What's new
By:

trolol. wtf happened to land of the free. photgraphers need permit of $1500 on federal wild

D

DutchJazzer

Banned
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ge-1500-to-take-photos-on-federal-wild-lands/

for you fat lazy americans:
The U.S. Forest Service is finalizing plans to fine photographers who shoot on federal wild lands without a permit.

Under the measure, still photography and commercial filming in Congress-designated wilderness areas would require a permit, and shoots would also have to be approved and meet certain criteria like not advertising any product or service and being educational.

Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers said in a statement the directive has been in place for more than four years and “is a good faith effort to ensure the fullest protection of America’s wild places.”

Permits would cost up to $1,500, even if someone was taking photos or video with their phone, and fines for shooting without a permit could be as high as $1,000, according to the Oregonian.

Critics have characterized the rules as too vague and say it infringes on the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

“I am very concerned about the implications this has for Americans’ First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press,” U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) wrote in a letter to Forest Service Chief Thomas Tidwell. “It is also very troubling that journalists could be held to different standards at the discretion of the issuing officer depending on the content of their stories and its relevance to wilderness activity.”

Walden said he worried access might be granted “based on political calculations” and noted a majority of Oregon land is controlled by the federal government.

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) also voiced concern for the policy.

“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,” he told the Oregonian. “Especially where reporters and bloggers are concerned, this policy raises troubling questions about inappropriate government limits on activity clearly protected by the First Amendment.”

The Forest Service is accepting public comment on the measure until Nov. 3.
Click to expand...
 
DutchJazzer said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ge-1500-to-take-photos-on-federal-wild-lands/

for you fat lazy americans:
Click to expand...

The Dept of the Interior has an interagency policy committee that has instituted a policy of letting forests burn. Of course they want to stop people from filming the thousands of acres of devastation, the flash flooding and erosion that results, or the damage done to roads and trails and campgrounds and private landholders on abutting lands. . . ..

Assholes.
 
Permits would cost up to $1,500, even if someone was taking photos or video with their phone, and fines for shooting without a permit could be as high as $1,000, according to the Oregonian.

Well other than the fact that the Oregonian got this 100% wrong, there is outrage to be had here.

This applies specifically to commercial filming only, and what the NPS defines as "still photography."

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrie...8807e16ad2f6b&ty=HTML&h=L&r=PART&n=pt36.2.251


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.
 
at any rate, commercial shoots (even still shoots) are quite disruptive and typically involve massive amounts of equipment

(this is "pet peeve" thread material for me...)
 
Even in the quoted article, it's clear this has no effect on private citizens taking pictures for their own enjoyment/remembrance. If you plan a making money from a photo shoot, the NPS gets a fee. I don't see what the issue is.
 
One Brow said:
Even in the quoted article, it's clear this has no effect on private citizens taking pictures for their own enjoyment/remembrance. If you plan a making money from a photo shoot, the NPS gets a fee. I don't see what the issue is.
Click to expand...

ok what about a photo you post on fb. it becomes according to the license agreement with fb their property. int term becoming a commercial photgraphy
 
You can't spell trololol without trol.
 
DutchJazzer said:
ok what about a photo you post on fb. it becomes according to the license agreement with fb their property. int term becoming a commercial photgraphy
Click to expand...
Wait, I can make money off my fishing and camping photos that I post on Facebook?
 
DutchJazzer said:
ok what about a photo you post on fb. it becomes according to the license agreement with fb their property. int term becoming a commercial photgraphy
Click to expand...

Just because the copy of the image on Facebook is Facebook property does not make the original image commercial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top