US Forest Service to charge photographers for pictures

[VELN]

"Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, said such rules would be a clear violation of the First Amendment and raises concerns about press freedom, including whether denying a permit would amount to prior restraint. "What if they deny you a permit because they don't like the story you're working on?" he asked. The rules exclude breaking news situations, defined as "an event or incident that arises suddenly, evolves quickly, and rapidly ceases to be newsworthy." But Osterreicher said the agency ignores big distinctions between editorial and commercial use and also should not be allowed to define what constitutes breaking news."

I am a member of the NPPA and agree with Osterreicher. These rules will impact my work as a working member of the press and will restrain me from doing articles which aren't "breaking news." I believe the rules do violate my First Amendment rights both as a private citizen and member of the press. Moreover, these rules restrict me more than a private citizen which is also unconstitutional, in my opinion.

Let me be clear, I'm not talking about bringing into the Forest anything but my cameras, lenses, strobes, etc. that I carry on me. I'm not bringing in props, models, or anything like that.

I have no problem with special use permits for "commercial photography" which by most definitions could also be termed "advertising photography." I have no problem special use permits when photographers are bringing in models, lots of equipment not considered portable, and lots of personnel, such as what's needed for a movie. In that case the permit goes for land preservation because the footprint of the work is damaging beyond that which would happen from a private citizen making images for themselves.

A special use permit may be issued when required by sections 45.1a and 45.2a

One of the sections referred to above applies to still photography, and has been in place for some time already:

45.51a:
A special use permit:
1. Is required for all still photography (sec. 45.5) activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands that involve the use of models, sets, or props that are not a part of the natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities of the site where the activity is taking place.
2. May be required for still photography activities not involving models, sets, or props when the Forest Service incurs additional administrative costs as a direct result of the still photography activity or when the still photography activity takes place at a location where members of the public generally are not allowed.

As has been clarified in the past, most still photography, even if used for commercial purposes, does *not* require a special use permit or extra fees, unless it falls into the above situations. It is important to note that, when a special use permit is required, based on the situations noted, it applies to both commercial AND noncommercial still photography (and video). In the case that your still photography falls into those situations (or in the case that you are taking any video at all that would be used for commercial purposes in any way), you would have to apply for a special use permit, and then, and only then, would you be affected by the newly proposed amendments and possibly the $1500 fee.

I see an immediate problem from their definitions:

"Still photography—use 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."

Not much of a problem here for press or art photographers who are making still images of the forest for the purpose of showing it off, or telling a story about it. But then you have,

"Commercial filming—use of motion picture, videotaping, sound recording, or any other moving image or audio recording equipment on National Forest System lands that involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, or the use of models, actors, sets, or props, but not including activities associated with broadcasting breaking news, as defined in FSH 2709.11, chapter 40.

Commercial use or activity—any 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."

Nowadays many press photographers, and others are making videos, but they are akin to the still images defined above. Such images are common now for websites and include panoramas, some time lapse, etc. They involve no more equipment than the same DSLR used for the still photos, and involve no props, models, or sets, just like the still photography, but they are subject to entirely different rules, and a rule that says, just because you're being paid you need a permit.

Even an author of a book about birds, who is backpacking into a national forest like any private citizen, who has additionally some kind of portable digital sound recording device, to capture the songs of the birds runs afoul of these regulations unless they have a special use permit because they have "audio recording equipment" for the "creation of a product for sale," their book.

My problem with the rules is in large part their inconsistency, the lack of understanding of the Forest Service of the real world of photography, the difference between commercial and non-commercial (editorial and personal) photography, and the Forest Service too often missing the point of their own mission which I believe is to preserve and protect the lands under their control, and not regulate activities with no more impact on the lands than the impact of the activities of private citizens just because someone is getting paid.

Now if I'm wrong about my interpretation tell me, but I don't think I am.

As to the fees US Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell said this in a press release on Sept., 25th, "Currently, commercial filming permit fees range around $30 per day for a group up to three people. A large Hollywood production with 70 or more people might be as much as $800. The $1,500 commercial permit fee cited in many publications is erroneous, and refers to a different proposed directive."

Frankly, I can't find anything in writing by the USFS which speaks to a $1,500 fee for photography or still images, but then again, I can't find much in writing about fees by the USFS. They don't seem to be published where they can be easy found, unlike the NPS which is generally clear about their commercial photography and video fees.

Finally, the new proposal includes, requiring that any still or video images have the following purpose, "45.1c—Evaluation of Proposals, a. Has a primary objective of dissemination of information about the use and enjoyment of wilderness or its ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value (16 U.S.C. 1131(a) and (b))." To me, it's pretty easy to see how this clause can be used by the USFS to not permit the press to use the images and videos to be critical of the USFS, to uncover or report abuse of their power, or misuse of their resources or of the lands under their control.

I think the USFS has to rethink much of these new rules, and especially how vague much of the rule verbage is.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I pretty much agree with what has been said overall. All of these rules and regulations really are a bit out of control and too nebulous. I think the 'still photography' term is just terrible, given that many photographers doing 'still photography' are not affected by the permit requirement.

I am a member of NANPA. They issued a statement today that they have taken action on this issue, obviously in support of the rights of photographers.

[Glenn NK]

Now that everyone has gotten everything of their collective chests, it's probably time to recognize that the whole affair was a "tempest in a teapot" caused by some overzealous and erroneous interpretation of the "facts". To whit:

http://photographicwanderings.com/20...g-photography/

Or as someone said on another forum: "Yes, wasn't that a bizarre little story that acquired a life quite independent of the facts? (There are too many folks out there ready to use any story to promote the view that our government is evil. On the other hand, the initial erroneous reporting of the story did include errors that upset photographers for a reason.) In the end, there isn't much to that story."

The old Bard had a good many wise and accurate comments on human behaviour.

Glenn

[Mike Buckley]

Glenn,

Posts in this thread have already explained the parts that the general press got right and wrong. I disagree that "in the end, there isn't much to this story." The sad aspect is that there is just as much to this story as when the story began four years ago when the temporary regulations went into effect. The difference at this point in time is that the proposed regulations would be permanent, at least as permanent as any regulations are until they are changed. In that context, once the regulations have gone through a four-year interim period as has already happened, and then survived the final challenge before becoming so-called permanent, it will be much more difficult than at any time in recent years to overturn the regulations.

[Glenn NK]

Glenn,

Posts in this thread have already explained the parts that the general press got right and wrong. I disagree that "in the end, there isn't much to this story." The sad aspect is that there is just as much to this story as when the story began four years ago when the temporary regulations went into effect. The difference at this point in time is that the proposed regulations would be permanent, at least as permanent as any regulations are until they are changed. In that context, once the regulations have gone through a four-year interim period as has already happened, and then survived the final challenge before becoming so-called permanent, it will be much more difficult than at any time in recent years to overturn the regulations.

Mike:

So, if they've been in effect for four years and this is the first outcry, I'm puzzled as to what the problem is.

Glenn

[Mike Buckley]

So, if they've been in effect for four years and this is the first outcry, I'm puzzled as to what the problem is.

We don't know this is the first outcry but let's assume it is. My understanding from reading the government document is that it attempts to clarify the criteria pertaining to the evaluation of proposals to do commercial filming in national forests. Though the criteria have supposedly or were intended to be applied in the last four years, the new document attempts to clarify them. Those clarifications will affect news organizations in perhaps ways that were not previously understood. So, it would be reasonable that the newly clarified criteria bring on a reaction that had never before occurred.

The sad part, regardless of whether one objects to the criteria being applied, is that the document is still so poorly written that the so-called clarifications leave far too many grey areas subject to widely different interpretation.

[Glenn NK]

Mike:

The primary problem (as I see it) is that some knuckle-headed journalist not only did a bad job, he/she made some seriously mistaken comments, and no one bothered to actually check on what the policy was.

The NPS issued a clarification on 25 September 2014, and yet the beat goes on.

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/u...ncy-commercial

I'm beginning to think what I posted on another forum might apply to this current situation (I was commenting on how hostile some posters could be, but it likely applies to this topic too):

"I used to attribute this (heated arguments/over-reacting) to recalcitrance, but I'm leaning towards it being a lack of reading comprehension as the culprit. I just can't believe that so many people can be so quick to disagree and take issue with so many comments. This doesn't imply that people don't have reading comprehension; it's more likely a matter of not taking the time to thoroughly determine the meaning . . . . . ."

Glenn

[Mike Buckley]

The clarification issued on September 25 that you provided is only a press release. Its language, such as information that the proposed regulation doesn't apply to news organizations, is not included in that regulation. I've read the entire proposal and I believe it leaves room to believe that indeed it does apply to news organizations who would criticize Forest Service competency. I pay federal income taxes that help fund the Forest Service and I believe tax payers deserve a regulation that is written in such a manner as to eliminate as much as possible all incorrect interpretation. It will be interesting to learn whether the language that explicitly excludes news organizations is added to the actual regulation.

[Glenn NK]

I guess we'll have to wait and see what comes of it then.

[FlyingSquirrel]

The clarification issued on September 25 that you provided is only a press release. Its language, such as information that the proposed regulation doesn't apply to news organizations, is not included in that regulation. I've read the entire proposal and I believe it leaves room to believe that indeed it does apply to news organizations who would criticize Forest Service competency. I pay federal income taxes that help fund the Forest Service and I believe tax payers deserve a regulation that is written in such a manner as to eliminate as much as possible all incorrect interpretation. It will be interesting to learn whether the language that explicitly excludes news organizations is added to the actual regulation.

Mike, I am 100% on board and in agreement with everything you've posted in this thread. You are, in my opinion, on top of things. It's clear to me that people who actually have taken the time to read the entire proposal and related regulations, and to think about the meaning, are the ones that are seeing the true issues at hand.

That press release was completely absurd, and as I mentioned, anyone that read and comprehended the real regulations can see right through it. Not only that, but the press release, in my opinion, serves as an excellent example of how poorly the document and terminology are, notably, by bringing to light how confusing it is to determine what is 'commercial' photography.

[Glenn NK]

Good idea.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I actually just edited my previous post to remove a semi-negative comment that I made at the end of it. While writing the post, I was slightly emotional. In any case, I apologize, and I should not have said anything at all, as I think my other thoughts were quite enough. Hey, we all make mistakes.

[FlyingSquirrel]

NANPA has again issued an email to its members, with updates and details on the issue at hand, and encouraging people to comment on the federal register website.

The formal comment period for this issue is extended to December 3. If anyone wishes to comment, you can go to this link and then click "submit a formal comment." I recommend that you read their tips for submitting a good comment, and obviously it would make sense to have read all of the proposed policies and related documents / links within that page.

https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...alregister.gov

I just submitted an extensive comment, but it will not be posted until reviewed by the Forest Service (I don't think they are censoring things much, because there are plenty of flaming, outraged, ranting, non-constructive, unintelligent comments publicly visible on the site)

[Mike Buckley]

Matt,

It's very nice of you to keep our community updated about this.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Thanks Mike, I appreciate your comment; I'm glad to help. I feel strongly about this issue, so I hope others will get involved if it affects them in any way.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I figured I'd drag this one up from the grave, and beat a dead horse, again. They finally got through reviewing a bunch of the submitted comments from the public, and have posted those on the Federal Register site.

If anyone is interested in reading my extremely long, boring novel of a comment, feel free to click the following link, then click the "PDF" icon where it says "view attachment" (my comment was longer than allowed in the web form box).

Click here to view my comment (Please forgive any grammar or spelling issues; I was up late typing this one)

If interested, you may also view the other 4,812 comments here - You'll note that many of the comments are hot-headed people that are flying off the handle (and many, clearly, have not read the proposal at all). Some comments may be inappropriate for children

[Nicks Pics]

I was interested to see how that turned out. Have they reached a conclusion yet?

[FlyingSquirrel]

I was interested to see how that turned out. Have they reached a conclusion yet?

I don't believe so. I wouldn't expect a clear conclusion for quite some time (think, months). Something else that is important to know is that there are preexisting "rules" already in place that are very similar to what was proposed..thus, permits and so forth may still be required in some situations for some lands managed by various organizations (NPS / NFS / various Wildlife Refuges, etc)...it's best to do the research yourself for any place you will be taking pics. The newly proposed language simply added more specific (and more suspicious) criteria, and was focused on "congressionally designated wilderness areas" .

[Nicks Pics]

It looks like there was a strong party of objecting people, but only a few seemed to understand what it was all about, from what comments I read, Oh well, probably most of those will be disregarded, and those who made more sense will be taken into consideration, more.