New rules for commercial photography in US forests

DREW WILEY · Sep 26, 2014

Film crews and commercial shoots cause disruptions, possibly damage to natural habitat, and potentially even safety hazards which need regulation. That's why there are special rules about them in public jurisdictions, even on city streets. For example, an ambulance driver or fire
truck doesn't need even more clutter to wade thru to get somewhere on time. This kind of thing is nothing new and has virtually no impact on
ordinary photographers just doing their personal thing. In the US you can simply with the appropriate govt jurisdiction website for the revelant rules, whether Forest Service land, BLM, specific Natl or State parks etc. A lot of fuss about nothing... but these kinds of rumors somehow keep
coming up.

Steve Smith · Sep 26, 2014

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

NO!!! He's yours now!

Steve.

benjiboy · 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.

No I'm afraid you're stuck with him. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...the-uk-now-scotland-has-voted-no-9743545.html

David Brown · Sep 26, 2014

DREW WILEY said:
This kind of thing is nothing new and has virtually no impact on ordinary photographers just doing their personal thing. In the US you can simply (consult) with the appropriate govt jurisdiction website for the revelant rules, whether Forest Service land, BLM, specific Natl or State parks etc. A lot of fuss about nothing... but these kinds of rumors somehow keep coming up.

Drew is correct. Here is the actual wording:

Still photographyuse of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities.

Source: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retriev...y=HTML&h=L&r=PART&n=pt36.2.251#se36.2.251_151

Perhaps we can dial the paranoia back a bit ...

pdeeh · Sep 26, 2014

Mr. Brown, if you don't stop cluttering up this thread with facts I shall be forced to report you to the authorities

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 26, 2014

Thread title updated.

DREW WILEY · Sep 26, 2014

They have reasons to be suspicious. For a long time, every time there was a forest fire, by the time they got there, they noticed the same bear
already there in a ranger hat, holding a shovel. Every single time. Pretty soon he was famous and adorned posters everywhere. Then finally, after many years, someone took the trouble to ask, how the heck that bear always got to the fire first, even though he couldn't drive? So now the reason you can't go out in the forest and meet Smokey in person is that he's serving twenty-five to life in a Federal penitentiary for arson. You
just never know.

Alan Klein · Sep 26, 2014

David Brown said:
Drew is correct. Here is the actual wording:

Still photographyuse of still photographic equipment on National Forest System lands that takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed or where additional administrative costs are likely, or uses models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities.

Source: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retriev...y=HTML&h=L&r=PART&n=pt36.2.251#se36.2.251_151

Perhaps we can dial the paranoia back a bit ...

From the linked regulation: "Commercial use or activityany use or activity on National Forest System lands (a) where an entry or participation fee is charged, or (b) where the primary purpose is the sale of a good or service, and in either case, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended to produce a profit."

My understanding would mean that if you go on a photo tour to the park, then the tour operator has to pay the $1500 fee which he will add to what he charges the class. If there are five people in his group, then they each will pay an extra $300 over the tour cost. That will reduce sales of these tours and participation by non-pro photographers.

DREW WILEY · Sep 26, 2014

If you're conducting a workshop independent of a park position, and it de facto becomes your temporary business address, they're likely to assert a right to something. Just depends if you are viewed as educational and essentially non-profit, or as a commercial venture. And that would have to be assessed in advance. Different parks can have entirely different practical interpretations of policy, as can different Forest Service jurisdictions. Some of these idiotic TV "adventure" reality shows do various stunts and so forth that could elicit rescue crews if something goes wrong, or lead to a lawsuit if the advance contract does not clearly absolve the relevant agency from the stupidity of anything involved. People have sued parks because some idiotic family member got hit by lightning. Popular parks and rec areas get treated like theme parks. That's why I totally avoid places like Yosemite Valley and Jellystone in the summer tourist season. The rangers are reduced to being
law enforcement officers in a city with trees and campfire pits. No wonder they're uptight and often have a siege mentality. I just spent the
last two weeks hiking the boundaries of several Wilderness jurisdictions, two Natl Parks, multiple Natl Forests and BLM holdings in several states, and never even saw any rangers except at a couple entry stations. They have bigger things to do than worry about than if you're having coffee with Bigfoot and asking him to "smile" before you pop the shutter.

mopar_guy · Sep 26, 2014

Would Ansel Adams be subject to a fine of $1000 because he made photographs of an unmistakable location on public land and then sold the prints as fine art prints?

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 26, 2014

^^^ Yes, and if he took 20 images and only used one, or none, the intent was to make a profit. So they could have fined him $20,000... and that's assuming he was only caught once and they proved he had only 20 exposed plates. I suspect he may not have paid such an exorbitant fee and we may never have had all those gorgeous images of our national parks by Adams or maybe no other master. The funny irony is... without all those famous images in galleries, news stories, magazines and books... national parks surely would not be so appealing to visitors.

Bill Burk · Sep 26, 2014

I added my comment to the register.

I wrote something to the effect that any group small enough to qualify for a standard Wilderness Permit, should be permitted to do Still Photography or Commercial Film Making, regardless of whether it's Professional, Amateur or for Personal purposes.

analoguey · Sep 26, 2014

(In other news) On twitter today, there is a post about how the US forest dept is celebrating some anniversary and offering free admission to the public...

Vaughn · Sep 27, 2014

mopar_guy said:
Would Ansel Adams be subject to a fine of $1000 because he made photographs of an unmistakable location on public land and then sold the prints as fine art prints?

No.

Bill Burk · Sep 27, 2014

Vaughn said:
No.

But maybe William Mortensen would.

Bill Burk · Sep 27, 2014

To clarify: Mortensen would have Models, Props, Reflectors. All these things seem to be identified in the guidelines as indications of commercial use.

Bill Burk · Sep 27, 2014

Oh, and the background doesn't have that much significance in Mortensen's work, so the Ranger could reject the permit application because he could do the work elsewhere.

Vaughn · Sep 27, 2014

Bill Burk said:
But maybe William Mortensen would.

But would he have gone into the wilderness in the first place? Laguna Beach was wild enough back then.

From a decade as a wilderness ranger and builder of trails, I know that few can tread lightly in the wilderness...almost impossible with stock. Most tramp hard, and there is not much in between. Wilderness is worth the extra protection.

Bill Burk · Sep 27, 2014

Vaughn said:
But would he have gone into the wilderness in the first place? Laguna Beach was wild enough back then.

From a decade as a wilderness ranger and builder of trails, I know that few can tread lightly in the wilderness...almost impossible with stock. Most tramp hard, and there is not much in between. Wilderness is worth the extra protection.

Oh right, I could imagine he spent time at Madame Modjeska's hideaway, "Arden" in Modjeska Canyon. Anyone know if they were acquainted?

mopar_guy · Sep 27, 2014

Bill Burk said:
To clarify: Mortensen would have Models, Props, Reflectors. All these things seem to be identified in the guidelines as indications of commercial use.

So then having prints for sale in a gallery or online would not be evidence of commercial photography?

Vaughn · Sep 29, 2014

mopar_guy said:
So then having prints for sale in a gallery or online would not be evidence of commercial photography?

More to the point, it does not matter...period. One person, one camera, one tripod, no problems.

DREW WILEY · Sep 29, 2014

To a llama, a bear, an elk, a moose, or a really stupid Ranger : one strange looking critter with five legs.

Old-N-Feeble · Sep 29, 2014

DREW WILEY said:
To a llama, a bear, an elk, a moose, or a really stupid Ranger : one strange looking critter with five legs.

No... a human being curiously and very closely inspecting the rear-end of a three-legged one-eyed monster and the monster, oddly, letting him/her do it.

PKM-25 · Sep 29, 2014

I live smack in the middle of thousands of square miles of highly photogenic wilderness. Some of it is subject to these restrictions but I highly doubt I am going to find issues with the new regs because of how I already tend to conduct myself. I generally avoid the tourist traps and opt for more unique angles to begin with where most rangers are not even present. But if I do get asked, I will simply tell them I am shooting film for my self....which is totally true since the sale will not occur until a print is made.

I figure film and silver based prints have no EXIF data so no date and unless shooting a scene with a drastically remarkable occurrence, there is just no way in heck of pinning it down.
But in case this does get out of hand, I already have a lot more locations outside of those geographic areas in which to do my work. So even as a pro who sells prints, I am just not worried about it.

But one thing I am wondering about is the artist in residency programs at the national parks which happens to be open to professionals as well as amatuers.....how in the heck is that going to play out? I was ready to apply for one for next year but now I am having second thoughts as to not "Blow my Cover" so to speak...

Bill Burk · Sep 29, 2014

I've seen one press release clarification that states "Generally, professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless..." and then we're talking models props and going places you aren't generally allowed to go...

I'm a bit comforted by that and hope this clear language makes it into the final version.

New rules for commercial photography in US forests

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency