US Forest Service to charge photographers for pictures

[BJ Denning]

"Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don't get a permit could face fines up to $1,000."

Oregon Live article

Snopes article

A Notice by the Forest Service on 09/04/2014

What do you think? Hoax, legitimate? Should photographers be worried?

[Shadowman]

Pay per view.

.

[Polar01]

The US Forest Service has had policy like that for the last 4 years, it is for commercial work, if you want to shoot an ad. or say run a work shop in the park you pay. Now the price has increased I believe from 4 years ago. What you have to do is read the fine print, but that does not make headlines. Now I was in the National Parks, 4 years ago and I was asked at the gate reason for being there, I stated to take pictures, then I was asked if it was for commercial use I stated no, it was for myself , fine.
Now here comes the hard part, commercial work that first comes to mind is say ad. work ie: car company. They come in with 4 to 5 big rigs and 2 to 3 buses of people close areas off to others so they can setup and shoot they are really what you do not want to see if you only have one day in Yellowstone, with you and them there on the same day. Now what if the person is a photographer who makes their living from photography, who works alone, just a camera, a tripod, and a backpack wandering thru the park taking pictures. Later that person prints some of those images then sells them did that person get a permit or not
I think not. If they were running a work shop in the park then best that they get a permit. I think at about 98% of the photographers taking images in the Parks system, those images are for themselves not for sale commercially. At one time it was easy to tell who were the pros, not now thou, you have people shooting with GoPros', uploading to the net hoping someone will purchase or maybe hire them to do something similar, is that not commercial in nature.
It is a fine definition are you the person who takes some shots in the National Parks system and maybe by chance sells one or two locally in your area or are you making your living from you images. If you are the first person should you get a permit, I would answer no, the second yes, human nature being what it is, the second person will not get one if they think they can get away without one.
To comment on John's statement "Pay per view" we already do, it is the fee that we pay at the park gate. When I have travelled thru the US and into the National Parks system I usually purchase the yearly pass I find it works out cheaper in the end.

Cheers: Allan

[mknittle]

I am starting to wonder why I pay taxes! I seem to get charged an additonal fee for everything that I am told my taxes pay for.

[BrianA61]

If that's the way our gummint wants to treat people, then I would suggest following the simple math. The permit cost $1500, but the fine, IF imposed, is only $1000. Logic tells me take your chance with paying a possible fine. It saves you $500!!! Only the US gov't could come up with that math. It's stupid all the way around.

[Shadowman]

The US Forest Service has had policy like that for the last 4 years, it is for commercial work, if you want to shoot an ad. or say run a work shop in the park you pay. Now the price has increased I believe from 4 years ago. What you have to do is read the fine print, but that does not make headlines. Now I was in the National Parks, 4 years ago and I was asked at the gate reason for being there, I stated to take pictures, then I was asked if it was for commercial use I stated no, it was for myself , fine.
Now here comes the hard part, commercial work that first comes to mind is say ad. work ie: car company. They come in with 4 to 5 big rigs and 2 to 3 buses of people close areas off to others so they can setup and shoot they are really what you do not want to see if you only have one day in Yellowstone, with you and them there on the same day. Now what if the person is a photographer who makes their living from photography, who works alone, just a camera, a tripod, and a backpack wandering thru the park taking pictures. Later that person prints some of those images then sells them did that person get a permit or not
I think not. If they were running a work shop in the park then best that they get a permit. I think at about 98% of the photographers taking images in the Parks system, those images are for themselves not for sale commercially. At one time it was easy to tell who were the pros, not now thou, you have people shooting with GoPros', uploading to the net hoping someone will purchase or maybe hire them to do something similar, is that not commercial in nature.
It is a fine definition are you the person who takes some shots in the National Parks system and maybe by chance sells one or two locally in your area or are you making your living from you images. If you are the first person should you get a permit, I would answer no, the second yes, human nature being what it is, the second person will not get one if they think they can get away without one.
To comment on John's statement "Pay per view" we already do, it is the fee that we pay at the park gate. When I have travelled thru the US and into the National Parks system I usually purchase the yearly pass I find it works out cheaper in the end.

Cheers: Allan

The "Pay per view" statement was actually a link to another forum member comment on the same subject. But an added response to your comment about "we already do", we are also sometimes restricted from photographing certain subjects regardless of our intentions. If the particular location has trademark status then we may not be able to photograph even if we paid the price of admission. Of course, if you are standing across the street then trademark protection is limited.

[Mike Buckley]

I am starting to wonder why I pay taxes! I seem to get charged an additonal fee for everything that I am told my taxes pay for.

You pay those taxes so the government can afford to pay someone to levy the additional fees.

[IzzieK]

+1 to Mark and Brian's comments. You guys rocks when it comes to logic. Keep it up...it is very entertaining to say the least...

[Polar01]

John did not realize that your post #2 Pay per view was a link thought it was just a comment.

Cheers: Allan

[Shadowman]

John did not realize that your post #2 Pay per view was a link thought it was just a comment.

Cheers: Allan

Allan,

Not a problem.

[Nicks Pics]

The U.S. Forest Service is currently saying that you do not need a permit for professional photography, on most Forest lands I've checked. There are certain conditions, but they're probably not a problem for the average wildlife or scenery photographer. Here's a link from the Forest service website about that: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/umatil...telprdb5274888

They do however, require permits for at least most commercial filming since they think film producers would be more obtrusive to the environment. I think their point is to require a permit for production companies filming commercials, movies, wildlife documentaries, etc. Of course, many photographers may like shooting a little footage with their camera on movie mode, sometimes, and to do that just for fun would be fine, but if you wanted to sell your footage clips, technically they seem to be saying that would require a permit! They actually encourage photography in general, see this link: http://www.fs.fed.us/visit/know-befo...fe-photography and of course it has no more impact on other visitors or the environment to do that than take pictures. So that is basically just a technicality.

They are asking for input though, so if you give them any thoughts they might be considered.

As it relates to those things that do require permits, the price is actually determined by certain criteria. It can be $130, or something, not allways $1500, according to my research.

[BJ Denning]

Thanks. Good discussion. I have to admit that my first reaction was similar to Mark's, "Why do I pay taxes" and then have to pay for a permit or even an entrance fee.

Thanks Nick for the references. Hopefully we can things that way.

[jcuknz]

I would have thought it is obvious ... you pay tax so that the area is preserved ... you pay for a permit for when you damage the property that everybodies' taxes is preserving. Or a fine for cutting up the grass with your careless use of an SUV. etc.

[IzzieK]

I would have thought it is obvious ... you pay tax so that the area is preserved ... you pay for a permit for when you damage the property that everybodies' taxes is preserving. Or a fine for cutting up the grass with your careless use of an SUV. etc.

But John...taxes feels OUCH!!! especially if it is misused by people to whom you rely these services...if the money goes to the real good 'cause' it wouldn't have been that regretful to give...just a thought...

[Mike Buckley]

I pay state and federal taxes. When I enter a state or national park, I pay an entrance fee. The difference is that taxes are generally levied to people who never use a particular park or any park for that matter. The entrance fee is levied only to those who use a particular park. Once inside the park, I might take children on a train ride that might require yet another fee. Similarly, another specific use of the park such as commercial photography can result in an additional fee. The use of taxes and additional fees is just one way among many possible ways of generating revenue needed to effectively run the park system.

As much as I or anyone can joke about taxes and fees (I've already done that in a previous post), the issue here to many people isn't as much about the money as that the Forest Service would have the authority to reject an application for a permit because it feels the proposed project does not have "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))." In other words, assume a news crew wants to film a feature explaining mismanagement of the wilderness by the Forest Service. It is feared that the proposed regulation, which would become permanent if approved, would allow the Forest Service to reject the application. Many people feel that that in effect would be a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Notice that I didn't express an opinion about whether the proposed regulation should be implemented.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I just spent a solid 4 hours thoroughly researching this topic. I read many articles, blog posts, the federal register site, the proposed amendments and laws, as well as referred to some of the existing regulations which were referenced by the amendments, but were not specifically quoted. See later in this post.

the issue here to many people isn't as much about the money as that the Forest Service would have the authority to reject an application for a permit because it feels the proposed project does not have "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))." In other words, assume a news crew wants to film a feature explaining mismanagement of the wilderness by the Forest Service. It is feared that the proposed regulation, which would become permanent if approved, would allow the Forest Service to reject the application. Many people feel that that in effect would be a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I think that is a pretty good explanation of what the major outcry is from the media about this issue. A little more info, quoted from http://www.komonews.com/news/local/F...277077291.html

"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 think there definitely are some legitimate concerns with some of the proposed amendments (and I also think there are some issues with existing laws in relation to the special use permits).

My following comments are regarding the special use permits themselves, but are separate from the "rights" issues above. It's important to note that a significant amount of the public outcry is also due to terrible reporting on the new proposal. The article and blog post titles, opening introduction paragraphs, and much of the articles, in some cases, were very misleading. Some were just plain wrong, some had errors due to a misunderstanding of the purpose of the proposal and of the existing and very relevant regulations that are already in place. This bad information fueled a bunch of rumors about the permits and fees, and who is subject to them, under which circumstances.

As others have stated, the overall laws for the special use permits and fees, have actually been in place for a number of years. To the best of my understanding, the new proposal does not particularly change the overriding policies regarding why or when a special use permit or fee is required, it only changes the evaluation of a permit application. Quote from the official Federal Register statement:

"The proposed amendment would address the establishment of consistent national criteria to evaluate requests for special use permits on National Forest System (NFS) Specifically, this policy provides the criteria used to evaluate request for special use permits related to still photography and commercial filming in congressionally designated wilderness areas."

Again, my understanding is that the overriding requirements for when you must apply for a special use permit remain the same. The amendment provides revised evaluation standards for such a permit request.

One huge problem is the misinformation and misunderstanding about the definition of "commercial photography" and "still photography" and when a permit is required, and much of this is due to the confusing language used by the NFS to specify that. The existing laws and definitions for still photography and commercial use will not change if this proposal is implemented. Note that the proposal for adjustments to the evaluation process begins with:

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.

One thing that I was actually not able to find, was a legitimate source or link to an official document, where the so-called "$1500" fee was proposed. I only could find reference to the fee in some of the online news and blog posts. The Federal Register did not appear to mention the increased or new fee. I'd like to see the official fee proposal, regarding the new "outrageous" fee as some are calling it. I'd like to see, in which cases, this new, higher fee would be incurred, because the amendments themselves do not appear to be connected. Again, this confusion is due to the poor news reports and blog posts.

I still strongly believe that one of the biggest problems with the definitions for 'commercial' and 'still photography', even those quoted above, that appear to protect most still photographers that are shooting for professional purposes, is that appropriate enforcement will be difficult. This would be due, primarily, because anyone that would be responsible for enforcing the related policies (park rangers, employees, and so forth) could easily misunderstand, misinterpret, be improperly trained on, or inflect personal feelings or judgement into a situation. I think there is too broad of a window for the regulations to be interpreted, thus creating many scenarios in which a photographer, shooting for commercial use, could be unjustifiably harassed or blocked from shooting what, and in what way, they are legally allowed to under the definitions outlined in 45.51a. There already have been a number of cases in which this has happened to photographers. I don't see that issue ever being fully corrected.

I do think that regulations, laws, fees, and so forth, while somewhat justifiable and reasonable, are incrementally getting more and more strict, to the point that it might get ridiculous in the future. I can definitely see things getting ugly in a few years; the scariest part about it is that I plan to be a professional nature photographer, in business, in the future, and so these issues are highly pertinent to me. I guess I need to get out into all of the parks, lands, wilderness, etc and take as many photos as possible before this imagined, horrible future actually comes about.

EDIT - TO ADD A THOUGHT - I do want to point out that, within the definitions for when still photography requires a special use permit, I, and others, have had some concerns with how "sets, or props" could be interpreted. I think the issue there is that it is unclear whether that would extend to things that are commonly used by nature photographers, as simple as a reflector, or an extra tripod with an off camera flash, or perhaps a flexible clamp to hold a flower in the breeze, etc. That is where it gets a little scary, because this type of equipment can be required to get quality, salable images. I hardly think that this kind of non-intrusive equipment should be grounds for the hassle of a special use permit, but unfortunately it is up to the NFS and their employees to determine that. The regulations which trigger the need for a special use permit, I think, would generally be interpreted by "reasonable" people, to be applicable only to larger, more intrusive setups, such as large stands with a big backdrop, multiple flash setups with e-ttl cords extending over long distances, any kind of table setup, and so forth. But, again, any interpretation of what is, or is not, a set or prop, is subject to the whims of the forest service employees, not us.

[Nicks Pics]

I am mostly of the same conclusions as you Flying Squirrel, but I would add,or respond with a few thoughts:

The individual National forests seem to each have their own way of writing the rules about this subject, but from what I can tell they all seem to have about the same policy, which I imagine is more or less so.

Point 1: I think taking movie for personal use is allowed without a permit, at least the Umatilla NF says: "If you are shooting still photographs or ‘home movies' for personal use (i.e. that does not involve advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale) then a special use permit is not required."

2: To comment on what is considered a prop, or set, I don't think "set" refers to the set-up you use to take the pictures with "Still photography uses photographic equipment to capture still images on film, digital format, and other similar technologies. National Forest visitors and professional or amateur photographers do not need a special use permit to take still photographs unless the still photography will:"...
From Umatilla again.

3: As I mentioned before, according to this pagehttp://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/chugac...TELPRDB5199833 not all fees would necessarily be 1000, or 1500 dollars.

My vote would be for the less hassle for us photographers under reasonable circumstances, of course, now and in the future.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I am mostly of the same conclusions as you Flying Squirrel, but I would add,or respond with a few thoughts:

The individual National forests seem to each have their own way of writing the rules about this subject, but from what I can tell they all seem to have about the same policy, which I imagine is more or less so.

Point 1: I think taking movie for personal use is allowed without a permit, at least the Umatilla NF says: "If you are shooting still photographs or ‘home movies' for personal use (i.e. that does not involve advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale) then a special use permit is not required."

2: To comment on what is considered a prop, or set, I don't think "set" refers to the set-up you use to take the pictures with "Still photography uses photographic equipment to capture still images on film, digital format, and other similar technologies. National Forest visitors and professional or amateur photographers do not need a special use permit to take still photographs unless the still photography will:"...
From Umatilla again.

3: As I mentioned before, according to this pagehttp://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/chugac...TELPRDB5199833 not all fees would necessarily be 1000, or 1500 dollars.

My vote would be for the less hassle for us photographers under reasonable circumstances, of course, now and in the future.

Thanks for the reply. My thoughts:

Point 1: You are correct, all personal use photos and video do not require a special use permit in general. However, there is a gray area overlapping what is personal and what is commercial, especially these days where blogs and youtube channels are hugely followed and can generate profits indirectly. Also, even for personal use cases, it is likely that a special use permit would be needed *IF* your photography or videography falls into the cases described in 45.51, where you are going where you shouldn't go, or causing additional costs to the management, etc

2. I agree with what you are saying, but the problem is that it is still open to interpretation by a ranger or employee. What we consider props and sets and photographic equipment, may not be what they consider those things to be.

3. I don't see a date listed on there for when that site was last updated. I don't trust government or other similar websites to be up to date. Those fees have been in effect for some time. I believe the proposed $1500 thing that everyone is freaking out about may be a much more recent thing than what your link lists. That is why I still want to find the official source for the information about this huge fee, to see when it is required, as compared to the lesser fees we've known about for some time.

I agree with your final point, of course. Professional nature photographers (I'm not yet, but will be) already have enough fees, permits, regulations and laws, and other things to worry about, especially considering that most of them probably don't make very much money anyway. It's unlikely that I will make as much profit as a professional nature photographer as I currently make at my regular job these days. But it will be worth it anyway.

[jcuknz]

But John...taxes feels OUCH!!! especially if it is misused by people to whom you rely these services...if the money goes to the real good 'cause' it wouldn't have been that regretful to give...just a thought...

There we have the differnce in attitudes ...I for much of my working life was earning more than the average wage and I never regretted any tax I paid becuase it was my respoonsibility as one of those 'with it' to support those 'without'.

I did have the advantage that I worked under the PAYE regime [ Pay As You Earn ] Never missing what I didn't see. I have sympathy for those who have to raid their bank accounts to pay the Taxman .. it must be real cruel

[Nicks Pics]

Flying Squirrel,
I think your points are generally right. I guess we don't have to worry too much about it, at least I don't, because I don't have any trips imminently planned to a National Forest, and probably would not be required to get a permit under circumstances of normal still photography anyway, but the biggest issues I have still are the probably the un-intended exclusion of taking any video with camera on movie mode which might be used professionally, and that they seem to say they don't allow even commercial still photography in special Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas, but information on that specifically has been hard to find, so I can't say much definite about it.

One could just bother the local forest ranger station about the issue if it should ever become directly relevant to them.