Photographer
Roy Hubbard
Posts: 3199
East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, US
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
Photographer
Photos by Lorrin
Posts: 7026
Eugene, Oregon, US
The key is up to $1500
Having seen some of the stuff irresponsible people do to federal land.
I can understand.
And someone has to pay for keeping wild fires under control.
Someone has to maintain trails
Pave the roads. Fight wildfires, and rescue people - it all costs money.
Keep idiots from destroying trails with motorbikes and 4 wheel drive.
I would like to see a state wide - one permit for all areas instead of what we have.
In my city - I need park district, county park, state and federal parking passes.
In the state, there are also National parks, Wildlife refuge parking permits, Snow parking permits, hunting area permits, Beach access parking, local parking only for one park, bird refuge parking.
Someone has to bring reason to the whole thing.
It is also very confusing.
Photographer
Marin Photo NYC
Posts: 7348
New York, New York, US
Simple remedy - act like tourist and travel light.
Photographer
Michael Alestra
Posts: 539
MOUNT ROYAL, New Jersey, US
Marin Photography NYC wrote:
Simple remedy - act like tourist and travel light. good idea since this required permit is only for commercial use and will not affect tourists and visitors.
Photographer
FlirtynFun Photography
Posts: 13926
Houston, Texas, US
Michael Alestra wrote:
good idea since this required permit is only for commercial use and will not affect tourists and visitors. Not so quick. What about the Ansel Adams type tourist who treks deep in the woods to take amazing shots and then decides to sell prints?
Permits are fine for public land, however who gets to decide about the content and whether it's "commercial use"? That's a very vague term and is legally specified different in different states.
Photographer
Michael Alestra
Posts: 539
MOUNT ROYAL, New Jersey, US
FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
Not so quick. What about the Ansel Adams type tourist who treks deep in the woods to take amazing shots and then decides to sell prints?
Permits are fine for public land, however who gets to decide about the content and whether it's "commercial use"? That's a very vague term and is legally specified different in different states. If you read the entire packet around the legislation you will find that the revisions are due to a lack of provisions for commercial filming - the still photo wording is the same as it's been for years. A vacationer taking photos, even with pro gear, MIGHT get a question or two.
this isnt going change anything for most people
Photographer
IMAfoto
Posts: 94
San Diego, California, US
Michael Alestra wrote:
good idea since this required permit is only for commercial use and will not affect tourists and visitors. Not so easy, in fact this rule or similar rule has already been in affect. Two years ago I was going to do a shoot with a model in an open field at a park, when a ranger showed up and told me no commercial photography. He told me the fine was $800, I asked him what justifies a commercial shoot. His reply was having the model wear clothing that is inappropriate for a nature hike, and he also threatened me with an additional fine ($600) for indecency because the model was about to get changed in public (her SUV).
Seriously, it is getting ridiculous for photographers "in the land of the free", I've had weddings at the beach interrupted, stopped by police near city hall, all asking for permits, and fined in state parks for going off the trail.
Photographer
Michael Alestra
Posts: 539
MOUNT ROYAL, New Jersey, US
if they require a permit, you get one or you dont shoot, or you take your chances.
photography shoots get in the way of people enjoying the park, a permit allows you to inconvenience others and ensures you follow any rules.
im not saying its going to be enforced properly, im just saying that the proposed legislation isnt changing anything and its getting attention because people read headlines and not stories and then get all upset over it.
Clothing Designer
GRMACK
Posts: 5436
Bakersfield, California, US
I wouldn't mind something like a annual photography permit if it was reasonable like a fishing or hunting license for $50, but $1,500 a day is absurd. Just put a cap on the number of people involved for a $50 annual photo permit to say 5 or less, anything more might be cause for commercial permit and needs to be discussed with them.
Personally, the Parks/Forest/Whatever dept. should be paying us to promote "their" land. If they charged Ansel Adams $1,500 a day for a commercial permit, he would have probably passed. Even if it a retiree with an 8x10 on a tripod is shooting for fun, I cannot see him getting harassed over some commercial use thing the ranger might think is going on.
All this will lead to is more policing for cash and more interaction with the rangers - and they'll no doubt hire more to do it. If you can afford a Hass'y you can afford to pay them $1,500 because "you might make $200" for some magazine article, or sell $50 in prints off Zenfolio if you are lucky, or some free blogger's screen.
The whole "commercial" thing stinks and is too vague and open to interpretation by the ranger. Got a tripod? Commercial. Got a flash or reflector? Commercial. Got a model? Commercial. Big camera? Commercial. Pay up, or pay the $1,000 fine.
Once this agency (Wilderness) gets this law passed, the others will clamor to do the same. Give them a dollar today, and they will want two dollars tomorrow. They never will have enough money, and will squander what they do have or get.
Seems owning a camera is getting worse than owning a gun, and turning into a big cash cow. Least the NRA is working for their group. PPA needs to step up their legislative game plan, imho. Wouldn't hurt if a few camera makers got into it too.
Photographer
Vector One Photography
Posts: 3722
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
I believe, like in many cases, it's for commercial usage. They'd be dumb to limit tourists -personal usage pictures as that's why many people go and want pictures to remember that they saw. But like many other places, if you're making money then they want part of your money. Hey neighbor, if you come into my pool....enjoy, but if you are charging for others to use it, I want a share of the pot or get out of my pool.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
IMAfoto wrote:
Not so easy, in fact this rule or similar rule has already been in affect. Two years ago I was going to do a shoot with a model in an open field at a park, when a ranger showed up and told me no commercial photography. He told me the fine was $800, I asked him what justifies a commercial shoot. His reply was having the model wear clothing that is inappropriate for a nature hike, and he also threatened me with an additional fine ($600) for indecency because the model was about to get changed in public (her SUV).
Seriously, it is getting ridiculous for photographers "in the land of the free", I've had weddings at the beach interrupted, stopped by police near city hall, all asking for permits, and fined in state parks for going off the trail. What?! that is garbage!!
Photographer
Michael Alestra
Posts: 539
MOUNT ROYAL, New Jersey, US
update: http://magicvalley.com/news/local/updat … 05d8b.html Professional and amateur photographers will not need a permit unless they use models, actors, props; work in areas where the public is generally not allowed; or cause additional administrative costs, the agency said in a release. Tidwell acknowledged that fees are applied differently by the agency across the country. He said the goal is to have a consistent approach to permitting commercial filming activities. Commercial-filming permits currently run anywhere from $30 a day for up to three people to as much as $800 per day for production involving dozens of people. A separate proposal would charge as much as $1,500 for the bigger film productions involving dozens of people on federal lands.
Photographer
Bob Helm Photography
Posts: 18904
Cherry Hill, New Jersey, US
The problem is that the government is excessively broad in its interpretation of the word "commercial" to mean if it is possible to perhaps someday make a dime off of it you need a permit.
It is "public" land not "Government" land and as long as it is low impact, a photographer and a small group of people, similar to a family or typical group that uses the land there should be no permit required.
I was at the Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs, a city owned free park (forever by deed) and it was clean, well maintained had lots of tourists and photographers and the only ranger I saw was friendly, polite and answered questions cheerfully.
Photographer
Instinct Images
Posts: 23162
San Diego, California, US
The key is understanding their definition of "Still Photography":
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.
It's also important to realize this is about "wild lands" or designated wilderness. Those areas do not allow motorized vehicles, bicycles, etc.
As always the keys are in the details that most people seem to miss.
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Take only photographs. Leave only footprints.
And $1500.00
Photographer
Roy Nelson Photos
Posts: 286
West Hollywood, California, US
The way the new directive is written, Boy Scouts carrying cameras and shooting out a plane window is covered. The local authority can review all photos to make sure that nothing negative is photographed. It is the usual rule giving a government worker unlimited powers before the public is made aware of it and forces them to retreat.
Photographer
ms-photo
Posts: 538
Portland, Oregon, US
A"model" is only a "model" if you are advertising a product or service. Portrait photography does not need a permit.
Photographer
Vintagevista
Posts: 11804
Sun City, California, US
ms-photo wrote:
A"model" is only a "model" if you are advertising a product or service. Portrait photography does not need a permit. No you are wrong - here is the exact wording from the Federal Register - as written it covers all still photos - taken by everyone.
"The proposed directive is necessary for the Forest Service to issue and administer special use authorizations that will allow the public to use and occupy National Forest System (NFS) lands for still photography and commercial filming in wilderness."
Now look close - it actually covers 2 things - This is a damned important point - to see the intent of making this 2 pronged with one sentence.
lets see how it reads without the "AND"
The proposed directive is necessary for the Forest Service to issue and administer special use authorizations that will allow the public to use and occupy National Forest System (NFS) lands for still photography
Where exactly does it make any distinction for applying to only commercial still photography??. That sentence covers every person - every photograph.
then look at the other side of "AND"
"The proposed directive is necessary for the Forest Service to issue and administer special use authorizations that will allow the public to use and occupy National Forest System (NFS) lands for commercial filming in wilderness."
Now it makes a very separate distinction applying to commercial use.
They want you to just notice the part after the "AND" and think it doesn't apply to you. Read the first part again and see where it makes any exceptions.
(Since this broke - the Chief has walked this back - - -some. But still leaves thing vague enough to make all enforcement at their interpretation and whim. And his underlings are still making public statements that this covers EVERYONE to the media.
Forest Service officials have given conflicting answers about whether photography would require a special use permit, but the official language of the directive still includes photography.)
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
ms-photo wrote:
A"model" is only a "model" if you are advertising a product or service. ...such as your photographic services or the modeling services of the person being photographed. So I guess as long as neither uses it in a portfolio...
Clothing Designer
GRMACK
Posts: 5436
Bakersfield, California, US
ms-photo wrote:
A"model" is only a "model" if you are advertising a product or service. Portrait photography does not need a permit. Sorry, but portraiture is also considered commerical and does require a permit.
It's specified in Orange County, CA where you pay an annual $150 fee plus a $500 surety deposit.
From here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/ (Near bottom of page):
"The fee for still photography is $150 per day, with a $500 surety deposit. The fee is good for any location in the County, provided that all locations are listed on the permit application and appropriate arrangements have been made with County personnel responsible for those locations. An annual permit for portrait photography is available for $150 plus a $500 surety deposit. Processing a permit application requires a minimum of three days."
Local woman here got busted by the park rangers at one park as she adopted it as her weekend portrait studio. She was profiting from her portraiture there. I can see the Yosemite rangers doing much the same if you started using their Park as your personal portrait studio without payment.
Hell, I cannot even do photography in my own house due to commerical zoning. You ain't lived until you have two cops in your living room telling you that "You cannot do that sort of work here (i.e. Magazine photo with a clothed model.) as you aren't zoned for it." That and the silly CCR rules that have the neighborhood watch captains with a direct line to the po-po squawking about "Someone is working out of their house in a non-commercial community! We have CCR rules!!!"
Easiest for me is to utilize a movie set. Gets rid of a lot of this nonsense, aside from the liability insurance part and day fee to use it.
Photographer
Leo Howard
Posts: 6850
Phoenix, Arizona, US
before too long we are all going to have to rent commercial space and grow our own trees indoors to shoot landscapes
Photographer
BGF
Posts: 187
New York, New York, US
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 39248
Portland, Oregon, US
Leo Howard wrote:
before too long we are all going to have to rent commercial space and grow our own trees indoors to shoot landscapes It sure seems that way.
(and now comments in general, not directed at Leo specifically)
It would be nice if photographers could work together and have each other's backs when it comes to thinks like this, and try to help each other to create an environment that is more friendly to all of us still photographers.
Unfortunately, I mostly hear bickering and it does not impact me so I don't really care, instead of a more broad view of understanding that while something may not hurt you individually at this time, it could impact you some time in the future, AFTER the laws are already made less in our favor.
Also, keep in mind, that while these rules are for wild lands, these are the same people who make rules for other Federal Lands, so what they adopt here COULD easily be used as a model to make other places you DO visit/shoot at more restricted in the future, and your silence/apathy now could result in their being able to point at the new laws and say "Look, we did this for wild lands and it worked great, so lets do it for National Parks and BLM land or whatever", and very quickly what you thought was insignificant to you later becomes very significance and your silence now could hurt you, could hurt ALL of us in the future.
In other words, get off your selfish, lazy asses and speak up on behalf of your colleagues to help all of us, not just yourselves. Even if this does not hurt you personally at this time, if you remain silent and sit this one out, you could easily crate a situation that later DOES hurt you, and by then it will be too late.
Photographer
BGF
Posts: 187
New York, New York, US
It would be nice if photographers could work together and have each other's backs when it comes to thinks like this, and try to help each other to create an environment that is more friendly to all of us still photographers. Did anyone actually submit a request for comments, contact their district congress rep or other?
The template for "outrageous permits" started when NYC after so many years of it being free, a long time legacy of it never being charged for, decided to start charging $300 per production. Bigger shoots SVU/L&O said it was good.. nono GREAT, since it's per production name - people who shot 10-20 single day music videos per year on their Canon's said it would kill their business to be in-compliance. Same ones that participated in annual insurance schemes like Fractured Atlas. They were able to get them, now they do permit-less or reduce budget by $300. - So these "fees" are always organized to make money from a big number of small budget people.
If the news, or hollywood got stepped on, they will pick up the story, but independents ... nah.
Model
Zelohney Moss
Posts: 108
Brooklyn, New York, US
Since I'm not a commercial model and no one is making a profit I'm going to assume I'm okay.
Photographer
ShapeTheLight
Posts: 270
Garner, North Carolina, US
California is ridiculous towards their photographers...
Photographer
AJ Garcia
Posts: 1416
Aliso Viejo, California, US
IMAfoto wrote:
Not so easy, in fact this rule or similar rule has already been in affect. Two years ago I was going to do a shoot with a model in an open field at a park, when a ranger showed up and told me no commercial photography. He told me the fine was $800, I asked him what justifies a commercial shoot. His reply was having the model wear clothing that is inappropriate for a nature hike, and he also threatened me with an additional fine ($600) for indecency because the model was about to get changed in public (her SUV).
Seriously, it is getting ridiculous for photographers "in the land of the free", I've had weddings at the beach interrupted, stopped by police near city hall, all asking for permits, and fined in state parks for going off the trail. I had a similar situation once, but the ranger even took it a step further threatening to arrest the model for the indecency and claiming she could be considered a sex offender for it. In certain places they have started to really crack down.
Though is some places I guess it makes sense. Especially here in San Diego, certain places can get INUNDATED with photographers. Balboa Park can get crowded with them on the weekend. Some beaches in La Jolla you basically have a photographer with a light or reflector every 15 feet during the evenings trying to shoot family portraits/senior portraits/engagement photos during the sunset. It can actually get problematic.
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 39248
Portland, Oregon, US
BGF wrote:
Did anyone actually submit a request for comments, contact their district congress rep or other? I HAVE done so, but fortunately my guys are already working trying to stop it, but rather than just being content with trying to make this more in our favor, we should make the rules for all land under Federal control to be more favorable to us.
After all, it is the people that make their voices heard in large numbers (or with a lot of money) who tend to get things to turn out their way.
Photographer
BGF
Posts: 187
New York, New York, US
DougBPhoto wrote:
I HAVE done so, but fortunately my guys are already working trying to stop it, but rather than just being content with trying to make this more in our favor, we should make the rules for all land under Federal control to be more favorable to us.
After all, it is the people that make their voices heard in large numbers (or with a lot of money) who tend to get things to turn out their way. Where were you when they installed free speech zones?
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 39248
Portland, Oregon, US
BGF wrote:
Where were you when they installed free speech zones? Responding to that would divert the thread into "Soapbox" discussions which are strictly not permitted on the site.
We should probably stick to discussing the matter at hand.
I've seen some petitions on change.org (sorry, don't have the links) and have asked by my Senator and one of our congressmen who are working on this for info on if there are specifics we should do in order to make sure adequate public comment (favoring photographers) is heard.
As that was just sent on Friday, no response has been received yet, but I'd say staying vocal and having people, especially those who support photography, not simply shrug and keep quiet because it does not harm them personally.
Photographer
BGF
Posts: 187
New York, New York, US
DougBPhoto wrote:
Responding to that would divert the thread into "Soapbox" discussions which are strictly not permitted on the site. Got it, sorry did not know. I think with this issue only big media would get adequate traction.
Photographer
IMAfoto
Posts: 94
San Diego, California, US
AJ Garcia wrote:
Though is some places I guess it makes sense. Especially here in San Diego, certain places can get INUNDATED with photographers. Balboa Park can get crowded with them on the weekend. Some beaches in La Jolla you basically have a photographer with a light or reflector every 15 feet during the evenings trying to shoot family portraits/senior portraits/engagement photos during the sunset. It can actually get problematic. That is funny and true. A few months ago I had a couple insist on doing their engagement session at the Montage in Laguna Beach, and the place was crawling with families getting their photos taken by portrait photographers. It was kind of a sad sight, and made me ashamed of being a photographer.
Photographer
IMAfoto
Posts: 94
San Diego, California, US
ms-photo wrote:
A"model" is only a "model" if you are advertising a product or service. Portrait photography does not need a permit. According to the ranger I encountered, if the person that is getting their portrait taken is wearing anything other than appropriate hiking attire, the shoot is commercial. It was a natural light shoot and I was not using any strobes. I just happen to have a big camera and an attractive girl wearing a dress, thus, it was commercial. So this fee will apply to anyone that fits this vague description, which I think covers a large portion of the photographer on this site.
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 39248
Portland, Oregon, US
IMAfoto wrote:
According to the ranger I encountered, if the person that is getting their portrait taken is wearing anything other than appropriate hiking attire, the shoot is commercial. It was a natural light shoot and I was not using any strobes. I just happen to have a big camera and an attractive girl wearing a dress, thus, it was commercial. So this fee will apply to anyone that fits this vague description, which I think covers a large portion of the photographer on this site. Did you happen to ask what if she's naked?
She would not be wearing anything other than appropriate hiking attire, so it should be fine, yes? 
Photographer
IMAfoto
Posts: 94
San Diego, California, US
DougBPhoto wrote:
Did you happen to ask what if she's naked?
She would not be wearing anything other than appropriate hiking attire, so it should be fine, yes? If it was natural attire I may have been able to pull that off  But I think hiking attire would mean dressed.
Photographer
Marin Photo NYC
Posts: 7348
New York, New York, US
FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
Not so quick. What about the Ansel Adams type tourist who treks deep in the woods to take amazing shots and then decides to sell prints?
Permits are fine for public land, however who gets to decide about the content and whether it's "commercial use"? That's a very vague term and is legally specified different in different states. How many millions of photographers photographed the NYC skyline and sold it without paying the state a dollar? You can't govern public view even from a private outdoor location. What's out in the abyss is fair game doesn't matter where you stand.
If you are in a private airline and snap a photo through the window you don't pay the airline for the photo....
|
But I think hiking attire would mean dressed.