• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

New rules for commercial photography in US forests

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
203,596
Messages
2,856,903
Members
101,917
Latest member
Swarls
Recent bookmarks
0
Here is what was put into the Federal Register early this month:
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...m_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov

Here is a link to the Interim Directive the Forest Service wants to make permanent. Oddly enough, this directive will expire before the end of the comment period. (Despite not being a .gov domain, these links are from the Forest Service's official site.)
http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/documents/wo_id_2709 11-2013-1.pdf

Finally, Here is an older document which covers the basics of shooting in National Forests:
http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/documents/InterimFilmingQAimprovedjune10.pdf

Quoting:

In general still photography is not regulated nor is a permit required for it on the National Forest. However, if the still photography in wilderness takes place in locations where members of the public are generally not allowed, or where additional administrative costs are likely, or if the still photography involves models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities, then a permit is required. (Refer to FSH 2709.11, sec. 45.5, for definitions of models, sets, and props).

Nothing I see in this proposal changes that. While it's certainly worth checking with the Forest Service itself or an attorney, my reading of this latest regulation is that it "woke up the internet" to what the rules are currently rather than changing them.
 
Tempest in a tea cup. But all this noise might be good in that perhaps rangers and all might be better informed.
 
The only strictly-defined restriction involves tall bearded guys in lederhosen from the state of Jefferson. There is some fine print in there about
them. (An inside joke, for those of you who don't know where "Jefferson" exactly is).
 
The only strictly-defined restriction involves tall bearded guys in lederhosen from the state of Jefferson. There is some fine print in there about
them. (An inside joke, for those of you who don't know where "Jefferson" exactly is).

I'll have to watch it then...
 

Attachments

  • MeLederhosen.jpg
    MeLederhosen.jpg
    224.8 KB · Views: 131
Last edited by a moderator:
Way too many folks join the click fest and spread the bad incomplete information.
 
My opinion is this is not a huge problem as the Oregon report may imply. But this is significant, timely and relevant to APUG.

The comment period is open, I encourage making comments while it is easy and while you can.

I asked for something to the effect that "what is commercial and requires permit" be defined in clear language. And I asked for some "professional" photography to be allowed without permit (allow people to freely take photographs like Ansel Adams landscapes and Patagonia ads).

You may ask for more, or less. In the words of Vaughn Meader: "Vote for the Kennedy of your choice, but vote".
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom