Hassled in Death Valley

[jstraw]

I think the policy is explicit with the two exceptions I named.

Does the word "commercial" apply to both filming and still shooting or are "commercial filming" and "still photography" separate concepts to the NPS? In other the words, is the distinction commercial/non-commercial or motion pictures/still photography. That's not discretionary, it's just unclearly worded.

The second area of vagueness is that they may be saying they can charge money for absolutely any activity they decide they need to monitor. That's very discretionary.

I don't see anything else that suggests room for interpretation by reasonable people (yes, I know).

 

[pgomena]

Just tell the ranger that if you were a real pro, you'd be shooting digital.

I've never had a problem with a tripod in any public area, but a friend of mine was hassled by city police while photographing public buildings -- he was contracted by the city -- with a Hasselblad on a tripod. The tripod was the giveaway that he might be a terrorist. This was in a suburban county seat, not downtown Portland.

Frankly, I've felt more conspicuous with my big old Pentax spotmeter in a leather holster. I don't put it on my belt anymore . . .

In the case of national parks, it's a sorry case when common sense can't sort these things out. Having worked on commercial location shoots, I can understand the NPS wanting to know who's doing what, when and where. A commercial shoot could be one guy with a model and a couple of lights, or it could be a crew of a dozen people, an RV, some generators, a grip truck, etc.
Maybe hard for a working ranger to tell the difference, but a simple tripod should not be the sole criterion for judgement.

Peter Gomena

 

[JBrunner]

Here is the relevant section from the link:


Still photographers require a permit when

1. the activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or

2. the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or

3. Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.


I don't see any room for confusion on anybodys part.

 

[jstraw]

Here is the relevant section from the link:


Still photographers require a permit when

1. the activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or

2. the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or

3. Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.


I don't see any room for confusion on anybodys part.

I think that it's clear enough that I'd present a copy of it as documentation of the fact that I require no permit.

 

[DougGrosjean]

Here is the relevant section from the link:
<snip>

2. the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or


I don't see any room for confusion on anybodys part.

Is it possible that some members of the LEO community consider a tripod a prop? And that a handheld camera of any sort is acceptable due to lack of a prop?

 

[jstraw]

It can't be a prop if it's not going to be seen in the photograph.

 

[DougGrosjean]

It can't be a prop if it's not going to be seen in the photograph.

Devil's Advocate:
It's propping up the camera.

 

[jstraw]

I see.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

By that token, we could argue that the neck of the ranger is a prop too, since it is obviously holding up his otherwise imperiled head, and does he need a permit for that?

 

[DougGrosjean]

The prop thing is a dumb argument IMO (and I'm the one who put it out there), but remember the ranger isn't a photographer.

And I've sure heard dumber things roll out of the mouths of people who you think would be smarter than that.

 

[JBrunner]

Is it possible that some members of the LEO community consider a tripod a prop? And that a handheld camera of any sort is acceptable due to lack of a prop?

A regulation concerning photography can be expected to specify a tripod, when it means to specify tripod, and a prop when it means to specify prop.

The term prop in this case most certainly does not refer to a tripod. Any reasonable person would understand that, and so would a judge or laywer, where the rubber meets the road.

 

[DannL]

I think the policy is explicit with the two exceptions I named.

Does the word "commercial" apply to both filming and still shooting or are "commercial filming" and "still photography" separate concepts to the NPS? In other the words, is the distinction commercial/non-commercial or motion pictures/still photography. That's not discretionary, it's just unclearly worded.

According to Order #53 . . .

A permit is not required for:

* A commercial photographer not using a prop, model, or set, and staying within normal visitation areas and hours . . .

+
So, unless I've misinterpreted this . . . even if you are a commercial photographer a permit is not required, unless you are arranging a set or creating a set with props and or models.

Commercial to me means professional (profit making) . . .ie; anyone engaged in commerce with regard to photography. But according to the director's order above, even then, your professional/nonprofessional status is not relevant. Am I missing something here? I think I need a lawyer (solicitor).

 

[lee]

DannL,

I think you have it right. This is what the NPS supervisor said to me. I explained that I planned to sell as many of the images that I made at the Missions in San Antonio and he said Great and good luck. He also said the the smokies sometimes don't understand the rules.

lee\c

 

[David Henderson]

"but remember the ranger isn't a photographer"

But they do need to understand and obey the rules that should govern their behaviour and its plain that at least some don't right now --and that's why photographers shouldn't be quiet when unreasonably harrassed by Rangers. If the Ranger won't see sense then the issue needs to be placed with his superiors. It is not in our interests for Rangers not to know their rules or to decide to make up his own. As others are saying too, it is pretty plain from the published material that the vast majority of still photography in National Parks requires neither a ranger's permission nor a permit, no matter who carries it out and for whatever purpose.

 

[Dave Wooten]

PMA Death Valley

PMA conference/show has scheduled a photographic trip/workshop into Death Valley. It will end in Rhyolite at sundown....check PMA Las Vegas for details. (next week already!)

 

[Kino]

That is seriously uncool, as they are not people who are allowed to make laws, although lately in this country, there seems to be some confusion on law enforcement and security services part, regarding who makes the law.

IMHO, therein lies the crux of the matter and I think you are exactly right.

Those who enforce the laws are not empowered to rewrite them at will and should be vigorously discouraged from attempting to do so, regardless of their good intentions.

 

[eddym]

Frankly, I've felt more conspicuous with my big old Pentax spotmeter in a leather holster. I don't put it on my belt anymore . . .

When approached, I always unsnap the strap of my Zone VI holster, and then let my hand hover near the meter as they come closer...

 

[Curt]

When approached, I always unsnap the strap of my Zone VI holster, and then let my hand hover near the meter as they come closer...

I have one of those too, Fred said it's the best damm holder ever made. He could be right!


I've lost count of the exposures in all of this excitement.
Do you feel lucky, well do you punk?

 

[BrianShaw]

When approached, I always unsnap the strap of my Zone VI holster, and then let my hand hover near the meter as they come closer...

Headline - Death Valley, 29 Feb 2007
PHOTOGRAPHER SHOOTING DEATH VALLEY HIMSELF GETS SHOT TO DEATH.

 

[Flotsam]

Headline - Death Valley, 29 Feb 2007
PHOTOGRAPHER SHOOTING DEATH VALLEY HIMSELF GETS SHOT TO DEATH.

This reminds me of a tale that Aggie once posted about being collared by the cops and held at the Police Station for pointing a tripod mounted "cannon" (no, not a Canon) at a helpless landscape and brandishing a "pistol", possibly one of those deadly Pentax one degrees that are so popular among terrorists.

 

[eddym]

Headline - Death Valley, 29 Feb 2007
PHOTOGRAPHER SHOOTING DEATH VALLEY HIMSELF GETS SHOT TO DEATH.

Why do you think they call it "Death" Valley???

 

[rpsawin]

This reminds me of a tale that Aggie once posted about being collared by the cops and held at the Police Station for pointing a tripod mounted "cannon" (no, not a Canon) at a helpless landscape and brandishing a "pistol", possibly one of those deadly Pentax one degrees that are so popular among terrorists.

I understand the Pentax Spotmeter V is highly regarded by most sleeper cells in Europe and the U.S.

Bob

 

[Curt]

I got my information request back from the park service.

As a rule, a still photographer in a public area, during public hours, not using model(s), set(s) or props won't need a permit. there are however, some places in the NPS where tripod use is not allowed by anyone. Some examples could be in a historic building during public hours or on the boardwalk in the geyser basin at Yellowstone. This is based on the possible trip hazard in limited spaces, and in the case of historic buildings, possible resource damage or interfering with interpretive programs. While I don't know of any restriction at Yosemite, it wouldn't hurt for him to check with a ranger when he gets there.

The reference to "him", me, is that it went up the chain. It took several days to get the response but I am satisfied with what they say.

Like I said before, get the badge number and name of the person who followed and hassled you. At the very least submit a letter to the NPS and your Congress person. The parks are for the public to enjoy and as long as we protect the parks we have the right to use them respectfully.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'll second the notion of writing your congressperson. They're great at stirring up trouble with federal agencies. Having to respond to a congressional inquiry will certainly light a fire under the ranger's boss' butt, and he'll pass the heat on down the chain to the responsible party. I've seen this process in action, having worked inside numerous federal agencies. The ranger will learn the rules REAL quick, or not be a field agent.

 

[Loose Gravel]

I said I'd get back to you all on this. I contacted a friend of mine who was a ranger in Zion, Yellowstone, Hawaii, etc. and asked what was going on with such hassles. He is now working at some other level in Washington DC as well as parks all over. Here is his reply, editted for children:

I don't f# know! Part of the problem is that Rangers these days
are more into how many tickets they can write and busts they can make
than being good public servants - part of the reason I am no longer a
Ranger.

That doesn't clear up much, but it seems consistant. --LG--