Taking a photo on Forest Service land? $1,500 please

[pixy0stix]

www.9news.com/story/news/local/2014/09/25/snapping-a-photo-in-the-wilderness-could-cost-you-1500k/16238259/

SUMMIT COUNTY - A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a new U.S. Forest Service proposal could cost you a thousand dollars or more for that picture.

The U.S. Forest Service's current wilderness photography rule is about to expire and a new draft being proposed is whipping up controversy among members of the media, law makers and hikers like Mark DeFrain.

"You just told me something that sounds very crazy to me," DeFrain said.

Taking a photo on Forest Service land? $1,500k please.

The draft would require commercial photographers, potentially broadcast and print media as well, to pay for a permit before taking pictures or video on wilderness land.

Permits would cost up to $1,500, and fines for not getting a permit up to a $1,000. Forest Service supervisors would decide which reporters would be allowed access, all of which doesn't make much sense to hiker Dave Jansen.

"People have iPhones and cameras in the wilderness all the time. What's the difference of having that or another camera in the wilderness?" Jansen said.

In recent days, online articles about the proposal have popped up like fall colors.

"Any rule giving the media less access than the general public is blatantly unconstitutional," Radio, Television, Digital News Association Executive Director Mike Cavender said.

Senator Udall says the proposal defies common sense, a sentiment shared among some hikers.

"To me, you're kind of advertising the beauty and showing the public the beauty to draw people out to go hiking and stuff, which I think is great," DeFrain said.

As the draft is written there are many questions, like what comes of broadcasters? If a news viewer takes a picture in the wilderness and sends it to a TV station for air, will they need a permit?

The Forest Service didn't call 9NEWS back for a recorded interview but did say the current draft needs work and that they're taking public comments.

A comment period has been extended until Dec. 3.

[pixy0stix]

I get it, the forest service is *hurting* for money. However this is basically unenforceable.

[josieposy]

For $1500 those trees and animals better work it!

[aMrsin09]

They have that where I live.
The theory is the land is owned by the public and photographers shouldn't be able to profit from public land without paying anything. So there is a yearly permit.

Sent from my SM-G900I using proboards

[ijack]

I know a lot of people up in arms about this. Oddly enough news of it was released at a wilderness photography workshop in jackson's hole that H's company puts on - there are a ton of super famous wildlife photogs there and they are pissed!

[rubytue]

$1500 for a permit vs "up to $1000" fine for not getting a permit?

Hmmm. I'll take the chance at something between $0 and $1000.

[decemberwedding07]

Sept 26, 2014 9:35:03 GMT -5 aMrsin09 said:

They have that where I live.
The theory is the land is owned by the public and photographers shouldn't be able to profit from public land without paying anything. So there is a yearly permit.

Sent from my SM-G900I using proboards

By the same logic, a permit should be required to photograph anything that isn't the professional photographer's personal property-- roads, bridges, parks, and on and on.

The other thing that bothers me is that the implication is that it's the scenery that makes a photograph worthy of selling commercially for a lot of money, that the photographer has nothing to do with it, and that his/her photo isn't art. Are they going to charge painters to sit and paint, or is their work more of a form of art in the end, so it doesn't count?

[wawa]

I know there are public parks around here that if you want to do professional photography - like having a full on photoshoot with a family or bridal party - you need to have a permit. If you are just snapping pictures of your kids and some trees with a phone then you don't. The fuzzy part is people like my mom who have a pro-level DSLR, and does occasionally sell her photos, but mostly just goes around taking pictures of shit for fun. It's hard to enforce unless the people are sitting there doing multiple poses with a flash umbrella thingy and everything.

[MrsAxilla]

Sept 26, 2014 9:35:28 GMT -5 ijack said:

I know a lot of people up in arms about this. Oddly enough news of it was released at a wilderness photography workshop in jackson's hole that H's company puts on - there are a ton of super famous wildlife photogs there and they are pissed!

It only applies to media, though.  I wonder how they're defining media.

[karinothing]

They do this at a lot of the parks here. People don't seem to have a problem with it, but I am not a professional photographer.

[ijack]

Sept 26, 2014 9:47:52 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Sept 26, 2014 9:35:28 GMT -5 ijack said:

I know a lot of people up in arms about this. Oddly enough news of it was released at a wilderness photography workshop in jackson's hole that H's company puts on - there are a ton of super famous wildlife photogs there and they are pissed!

It only applies to media, though.  I wonder how they're defining media.

I read it as basically anyone who makes money off their photos - so photogs who sell their stuff commercially to media or other I think.

[ijack]

One part that confuses me is that what if you're not planning on having it be a commercial print. There are photos that H has taken on vacation that people end up seeing and wanting to purchase, but he probably wouldn't have purchased a pass because wildlife photography isn't his thing. In fact yesterday he posted some (admittedly amazing) photos of DD2 on FB that he randomly took the other night and people are seriously asking to purchase them. So how does that work?

[downtoearth]

This was updated last night... It's not the $1,500 and more clear than previously reported. Not sure if it's better, but here's the latest:

mtpr.org/post/forest-service-wilderness-photofilm-policy-misunderstood

Forest Service: Wilderness Photo/Film Policy Misunderstood

By Edward O'Brien

U.S. Forest Service issued a press release late Thursday to clarify the intent behind the proposed directive for commercial photography and filmmaking in Congressionally designated wilderness areas.

The Forest Service describes it as a good faith effort to ensure wilderness areas are protected.

Critics say it essentially gives the agency story-approval power.

Montana’s entire congressional delegation today called for the rule to be clarified and re-drafted.

U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell says the proposal does not apply to news coverage, gathering information for a news program or documentary. If a project falls outside of that scope and the filming is intended to be on wilderness land, Tidwell says additional criteria are applied to protect wilderness values.

According to the Forest Service press release, commercial filming permit fees range around $30 per day for a group up to three people. A large Hollywood production with 70 or more people might be as much as $800. It says the $1,500 commercial permit fee cited in many publications is wrong, and refers to a different proposed directive.

The release says The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs.

The proposed directive on commercial filming in wilderness has been in place for more than four years.

The public originally had until November 3rd to comment on the proposal. Based on the high level of interest, the agency will extend the public comment period to December 3rd.

[wawa]

Sept 26, 2014 10:07:32 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

This was updated last night... It's not the $1,500 and more clear than previously reported. Not sure if it's better, but here's the latest:

mtpr.org/post/forest-service-wilderness-photofilm-policy-misunderstood

Forest Service: Wilderness Photo/Film Policy Misunderstood

By Edward O'Brien

U.S. Forest Service issued a press release late Thursday to clarify the intent behind the proposed directive for commercial photography and filmmaking in Congressionally designated wilderness areas.

The Forest Service describes it as a good faith effort to ensure wilderness areas are protected.

Critics say it essentially gives the agency story-approval power.

Montana’s entire congressional delegation today called for the rule to be clarified and re-drafted.

U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell says the proposal does not apply to news coverage, gathering information for a news program or documentary. If a project falls outside of that scope and the filming is intended to be on wilderness land, Tidwell says additional criteria are applied to protect wilderness values.

According to the Forest Service press release, commercial filming permit fees range around $30 per day for a group up to three people. A large Hollywood production with 70 or more people might be as much as $800. It says the $1,500 commercial permit fee cited in many publications is wrong, and refers to a different proposed directive.

The release says The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs.

The proposed directive on commercial filming in wilderness has been in place for more than four years.

The public originally had until November 3rd to comment on the proposal. Based on the high level of interest, the agency will extend the public comment period to December 3rd.

this seems perfectly reasonable. You don't get to set up your business for free on public land.

[ijack]

oh, so it basically sounds like you need one if you're just doing a big ole something or other.

[downtoearth]

Sept 26, 2014 10:16:58 GMT -5 ijack said:

oh, so it basically sounds like you need one if you're just doing a big ole something or other.

Yeah, they did poorly getting the info out originally, so I guess the plan is more clear than originally thought, which is why they clarified and extended comment period, I think.

[MrsAxilla]

Sept 26, 2014 10:16:58 GMT -5 ijack said:

oh, so it basically sounds like you need one if you're just doing a big ole something or other.

Yes, and only in wilderness areas, which are preserved in their natural state.  There are no roads or motorized vehicles allowed.  

[downtoearth]

Sept 26, 2014 10:20:28 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Sept 26, 2014 10:16:58 GMT -5 ijack said:

oh, so it basically sounds like you need one if you're just doing a big ole something or other.

Yes, and only in wilderness areas, which are preserved in their natural state.  There are no roads or motorized vehicles allowed.  

Well, it's still a little muddled b/c you can read it as ONLY wilderness, but I think they intended it to be a permit required if it's a commercial production and on forest service land.  You need additional permit if you are filming in wilderness that is not for personal or documentary use. Eh, I can't quite understand it, which is why people should comment if they are film makers or professional photogs. 

But if you're using actors, you'll need to pay, so I'm guessing selfies by actors in Yellowstone park are a big "No!"

[ijack]

This is where it gets muddy to me
"The release says The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs."
So you only need a permit if you're using models/props/cause extra costs/using a remote space? Or is it ANY commercial shoot?

[josieposy]

I've been thinking about dancing trees like Groot now since first reading this.

[meshaliuknits]

Sept 26, 2014 12:14:18 GMT -5 josieposy said:

I've been thinking about dancing trees like Groot now since first reading this.

Then I'm in good company. I was picturing Ents kicking up a non-Peter Jackson film crew.

[downtoearth]

Sept 26, 2014 12:07:54 GMT -5 ijack said:

This is where it gets muddy to me
"The release says The proposal does not change the rules for visitors or recreational photographers. Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors or props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs."
So you only need a permit if you're using models/props/cause extra costs/using a remote space? Or is it ANY commercial shoot?

I read it and heard on the radio that if it's a commercial shoot, not just landscape pictures, it needs a permit.

On top of that, if you are a professional photog who is taking a landscape photo to sell commercially, you're fine if you don't use props or models.  If you ask someone to ride his bike through the photo, you likely need that $30 permit, but if someone just happens to ride through your shoot and are not compensated or a "model" (say a friend), you're ok.  If you head into any area where you'd need guidance to access, then you'll also have a cost for that. 

See it's not very clear IMO.