations, geared toward potential damage to the environment in question, and ought to view all 'leave no trace" photography as publicity free to the feds, not hassle the photographers raising public awareness of our national treasures.

Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2014, 05:49:01 pm »

Nancy:  Well we do agree pretty much.  What's the interagency fee?     

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2014, 07:23:59 pm »

$80.00 a year for unlimited admission to all National Parks, National Forests, National Fish/Wildlife facilities (instead of paying daily fee). It is a $10.00 lifetime fee (no renewal needed) for seniors, free for veterans and disabled, free for volunteers with a certain amount of service to National Parks/ Forests/ FWS/ BLM/ etc. (for example, volunteers who construct and maintain trails on a regular basis). Note: this is for admission to the parks, etc - does not cover developed campsite rental charge, boatslip charge, etc. Not all National Forests require entrance fees, the local ones (Mark Twain and Shawnee) don't - the drive-up campsites do charge $10.00, in season, dispersed (backpack-in) camping is free.

http://www.nps.gov/findapark/passes.htm
http://store.usgs.gov/pass/annual.html   FAQ

FWIW: http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/us-forest-service-chief-i-will-ensure-first-amendment-upheld-under-agency-commercial

I am heading to Snake Road well before the Crack of Dawn tomorrow, I hope.
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5106391.pdf

Meet a shy and slightly alarmed Eastern Hog-Nosed Snake. This non-venomous snake flares its neck like a cobra, then if the worrisome stranger comes closer will start hissing, then if the stranger actually grabs the snake, it will roll over and play dead. Not wanting to hassle this snake, I portrayed it in its show-off mode "look I am BIG".
Logged

pcgpcg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 490
    • paulglasser
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2014, 07:41:31 pm »

Yes, Interagency fees cover all NFS fees.  For example, in the PNW, you don't need to purchase an annual Northwest Forest Pass if you have an Interagency Pass.  Also, the Senior Pass (which is the biggest bargain in America) gets you into most drive-up NFS and National Park campsites for half price. That ranges from $15 (instead of $30) at Yosemite to $5 (instead of $10) at remote campsites in Oregon and Washington.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2014, 07:46:08 pm by pcgpcg »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2014, 09:06:42 pm »

Well I'm a senior and vet.  Do the waive the $1500 for me? :)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2014, 09:10:30 pm »

I just checked the site.  I don't believe it's free for vets unless they're disabled.  There is a free pass for active duty military.

maddogmurph

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1117
    • Maddog's Photography
Re: Feds want new restrictions and fees on filming in wilderness areas.
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2014, 01:22:52 pm »

I left my comment.
Logged
Maddog Murph
www.depictionsofbeauty.com
Mostly here for constructive feedback.
Pages: [1]   Go Up