New rules for commercial photography in US forests

KenS · Sep 26, 2014

A "latest news" link was just posted to the pure-silver list... one that I believe may be of interest to many of the US members as well as those that might feel ready to follow St. Ansel's footsteps.

<http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/news/1000-dollar-fine-for-pictures-in-the-forest?src=soc_fcbks>

Time for another 'uprising'?

Ken

removed-user-1 · Sep 26, 2014

They have revised their statement on this, apparently due to some pressure: Yahoo News (AP)

JRoosa · Sep 26, 2014

Well, sort of.

If you aren't selling your photos, you are off the hook.

I think the National Parks already have rules in place about the need for permits for commercial photography. Colorado State Parks do too.

Good thing I'm an amateur...nobody would buy my stuff. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to photograph my kid becoming a Junior Ranger for keeping his dog on a leash.

-J.

Nikon FM, 28mm F/2.8 series E, TMax100, Ilford RC paper

snapguy · Sep 26, 2014

Boy

I just knew something was up. Last year when I was in a National Forest I saw Smokey Bear reading "Mein Kampf."

AgX · Sep 26, 2014

Where is the original, legal text??

That article speaks of press photographers at one moment and of 34 mill. hikers the next moment. That is quite confusing.

In any case, banning just press photographers would really be weird as this would be limiting the freedom of the press, with press photographers typically being granted most widely access amongst photographers.

F4user · Sep 26, 2014

Yes, "The land of the free".
Waiting the time when China ( or worse North Korea ) will complain about infringement of " human right " in US.

darkosaric · Sep 26, 2014

F4user said:
"The land of the free".

I find that Mr. John Oliver is describing USA very accurate in every point - there is nothing like a British guy with good sense of humor living in the USA

One example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7hZjNO3I-Q

analoguey · Sep 26, 2014

Over at LFF, there was a different take, more or less saying it's old wine in new bottle (albeit 4 yr old wine) and that it was effective only at certain places, mostly for commercial shoots(meaning assistants, crew etc).

Sent from Tap-a-talk

AgX · Sep 26, 2014

Commercial photography in your meaning is different from press photography.
As I indicated that whole article seems doubtful to me.

analoguey · Sep 26, 2014

I was quoting what I heard over there - I don't have first hand knowledge either way - on the source article or on US forests.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

AgX · Sep 26, 2014

Yes, but limiting commercial photography (in contrast to press photography) at least would make sense...

analoguey · Sep 26, 2014

Hmm. In what sense do you mean? Press photography would be news?

Just a note, for anyone seriously considering this, I'd suggest reading the full thread on Lff.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

AgX · Sep 26, 2014

I differ betewen journalistic and commercial photography. (Though in a wider sense photo-journalists typically photograph for money too. But iin another context.)

M.A.Longmore · Sep 26, 2014

.
Luckily we are using film.
We can claim that we haven't taken any photographs while walking through the forest.

.

Konical · Sep 26, 2014

Good Morning,

One of the problems frequently encountered is that anyone using a tripod or anything beyond a simple digital point and shoot is somehow considered "professional" or acting in a commercial capacity. Beyond that of course, we all know that tripods are obviously terrorist weapons; think how easily they could conceal a grenade launcher.

Konical

bvy · Sep 26, 2014

Only you can prevent forest photography.

M.A.Longmore · Sep 26, 2014

bvy said:
Only you can prevent forest photography.

.
I see your point.

.

bdial · Sep 26, 2014

I hope I am not the only one to find the Esquire piece a little hard to follow.
Here is the text of the proposal;

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...m_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov

As stated earlier, it's apparently directed at commercial work and not amateur photographers.
Hopefully, much ado about nothing.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 26, 2014

My questions are: 1) Are all Forrest Rangers going to take our word that we're not selling the images we take... while shooting with a "professional-looking" large format camera? 2) Who has the ultimate authority to stop us, fine us, or let us go about our merry way? 3) How can they prove a darned thing right there on the spot?

Even those intending to sell their images and are known to do that routinely can simply say they're not working at the moment... they're on vacation and these images are for their own personal use.

benjiboy · Sep 26, 2014

For photography for commercial purposes in national parks it's similar in the U.K.

Steve Smith · Sep 26, 2014

darkosaric said:
there is nothing like a British guy with good sense of humor living in the USA

That will be humour!

Steve.

benjiboy · Sep 26, 2014

The americans didn't think Piers Morgan was very funny.

Steve Smith · Sep 26, 2014

benjiboy said:
The Americans didn't think Piers Morgan was very funny.

I don't think we did either. Was he supposed to be?

Steve.

JRoosa · Sep 26, 2014

We were wondering if you might be interested in taking him back.

He just doesn't seem happy here. It makes us feel bad, you know.

J.

pentaxuser · Sep 26, 2014

JRoosa said:
We were wondering if you might be interested in taking him back.

He just doesn't seem happy here. It makes us feel bad, you know.

J.

Here's the deal, Jack. You keep Piers and I'll stop complaining about and just put up with the film and paper price differential between the U.S. and the U.K.

Good to know that you won't be charged for pictures of Aspens either

pentaxuser

New rules for commercial photography in US forests

removed-user-1

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency