National Wildlife Refuges require permit for photography

[FlyingSquirrel]

First, let me preface this by stating that I (obviously) am not a professional photographer, and in fact, I have never sold any photos. However, I am looking into selling photos in the near future, and being pro some day (separate topic entirely, no need to try and discourage me )

I just found out, to my dismay and irritation, that National Wildlife Refuges require you to have a special use permit if you will be taking photos which you intend to use for any commercial purposes (stock photos, selling prints, use in book, etc). At first I thought it was only for big commercial things, like films (that is, to my knowledge, how it works in National Forests), but after reading more carefully, it does indeed apply to just basic still photography, if it will be used for any commercial purposes whatsoever. Although I should avoid being negative about this, or anything really, I can't help but be a bit ticked off about it. At least I learned something valuable, and that is to do a lot of research in the future for what permits might be necessary wherever I plan to shoot (knowing that one day I might use the pics for commercial purposes).

So, I cannot sell or use commercially any of the photos I've ever taken at any NWR, since I did not have a special use permit at the time I took the photos.

They are not very transparent about how it works, other than linking to a PDF form to fill out and submit. They don't mention whether or not you have to pay for the permit or whether you have to do anything when you make a sale of said photos. It did say it can take up to 60 to 90 days for the application to be processed. And it appears you need to get the permit renewed for each visit and each NWR you go to. Absurd!!!

I just think this is really ridiculous. I can see it being reasonable for something like a large production of a film, or a big group of people doing something. But it seems overkill and frustrating for a nature photographer who just wants to go to various NWR's here and there, whenever they want, take some photos, and sell them. Well, I'm done venting now. But would be interested in any insight that professional photographers can offer about this. Has anyone here even done this? Can you offer some insight into your experiences with the application and permit? Do they charge you for this? Is there anyone else here that did not know about this? Thanks for any help, and I apologize for my frustrated attitude.

[pnodrog]

Is there a cost in obtaining the permit?

There seems to be a huge number of laws and regulations that in practice only seem to penalise honest law abiding people. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

[IzzieK]

This is almost the same as when you go to Wisconsin's EAA Air Show each year...(for normal people) you can't do anything with your photographs commercially (if and when the time comes) because they will go after you.

[Shadowman]

First, let me preface this by stating that I (obviously) am not a professional photographer, and in fact, I have never sold any photos. However, I am looking into selling photos in the near future, and being pro some day (separate topic entirely, no need to try and discourage me )

I just found out, to my dismay and irritation, that National Wildlife Refuges require you to have a special use permit if you will be taking photos which you intend to use for any commercial purposes (stock photos, selling prints, use in book, etc). At first I thought it was only for big commercial things, like films (that is, to my knowledge, how it works in National Forests), but after reading more carefully, it does indeed apply to just basic still photography, if it will be used for any commercial purposes whatsoever. Although I should avoid being negative about this, or anything really, I can't help but be a bit ticked off about it. At least I learned something valuable, and that is to do a lot of research in the future for what permits might be necessary wherever I plan to shoot (knowing that one day I might use the pics for commercial purposes).

So, I cannot sell or use commercially any of the photos I've ever taken at any NWR, since I did not have a special use permit at the time I took the photos.

They are not very transparent about how it works, other than linking to a PDF form to fill out and submit. They don't mention whether or not you have to pay for the permit or whether you have to do anything when you make a sale of said photos. It did say it can take up to 60 to 90 days for the application to be processed. And it appears you need to get the permit renewed for each visit and each NWR you go to. Absurd!!!

I just think this is really ridiculous. I can see it being reasonable for something like a large production of a film, or a big group of people doing something. But it seems overkill and frustrating for a nature photographer who just wants to go to various NWR's here and there, whenever they want, take some photos, and sell them. Well, I'm done venting now. But would be interested in any insight that professional photographers can offer about this. Has anyone here even done this? Can you offer some insight into your experiences with the application and permit? Do they charge you for this? Is there anyone else here that did not know about this? Thanks for any help, and I apologize for my frustrated attitude.

Do you have a link to the restriction?

[Shadowman]

First, let me preface this by stating that I (obviously) am not a professional photographer, and in fact, I have never sold any photos. However, I am looking into selling photos in the near future, and being pro some day (separate topic entirely, no need to try and discourage me )

I just found out, to my dismay and irritation, that National Wildlife Refuges require you to have a special use permit if you will be taking photos which you intend to use for any commercial purposes (stock photos, selling prints, use in book, etc). At first I thought it was only for big commercial things, like films (that is, to my knowledge, how it works in National Forests), but after reading more carefully, it does indeed apply to just basic still photography, if it will be used for any commercial purposes whatsoever. Although I should avoid being negative about this, or anything really, I can't help but be a bit ticked off about it. At least I learned something valuable, and that is to do a lot of research in the future for what permits might be necessary wherever I plan to shoot (knowing that one day I might use the pics for commercial purposes).

So, I cannot sell or use commercially any of the photos I've ever taken at any NWR, since I did not have a special use permit at the time I took the photos.

They are not very transparent about how it works, other than linking to a PDF form to fill out and submit. They don't mention whether or not you have to pay for the permit or whether you have to do anything when you make a sale of said photos. It did say it can take up to 60 to 90 days for the application to be processed. And it appears you need to get the permit renewed for each visit and each NWR you go to. Absurd!!!

I just think this is really ridiculous. I can see it being reasonable for something like a large production of a film, or a big group of people doing something. But it seems overkill and frustrating for a nature photographer who just wants to go to various NWR's here and there, whenever they want, take some photos, and sell them. Well, I'm done venting now. But would be interested in any insight that professional photographers can offer about this. Has anyone here even done this? Can you offer some insight into your experiences with the application and permit? Do they charge you for this? Is there anyone else here that did not know about this? Thanks for any help, and I apologize for my frustrated attitude.

Do you have a link to the restriction?

[FlyingSquirrel]

Here is, initially, how I found out about it. This web page rather clearly states what I am talking about. Note the paragraph to the right side of the duck stamp image, then the text beneath as well. http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Columbia/Visit/Permits.html

Here is the page with the permit types: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/visitors/permits.html

Section 1, line 2:
Commercial filming (audio, video, and photographic products of a monetary value)

And the relevant permit form: http://www.fws.gov/forms/3-1383-C.pdf

NOTE! I posted this thread on another forum I go on, and have just received a response that I am going to investigate. When I know more, I will update this thread.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I got some clarification on the issue, in case anyone is interested, here is a list of some related links, quotes, etc:

(regarding lands governed by the DOI = national parks, national wildlife refuges etc).....still photographers only need a permit when:
1. the activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or
2. the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or
3. Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.
(and other circumstances such as when the activity could cause harm to the environment, other visitors, etc..basically related to the intent of the 3 points above)

And this applies to any photographer, regardless of whether you are going to sell your photos or not. This is good news!

However, this only applies to Public Lands managed and under the control of the Department of Interior so it would not include much of the public lands for example Forest Service and State Lands which are also public lands. So I will need to research their own policies.

The official document from the government which covers everything (long and confusing) is here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013...2013-20441.pdf

And some related links, articles, blog posts etc
http://www.photoattorney.com/photogr...ational-parks/
http://www.photoattorney.com/permit-...-public-lands/
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/v...?f=38&t=236986
http://www.photoattorney.com/nps-ran...photographers/

I also found that the regulations are more stringent (and less clear) for video...

*All commercial filming requires a permit.*

*Commercial filming* means the film, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the intent of generating income. Examples include, but are not limited to, feature film, videography, television broadcast, or documentary, or other similar projects.

This could easily apply to any video you take for the purposes of stock clips, or using in any kind of compiled piece which would make money in any way. Not that they would be able to tell if you were using your DSLR for filming vs still photography (and that was brought up by a lawyer in a comment on their initial proposal for the permit/fee system), but regardless, it would apply to DSLR video which you intend to use in any way for commercial gain, UNLIKE the still photography of the same intent. I find it interesting that they make such a determination.

I have not yet found the up to date official fees and info (for the rare cases when permits are required), but here is a proposed fee schedule from Aug 2013: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013...2013-20440.htm

[Shadowman]

They also encourage photography from an observational viewpoint and sponsor a few contests, I think the restrictions you are listing pertain to commercial photographer and videographers and they should expect to see these types of requirements. I think the chances of some game warden coming up to you and asking if you have the permits are pretty high depending on what activities you are involved in, using a tripod, reflector, etc.; so either get the permits if you feel you'll capture something commercial worthy or just abide by the rules and enjoy the experience. I hate being restricted in my activities but these facilities have the right to protect their image and trademarks.

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Columbia/V...otography.html

[Downrigger]

(regarding lands governed by the DOI = national parks, national wildlife refuges etc).....still photographers only need a permit when:
1. the activity takes place at location(s) where or when members of the public are generally not allowed; or
2. the activity uses model(s), sets(s), or prop(s) that are not a part of the location’s natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities; or
3. Park would incur additional administrative costs to monitor the activity.
(and other circumstances such as when the activity could cause harm to the environment, other visitors, etc..basically related to the intent of the 3 points above)

And this applies to any photographer, regardless of whether you are going to sell your photos or not. This is good news!

Yes - this is clearly stated. Thanks, Matt

[Manfred M]

Matt - this is a reality in photography and owners have different views of what can and cannot be done on or with their property. The restrictions can vary and in many instances apply to non-commercial photography as well.

I know of one instance of a sercurity guard hassling a local amateur photographer who was taking a picture of a city bus. When we checked into the by-laws, the security guard was clearly wrong; but more as a matter of degree. The restriction is that NO commercial photography was allowed inside any bus or train. Amateur photography of the exterior or interior was clearly allowed, and I am suspicious that this restriction was put in place to keep news organizations out of the vehicles.

I've been in places where the owners were clearly interested in selling photo and video permits as a cash grab. In other places, the restrictions made sense as there are always "idiots" out there that endanger or annoy others through their lack of discretion when taking pictures.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Matt - this is a reality in photography and owners have different views of what can and cannot be done on or with their property. The restrictions can vary and in many instances apply to non-commercial photography as well.

I know of one instance of a sercurity guard hassling a local amateur photographer who was taking a picture of a city bus. When we checked into the by-laws, the security guard was clearly wrong; but more as a matter of degree. The restriction is that NO commercial photography was allowed inside any bus or train. Amateur photography of the exterior or interior was clearly allowed, and I am suspicious that this restriction was put in place to keep news organizations out of the vehicles.

I've been in places where the owners were clearly interested in selling photo and video permits as a cash grab. In other places, the restrictions made sense as there are always "idiots" out there that endanger or annoy others through their lack of discretion when taking pictures.

Manfred, thank you for your comment, input, and advice. You bring up some great, relevant points. I would like to point out (having doing quite a bit of legal research regarding photography, in the recent past) that one of the most widely misunderstood issues with the legality of photography, has to do with the difference between shooting, vs use. A majority of people confuse the legal uses of photos with the legality of taking photos in a given situation. There are far more restrictions on what a photo can be used for, and far less restrictions on actually taking the photos. In fact, there are very few situations in which taking photos is illegal. However, a lot of situations, as you mentioned, often involve more of a discretionary and political decision from the photographer, even if it is technically legal to take the photos. But going back to my other point, many "officials" "officers" "site management authorities" and so forth mistakenly feel that they have the authority in a certain situation to stop a photographer, and/or confuse the legality of the taking of the photos with the legality of using them for certain purposes. In many instances, they are correct or have the authority, but in many instances, they are incorrect. I highly recommend that all photographers read at least one good legal book which covers these issues. One such book, although slightly outdated, is: Legal Handbook for Photographers:The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images

[drjuice]

Hi, Matt (aka flying squirrel)

If you look at the rules for visiting any location run by the National Park Service (not only National Parks, but things like National Seashores, National Historic Sites, National Battlefields, National Scenic Rivers, National Trails, etc.), you'll find almost the exact same wording (NPS's rules have been around since 1916 so it was probably first and the other organizations came along later). The ones I've read generally are close to identical and many say "earn more than 49% of your income from selling your photographic products". Then they have some verbiage about "commercial".

One friend does his commercial work outside the NPS units which usually have similar landscapes and his "artistic" work in the units. And, early on, he marked his slides C and NC for commercial and non-commercial so he didn't make any mistakes. Now, he has an automatic process he runs when he comes back from a trip. It changes the image names from:

DSC12345.tif

to either

NSC12345.tif

or

CSC12345.tif

(just examples, but it's clear that the images are N for non-commercial and C for commercial).

Hope this helps.

virginia