Be careful. That could get expensive.
Yes, it’s true that the lion’s share of the Forest Service budget is now going to dealing with wildfires, but is it so desperate for money that it has to hit up the people who do most of its marketing, photographers? A new policy, quietly proposed by the USFS on September 4 but now catching the public’s attention in a big way, would require $1,500 permits for media taking pictures in wilderness, with fines up to $1,000 for failing to comply. The rules could be applied to anyone taking pictures that result in some kind of commerce, from bloggers to amateur photographers who sell a print or two.
The Forest Service plan has set off alarms at media outlets and with First Amendment advocates, who say that the rules are vague and could be used to prevent access for stories that the Forest Service doesn’t like. There’s precedence for this: In 2010, the agency refused to allow an Idaho Public Television crew into wilderness to film conservation workers, but backed down in the face of public criticism, including from Idaho’s governor.
“The Forest Service needs to rethink any policy that subjects noncommercial photographs and recordings to a burdensome permitting process for something as simple as taking a picture with a cell phone,” U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat from Oregon, said. “Especially where reporters and bloggers are concerned, this policy raises troubling questions about inappropriate government limits on activity clearly protected by the First Amendment.”
Liz Close, the Forest Service’s acting wilderness director, defended the policy and said that the restrictions have already been in place since 2010 on a “temporary basis.”
Close said the rules don’t apply to breaking news, and that “if you were engaged on reporting that was in support of wilderness characteristics, that would be permitted.”
Gregg Leslie, legal defense director at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the Oregonian newspaper, “It’s pretty clearly unconstitutional. They would have to show an important need to justify these limits, and they just can’t.”
The Forest Service is accepting comments on its proposed policy until November 3. You can read it in full here.
Photo by Shutterstock
Well if this is passed and enforced I might as well become a wedding photographer. Yikes!
Only 192 comments!! Comment before Nov 3 where it can do some good.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FS-2014-0007-0001
In addition to first amendment concerns, the Forest Service is the steward of the Public’s Land. Photography poses no threat, conservation concern, or disruption to users of the lands. Therefore, the service is over reaching its authority by attempting to collect these fees.
Why should I subsidize these photographers? It’s not their land, it belongs to the government, er, all of us. I’m sure most of the folks upset about this had no sympathy for Cliven Bundy. At least they’re not being told they can no longer take pictures because of a rare tortoise. Just wait! You statists screwed up when you argued that the fedguv had this kind of power in the first place. Now it’s being used against you and it’s so unfair! Tough cookies. Take your medicine.
The difference between this and cliven bundy is massive, sorry you can’t see that. Bundy was trying to use the land for monetary gain I.e. Grazing cattle on land for the sole purpose of interstate commerce. In order to be able to photograph and use public land for any sort of profit there is a permitting process. In order to guide hiking, climbing, skiing, etc you have to have a special use permit. This again would fall under interstate commerce which are meant to be regulated by all land management agencies. But nice try trolling. Cliven bundy was/ is still a deadbeat on federal land trying to steal money from the American people and their land.
We already pay to use Forest Service land. They are called taxes. This sounds like a desperate attempt at fixing some holes in the budget.
Good luck enforcing it.
Here’s the deal, if you are a commercial photographer doing a paid shoot with paid staff in the National Forest then yes you need a permit. This is already the case in our National Parks. If you are a commercial photographer doing a landscape shoot that only involves you and your tripod then no permit is required. If you are a private citizen out for a hike and happen to take some pictures then no permit is required.
It’s all about how much disruption your shoot will impose upon the Forest Service and the other visitors to the forest.
Perhaps in theory, Richard, but the rules give the Forest Service wide latitude to determine who should be permitted and who shouldn’t.
the definitions refer to: use of models or props/ re-enactment of events or story line / created for the purposes of generating income / special uses that require additional forest service costs or public impact / still or film photography that involves special rigging of equipment or creation of sets / for the purpose of generating profit …
the definitions exclude: covering breaking news / hand-held camera or camera with a tripod. implicit still is the purpose of generating profit. (selfie-takers can probably relax.)
reading the directive, seems like it was trying to address filming endeavors that are burdensome, whether it’s recreating the frontier for docu-history or stringing up camera dollies to film X games. i.e., impactful activity. what the language didn’t anticipate was the viral possibilities of a you tuber or instagrammer trying to build a brand. right in the gap might fall a backcountry photographer hoping to snag a magazine cover using nothing but his hand-held, but using a ski model, and recreating a run over & over to get the right light.
let’s hear from the professional photographers and filmers; maybe that will help.
Have they forgotten the positive benefits that come
From media such as awareness, virtual tourism, public relations and communication. There are other ways to make money in the national forest.
Not to mention education ^^^
You’re… you’re kidding, right?
“Have they forgotten the positive benefits that come from media such as awareness, virtual tourism, public relations and communication…”
Did you really just pull the “do this job for me for free, it’ll be great for your exposure” logic? The huge complaint that every photographer has about everybody else wanting their work for nothing? To argue that *photographers* are giving the Forestry Service value through “awareness?”
That might be the most hilariously, ironically, awkwardly blind-spotted thing I’ve ever heard. Delightful.
The proposed rule reads “A special use permit may be issued (when required by sections 45.1a and 45.2a) to authorize the use of National Forest System lands for still photography or commercial filming when the proposed activity…”
I’m not familiar with “sections 45.1a and 45.2a” and Google wasn’t any help. Does anyone know when a special use permit would be required for still photography or commercial filming?
Could posting videos or stills on YouTube , Facebook, blogs, or any other social media that advertises or produces a profit be considered commercial?
Noncommercial still photography is exempt from permitting, in Wilderness or anywhere else on USFS land. What this new rule does is add some new requirements to commercial filming in designated Wilderness. Sure, it could be improved, but this issue has been blown out of proportion in a number of news outlets, including, to be honest, AJ.
Here is the USFS response:
http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/us-forest-service-chief-i-will-ensure-first-amendment-upheld-under-agency-commercial
Check out the FSH (Forest Service Handbook) here -> http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5109390.pdf
Page 55 helps define what Commercial Filming means and the following pages is Still Photography.
I think….
The USFS is terrible at math/policy.
$1,500 for the permit….$1,000 for the fine.
I’ll opt for the fine as it’s $500 cheaper.